From: sharkey on
Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)> wrote:
> IF you already have the action of the injector (and fuel pressure etc)
> benchmarked so that the amplitude and duration that you measure with the
> oscilloscope actually means something.
> Other wise all you're measuring is "bigger/smaller" or "longer/shorter"
> which, as you point out, can give you relative info but not actual "fuel
> usage".

Oh, yeah, but isn't this thread about using more fuel when you've got P
plates on or something? I don't remember.

> Let's go the other way here; what alternator do you reckon a 5.7L EFI
> Commode with all the fruit is equipped with?

A field coil based one, so nothing much like a motorcycle[*] one anyway.

Hey, guess what? After all that it looks like the XLV regulator might
be a shunt design after all ... Honda, 1986. I can't work out _WHY_,
though, because the power part of the design they've used is actually
_MORE_ complicated than the switch-mode design I posted the little piccy
of the other day, although maybe the control logic is a bit simpler.


[*] Other than BMW, and probably some Guzzis I imagine, of course.
[**] Wrong on Usenet every now and then.
Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
Hammo <hbaj2006(a)> wrote:
> On observation, that is currently true. However.......When I finish a PM
> shift and drive the 3 and bit hours home in the dark (headlights on) the
> fuel consumption has been equivalent if not better than during the day
> (headlights off).

Also the air is slightly cooler (on average) at night, so engine is
more efficient.

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: Tim Moran on
In article <97iAh.541$4c6.381(a)>,
knobdoodle(a) says...
> <jlittler(a)> wrote:
> > <sigh> Well yeah ! But... it'll be different this time !!
> >
> Gee... I haven't heard that quote since I attended my last
> second-wedding.....

How many have you had?

And does the wife know?
From: jlittler on
On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)> wrote:
> On 14/2/07 12:23 AM, in article qZiAh.570$4c6...(a),
> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo...(a)> wrote:
> > "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)> wrote in message
> >news:C1F8054A.26609%hbaj2006(a)
> >> On 13/2/07 7:53 PM, in article
> >> 45d17c77$0$31857$5a62a...(a), "Nev.."
> >> <i...(a)> 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!!

<reluctantly> Yes Hammo, on that one you and Nev are right (although
there's a whole heaps of if ands and buts to add to that statement. I
got 3 lines into responding to the GB/Nev thread on that and said
"stuff it")

His results are indeed repeatable. That doesn't mean the principle
under discussion is wrong, just that the test isn't providing data
that will allow a the different options to be eliminated(1). More
testing required.

(1) Yes Hammo, I'm short cutting a discussion of hypothesis testing,
methodology etc not relevant or useful

From: Toosmoky on
sharkey wrote:

> Also the air is slightly cooler (on average) at night, so engine is
> more efficient.

It's also more dense, thus increasing drag.

Work to ride, Ride to Work...
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?