Posted by Bruce Richmond on May 21, 2012, 4:16 pm
wrote:
> > > And the energy content of the fuel is not the answer. It doesn't even
> > > enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
> > > traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
> > > fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
> > > and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
> > > the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
> > > be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
> > > will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
> > > being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
> > > energy content, just calibration.
> > Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
> measurements.
Where do you see any mention of W-O-R-K in MILES PER GALLON?
All that is in there is distance and volume. The energy content of
the fuel will affect the number of miles traveled, but it has no
effect on the measurement of the volume. If the energy content allows
the car to go 50 miles per gallon then it will use 100/50=2.0 gallons
to go 100 miles. If the energy content is less and the car gets 40
miles per gallon it will take 100/40=2.5 miles per gallon. The energy
content affected the amount of work that could be done using a gallon
of fuel, but it did not change the volume of a gallon of fuel. And
the volume of the fuel is what is included in the mpg calculation.
The energy content doesn't even figure into it. If you think it does
it is up to you to explain how.
Posted by News on May 21, 2012, 4:38 pm
On 5/21/2012 12:16 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> wrote:
>>>> And the energy content of the fuel is not the answer. It doesn't even
>>>> enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
>>>> traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
>>>> fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
>>>> and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
>>>> the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
>>>> be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
>>>> will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
>>>> being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
>>>> energy content, just calibration.
>>
>>> Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
>>
>> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
>> measurements.
> Where do you see any mention of W-O-R-K in MILES PER GALLON?
> All that is in there is distance and volume. The energy content of
> the fuel will affect the number of miles traveled, but it has no
> effect on the measurement of the volume. If the energy content allows
> the car to go 50 miles per gallon then it will use 100/50=2.0 gallons
> to go 100 miles. If the energy content is less and the car gets 40
> miles per gallon it will take 100/40=2.5 miles per gallon. The energy
> content affected the amount of work that could be done using a gallon
> of fuel, but it did not change the volume of a gallon of fuel. And
> the volume of the fuel is what is included in the mpg calculation.
> The energy content doesn't even figure into it. If you think it does
> it is up to you to explain how.
Try a gallon of zero energy content gasoline and estimate the MPG.
Posted by Bruce Richmond on May 21, 2012, 10:00 pm
> On 5/21/2012 12:16 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> > wrote:
> >>>> And the energy content of the fuel is not the answer. It doesn't even
> >>>> enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
> >>>> traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
> >>>> fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
> >>>> and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
> >>>> the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
> >>>> be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
> >>>> will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
> >>>> being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
> >>>> energy content, just calibration.
> >>> Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
> >> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
> >> measurements.
> > Where do you see any mention of W-O-R-K in MILES PER GALLON?
> > All that is in there is distance and volume. The energy content of
> > the fuel will affect the number of miles traveled, but it has no
> > effect on the measurement of the volume. If the energy content allows
> > the car to go 50 miles per gallon then it will use 100/50=2.0 gallons
> > to go 100 miles. If the energy content is less and the car gets 40
> > miles per gallon it will take 100/40=2.5 miles per gallon. The energy
> > content affected the amount of work that could be done using a gallon
> > of fuel, but it did not change the volume of a gallon of fuel. And
> > the volume of the fuel is what is included in the mpg calculation.
> > The energy content doesn't even figure into it. If you think it does
> > it is up to you to explain how.
> Try a gallon of zero energy content gasoline and estimate the MPG.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I see you have no reasonable explaination.
Posted by News on May 22, 2012, 10:55 am
On 5/21/2012 6:00 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>> On 5/21/2012 12:16 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> And the energy content of the fuel is not the answer. It doesn't even
>>>>>> enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
>>>>>> traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
>>>>>> fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
>>>>>> and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
>>>>>> the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
>>>>>> be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
>>>>>> will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
>>>>>> being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
>>>>>> energy content, just calibration.
>>
>>>>> Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
>>
>>>> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
>>>> measurements.
>>
>>> Where do you see any mention of W-O-R-K in MILES PER GALLON?
>>
>>> All that is in there is distance and volume. The energy content of
>>> the fuel will affect the number of miles traveled, but it has no
>>> effect on the measurement of the volume. If the energy content allows
>>> the car to go 50 miles per gallon then it will use 100/50=2.0 gallons
>>> to go 100 miles. If the energy content is less and the car gets 40
>>> miles per gallon it will take 100/40=2.5 miles per gallon. The energy
>>> content affected the amount of work that could be done using a gallon
>>> of fuel, but it did not change the volume of a gallon of fuel. And
>>> the volume of the fuel is what is included in the mpg calculation.
>>> The energy content doesn't even figure into it. If you think it does
>>> it is up to you to explain how.
>>
>> Try a gallon of zero energy content gasoline and estimate the MPG.- Hide
quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> I see you have no reasonable explaination.
I see you don't understand reference to a limiting case. Or the issue.
Posted by Bruce Richmond on May 22, 2012, 3:22 pm
> On 5/21/2012 6:00 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> >> On 5/21/2012 12:16 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> And the energy content of the fuel is not the answer. It doesn't even
> >>>>>> enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
> >>>>>> traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
> >>>>>> fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
> >>>>>> and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
> >>>>>> the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
> >>>>>> be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
> >>>>>> will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
> >>>>>> being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
> >>>>>> energy content, just calibration.
> >>>>> Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
> >>>> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
> >>>> measurements.
> >>> Where do you see any mention of W-O-R-K in MILES PER GALLON?
> >>> All that is in there is distance and volume. The energy content of
> >>> the fuel will affect the number of miles traveled, but it has no
> >>> effect on the measurement of the volume. If the energy content allows
> >>> the car to go 50 miles per gallon then it will use 100/50=2.0 gallons
> >>> to go 100 miles. If the energy content is less and the car gets 40
> >>> miles per gallon it will take 100/40=2.5 miles per gallon. The energy
> >>> content affected the amount of work that could be done using a gallon
> >>> of fuel, but it did not change the volume of a gallon of fuel. And
> >>> the volume of the fuel is what is included in the mpg calculation.
> >>> The energy content doesn't even figure into it. If you think it does
> >>> it is up to you to explain how.
> >> Try a gallon of zero energy content gasoline and estimate the MPG.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > I see you have no reasonable explaination.
> I see you don't understand reference to a limiting case. Or the issue.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You seem to think if you can't dazzle us with brilliance you can
baffle us with bullshit. Try telling us again, a gallon is a
measurement of what?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gallon?s=t
noun
a common unit of capacity in English-speaking countries, equal to four
quarts, the U.S. standard gallon being equal to 231 cubic inches
(3.7853 liters), and the British imperial gallon to 277.42 cubic
inches (4.546 liters). Abbreviation: gal.
Do you see any mention of energy content in there?
XML site map
> > > enter into the calculation. The calculation only includes distance
> > > traveled in miles and volume of fuel in gallons. The volume of the
> > > fuel in gallons is calculated based on the flow rate of the injectors
> > > and the length of the pulses they are kept open for, both recorded in
> > > the computer data. If the injector is not the size it is supposed to
> > > be the volume passing through it is calculated incorrectly and you
> > > will come up with a consistently high or low mpg because the volume
> > > being entered for each pulse is incorrect. It has nothing to do with
> > > energy content, just calibration.
> > Try again: E-N-E-R-G-Y C-O-N-T-E-N-T defines W-O-R-K
> neither of which has anything directly to do with V-O-L-U-M-E
> measurements.