P plate training ...not

R'spect....

Hammo

 

Umm, Clem.

You do know that there is an expansion factor built in? Don't you?

Hammo

 

Hammo wrote:>

Mostly, I think ..... OW ..... **** ...... may be not!

 

A human told it to? That is your explanation of the sophistication of EFI?

Yes, you and your "weather station". We have had that discussion before.
How about, think really hard and review the other posts. What does EFI do
that makes it so special? Why are EFI motors getting cleaner and having
lower emissions (despite their inherent inefficiencies)?

Your experience is beginning to be a poor guide.

You thought it was that sized tank, or, you over filled the tank, or both?
Big differences.

Hammo

 

The volume injected in a mechanical fuel-injection system or atomised in a
carbuerettor is "based on parameters that are peculiar to the engine and
appropriate for the required performance etc" too Hammo.
They ain't measured for display though.

Yep; that's what we said. The computer's most-likely just displaying what
it's known figures are.

I think that was me, not JL.
No; I don't try and fight them and rant and rave and seek to have the cheats
pilloried. I'm waaaay too lazy for anything like that!
I'm not trying to fix the world; just get through it with the least hassle
so I just buy elsewhere and make sure I tell anyone who asks.

 

"Hammo" <> replied:
"bargle bargle obfuscation herring"

 

Plucking a number from my arse yes; but I reckon a Holden aircon would
probably require about a kilowatt to run it.
(It's not just trip-computer designers who make estimates)

 

[crinkles brow]
What's this new diversion you're trying now Hammo?
"the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine."?!!?
What the hell has that got to do with the fuel waste through unnecessary use
of driving lights? (or the inaccuracies of trip computers?)
Is it the blargleometers?

 

Yes; they certainly expanded the number of litres supplied on the readout.

 

Yes, this is true, however, carby exchange is more common and little effect
on drivability cf exchange of injectors. Ah, yes, I didn't specify EFI,
though, the point becomes more solid that just exchanging the injectors
without the associated feedback loops, monitors etc, it'll run crap. Why is
that. 'cause it's being measured.

This is where you'll say "Nah".

Right, back to the point re: carbs. No measurement for display you say.
Think back to the squidgy-meter of the 70's and 80's. What did they
measure? Hold that thought.

True. The figures are related to the *actual* performance of the car. They
aren't make up, are they? Hold this thought too.

Oh, apologies then.

Fairy nuff. Next time it happens, call me and we'll "measure" things.....

Hammo

 

Eh?

No. GS changed the direction, look above!! He bloody did! It has been
raised (previously) that there are inherent inefficiencies of the alternator
and the engine. I agree GS's comments have naught to do with it.

Hammo

 

No; I'd probably say "dunno". I've never replaced an injector but I've
heard others tell me it was a fairly simple process (that didn't involve
"feedback loops" or "monitors")

G-S; you'd've done a few wouldn't you? Are they just one-for-one
interchangeable or do you have to recalibrate the loopback monitiser each
time?

Well; the RPM is probably "actual". All the rest is just make-up based on
pre-set responses to inputs.

No thanks Hammo; I've heard about youse blokes and your locker-room antics.

 

Looked; ain't seen.
Please post the exact sentence/s above where Geoff brought up the "the
inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine." Hammo.

 

No. I didn't make that clear. Big Iain made ref to the alternator
inefficiencies. I believed that that was where GS was heading. It was to
reflect that if producing electricity was an inefficient practice, surely
power to propel from an internal combustion engine would make that appear
"efficient".

Hammo

 

Geez, it must be my bed time. I meant that it was possible to exchange
carbs from other motors and not have the dramas that would be associated
with doing likewise with a EFI/MFI device. Think Holly with Aisan, then
Motech with Bosch.

I did not mean swap an injector, I meant the entire system.

Like what. Nev and JL have discussed a few, but what makes it efficient and
highlights where GB is so terribly wrong with his assumption about accurate
measurement?

You didn't mind in your pool.

Hammo

 

Heh heh; nice try Hammo.

 

Gee; the more I query the more "accidents' you seem to have had Hammo.

Diversional-Blarglometer set to maximum, Captain!

That 44 gallon drum of Dettol cost me a packet!

 

No, I wasn't clear. If that is interpreted as "accident" so be it.

No, not at all.

Let me clear it for you.

70's and 80's (and probably 90's), manifold pressure gauges (aka
squidgy-meter) were popular. Used to measure "economy". Gave you an
indication of fuel usage. Big margin of error.

Now fuel systems are all about air to fuel ratio. Best situation is when
the ratio is adjusted for all situations. Hence EFI becoming better and
better wrt emissions. Why? It's not magic, it is due to the monitoring of
the system and adjustments that are made via many circuits many times per
second. What is based on? What measurement could possibly do this, what
principle? Stoichiometry.

I.e. The equation for combustion wrt air:fuel ratio. That monitors how much
fuel is required. It is calculated via moles of fuel based on the RON.
This is why some cars run better, or require higher octane fuels (wrt EFI).

If you have a running total of fuel used based on the chemical reaction, you
have a better indication than fuel flow as it relates to the chemistry, i.e.
irreversible chemical reaction that converts fuel to energy.

Do you see where I am coming from know?

My mouth was sore for some time too.

Hammo

 

Oh I know full well what you're trying to do Hammo. (So do the blind-dog's
fleas)
It's not working very well though......

 

Thinly disguised?

I was about to post that Harsh Week had reached a new low, or is it high.

regards,
CrazyCam