P plate training ...not

<reluctantly> Yes Hammo, on that one you and Nev are right (although
there's a whole heaps of if ands and buts to add to that statement. I
got 3 lines into responding to the GB/Nev thread on that and said
"stuff it")

His results are indeed repeatable. That doesn't mean the principle
under discussion is wrong, just that the test isn't providing data
that will allow a the different options to be eliminated(1). More
testing required.

JL
(1) Yes Hammo, I'm short cutting a discussion of hypothesis testing,
methodology etc not relevant or useful

 

It's also more dense, thus increasing drag.

 

Thats within (although admittedly right at the bottom end) of my 0.12L
+-40% for 120W figure, and it's pretty close to the figure the little
Honda genset gets at full load.

Taking both your stated major errors into account (+-50%) and mine
(+-40%), I'd say we're completely in agreement with each other...

big

 

I was pointing out that you have studied these theories and will therefore
be able to acknowledge that there is no diversion involved.

This type of "measuring" is the crux of analytical chemistry (as well as
other fields), and as you know, is more than adequately explained in the
theory. That is, confirmation of true measurement will always be an
approximation.

Hammo

 

Sorry to ruin the party boys....

I don't know of too many machines that "idle" every where.

Also, we were talking about headlights. Your calculation are now going to
have to include the inefficiencies/resistance in _all_ those systems. (not
to mention 12 v 24 volt systems). I can show huge differences in systems
when I take values *generated* to create extreme circumstance in machines
that operate differently to the original dimensions as well.

Hammo

 

Look again Hammo, I don't even mention engine speed anywhere in my
calculations, just energy used over time - I don't care if you idle your
car for an hour or if you run it at redline in top gear up a hill for an
hour, the headlights will use an extra ~0.12L either way...

Fortunately, we don't actually have to concern ourselves there - if
headlight globes were rated in lumens or candlepower we would, but
they're actually rated in power consumed - a 60W globe has a 100%
efficiency when measured in terms of how much power it consumes. (you're
_really_ clutching at straws of you're trying to claim the voltage loss
along the wires and connectors to the headlights is going to make any
difference when I've already got +-40% error factors on there... But if
you want to add it in, how about assuming a 1 volt loss which would
change the power consumed from 60W to 55W for a total change of ~ 9% -
call my errors +-50% if you want.)

Yep, I think my numbers on the Honda generators show that - they show
it's something like 30% more efficient at full power than at 25% power.

You were going to show us some calculations of your own Hammo, how'd you
get on?

big

 

You poor deluded fool Clemmo! Heatsinks are made of aluminium, and
every schoolchild knows that aluminum melts at 660°C so the heatsink
cannot possibly be glowing cherry red!

Nev, go and look under your car for a pool of molten aluminium ...

 

Nice one, centurion.

-----sharks

 

I'd buy one (but I'd be checking the regulator first!)

-----sharks

 

Errm, I was agreeing with you Hammo (albeit reluctantly on principle).
See above.Similarly G-S's post which basically says "if your data
doesn't fit my theory it's wrong" is bad science methodology. However
extensive and exhaustive discussions of correct testing methods and
hypothesis formulation is going to be too painful(1), hence why I
started typing it and ditched it yesterday (or was it the day
before?).

It's also very squarely in the diminishing returns bucket, while it's
true if you were starting from first principles G-S's statement is
wrong, the reality is the physics in question are fairly well
understood, and if carefully tested in the appropriate controlled
environment I'm quite sure it would be able to be shown that Nev's car
uses more fuel with the lights on than the lights if all other
variables are held constant.

JL
(1) for me, you may enjoy it, in which case go for your life.

 

<Insert disingenous helpful look> "Boss Hoss" 5.7L V8 ? I bet it still
uses more petrol with the lights on too !

JL

 

I assume you'll find it in a small pool underneath the bike !

JL

 

Hammo in a Volvo! Can get more dense than that?

Theo

 

An ivory tower, by definition, towers over everything.

Theo

 

Come on Nev, it's a Holden.

Theo

 

Do any of those systems generate power without using any fuel?

Theo

 

Nah, a single-bar room heater in only 1 Kw. I gues you can check if that
theory is correct by checking to see if there is any paint left on the
underside of the bonnet.

Theo

 

Nah

 

No. Thanks for trying to bluff that one. Remember the discussion re:
torque......

GS mentioned speed as a way to suggest that the figures were in agreeance.
Perhaps you missed that? Perhaps you missed the 12 v vs 24 v comment as
well?

Yeah, I mean, lets *not* consider efficiency..... Obfuscation ahoy!!

As I said, when I get home. I'm still 400 odd kays and coupla days from
that.

BTW, I looked at your numbers again, as well as your assumptions, can you
tell me why you are getting the same consumption figure regardless of speed,
regardless of engine rpm?

Hammo

 

....and what temp does it combust at?

Hammo (No wonder they ain't insulated by Kevlar).