Posted by News on May 12, 2012, 1:27 pm
On 5/12/2012 9:25 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
Knock yourself out.
Posted by Elmo P. Shagnasty on May 12, 2012, 3:43 pm
And yet, somehow you've managed never to explain how energy content of
the fuel is involved directly in the calculation of "I put this many
gallons in the tank and my odometer shows I drove this many miles".
Of course, you can't--and now you're so far underwater in your
"argument," you have nowhere to go.
Posted by News on May 12, 2012, 4:18 pm
On 5/12/2012 11:43 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
Your "argument" had NOTHING to do with my initial comment.
My comment was that Toyota could have easily compensated for what is
apparently inherent and significant inaccuracy in its MPG measurement by
compensating for fuel chemistry/energy content.
But please do continue to knock yourself silly with your line of OT ranting.
Posted by Elmo P. Shagnasty on May 12, 2012, 5:37 pm
Absolutely it did.
The Toyota computer that you said "must be calibrated for some specific
energy content of gasoline" is doing nothing *but* calculating specific
volumes of gasoline used against miles driven.
And again, fuel chemistry/energy content has nothing to do with it.
I can drink bottled water and calculate how many bottles it takes me
before I have to go to the bathroom; whether I'm sitting watching a
movie munching salted popcorn or running a marathon, has nothing to do
with the actual calculation.
However, the final number will *reflect* what I'm doing. But that's
way, way different from calculating the number.
If I'm using a low energy gasoline, the number on the dash will reflect
that the exact same way that my personal calculation at the pump will.
"I drove X miles and used Y amount of this fuel, therefore I got Z miles
per gallon". Z will vary as I use fuels with differing energy contents,
but the calculation is the same.
Or do you dispute that?
If the dash computer differs from your personal at-the-pump calculation,
which is what started all of this, many things can cause that--but that
has nothing to do with the energy content of the fuel.
Ummmmm....yeah. Sure. Simple math apparently knocks you for a loop.
Posted by News on May 12, 2012, 7:27 pm
On 5/12/2012 1:37 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
Stay clueless. It suits you.