From: Knobdoodle on 6 Feb 2007 00:20
"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> My alternator keeps my battery at a full charge, which means it must
>>> be providing more charge than I actually use, all the time, which
>>> means that any charge required for accessories like lights and radio
>>> is being produced all the time, regardless of whether or not I'm
>>> actually using them, which means that no more fuel is required.
>>> How's that for logic?
>> Terrible! Does that work for the air-conditioner as well?
> Exactly the same if the air conditioner is an alternator. I know stuff
> all about electrics, which is probably obvious.. but if the moving parts
> of the alternator are in constant motion which is determined by the
> crankshaft, and is producing a supply of electricity, and the current
> produced is drawn on my the engine electrics, other electrics, whatever is
> left is stored in the battery, and whatever is left over after that
> disappears into void, and the load on the crank of the moving parts of the
> alternator is constant, how does adding more load to the alternator output
> increase the physical load on the crank and increase fuel consumption?
Nev, it doesn't apply in this case but if you've ever get a chance to play
with one of those old hand-cranked telephones just try turning the handle
when you've got a short-circuit across the terminals and you'll see that
electrical load does very much create crank load.
From: Theo Bekkers on 6 Feb 2007 00:29
> Nev, it doesn't apply in this case but if you've ever get a chance to
> play with one of those old hand-cranked telephones just try turning
> the handle when you've got a short-circuit across the terminals and
> you'll see that electrical load does very much create crank load.
I've got one of those in the shed. Made in 189x. I've rewired it to ring the
The damn thing has a 'child-proof' feature. You have to hold down a button
on the top of the phone for the cranking to have a circuit.
Those bloody kids in 1900! Probably grew into responsible
From: Dale Porter on 6 Feb 2007 00:47
"Theo Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote in message news:45c7fe2c$1(a)news.bekkers.com.au...
> Mad-Biker wrote:
>> you arnt allowed to have your driving lights on in a built up area
>> unless faced with reduced visibility, rain, sleet, fog!
> You aren't (in WA) allowed to have your driving lights on in a built-up area, period.
By "driving lights", are you referring to high beams, or only additional lights fitted to improve visibility?
I know in some states (Tasmania being one of them) high beams are not allowed to be used in built up areas. However in Victoria high
beams are permitted anywhere to improve visibility, provided there is not a vehicle in front (heading in either direction) within
Reading through the regs and there's no mention of additional high-powred lights and their use, other than "fog lights".
GPX250 -> CBR600 -> VTR1000 + VT250F-J
From: Theo Bekkers on 6 Feb 2007 01:46
Dale Porter wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>> You aren't (in WA) allowed to have your driving lights on in a
>> built-up area, period.
> By "driving lights", are you referring to high beams, or only
> additional lights fitted to improve visibility?
> I know in some states (Tasmania being one of them) high beams are not
> allowed to be used in built up areas. However in Victoria high beams
> are permitted anywhere to improve visibility, provided there is not a
> vehicle in front (heading in either direction) within 200 metres.
High beams. Driivng lights are not allowed to be wired so that they can be
on except with high beam. So you can't have them on unless you are on high
From: jlittler on 6 Feb 2007 01:47
On Feb 6, 2:56 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> Knobdoodle wrote:
> > "Mad-Biker" <mad-biker(a)westnet(Panties).com.au> wrote:
> >> tyres including valve cap tightness, air pressure, tread, check
> >> (apparently if the valve caps arnt on, a tyre can suck in the valve
> >> stem and cause a blow out under extreme highload according to
> >> instructors?!)
> > ~
> > [boggle] I've never hear THAT one!!
> I think the centripetal force sucks it in to the centre.
> New to me too.
FWIW I have *heard* of that issue but it's one of those "mate of a
mate" stories so I wouldn't call it proven, a friend who used to drag
race professionally in the 70's and 80's (in the US but he's an
Aussie, no not Bray :-) ) told me about that one quite a few years
ago, claimed to have had it happen to a drag car he built - can't
prove it either way though.