From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
> 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.
>
Maybe I'm falling for the obvious here but I'd say the answer is "via the
fan belt".
(Although I'm not real sure if that applies to nuclear energy or not)
>
> It goes via the alternator,
DAMN
>....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?
>
Dunno. Does it matter? Does it affect whether or not alternators cause
engine load?
(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!
--
Clem


From: Knobdoodle on

"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1FA9FDA.26FDF%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>
>
>
>, "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
stuff.....
Eh Hammo?
Eh Nev?
Eh Andrew?
--
Clem
(hears only silence echoing back.....)


From: Hammo on



On 15/2/07 9:43 AM, in article
45d390af$0$510$61c65585(a)uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au,
"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.

Hammo

From: Knobdoodle on

"Toosmoky" <toosmoky(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45d4572a$0$492$61c65585(a)uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> 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.
>
>> 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?
>
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.
--
Clem


From: Hammo on



On 16/2/07 12:03 AM, in article
9SYAh.1528$4c6.1312(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle"
<knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C1FA9FDA.26FDF%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> , "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
> stuff.....
> 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).