P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Knobdoodle on 14 Feb 2007 04:58 "G-S" <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote in message news:12t5kfbecn5kp26(a)corp.supernews.com... > sharkey wrote: >> You poor deluded fool Clemmo! Heatsinks are made of aluminium <snip> > > *looks inside his computer* > > Nope... only copper heatsinks in there :) > [Visions of Corks going "ooh ooh it's burning, it's burning!"] [Grins] [Grabs another beer and closes eyes to fully enjoy the visions] -- Clem
From: Hammo on 14 Feb 2007 05:00 On 14/2/07 7:16 PM, in article bigiain-27F6F3.19161914022007(a)nasal.pacific.net.au, "Iain Chalmers" <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: > In article <C1F90765.26A7B%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au>, > Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote: > >> On 14/2/07 1:18 PM, in article >> bigiain-DB0328.13183714022007(a)nasal.pacific.net.au, "Iain Chalmers" >> <bigiain(a)mightymedia.com.au> wrote: >> >>> 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... >> >> No. Thanks for trying to bluff that one. Remember the discussion re: >> torque...... > > I'd given up on the torque discussion since you were clearly not going > to admit that you don't understand how a typical automotive alternator > _can_ present different input torque loads at the same rpm thanks to the > existence of it's rotor windings and the variable current the regulator > can run through them. It's easy enough to understand - more current = > stronger magnet -> stronger magnet = more force -> force going round in > circle = torque. I'm astounded you're continuing to play stupid enough > to not understand that. Ok, if you told me you didn't understand I could have explained it differently for you. It would be easier over a beer or six, as I don't spend as long as you behind a keyboard typing things that are better explained face to face. > > But it doesn't matter - I'm arguing this one purely on energy in vs > energy out using some publicly available estimates of efficiency and > some assumptions about the errors in them. Yes, and as I have attempted to point out that isn't correct. > > Dispute my numbers or point out the errors in my methodology. I have been,read the other posts. Wiki is a reference, if you want to use it base arguments on, then so will I! Feel free to point out where I am wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque > > Or man up like Sharkey did and admit you're wrong. Or don't. Whatever. Man up? What? I am at a loss as to what that is supposed to mean, and what Sharkey actually posted that was wrong? If you need to be back slapped and have your ego massaged than why are you here? Don't expect me to "man up" cos you don't agree with me and vice versa. >> >> 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? > > So you're suggesting that 1000 12V watts are somehow different from 1000 > 24V watts are you? Or that 1000W at 800rpm is a different amount of > power to 1000W at 5000rpm? That's some good stuff you've been smoking > since you left uni if that's what you believe these days... The infantile slight aside, have you thought about what you posted? I don't dispute that the power is that same (all things considered) but which one is doing more or less work? > >>> >>>> 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. >> >> Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!! > > > First define your terms. > > Explain to me exactly how you intend to measure the efficiency with > which a 60W light globe consumes 60W? The efficiency of the system of which the globe is part of. You know, energy lost as heat? > > Or are you somehow suggesting that my wikipedia-ed up efficiency > estimates for the engine and alternator efficiencies and my estimates of > the errors likely to be associated with them are somehow "obfuscating" > the issue? It is trendy thing to do, eh? Much like "Man up"ing. >>> >>> You were going to show us some calculations of your own Hammo, how'd you >>> get on? >> >> As I said, when I get home. I'm still 400 odd kays and coupla days from >> that. > > You'll excuse me for being sceptical that you'll actually post any > calculations that show us how wrong you are... (with your current > posting style, I'm pretty sure you won't actually be capable of doing > any calculations...) >> >> BTW, I looked at your numbers again, as well as your assumptions, can you >> tell me why you are getting the same consumption figure regardless of speed, >> regardless of engine rpm? > > Yep, 'cause the energy consumed by the headlights is independant of the > engine rpm and road speed - at least to a first (+-40%) approximation. > See above. Go get your 1st year physics textbooks back from the hockshop > and read the first couple of chapters again... OK. Consider this. How many rotations at 5000 rpm and how many at 800 rpm? Which one will produce the "power" you need in the least amount of time, OR with the minimal load required? Hammo (even I can get Wiki to agree with me).
From: Hammo on 14 Feb 2007 05:02 On 14/2/07 7:55 PM, in article slrnet5jk1.33n.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org, "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote: > 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? Here from Wiki seeing as Wanky has become the level of "evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque > >> 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. I know I am tangential most of the time, but I thought I wouldn't have "join the dots" Apologies to IK. > >> Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!! > > The efficiency of the lightbulb at producing light is irrelevant to the > matter at hand. NOT the lightbulb, the system!!!! > > ------sharks PS will we see you this weekend?
From: Hammo on 14 Feb 2007 05:05 "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote in message . >> Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> 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. >> > Yeah; my mistake! > It occurred to me at 6pm today as I was riding home that you're not using > the CRO to actually MEASURE fuel-flow; just to see a change. > I'm so used to ignoring all the Hamsturbation that I'm missing the rare > sensisible bits! Is this where I can now attack you and ask "how many other mistakes you have conveniently made"? Why the frig do you think I was talking about stoichiometry as a way to measure fuel? Hammo
From: Knobdoodle on 14 Feb 2007 05:14
"Hamish Alker-Jones" <hbalkerjones(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1F9210B.26A7F%hbalkerjones(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > On 14/2/07 2:29 PM, in article slrnet50gs.33n.sharkey(a)anchovy.zoic.org, > "sharkey" <sharkey(a)zoic.org> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Nice one, centurion. >> >> -----sharks > > Actually, it is. So 1 kW = 1000 W > As BigIain reckons no further reductions/considerations of inefficiencies > need to be considered and there is already "fluctuation" in the > measurement. > GS said what 50% based on his numbers. BigI said there was 35% difference > at peak efficiency. > A car with 120 W lights would use 120/1000 * 10 * 60 = mL / Hr > > But the mean value being 7.5 mL min-1. > > So it gets even smaller....and it is at idle with a an expected increase > in > efficiency as stated by Big. So the 50 % is infact bigger than 50 > percent!!(not yet taking into the 35 % error due to the efficiency when > running at peak, i.e. When most cars that actually travel somewhere do!). > > Now the above is based on a "coach" and would not be hoping to get > anywhere > near the fuel consumption rate of something like Nev's machine (or my > little > run about). > > What percentage of total fuel is being "claimed" here? We are talking > about > thimbles gentlemens. > So you finally understand that fuel is being consumed by the lights but you're try to quibble about the amount, Hammo?[1] Jeeze; that took a while! -- Clem [1] Actually; we were at this point at least 5 days ago but you seem to wanna' keep up the Hammoflage! |