P plate training ...not

Yup, so you've just quoted the bit that shows he didn't say the mpg
(etc) were measured. What's your point (1)

JL
(1) he says knowing full well Hammo doesn't actually have one

 

And the amount of fuel a pump "guesses" is being transferred compared to the actual amount of fuel being transferred will vary
dependent on a number of factors. Temperature being one.

 

OK; first problem here. Electricity need a circuit. No circuit and all you
have is potential.
Without a circuit you also have no electromagnetism in the stator-coils so
there's no like-poles-repel magnetic resistance.
Add a light and, bingo, a circuit exists and electrons can now flow and
create EMF. The amount of EMF depends on the original potential and the
resistance through the newly created circuit.
A "short" (i.e. near-zero resistance) gives you the maximum EMF and the
maximum magnetic flux (depending on the potential provided by the rotation
provided by the pedalling) but your 1W light has a few owms resistance so
it's not a dead short.

Yes that bit was a joke. Well spotted Andrew.

Errr; we're only providing 1 watt (plus wastage) as that's all the circuit
and the potential allow.
And yes; the cyclist will be the one providing that extra watt (which is
probably 5 watts out of his legs)

Provided you don't switch them on that'd be OK.

No; the energy flows the other way; but that would never happen because the
total wattage of the lights would exceed what the dynamo can supply so it
will just get a bit stiff [snigger] and the lights won't work. (internal
resistance is the key here but it's a bit complex for such a lightweight
discussion)

You've got that bit right.
You're missing the fact that the cyclist is farkin' shit-off though!
(Mind you; if you put the lights in series there'd still be bugger-all light
but at least the pedaller is having a better time!)

Yes ... possibly... is that relevant?

No; I didn't even notice that bit (if it was present). THAT would've made
sense!
It's all the rest that's wrong.

 

And some people said they were just pre-programmed responses unaffected by
actual conditions.
It looks like those people may've been right eh?

OK so we've proved that it's auto-compensating for any extra load
(explaining why you don't get an idle-drop when the headlights are switched
on) but the jury's still out on whether it's really measuring
fuel-consumption or just smart-enough to know that aircon raises the usage
by a pre-set amount.

Nev, next test is to run the computer in diagnostic mode with the air-con on
and then cut the aircon-compressor belt and see if the readout changes.....
if it's not too much trouble!

 

So am I. Why would they bother measuring 12 different things, but not
the 13th? I mean.. the whole point of having the other 12 measurements
it so ensure that an optimal dose of fuel is being injected at the right
moment according to the fuel mapping. If it's easy enough to measure
the other 12 things, why wouldn't it be easy enough to measure the 13th.
And.. even if it doesn't actually measure the fuel flow.. then it's
using 12 other inputs to display the instantaneous fuel flow rate which
I'm reading (I'm not talking about those crap average fuel consumption
rate the trip computer calculates here.. Boxer was.. I wasn't) then why
wouldn't it's calculated fuel flow figures change when the lights are
turned on. Surely at least one of those 12 inputs is going to be
affected but the turning on of xxxwatts of lights.. isn't it..

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I have no knowledge of angular force and that engineering stuff you were
talking about so I'm more than happy to accept your word that Andrew has
stumbled upon a serendipitous truism, John.
That doesn't change the simple "will the alternator require more energy to
turn" question though.

I just stick to the simple things that I DO understand (and if I can't
follow what you're saying then I'm very confident that there's not one
chance-in-hell that cowpat-for-brains Atec is ever gonna!)

 

And whether it's one of those cheating rip-off bastard Woolworths (Safeway)
service-stations or not!
Like US gallons are only about 3/4 or a real gallon I think Woolworths has
invented US litres!

 

Errr [shrugs] maybe... But EFI/EMS computers have been developed over the
last 20 or 30 years with the sole intent of making the engine run optimally.
I just really really doubt that they've not used a standard version and
instead made a special one that also measures something totally unneeded by
the engine like "fuel usage down to the hundredth-of-a-litre-per-hour".
The fact that it DOESNT see the headlight's load on the alternator
reinforces my belief. (Although the fact that it registers the aircon is a
bit of a negative)

If it was programmed to do so yes.
If the engineer said "anything under a kilowatt doesn't matter" though,
that'd be a no.

 

well you could insert clem it tends to be the same thing .

 

I know, but catching his attention isn't as easy as it used to be.

 

Leave the man out of this.

 

I read something once, might have been an article in the RACV magazine,
which said that while some fuel pumps were inaccurate, in most cases
they dispensed more than they should, rather than less. I regularly see
petrol stations being visited by inspectors doing measurements on petrol
pumps. The allowable difference in Victoria for petrol pumps is ±0.5%.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

And IIRC, you have experienced my father playing Devil's Advocate at some point.

 

I've heard all that stuff too but I don't think I've ever actually seen an
inspector with my own eyes though.
I think it was the day I got 12L into the 10L mower-fuel can that I first
became suspicious.

 

No, I'm more selective with whom I play devil's advocate with. After all,
this aus.moto, not real life, I *don't* need to be an advocate here.

Hammo

 

Jeez that was a low blow. I do and I have maintained it. The "volume"
injected is not a random number. It will be based on parameters that are
peculiar to the engine and appropriate for the required performance etc.

Based on that, there *must be* with in a known error range of fuel consumed.

Are we still on the same page here?

Hammo

I'll guffaw at your assertion that fuel pumps are not accurate, and continue
to be amazed at your lack to do anything active about ensuring that the
"inaccuracies" are fixed. I mean, if you can't buy fuel accurately, how the
hell are you going to measure it'd consumption?

 

Hmmm. Perhaps you are right. [walks away mumbling something about
subtleties]
---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]


'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Measure voltage as well. Under those 4 conditions and ("bring a mirror and
flashlight to, observe") annotate.

Hammo

 

No, it doesn't need to do that, but I can't understand your reluctance to
accept that it *could*. It would me measuring fuel per pulse or injection,
and that isn't trivial. You just need to add all the pulses to get your
answer.

You reckon they'd be using air cons that consumer more than a kilowatt in
cars, or are you grabbing a number for illustrative purpose?

Hammo

 

Yawn, resorting to thinly disguised insults now? Lame, I thought better of
you.

That argument is moot and has been raised already re: the inefficiencies of
the internal combustion engine.

Hammo