P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 03:35 Nev.. wrote: > GB wrote: >> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in news:45d04432$0$31863$5a62ac22(a)per- >> qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: >>> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, >> >> They weren't facts, they were unrepeatable approximations made >> by a cheap measuring device. > > And I also established that they were repeatable, and you continue to > make unsubstantiated allegations that they are not. > Repeatable yes... accurate no. G-S
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 03:48 Iain Chalmers wrote: > In article > <45d04432$0$31863$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, > "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > >> G-S wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> Knobdoodle wrote: >>>> >>>>> [crinkles brow] >>>>> What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo? >>>>> "the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!? >>>>> What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through >>>>> unnecessary use of driving lights? >>>> Eh? I thought we'd already established that there was no waste, or, >>>> if there was, it was only measurable at a theoretical level. >>>> >>> No we established that you car fuel measuring device wasn't sensitive >>> enough to measure it but that practical measurment devices for measuring >>> the effect did in fact exist :) >> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, you made 'unsubstantiated >> allegations' about the data collection method in order to discredit that >> data. > > And I calculated that 120W of headlights consumes something like 100mL > per hour plus or minus 40%. > > Nobody has challenged those numbers, and my sanity check calculations > seem to indicate I'm at least in the right order of magnitude with that > figure... > The 1 kilowatt of lighting on the coach (dual headlights, high power driving lights, fog lights, running lights and multiple rear lights) with the fixed fast idle engaged showed as a variation of 10ml a minute in the flow rate. That is down near sensitivity reading limit of the meter (which is rated at +/- 5ml per minute) so the real figure could be as low as 5ml per minute or as high as 15ml per minute variation on the total fuel usage (which was close to 350ml per minute). But the effect _was_ real and repeatable and could be triggered by turning the lights on and off. The fixed fast idle switch (normally used so that the air-conditioning unit can be used with the driver away from his seat) was used to minimise variations in revs (and so I didn't need a 2nd person while I was checking). Your calculated figure doesn't seem unreasonable to me Ian. G-S
From: Nev.. on 13 Feb 2007 03:53 G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> GB wrote: >>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in >>> news:45d04432$0$31863$5a62ac22(a)per- >>> qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: >>>> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, >>> >>> They weren't facts, they were unrepeatable approximations made >>> by a cheap measuring device. >> >> And I also established that they were repeatable, and you continue to >> make unsubstantiated allegations that they are not. >> > Repeatable yes... accurate no. How do you know ? Nev.. '04 CBR1100XX
From: Nev.. on 13 Feb 2007 03:57 jlittler(a)my-deja.com wrote: > Every year 8 science student(1) does basic physics and finds out there > is no such thing as precisely accurate measurement down to an infinite > number of significant places, hence every measurement is an estimate > {noun} to some level of accuracy. "Every"? I never learned that in Yr 8 Science. I think you need a more accurate device for measuring Year 8 Science students. :) Nev.. '04 CBR1100XX
From: Nev.. on 13 Feb 2007 04:02
G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> G-S wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> Knobdoodle wrote: >>>> >>>>> [crinkles brow] >>>>> What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo? >>>>> "the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!? >>>>> What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through >>>>> unnecessary use of driving lights? >>>> >>>> Eh? I thought we'd already established that there was no waste, or, >>>> if there was, it was only measurable at a theoretical level. >>>> >>> No we established that you car fuel measuring device wasn't sensitive >>> enough to measure it but that practical measurment devices for >>> measuring the effect did in fact exist :) >> >> No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, you made >> 'unsubstantiated allegations' about the data collection method in >> order to discredit that data. >> > > So when I checked the reality of the effect we were discussing using a > bus and a commercial quality calibrated fuel flow meter you think that > constitutes an 'unsubstantiated allegation', but when you attempted to > collect information about the reality of the effect we are discussing > using the less sensitive and accurate device of 'your car' that is > 'establishing facts' eh Nev... No no no. Having an accurate measurement device for buses does not automatically make any other measurements automatically flawed. You have once again made an unsubstantiated allegation and pretended that it's true. You have yet to establish that the car measuring device is less sensitive or accurate, other than by merely saying that it is. Nev.. '04 CBR1100XX |