P plate training ...not
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: new tv project
Next: Honda VTR coolant boiling ?
From: Knobdoodle on 15 Feb 2007 08:21 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1FAA70B.11F16%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > 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. >> It's either being consumed or it isn't Hammo (as you well know). You're either right or you're being pissweak. It's quite simple. > >> 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. > OF COURSE you did Hammo! Hamsturbation is your weapon-of choice so naturally it's what you'd depend apon when you need to muddy the debate some more. RON now eh? [chortle] -- Clem
From: Knobdoodle on 15 Feb 2007 08:40 "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message news:C1FAA7FA.11F20%hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au... > > > > 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.... > Odd that you'd find this objectionable now Hammo. I've been using "unnecessary' for the last 5 days or so to clearly define the parameters of the debate (after one of your Hammoflage-attempts pretending that we were actually talking about using headlights for a useful purpose during daylight hours). Of course; you knew that already though didn't you? -- Clem
From: Hammo on 15 Feb 2007 09:14 On 16/2/07 12:40 AM, in article kpZAh.1548$4c6.1409(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoodle(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote in message >> 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 >>>> , "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.... >> > Odd that you'd find this objectionable now Hammo. > I've been using "unnecessary' for the last 5 days or so to clearly define > the parameters of the debate (after one of your Hammoflage-attempts > pretending that we were actually talking about using headlights for a useful > purpose during daylight hours). > Of course; you knew that already though didn't you? No. I didn't read much of anything you posted that had Hammoflage or obfuscation in it. It was a tad Ground Hog for me. Hammo
From: Hammo on 15 Feb 2007 09:17 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: > Clem > (hears only silence echoing back.....) negative echolalia! Hammo
From: Bill on 15 Feb 2007 14:37
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:28:50 +1100, GB wrote: > "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in news:45d3bfb5$0$24729$5a62ac22(a)per- > qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: >> completely contraditing your latest assertion > > Yeah, look, whatever Nev. Whatever, ok. > > > GB, long since given up on this bullshit. GB quietly exits the Geargrinder's Arms... Bill_h |