P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: G-S on 14 Feb 2007 04:12 jlittler(a)my-deja.com wrote: > On Feb 14, 12:32 pm, Hammo <hbaj2...(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: >> "jlitt...(a)my-deja.com" <jlitt...(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. > > Errm, I was agreeing with you Hammo (albeit reluctantly on principle). > See above.Similarly G-S's post which basically says "if your data > doesn't fit my theory it's wrong" is bad science methodology. It isn't 'science methodology' at all actually, and I never claimed that it was. It was and is 'servicing methodology'. G-S
From: Johno on 14 Feb 2007 04:12 On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:59:59 GMT, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > > > >On 14/2/07 2:26 PM, in article slrnet50aa.33n.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org, >"sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote: > >> Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Now go look under the bonnet and see if anything is glowing cherry-red. >>> If not; your assumption about how your charging-system works must be wrong. >> >> You poor deluded fool Clemmo! Heatsinks are made of aluminium, and >> every schoolchild knows that aluminum melts at 660�C so the heatsink >> cannot possibly be glowing cherry red! >> >> Nev, go and look under your car for a pool of molten aluminium ... > >...and what temp does it combust at? > >Hammo (No wonder they ain't insulated by Kevlar). 3.5 degrees..... anna kitzs inna nutzs? Johno Beer mate?
From: sharkey on 14 Feb 2007 03:55 Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > > > 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... > > No. Thanks for trying to bluff that one. Remember the discussion re: > torque...... Torque is cheap, Hambone! Which particular point do you think is relevant? > GS mentioned speed as a way to suggest that the figures were in agreeance. > Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps you missed the 12 v vs 24 v comment as > well? Doesn't make any difference. > Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!! The efficiency of the lightbulb at producing light is irrelevant to the matter at hand. ------sharks -- Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on 14 Feb 2007 03:59 jlittler(a)my-deja.com <jlittler(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 2:30 pm, sharkey <shar...(a)zoic.org> wrote: > > jlitt...(a)my-deja.com <jlitt...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'd say buy an X L V8 if you were inclined to towing loads where vehicle > > > > mass and torque were concerns. > > > > > XLV 8, hey, is that the new Honda replacement for the transalp ? > > > 800cc's ? > > > > I'd buy one (but I'd be checking the regulator first!) > > I assume you'll find it in a small pool underneath the bike ! :-) With an XLV, that's typically the bigend bearings and the 2/4 selector fork. -----sharks -- Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on 14 Feb 2007 03:58
Johno <varcs45(a)msn.com> wrote: > > Sharkey.... mate... no more beers for you! Hare dare you (in this > particular thread) say that Al melts at 660 C! > > We all know (right Hammo) that is melts at 660.37 C And I neglected to consider the range of alloys available! Could be anywhere from 620ish to 700ish! > now get in that corner and don't come out until we say so! > Ok, no beer is a bit rough..... Beer mate? Fortunately, there's a beer fridge in this here corner ... -----sharks -- Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten. |