P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 08:16 On 13/2/07 7:53 PM, in article 45d17c77$0$31857$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > 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 ? By his own assertion, contradicted himself! Hammo
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 08:19 On 13/2/07 8:02 PM, in article 45d17eb3$0$31835$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > 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 Nev is correct. Please show/send/inform us of the ISO900x, NATA or Aus Standards calibration method and the parameters and the environment it is intended to be utilised in. Thanks Hammo
From: Knobdoodle on 13 Feb 2007 08:23 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F8054A.26609%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 13/2/07 7:53 PM, in article > 45d17c77$0$31857$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.." > <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > >> 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 ? > > By his own assertion, contradicted himself! > [yawn] Gee the obfuscator seems to be getting a bit dim there Hammo. Maybe you need to divert some more of that magic non-fuelled power to it! -- Clem
From: Knobdoodle on 13 Feb 2007 08:27 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F80627.2660B%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 13/2/07 8:02 PM, in article > 45d17eb3$0$31835$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.." > <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Nev is correct. > > Please show/send/inform us of the ISO900x, NATA or Aus Standards > calibration > method and the parameters and the environment it is intended to be > utilised > in. > Ha hah; "Engineering reports that the obfuscator and diversion-generator are both back on-line and running at full-power Captain!" -- Clem
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 08:40
On 14/2/07 12:23 AM, in article qZiAh.570$4c6.47(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message > news:C1F8054A.26609%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... >> >> >> >> On 13/2/07 7:53 PM, in article >> 45d17c77$0$31857$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.." >> <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> >>> G-S wrote: >>>>> >>>> Repeatable yes... accurate no. >>> >>> How do you know ? >> >> By his own assertion, contradicted himself! >> > [yawn] > Gee the obfuscator seems to be getting a bit dim there Hammo. > Maybe you need to divert some more of that magic non-fuelled power to it! Perhaps you'd like to consider what accurate and repeatable mean? Would you like a book on statistics, or will JL help you out? Feel free to make it easier for Nev to highlight his results, as, that is what you are doing!!! Thanks also to GS!! Do come again.... Hammo |