P plate training ...not

So you've conceded that it DOES waste fuel but now you're trying to
negotiate how much are you Hammo?
Pick a (real) number; any number... I'll support you the whole way.

 

Nah, I used "probably". I also used the lights and consumed no petrol. The
probable load of _all_ electrics might add a thimble to the L/100 km
consumption. Feel free to quantify. I'd happily concede that evaporation
is more of a concern when it comes to "waste".

Hammo

 

No, you read my original post, have you forgotten it already? I stated
there where the energy to power the lights was coming from. I have
since been advised that except for my bicycle, which has no alternator,
my original post was correct for every vehicle in my garage which does
have an alternator... and for the record, I followed your instructions
as per above, and the tacho did not move, nor did the fuel rate change.
Perhaps I need to revise some of those physics books of yours.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I seem to have started something (found out about newfangled charging
systems in the process)
Lucky my bike has a proper charging system and a proper engine with
proper big ends (slipper) Proper sump (no split crankcase)

 

Simple physics really! When switched on, the headlamp assembly pushes the
light beams forward (this is particularly noticable in the absence of
daylight), this is called an action. So using Newtons third law which states
that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, the same
force applied by the headlamp to push the light beams is then also applied
to the vehicle, pushing it back! Extra petrol is used to overcome the force
applied by the headlamps.

 

So, if I mount it backwards, I use less fuel!

Hammo

 

Hammo wrote:

Ah, now I understand the question better.

If I thought assisting might be lethal to me, I wouldn't do it.

A situation can be potentially lethal to some folk but not others.

An unconscious person (frinstance) sitting in a crashed car with petrol
dripping onto them is a lot more at risk than a fit, conscious,
reasonably well protected person who may remove them from the car.

As regards any legal requirement to assist, I don't care.

I believe that I have the brains to assess a situation and act accordingly.


regards,
CrazyCam

 

Boobs?

 

You'd have a light drive.
---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]


'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:10:29 +1000

tell that to Victor Mature!

Zebee
- showing her age....

 

I think you've been reading too many physics books and you've lost sight
of reality. Are you saying that if I measure something once per second
and then multiply that by 3600 my result is not an accurate measure of
an hourly rate? Do you think the computer controlling the fuel rate
just guesses?
The flow rate actually updates much more often than once per second. At
a guess I'd say it's updating about 3 times per second, and at idle or
on the flat while driving it remains steady, which I think would
indicate that it is not just making a prediction but accurately
reflecting the fuel flow rate.

As for it's ability to reliably indicate what's going on.. if the engine
management computer controlling the fuel injection system doesn't know
what's going on you better start writing some new physics books to
explain how exactly it all works. Maybe it uses the same magic to
control fuel flow that it uses to power the headlights.

If it's measuring 2.68l/hr once per second that would be umm...
0.0007444L/sec.. I reckon it updates about maybe 3 times per second
meaning it's measuring 0.00024815L/sec. I would have to check your
physics books to see if that is near enough to a poofteenth or not, I
reckon it is probably pretty damn close.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:35:47 +1100

Only the adult ones. Nothing worse than an immature lawnmower.

Zebee

 

And you very neatly ignored the bit where I also found that it did not
affect the fuel flow and therefore did not use any more fuel... no
wait.. you poo-poo'd that because it didn't suit your argument. BZZT.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

I dunno Geoff.. I'd have thought that at least one of them would have to
start in order to be a good example

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

For this very reason I've boosted the power of my taillights. They now
actually exceed the light beam power of the headlights, which is
unfortunate for anyone following me, but quite a boon for my fuel economy.

In fact, occasionally when the tank is running low, I'll rest my foot
lightly on the brake pedal just to get that little extra boost the brake
lights offer, to get me to the next fuel stop.

 

According to you it will be....

Hammo

 

Actually, you can't even get nothing for nothing these days!

-----sharks (bloody thermodynamics)

 

They can point it out as much as they like, they're still wrongitty
wrongitty wrong.

-----sharks

 

Sure. That's not how a switch-mode regulator works, at all.

-----sharks

 

Christ I had a 1979 Jaguar that had an auto fuel cutoff(1)

JL
(1) yes it worked(2)
(2) no it wasn't an unintended consequence of lucas being unable to
reliably supply power to the fuel pump