P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 08:42 On 14/2/07 12:27 AM, in article Z0jAh.571$4c6.294(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "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!" I'll take that to be (until shown calibration) to be confirmatiom. Well done, Nev! 2 - 0! Hammo
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 15:58 Nev.. 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 ? > Because it isn't showing a _real_ measurable effect. If it was accurate it would be. G-S
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 16:01 Nev.. 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. > Starting with "this effect is real, and that's demonstrated by the bus tests, and supported by accepted theory" then there is no other conclusion to be drawn. It seems you are in denial about the reality of this effect :) G-S
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 16:03 Hammo wrote: > > > 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 Oh rubbish... it is BAV QAMS certified as accurate. That _is_ sufficient and specifies the accuracy of the meter and maintenance standards for same. G-S
From: G-S on 13 Feb 2007 16:05
Hammo wrote: > > > On 14/2/07 12:27 AM, in article > Z0jAh.571$4c6.294(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" > <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "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!" > > I'll take that to be (until shown calibration) to be confirmatiom. > > Well done, Nev! 2 - 0! > > Hammo > Calibration is accurate Hammo... that part is done according to the makers relevant ISO900x calibration method. And no I can't give details of that as we don't do the calibration we only operate the meter according to the BAV QAMS subset which maintains that calibration. Please keep throwing red herrings... it's fun to watch :) G-S |