P plate training ...not

I don't know either, I have to keep pointing things out as someone else is
trying to "divert".

Hammo

 

Yes, in the same league

Oh dear John. You really are having a hard time understanding what a
measurement and what estimate is. Tell me the difference, or, ask a
physicist, like IK perhaps to explain that any measurement is an
approximation, i.e. The best estimate of the size. If you wish to be so
bold as to be correct 100 percent of the time with the way you measure, it
is quickly going to become pointless.

Yes, the better the "measurement" the closer to "correct" or "reproducible"
the value will become. The error in the estimate becomes smaller. Do you
really believe that this is obfuscation, or more doing your best to try and
discredit a fairly well understood paradigm?

Assumptions. Yes, that is the basis of theories. Some prefer hypothesis as
it makes them sound "scientific" as assumptions has a connotations that
often relates to a rationalisation that is erroneous. The closer the
"assumption" is scrutinised and refreshed, it comes closer to being a real
world applicable and hence increase in accuracy.

Semantics, see above.

I disagree with you. I have presented my version of how it is determined.

You may have. That's probably why this discussion is occurring, as, I don't
agree with your "version".

I am amused that when accurate measurement is not required in your view, I
am pedantic and anal and need to "get over things". Yet you want to know
how much accuracy is in this system, can't find it and so conclude it is not
accurate and therefore flawed.

No, see above.

Domestic. Oh, this is your escape clause?

Rhetorical question or you'd like an answer? Amusing that the topic of
waste is what generated this discussion and yet you don't see the link.

Interesting to note you didn't include better quality fuel.

Hammo

 

Dammit; now I've got the Dave Edmunds* song in my head!

 

Yep; and this is the strength of EMS/EFI.
It doesn't have to rely on vacuum, bi-metallic strips, centrifical force and
spring tension to do what's needed exactly; it can make a rough guess; check
against "optimum" and then adjust on the run.
As you pointed out earlier (or later if I'm reading this in the wrong order)
the smaller the increments and the faster the processing just makes this all
the more efficient (provided the preset "optimums" are correct of course).

 

Or diversion Hammo; you take your pick!
Totally irrelevant in the "does using headlights unnecessarily waste fuel"
(and the "is Nev's fuel-usage display totally accurate") debate anyway.

 

When did we establish THAT?!!?
Sure I agreed that there seems to be some bike charging systems that run
flat-out all the time (something I have no experience of but something I've
been assured [by aus.moto posters] is fairly common on modern bikes. [but
has since been refuted by GS]) but, as pointed out by Dale, this was a
discussion about car electrics and no-one has identified any cars that use
that system.

Besides; what does "only measurable at a theoretical level" matter? Isn't
theorising what we're doing here?
How else are you gonna' measure it; leave your car idling for 30 hours with
and without the headlights on and see which ones stops first?

 

It is amusing that you consider it diversion. Explain how.

Interesting justification. Discussion should be synergistic.

Hammo

 

Sharkey is popping around with his oscilloscope, so will see if that *is*
going on in the car.

No, JL doesn't want that, he is going for "domestic".

Hammo

 

Heh heh; another good one Hammo!

 

No. I established 'facts' by gathering data, you made 'unsubstantiated
allegations' about the data collection method in order to discredit that
data.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I've diverted the dylithium chrystals to the obfuscator and run it at full
power Captain; god hope that'll hold them!(snip)> Interesting to note you didn't include better quality fuel.Engineering reports that full power has now been re-established to the
diversion-generators!

 

Sure Hammo; just as soon as I become a brain-dead 5yo who would fall for
such obvious attempted trolling.

Naah; discussion is pretty boring but so long as you wanna' play the silly
game I'm up for it.

 

Oscilloscopes measure fuel usage now do they?

I hit them with an obfuscation blast captain, and I'm waiting to see if
they're diverted!

 

Yeah OK; if you reckon that reading a Holden trip-computer is "gathering
data" and you wanna' dismiss logic and an understanding of electromagnetic
force as "unsubstantiated allegations" then go for it!
It's probably a better face-saving option than some of Hamish's silliness.

 

And I also established that they were repeatable, and you continue to
make unsubstantiated allegations that they are not.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Are you trying to establish that the trip computer makes accurate fuel
economy calculations?

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

And I calculated that 120W of headlights consumes something like 100mL
per hour plus or minus 40%.

Nobody has challenged those numbers, and my sanity check calculations
seem to indicate I'm at least in the right order of magnitude with that
figure...

big

 

Patronising twat. I do actually have a vague understanding of it, do
you want to discuss Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or can we
assume I get it ?

There's still a bloody big difference between measuring something
(which will be accurate to N significant places) and calculating an
estimate based on ASSUMED inputs (which will be inherently less
accurate but you don't KNOW how much less inaccurate because you're
assuming that one of the parameters is a fixed number as opposed to
measuring it).

You know it, and you're avoiding it. Like Clem already said,
deliberate obfuscation. Nothing is 100% accurate but a calculation
with an assumption in the middle is inherently less reliable than a
measurement, by definition, as you don't know the reliability of the
estimate.

You try and you try Hammo, but you're failing at this one.

No doofus, it's obfuscation to pretend a calculated estimate is a
measurement, it ain't.

He tries and he tries to pretend black is white, yet he hasn't
disappeared in a puff of logic at a pedestrian crossing yet.

An assumption, to create an hypothesis isn't even vaguely similar to
an assumption to allow a convenient calculation for the purposes of a
convenient real world estimate. Why ? Because in the former you then
go on to test it (yes Hammo, I did do basic scientific methodology as
well as physics), in the latter you say "the number seems to be
getting worse yet I'm driving the same - better change the filter and
plugs" you don't test it's accuracy, so it ain't a basis for a
hypothesis, it's a real world application of maths and logics for
consumer convenience.

Yes, you are playing semantics,poorly, glad you're at least self
aware.

No I don't want to know how much accuracy is in this system, you might
like to try and pretend i want to because it's an easier straw man
than the inconvenient truth.

Real world systems don't actually have to be accurate, they just have
to be consistent to be useful.

No, see above (oh my there's an echo in here).

No, another point you're deliberately missing. It's only waste in a
certain set of circumstances (to wit where energy of ANY amount is
being used without producing a benefit). A bit like this conversation
really. (Well actually it's two barely intersecting monologues, to be
semantically pedantic).

Mmmm, you may be right but I don't know that to be true, have no data
on it either way. Care to actually add some value for a change and
comment on why and how fuel quality may have improved ?

JL

 

Synergy fouls your plugs!

-----sharks

 

Actually this bit deserves a second post, because it cuts to the heart
that is all Hammo's attempt at an argument here.

The sentence was worded to mean
"you seem to deliberately be confusing
measuring [an estimate] with calculating an estimate"

The two relevant verbs being "measuring" and "calculating" which were
being compared and contrasted. Square brackets added for clarity
although the sentence parses without them.

Hammo (deliberately) ignores the second verb and changes the noun
"estimate" to meaning the verb "estimate" (which would be
extraordinarily poor grammar if that was what I had intended).

Every year 8 science student(1) does basic physics and finds out there
is no such thing as precisely accurate measurement down to an infinite
number of significant places, hence every measurement is an estimate
{noun} to some level of accuracy.

Hammo assumes we are all morons, climbs up on his pedagogical soapbox
and thinks he's going to teach us a thing or three about science by
attempting to prove that we don't understand what we think we
understand.

It is however smoke and mirrors, changing the meaning of the sentence
for rhetorical purposes may be a useful trick for politicians but it's
certainly not scientific. particularly not when the basic principle is
so clear cut

A calculation containing an assumed value is not a measurement, it's a
combination of measurement and assumption. When measured with a
sufficiently accurate device the assumption may indeed be just as
accurate as the actual measurements, but until you open the box that
cat is neither dead nor alive.

JL
(1) a deliberate and grossly unsupportable statement, which really
means - *I* did it in year 8 and if you didn't you're a blithering
moron or some such Hammo style arrogance