From: sharkey on
Hammo <hbaj2006(a)> wrote:
> Here from Wiki seeing as Wanky has become the level of "evidence"

Yes, and, your point was? Big's calculations seem pretty sensible to me
as back-of-the-envelope estimates go. They agree near enough with G-S's
experiment, and if G-S repeated his measurements a few times back and
forth then it's not such a bad experiment. "The lights use energy, and
that energy has to come from the fuel" seems pretty justifiable,
thermodynamically speaking.

There's the issue of shunt regulation, still, and for a shunt regulated
vehicle having the lights on or off won't make any difference. I'm
still looking into this, I know there are modern switch-mode regulators
for bikes (the EnDuraLast generator kit used one) but I don't know when
or whether they were widely adopted.

The XLV regulator, which seems to be a pretty typical eighties Honda
design, is actually kind of a "switch-shunt" regulator, in that it seems
to shunt the phases with SCRs. This would cause 90% of the voltage
drop (and thus the waste heat) to be across the generator coils rather
than the SCR junction. This heat would be taken away by the engine oil.

The EnDuraLast one I mention is "switch-series", and when I get the XLV
running again I'll try some experiments and maybe replace the regulator
with a better one.

Anyone got one of the infamous VFR regulators handy if I can work out a
simple test to tell the difference?

> I know I am tangential most of the time, but I thought I wouldn't have "join
> the dots" Apologies to IK.

Humour me. I'm feeling very stupid today, and I can't work out whether
you think you have a point or you're just trolling on.

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)> wrote:
> "sharkey" <sharkey(a)> wrote in message
> news:slrnet4bih.2h9.sharkey(a)
> > Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)> 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.

Yeah mate, just to look at the pulse widths: you can't tell a hell of a
lot (especially given the +/-10% or so tolerance of the injectors) but
it should give you a nice relative figure. Rather than using a manual
CRO it'd be better to feed all the signals into labview or similar and
sum the pulsewidths from each cylinder over time.

> I'm so used to ignoring all the Hamsturbation that I'm missing the rare
> sensisible bits!

I'll try not to post sensible bits too often so as not to confuse you!

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: sharkey on
Knobdoodle <knobdoodle(a)> wrote:
> He heh; I'm sure the water-content in the air is higher too which would also
> increase both of the above.
> (and the air-con isn't on and the windows are up and the tyres are
> cooler and the brake-parts have contracted further away from each
> other and the thermatic fan isn't running and you're calmer and
> less aggressive in your lane-changing and accelerating and...and...
> your imagination is more active!)

Different music on the radio, too!

Professor G-S's experiment is actually pretty controlled, by comparison.

Du verschwendest �bertragungskapazit�ten.
From: Iain Chalmers on
In article <slrnet75bc.3l6.sharkey(a)>,
sharkey <sharkey(a)> wrote:

> Humour me. I'm feeling very stupid today, and I can't work out whether
> you think you have a point or you're just trolling on.

Yeah, he's in one of his moods...

Can someone post up a new thread if anything interesting turns up in
this one (particularly if Hammo actuallly does any calculations that are
actually relevant to how much fuel headlights use)?


"Everything you love, everything meaningful with depth and history,
all passionate authentic experiences will be appropriated, mishandled,
watered down, cheapened, repackaged, marketed and sold to the people
you hate." Mr Jalopy quoting Hooptyrides (on
From: Nev.. on
GB wrote:
> G-S <geoff(a)> wrote in news:12t6seih1kdoe49
>>> 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 %).
> Nah, I was trying to dumb it down for Nev. Of *course* the effect
> still happens, it's just harder to observe by sitting in the shed
> eyeballing the tachometer. What I meant by "won't work on an EFI
> anything" is that my test - turn the lights on and watch the tacho
> drop by 50 revs or so - won't work on EFI things because EFI things
> will tend to change other things to compensate for the increase in
> load and keep the engine idling at the same 'designated' idle speed.

How does it go? "Look at the silly monkey."

So lets see the score.. before.. G-S and Clem were right.. and GB was
wrong. Now apparently GB and G-S are right, and Clem, (Who did the
experiment on EFI vehicles and found that the revs DID drop, completely
contraditing your latest assertion) is wrong... so that would make
Hammo right, and he agreed with me to some extent, so I must be right.

'04 CBR1100XX