P plate training ...not

I'd given up on the torque discussion since you were clearly not going
to admit that you don't understand how a typical automotive alternator
_can_ present different input torque loads at the same rpm thanks to the
existence of it's rotor windings and the variable current the regulator
can run through them. It's easy enough to understand - more current =
stronger magnet -> stronger magnet = more force -> force going round in
circle = torque. I'm astounded you're continuing to play stupid enough
to not understand that.

But it doesn't matter - I'm arguing this one purely on energy in vs
energy out using some publicly available estimates of efficiency and
some assumptions about the errors in them.

You're a chemist right? You know about energy and energy conversion and
stuff? You know, _real_ energy, measured in joules? That "can't destroy
it can only convert it from one form to another" kind of energy?
Probably way better than I do.

Dispute my numbers or point out the errors in my methodology.

Or man up like Sharkey did and admit you're wrong. Or don't. Whatever.

So you're suggesting that 1000 12V watts are somehow different from 1000
24V watts are you? Or that 1000W at 800rpm is a different amount of
power to 1000W at 5000rpm? That's some good stuff you've been smoking
since you left uni if that's what you believe these days...

Hammo? Put down the crack pipe and open the window, dude!

Or, on the slight possibility that you think that statement made any
sense at all...

First define your terms.

Explain to me exactly how you intend to measure the efficiency with
which a 60W light globe consumes 60W?

Or are you somehow suggesting that my wikipedia-ed up efficiency
estimates for the engine and alternator efficiencies and my estimates of
the errors likely to be associated with them are somehow "obfuscating"
the issue?

Or are you on crack?

You'll excuse me for being sceptical that you'll actually post any
calculations that show us how wrong you are... (with your current
posting style, I'm pretty sure you won't actually be capable of doing
any calculations...)

Yep, 'cause the energy consumed by the headlights is independant of the
engine rpm and road speed - at least to a first (+-40%) approximation.
See above. Go get your 1st year physics textbooks back from the hockshop
and read the first couple of chapters again...

big

 

I'm gonna guess it's a fuggin' high temp. I know they use aluminium in solid fuel booster rockets to enhance the power output.

 

Torque is cheap, Hambone! Which particular point do you think is
relevant?

Doesn't make any difference.

The efficiency of the lightbulb at producing light is irrelevant to the
matter at hand.

------sharks

 

And I neglected to consider the range of alloys available!
Could be anywhere from 620ish to 700ish!

Fortunately, there's a beer fridge in this here corner ...

-----sharks

 

With an XLV, that's typically the bigend bearings and the 2/4 selector
fork.

-----sharks

 

So long as you're having a good time then I'm happy Hammo.

 

Yeah; my mistake!
It occurred to me at 6pm today as I was riding home that you're not using
the CRO to actually MEASURE fuel-flow; just to see a change.
I'm so used to ignoring all the Hamsturbation that I'm missing the rare
sensisible bits!

 

He heh; I'm sure the water-content in the air is higher too which would also
increase both of the above.
--
Clem
(and the air-con isn't on and the windows are up and the tyres are cooler
and the brake-parts have contracted further away from eachother and the
thermatic fan isn't running and you're calmer and less aggressive in your
lane-changing and accelerating and...and... your imagination is more
active!)

 

Actually, it is. So 1 kW = 1000 W
As BigIain reckons no further reductions/considerations of inefficiencies
need to be considered and there is already "fluctuation" in the measurement.
GS said what 50% based on his numbers. BigI said there was 35% difference
at peak efficiency.
A car with 120 W lights would use 120/1000 * 10 * 60 = mL / Hr

But the mean value being 7.5 mL min-1.

So it gets even smaller....and it is at idle with a an expected increase in
efficiency as stated by Big. So the 50 % is infact bigger than 50
percent!!(not yet taking into the 35 % error due to the efficiency when
running at peak, i.e. When most cars that actually travel somewhere do!).

Now the above is based on a "coach" and would not be hoping to get anywhere
near the fuel consumption rate of something like Nev's machine (or my little
run about).

What percentage of total fuel is being "claimed" here? We are talking about
thimbles gentlemens.

Hammo

 

As seen on rally...

Hammo ( I was wondering what I'd say if you called me hot).

 

Damn bastard English language!
--
Clem
(After my brothers got remarried Michelle asked "would you ever get married
again?"
She wasn't pleased when I blurted "NO WAY; you've put me off women for
life!")

 

Ok, I'd be interested to see what power, as in electrical requirements the
ignition and fuel management systems use as well as a comparo with the size,
type and construction of the battery system.

We haven't considered double layers and its effect on the flow of
electricity. This is more of a common problem in batteries that have a gel
type compound, but seeing as I don't know if they are used on a 24 V system,
we may as well check that too.

Measuring the voltage and current output of the bus at "idle" and then
compare these two when lights are on, or at least the drop in same may be
better way to determine the "power" required.

I am also betting that it will be considerable greater than Big's claim that
it will the amount that it is rated as.

Hammo (awaits Clem........)

 

[applause]

 

[chortle]
[followed by long explanation that just left the missus; who had demanded an
explanation, just looking at me pityingly]

 

And in high-explosives too (tritium?)

 

[Visions of Corks going "ooh ooh it's burning, it's burning!"]
[Grins]
[Grabs another beer and closes eyes to fully enjoy the visions]

 

Ok, if you told me you didn't understand I could have explained it
differently for you. It would be easier over a beer or six, as I don't
spend as long as you behind a keyboard typing things that are better
explained face to face.

Yes, and as I have attempted to point out that isn't correct.

I have been,read the other posts. Wiki is a reference, if you want to use
it base arguments on, then so will I!

Feel free to point out where I am wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Man up? What? I am at a loss as to what that is supposed to mean, and what
Sharkey actually posted that was wrong? If you need to be back slapped and
have your ego massaged than why are you here? Don't expect me to "man up"
cos you don't agree with me and vice versa.

The infantile slight aside, have you thought about what you posted?

I don't dispute that the power is that same (all things considered) but
which one is doing more or less work?

The efficiency of the system of which the globe is part of. You know,
energy lost as heat?

It is trendy thing to do, eh? Much like "Man up"ing.

OK. Consider this. How many rotations at 5000 rpm and how many at 800 rpm?
Which one will produce the "power" you need in the least amount of time, OR
with the minimal load required?

Hammo (even I can get Wiki to agree with me).

 

Here from Wiki seeing as Wanky has become the level of "evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

I know I am tangential most of the time, but I thought I wouldn't have "join
the dots" Apologies to IK.

NOT the lightbulb, the system!!!!

PS will we see you this weekend?

 

Is this where I can now attack you and ask "how many other mistakes you have
conveniently made"?

Why the frig do you think I was talking about stoichiometry as a way to
measure fuel?

Hammo

 

So you finally understand that fuel is being consumed by the lights but
you're try to quibble about the amount, Hammo?[1]
Jeeze; that took a while!