From: G-S on 14 Feb 2007 15:39
> On 14/2/07 4:39 PM, in article 45d2a107$1(a)news.bekkers.com.au, "Theo
> Bekkers" <tbekkers(a)bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> Hammo wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Do any of those systems generate power without using any fuel?
> Ok, I'd be interested to see what power, as in electrical requirements the
> ignition and fuel management systems use as well as a comparo with the size,
> type and construction of the battery system.
The battery system is a 4 by 6 volt (large 6 volt) linked battery bank.
Capacity is many many hundred amp hours.
The fuel 'pump' (if I can simplify it that way) can be mechanically
controlled or fully mechanical or the new common rail type, they have
very different layouts.
> We haven't considered double layers and its effect on the flow of
> electricity. This is more of a common problem in batteries that have a gel
> type compound, but seeing as I don't know if they are used on a 24 V system,
> we may as well check that too.
> Measuring the voltage and current output of the bus at "idle" and then
> compare these two when lights are on, or at least the drop in same may be
> better way to determine the "power" required.
> I am also betting that it will be considerable greater than Big's claim that
> it will the amount that it is rated as.
> Hammo (awaits Clem........)
From: G-S on 14 Feb 2007 15:42
Hamish Alker-Jones wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
I am not now claiming that the amount of fuel used is large, it is in
fact quite small.
All I have ever claimed is that the effect is real, and that the failure
of Nev's car to be able to read that effect doesn't mean the effect
From: G-S on 14 Feb 2007 15:43
> On 14/2/07 9:14 PM, in article
> _hBAh.1019$4c6.822(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
> <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Hammo" <\@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>>> What percentage of total fuel is being "claimed" here? We are talking
>>> thimbles gentlemens.
>> So you finally understand that fuel is being consumed by the lights but
>> you're try to quibble about the amount, Hammo?
>> Jeeze; that took a while!
> ...we were at that stage and then it was if we can determine how much is it
> a waste? I still doubt that it is as high as been claimed.
> The numbers put forward have errors so high that makes them insignificant.
> If it is insignificant is it a waste?
I've never been one to believe in 'a difference that makes no difference
is no difference'.
If it is a very small waste then it is a very small waste, not no waste.
From: Theo Bekkers on 14 Feb 2007 17:44
Iain Chalmers wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>> No. Thanks for trying to bluff that one. Remember the discussion
>> re: torque......
> I'm astounded you're continuing to
> play stupid enough to not understand that.
I'm not. Hammo plays stupid so well, sometimes I think it's not an act.
>> 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...
No, no, no. Electicity from the alternator is free power, apparently. I
wonder if I can run my house off it?
>> Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!!
> Or, on the slight possibility that you think that statement made any
> sense at all...
Efficiency is the whole point, isn't it. Use 1 Kw, use no extra fuel to
produce it. How much more efficient to you want. I don't understand why
Western Power keeps sending me electricity bills.
> Explain to me exactly how you intend to measure the efficiency with
> which a 60W light globe consumes 60W?
The light globe has a very accurately measured vacuum orifice, when the
switch is turned on a 60W globe sucks 60 watts of electrickery from the
wires. When all the vacuum runs out, the globe stops working and you need to
buy a new one. A good globe should last 2000 hours, meaning it initially
contains 120Kw of vacuum. If you buy one of those cheap globes from K-Mart,
you get gypped on the vacuum, this is why they don't last so long.
From: Toosmoky on 14 Feb 2007 17:43
> 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!
Nice one, centurion. I'm wondering if there's actually a case to be made
that any fuel consumption increase/decrease is not even detectable in
Given the large number of variables, it may be that the variance between
any measurement of fuel used in one test compared to another may not be
reproducible. In some engines.
Work to ride, Ride to Work...