P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Johno on 13 Feb 2007 19:08 On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:25:41 GMT, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > ><jlittler(a)my-deja.com> 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..... You had a first second-wedding? Johno Beer mate?
From: Iain Chalmers on 13 Feb 2007 19:58 In article <12t2uqtn9215g7c(a)corp.supernews.com>, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > 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. <snip> > Your calculated figure doesn't seem unreasonable to me Ian. Thats within (although admittedly right at the bottom end) of my 0.12L +-40% for 120W figure, and it's pretty close to the figure the little Honda genset gets at full load. Taking both your stated major errors into account (+-50%) and mine (+-40%), I'd say we're completely in agreement with each other... big -- "Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com)
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 20:32 "jlittler(a)my-deja.com" <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 12:40 am, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >> "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> "Hammo" <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >>>> <i...(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!! > > <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. > > JL > (1) Yes Hammo, I'm short cutting a discussion of hypothesis testing, > methodology etc not relevant or useful I was pointing out that you have studied these theories and will therefore be able to acknowledge that there is no diversion involved. This type of "measuring" is the crux of analytical chemistry (as well as other fields), and as you know, is more than adequately explained in the theory. That is, confirmation of true measurement will always be an approximation. Hammo >
From: Hammo on 13 Feb 2007 20:39 On 14/2/07 11:58 AM, in article bigiain-AE5D94.11581914022007(a)nasal.pacific.net.au, "Iain Chalmers" <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: > In article <12t2uqtn9215g7c(a)corp.supernews.com>, > G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > >> 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. > > <snip> > >> Your calculated figure doesn't seem unreasonable to me Ian. > > Thats within (although admittedly right at the bottom end) of my 0.12L > +-40% for 120W figure, and it's pretty close to the figure the little > Honda genset gets at full load. > > Taking both your stated major errors into account (+-50%) and mine > (+-40%), I'd say we're completely in agreement with each other... > > big Sorry to ruin the party boys.... I don't know of too many machines that "idle" every where. Also, we were talking about headlights. Your calculation are now going to have to include the inefficiencies/resistance in _all_ those systems. (not to mention 12 v 24 volt systems). I can show huge differences in systems when I take values *generated* to create extreme circumstance in machines that operate differently to the original dimensions as well. Hammo
From: Iain Chalmers on 13 Feb 2007 21:18
In article <C1F8B385.26876%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au>, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > Sorry to ruin the party boys.... > > I don't know of too many machines that "idle" every where. Look again Hammo, I don't even mention engine speed anywhere in my calculations, just energy used over time - I don't care if you idle your car for an hour or if you run it at redline in top gear up a hill for an hour, the headlights will use an extra ~0.12L either way... > Also, we were talking about headlights. Your calculation are now going to > have to include the inefficiencies/resistance in _all_ those systems. Fortunately, we don't actually have to concern ourselves there - if headlight globes were rated in lumens or candlepower we would, but they're actually rated in power consumed - a 60W globe has a 100% efficiency when measured in terms of how much power it consumes. (you're _really_ clutching at straws of you're trying to claim the voltage loss along the wires and connectors to the headlights is going to make any difference when I've already got +-40% error factors on there... But if you want to add it in, how about assuming a 1 volt loss which would change the power consumed from 60W to 55W for a total change of ~ 9% - call my errors +-50% if you want.) > I can show huge differences in systems > when I take values *generated* to create extreme circumstance in machines > that operate differently to the original dimensions as well. Yep, I think my numbers on the Honda generators show that - they show it's something like 30% more efficient at full power than at 25% power. You were going to show us some calculations of your own Hammo, how'd you get on? big -- "Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history, all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled, watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on jalopyjunktown.com) |