From: Knobdoodle on 15 Feb 2007 07:57
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
> OK, can you tell me how the mech energy goes to electrical energy. That
> 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.
Maybe I'm falling for the obvious here but I'd say the answer is "via the
(Although I'm not real sure if that applies to nuclear energy or not)
> 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
> system. Now, consider the torque. Tell me why the load would be
> 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?
Dunno. Does it matter? Does it affect whether or not alternators cause
(Matter to non-obfuscators I mean.)
> I've had a very confronting day, though I am serious. This isn't a troll.
Ha ha [wipes eyes]!
Another gem Hammo!
From: Knobdoodle on 15 Feb 2007 08:03
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>, "GB"<gb0506(a)kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
>> GB, long since given up on this bullshit.
> Yet you keep looking and watching and POSTING!
P'raps it's in the vain hope that someone will actually have the spine to
admit they were wrong about that unnecessary-headlights-don't-waste-fuel
(hears only silence echoing back.....)
From: Hammo on 15 Feb 2007 08:10
On 15/2/07 9:43 AM, in article
"Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>> 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
> some engines.
That was the point I have been making (as well as Nev and a few others). If
the amount is negligible, and/or not repeatable it is then immeasurable
(based on the variables). Why the need for the accusations of all sorts of
lifestyle choices, I don't quite follow.
> 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.
I have typed up 4 ish pages of the chemistry thus far and part of the
explanation was going to be on RON, which throws many more cats amongst the
clich�s. At least with that motor it is a well defined in its parameters
and has substantial references to its application. I prefer discussions at
the pub or BBQ, they flow better.
From: Knobdoodle on 15 Feb 2007 08:12
"Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>> "Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)hotmail.com> 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.
>> Low-wattage lights, dodgy regulators, slipping fan-belts and low-power
>> alternators would also contribute to it being hard or impractical to
>> 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?
Well yes; obviously.
If you weren't gaining any advantage from the lights then the fuel used to
generate them was wasted, no matter how infinitessimal it may have been.
> 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?
That depends on whether you are gaining anything from the flashing.
If not then "yes" too (obviously).
> 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...
Only you have the power to look deep within yourself to see if that fuel was
truly wasted Doug.
From: Hammo on 15 Feb 2007 08:14
On 16/2/07 12:03 AM, in article
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
>> , "GB"<gb0506(a)kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote:
>>> GB, long since given up on this bullshit.
>> Yet you keep looking and watching and POSTING!
> P'raps it's in the vain hope that someone will actually have the spine to
> admit they were wrong about that unnecessary-headlights-don't-waste-fuel
> Eh Hammo?
> Eh Nev?
> Eh Andrew?
Is this akin to "man up"? Where apparently I/others care about the taunts
and need to be swayed from our opinion?
I note that you now have "unnecessary" headlights. That's the way....
Hammo (awaiting Sharkey's comments on my "back of envelope calcs).