P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Nev.. on 14 Feb 2007 06:03 G-S wrote: > 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. But waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back near the top of this thread... I wrote: > Ok so I tested it myself. > 5.7 Lt EFI Holden in diagnostics mode. to which GB replied > Won't work on an EFI anything. (GB's post has expired from Google groups). So if this whole "lights use more fuel" thing isn't measurable on an EFI engine.. of course there would be no measurable effect in the fuel flow.. and if there was no change in fuel flow then surely that would be proof the accuracy of the fuel measurement device, not, as you claim, proof against it. Nev.. '04 CBR1100XX
From: Knobdoodle on 14 Feb 2007 06:25 "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message news:45d2ec96$0$31872$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > G-S wrote: >> 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. > > But waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back near the top of this thread... > > I wrote: > > Ok so I tested it myself. > > 5.7 Lt EFI Holden in diagnostics mode. > > to which GB replied > > Won't work on an EFI anything. > > (GB's post has expired from Google groups). > > So if this whole "lights use more fuel" thing isn't measurable on an EFI > engine.. of course there would be no measurable effect in the fuel flow.. > and if there was no change in fuel flow then surely that would be proof > the accuracy of the fuel measurement device, not, as you claim, proof > against it. > Or GB was wrong. (or; your interpretation of what GB said is wrong) I also posted waaaaay back in the thread that it (the headlight-load on the engine) DOES show an effect on both Michelle's and gNatalie's EFI cars. -- Clem (Unless you're trying to say that increased engine-load doesn't equate to increased fuel usage)
From: Tim Moran on 14 Feb 2007 06:38 In article <%ZAAh.1005$4c6.988(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au>, knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com says... > > "Dale Porter" <daleaporter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:equho3$26d8$1(a)otis.netspace.net.au... > > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote > (re: aluminium) > >> ...and what temp does it combust at? > > > > I'm gonna guess it's a fuggin' high temp. I know they use aluminium in > > solid fuel booster rockets to enhance the power output. > > > And in high-explosives too (tritium?) > Really really high explosives at least I seem to recall that tritium is used in atomic bombs as an accelerant, I could be wrong, I'm pretty sure I got it from a Tom Clancy book, so any connection to reality is purely accidental.
From: Aeek on 14 Feb 2007 06:40 On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:32:38 GMT, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >Interesting to you. Irrelevant to anyone actually curious about >whether-or-not headlights use fuel. early fuel burning headlights clearly did.
From: Knobdoodle on 14 Feb 2007 06:48
"Aeek" <aeeeeeek(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message news:k2t5t2daal4drkcb9gptnit46n6b6bl6kb(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:32:38 GMT, "Knobdoodle" > <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Interesting to you. Irrelevant to anyone actually curious about >>whether-or-not headlights use fuel. > > early fuel burning headlights clearly did. > Now THERE's a point; acetylene headlights don't cause any engine load at all! (Hammo will be able to prove this too as soon as he can connect his oscilloscope to an EFI car with them) -- Clem |