From: Hammo on



On 14/2/07 10:03 PM, in article
45d2ec96$0$31872$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au, "Nev.."
<idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote:

> 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.

Accurate? The values you gave Geoff show that you don't have any accuracy
to speak of! The values are swamped by noise. I'd say that is
insignificant.
>
> 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.

That GB character keeps going on about something to do with pigs and
chewbacca.

I've got nearly three pages of the chemistry of fuel combustion to go with
calcs. I wonder how it will turn out?

Hammo

From: Hammo on



On 14/2/07 10:25 PM, in article
VkCAh.1059$4c6.386(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> (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)

Actually, it'll depend. I don't know why I didn't think of this before!

Can you be sure that the load is increasing, or, is the engine just running
at higher rpm? If the latter, it is possible that as there is no road
speed, the stoichiometry is not equivalent and has been adjusted to run
leaner, giving a lower rate of consumption!

Hammo (bring on the CRO!!)

From: Nev.. on
sharkey 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 ...

Nah, that's the air-con which leaves the little puddles behind, and I
think everyone was in agreeance that it is nothing like an alternator,
unless it is an alternator.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
From: jlittler on
On Feb 14, 8:12 pm, G-S <g...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> jlitt...(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'.

As the actress said to the bishop

JL
(NB should be scientific methodology - you were entitled to a "sic"
there)

From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:
> 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.

The bus I tested the effect on _is_ an EFI device, the main difference
is that more fuel is being used (both to run the motor and to run the
lights) so the effect is more easily measurable (since it is
significantly larger in total ml although not by %).
>
> (GB's post has expired from Google groups).
>
> So if this whole "lights use more fuel" thing isn't measurable on an EFI
> engine..

See above... it has already been measured 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.
>

If it wasn't measurable (anywhere)... but it is :)


G-S
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?