P plate training ...not

Hang on a tick; it's a bloody Volvo. The headlights are ALWAYS on!!

 

I'm voting for "Hammoflage" (meaning "true but irrelevant details introduced
into a debate in an attempt to divert the debate away from the point you're
losing") to be included in the aus.moto lexicon.
I reckon I'm on a winner too!

 

I appreciate the effort you've put in so far Sharks.

 

I've "landed". Will get round to it in the next while....

Hammo

 

? As I pointed out before, I do enough advocating at work, I don't need to
here. I keep the playing of devil's advocate for when the conversation can
flow.

Hammo

 

Some here may argue that you're keeping it for when you know what you're talking about.

 

Oooh .. savage!

 

Feel free to engage, though I have never really had anything to talk to you
about.

Hammo

 

OK, can you tell me how the mech energy goes to electrical energy. That is
the first flaw in the calc. Feel free to disagree, just explain how
mechanical energy, electrical energy or nuclear energy can convert into
something else by magic.

It goes via the alternator, which from my rudimentary measurements goes from
a ratio of 3:1 (crank to alt). This is related to the mech advantage of the
system. Now, consider the torque. Tell me why the load would be constant?
If the RPM of the alternator increases, is the load reduced? Is it
increased, or constant? 9000 rpm of the alternator is going to have the
same resistance cf 3000 rpm?

Ah, OK.

So what temp is it "designed" to run at? Pretty high?

It is a shame that the CRO experiments have been delayed? Are things going
well on that front?

I've had a very confronting day, though I am serious. This isn't a troll.

Hammo

 

Yet you keep looking and watching and POSTING!

Hammo

 

I'm talking about an engine as good as it comes from the factory, then
freshly run in, for example.

I'm thinking that the fuel consumption rate based on say, the variation
in the amount of throttle applied by a mere human at the controls might
prove to be greater than any variability in consumption caused by lights
on or off. On or in *some* vehicles.

My lap round Oz in '88 showed that fuel consumption varied widely and
couldn't be predicted with any certainty outside a certain range. A
rider like Rossi lapping consistently on a racetrack would show a lot
less variation in fuel consumption.

In my circumstances, could I really claim that any fuel was being wasted
by riding with a light on?

Do I waste fuel nowadays on the Pig when I flash my passing light
momentarily at cars that may potentially turn in front of me?

I'm not taking sides in this brouhaha, can't even say for sure if I'm
barking up the right tree but I'm just putting in my two bob's worth...

 

Maybe I'm falling for the obvious here but I'd say the answer is "via the
fan belt".
(Although I'm not real sure if that applies to nuclear energy or not)

Dunno. Does it matter? Does it affect whether or not alternators cause
engine load?
(Matter to non-obfuscators I mean.)

Ha ha [wipes eyes]!
Another gem Hammo!

 

P'raps it's in the vain hope that someone will actually have the spine to
admit they were wrong about that unnecessary-headlights-don't-waste-fuel
stuff.....
Eh Hammo?
Eh Nev?
Eh Andrew?

 

That was the point I have been making (as well as Nev and a few others). If
the amount is negligible, and/or not repeatable it is then immeasurable
(based on the variables). Why the need for the accusations of all sorts of
lifestyle choices, I don't quite follow.

I have typed up 4 ish pages of the chemistry thus far and part of the
explanation was going to be on RON, which throws many more cats amongst the
clichés. At least with that motor it is a well defined in its parameters
and has substantial references to its application. I prefer discussions at
the pub or BBQ, they flow better.

Hammo

 

Well yes; obviously.
If you weren't gaining any advantage from the lights then the fuel used to
generate them was wasted, no matter how infinitessimal it may have been.

That depends on whether you are gaining anything from the flashing.
If not then "yes" too (obviously).

Only you have the power to look deep within yourself to see if that fuel was
truly wasted Doug.

 

Is this akin to "man up"? Where apparently I/others care about the taunts
and need to be swayed from our opinion?

I note that you now have "unnecessary" headlights. That's the way....

Hammo (awaiting Sharkey's comments on my "back of envelope calcs).

 

It's either being consumed or it isn't Hammo (as you well know).
You're either right or you're being pissweak. It's quite simple.

OF COURSE you did Hammo!
Hamsturbation is your weapon-of choice so naturally it's what you'd depend
apon when you need to muddy the debate some more.
RON now eh? [chortle]

 

Odd that you'd find this objectionable now Hammo.
I've been using "unnecessary' for the last 5 days or so to clearly define
the parameters of the debate (after one of your Hammoflage-attempts
pretending that we were actually talking about using headlights for a useful
purpose during daylight hours).
Of course; you knew that already though didn't you?

 

No. I didn't read much of anything you posted that had Hammoflage or
obfuscation in it. It was a tad Ground Hog for me.

Hammo

 

negative echolalia!

Hammo