Lies about coach driver caused by ubdertaking cyclist

On 18/10/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 13:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:

On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

... Misc snippage for brevity. If memory is poor and it is too
difficult to refer back to older posts, tough ...


I have long suspected that English is not your first language. Sentences
written is some sort of pidgin seem to confirm it.

Shrug. Would you like some examples of your typos?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you may
not remember).

Translation. If something was extremely common but not universal it
didn't exist.

Let me correct that for you: A journey rarely started, continued and
finished on roads solely lit by sodium lamps.

A vehicle manufacturer gives a driver a switch to play with. (Or rather,
once upon a time, drivers had to operate a lighting switch. I can see
how easy it is to get out of the habit.) Automation of side/main
switching would be easy to phase in.

Even in a city, the vehicle's lighting has to be adequate in varied
lighting conditions. Very few roads were ever floodlit, whether by the
old inefficient sodium lamps or anything else. Sensible drivers prefer
to be self-reliant.

Non-technical people often use the word "[in]efficient" incorrectly so
it is difficult to know what you mean.

Floodlighting is not required.

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

You provide no clues that you do. (*)

I do indeed provide no clues that I confuse the two functions of lighting.

Very well...
But you are still confused.

I don't mind what it is. I don't find headlights to be a problem
(provided they're dipped, of course). That has to be shared with most
people, because it's only cyclists who complain about vehicle lights,
which is sort of ironic, really.

You have no idea that it is "only".

The law *allows* use of sidelights under steetlamps...

...and makes their use compulsory in conditions of low or no light (even
during what is nominally daytime).

....and only requires headlights in a subset of that.

Fairy lights?

What are you on about?

Go outside for a while to shout at some cyclists. While you are there
look at recent cars.

Wow, look at those goal posts move.


(*) Including this
A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

What's wrong with that (to a normal person, I mean - not a cyclist)?

The discussion is about the use of sidelights.

On 18/10/2019 17:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 11:31, Bod wrote:

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is, nothing
is 100% efficient.

Even if power could be converted with 100% efficiency, it still would
not be free, merely cheaper.

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

...


It does not militate against the case for the alternator or the case
against the generator. This is yet another improvement in vehicle
construction over the last few decades.

...

There comes a point - very soon - where power is wasted (see your own
point above re. nothing being 100% efficient). Reducing the wastage
(which an alternator does by comparison with a generator) has the same
effect as obtaining (some) power for free.

On top of the above collection of words not producing an English
sentence, it's rather stupid to bring dynamos into the argument.

The move from DC to AC produced power output gains for no extra power input.

Did you read the links I provided?

Here is some simple maths.

....

A pair of headlights consume 100W. Fuel contains about 34MJ/l, which the
engine burns with about 35% efficiency and the alternator converts with
about 75% efficiency.
A pair of headlights consuming 100W therefore require a litre in about
25 hours. Which could be 250 - 750 miles depending on the car's typical
duty.

So what?

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine is and
has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 11:31, Bod wrote:

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is,
nothing is 100% efficient.

Even if power could be converted with 100% efficiency, it still
would not be free, merely cheaper.

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now have
one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15 free miles.

Which means you could drive with binding brakes and claim you're not
wasting fuel.

...

The move from DC to AC produced power output gains for no extra
power input.
Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, but they told me nothing and it is irrelevant to compare old with new.

Here is some simple maths.

....

A pair of headlights consume 100W. Fuel contains about 34MJ/l,
which the engine burns with about 35% efficiency and the alternator
converts with about 75% efficiency. A pair of headlights consuming
100W therefore require a litre in about 25 hours. Which could be
250 - 750 miles depending on the car's typical duty.

So what?

I made a prediction that you wouldn't stop digging.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine is
and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

On 18/10/2019 17:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 14:20, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 13:11, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 08:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/10/2019 18:25, Simon Jester/Fool wrote:

Requiring 4+ wheeled motor vehicles to use side lights only on
lit 30mph roads would also help safety.

... Misc snippage for brevity. If memory is poor and it is too
difficult to refer back to older posts, tough ...


I have long suspected that English is not your first language.
Sentences written is some sort of pidgin seem to confirm it.

Shrug. Would you like some examples of your typos?

Two every ten words (and sounding like a poor attempt at translation)?

I do remember sodium lights. They weren't used everywhere (as you
may not remember).

Translation. If something was extremely common but not universal it
didn't exist.

Let me correct that for you: A journey rarely started, continued and
finished on roads solely lit by sodium lamps.

A vehicle manufacturer gives a driver a switch to play with. (Or rather,
once upon a time, drivers had to operate a lighting switch. I can see
how easy it is to get out of the habit.) Automation of side/main
switching would be easy to phase in.

Even in a city, the vehicle's lighting has to be adequate in varied
lighting conditions. Very few roads were ever floodlit, whether by the
old inefficient sodium lamps or anything else. Sensible drivers prefer
to be self-reliant.

Non-technical people often use the word "[in]efficient" incorrectly so
it is difficult to know what you mean.

I am aware that you find many things difficult in English.

Floodlighting is not required.

And no-one said it was (though it would be the only night-time lighting
conditions where headlamps would not make things better).

You're confusing the two functions of lighting.

Not at all.

You provide no clues that you do. (*)

I do indeed provide no clues that I confuse the two functions of
lighting.

Very well...
But you are still confused.

I don't mind what it is. I don't find headlights to be a problem
(provided they're dipped, of course). That has to be shared with most
people, because it's only cyclists who complain about vehicle lights,
which is sort of ironic, really.

You have no idea that it is "only".

No-one else here complains about headlights. Only those who take up the
cudgels on behalf of cyclists.

The law *allows* use of sidelights under steetlamps...

...and makes their use compulsory in conditions of low or no light
(even during what is nominally daytime).

That was headlights.

...and only requires headlights in a subset of that.

Fairy lights?

What are you on about?

Go outside for a while to shout at some cyclists. While you are there
look at recent cars.

What are you on about?

Wow, look at those goal posts move.


(*) Including this
A lot of light = best
Less light = not as good
No light (cyclist default) = bad.

What's wrong with that (to a normal person, I mean - not a cyclist)?

The discussion is about the use of sidelights.

That's the weirdest thing you've said for a while (and that's saying
something).

It is most definitely about the use of headlights.

On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 11:31, Bod wrote:

It doesn't matter how efficient a power gathering system is,
nothing is 100% efficient.

Even if power could be converted with 100% efficiency, it still
would not be free, merely cheaper.

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now have
one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15 free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

Which means you could drive with binding brakes and claim you're not
wasting fuel.

But you would be wasting fuel. See whether you can understand why that is.

...

The move from DC to AC produced power output gains for no extra
power input.
Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, but they told me nothing and it is irrelevant to compare old with new.

Is it?

Here is some simple maths.

....

A pair of headlights consume 100W. Fuel contains about 34MJ/l,
which the engine burns with about 35% efficiency and the alternator
converts with about 75% efficiency. A pair of headlights consuming
100W therefore require a litre in about 25 hours. Which could be
250 - 750 miles depending on the car's typical duty.

So what?

I made a prediction that you wouldn't stop digging.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine is
and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now
have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15
free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

Yes, but they [your links] told me nothing and it is irrelevant to
compare old with new.

Is it?

Of course it's irrelevant. Stupid to try to make it so.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe how
headlamps get "free" electricity.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine
is and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

How convenient! Nugent can now try to divert away from trying to
describe perpetual motion.

On 19/10/2019 00:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:35, TMS320 wrote:

Non-technical people often use the word "[in]efficient" incorrectly
so it is difficult to know what you mean.

I am aware that you find many things difficult in English.

English has nothing to do with the non-technical use of technical words.

Floodlighting is not required.

And no-one said it was

You mentioned it. Therefore you must feel it is important.

You have no idea that it is "only".

No-one else here complains about headlights. Only those who take up
the cudgels on behalf of cyclists.
The world is bigger than "here".

On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you now
have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you get 15
free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

I haven't given your made-up scenario more than a second's thought.

Yes, but they [your links] told me nothing and it is irrelevant to
compare old with new.

Is it?

Of course it's irrelevant. Stupid to try to make it so.

You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe how
headlamps get "free" electricity.

Reduced wastage (and a lot of electricity generated by the engine
is and has always been wasted) is effectively a cost-free gain.

Some motorikes use a shunt regulator. Cars don't.

Motorikes...

Greek?

How convenient! Nugent can now try to divert away from trying to
describe perpetual motion.

Wastage of the mechanical output of the engine has been reduced by the
move from the old generator to the more efficient alternator. It means
that in addition to, and quite separate from, all the other improvements
in efficiency and utility provided by motor vehicles today as compared
with days gone by*, more electrical power is provided by the use of even
less fuel than was the case previously.

That clearly irks you, but it is still *true* whether you like it or not.

[*When I passed my [first] driving test, not far off fifty years ago,
you were lucky to get 28 - 30 mpg out of a medium sized car. Today, my
medium sized car gets between 64 and 68 mpg without my having to strive
for it. A larger car I have had available to me over the past few years
does 52mpg easily. And yet some silly people complain that headlights
"use more fuel", despite the fact that vehicles are using less fuel then
ever before and are far more electrically efficient than they used to
be. Some people just want something to whinge about, clearly.]

On 19/10/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:37, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 17:35, TMS320 wrote:

Non-technical people often use the word "[in]efficient" incorrectly
so it is difficult to know what you mean.

I am aware that you find many things difficult in English.

English has nothing to do with the non-technical use of technical words.

Floodlighting is not required.

And no-one said it was

You mentioned it.

I did not say it was a requirement. You made that up. I used it as an
example of the sort of bright illumination street lighting would have to
achieve or approach before it would be safe to use no headlights, which
is what you are arguing for.

Therefore you must feel it is important.

Must I?

Let's see...

The Voice.

Britain's Got Talent.

Gardener's Question Time.

TMS320.

Do I think that any of those are important?

[I'll give you a hint: the answer is "no".]

You have no idea that it is "only".

No-one else here complains about headlights. Only those who take up
the cudgels on behalf of cyclists.

The world is bigger than "here".

Indeed, though the world of cycling is the only one taken seriously by
cyclists here. They give little or no thought to the transport
requirements of normal people and their families.

On 19/10/2019 14:28, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2019 11:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/10/2019 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 18/10/2019 22:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/10/2019 18:15, JNugent wrote:

Gains from increased efficiency are effectively free.

Well... If you had a car 50 years ago that did 30mpg and you
now have one that does 45mpg, then looking at it your way you
get 15 free miles.

That is indeed one way to look at it.

It is the way *you* are looking at it.

I haven't given your made-up scenario more than a second's thought.

That's obvious. It goes with all the other thinking you habitually avoid.


You aren't factoring in the wastage.

Numbers...?

See the links I provided.

Nothing to see.

Alternatively, point out any paragraphs that you think describe
how headlamps get "free" electricity.

No...? Thought not.


Wastage of the mechanical output of the engine has been reduced
...
That clearly irks you, but it is still *true* whether you like it or
not.

It doesn't irk me in the slightest that technology has moved on.

Your line of "argument" is and always completely irrelevant to headlamps
consuming a litre of fuel in about 25 hours (with current technology).


[*When I passed my [first] driving test, not far off fifty years ago,
...

Good for you.


Some people just want something to whinge about, clearly.]

That's true. Why do you post here?