From: Knobdoodle on

"Dale Porter" <daleaporter(a)> wrote in message
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)> wrote
>> ? As I pointed out before, I do enough advocating at work, I don't need
>> to
>> here. I keep the playing of devil's advocate for when the conversation
>> can
>> flow.
> Some here may argue that you're keeping it for when you know what you're
> talking about.
Oooh .. savage!
(accurate though)

From: Hammo on

On 15/2/07 10:41 PM, in article er1gtv$2r93$1(a), "Dale
Porter" <daleaporter(a)> wrote:

> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)> wrote
>> ? As I pointed out before, I do enough advocating at work, I don't need to
>> here. I keep the playing of devil's advocate for when the conversation can
>> flow.
> Some here may argue that you're keeping it for when you know what you're
> talking about.

Feel free to engage, though I have never really had anything to talk to you


From: Hammo on

On 15/2/07 10:04 AM, in article slrnet75bc.3l6.sharkey(a),
"sharkey" <sharkey(a)> wrote:

> 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.

OK, can you tell me how the mech energy goes to electrical energy. That is
the first flaw in the calc. Feel free to disagree, just explain how
mechanical energy, electrical energy or nuclear energy can convert into
something else by magic.

It goes via the alternator, which from my rudimentary measurements goes from
a ratio of 3:1 (crank to alt). This is related to the mech advantage of the
system. Now, consider the torque. Tell me why the load would be constant?
If the RPM of the alternator increases, is the load reduced? Is it
increased, or constant? 9000 rpm of the alternator is going to have the
same resistance cf 3000 rpm?
> 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.

Ah, OK.
> 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.

So what temp is it "designed" to run at? Pretty high?
> 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.

It is a shame that the CRO experiments have been delayed? Are things going
well on that front?
> 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.
I've had a very confronting day, though I am serious. This isn't a troll.


From: Hammo on

On 15/2/07 11:28 PM, in article 12t8kg5q01pgv48(a), "GB"
<gb0506(a)> wrote:

> "Nev.." <idiot(a)> wrote in news:45d3bfb5$0$24729$5a62ac22(a)per-
>> completely contraditing your latest assertion
> Yeah, look, whatever Nev. Whatever, ok.
> GB, long since given up on this bullshit.

Yet you keep looking and watching and POSTING!


From: Toosmoky on
Knobdoodle wrote:

> "Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)> wrote:

>> 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.

> Perhaps.
> Low-wattage lights, dodgy regulators, slipping fan-belts and low-power
> alternators would also contribute to it being hard or impractical to
> measure.
> Doesn't change the principle though.

I'm talking about an engine as good as it comes from the factory, then
freshly run in, for example.

I'm thinking that the fuel consumption rate based on say, the variation
in the amount of throttle applied by a mere human at the controls might
prove to be greater than any variability in consumption caused by lights
on or off. On or in *some* vehicles.

My lap round Oz in '88 showed that fuel consumption varied widely and
couldn't be predicted with any certainty outside a certain range. A
rider like Rossi lapping consistently on a racetrack would show a lot
less variation in fuel consumption.

In my circumstances, could I really claim that any fuel was being wasted
by riding with a light on?

Do I waste fuel nowadays on the Pig when I flash my passing light
momentarily at cars that may potentially turn in front of me?

I'm not taking sides in this brouhaha, can't even say for sure if I'm
barking up the right tree but I'm just putting in my two bob's worth...

Work to ride, Ride to Work...