More speed estimation trolling

On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
>>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
>>>>> on a regular basis.
>>
>>>> Laughable.
>>
>>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
>>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
>>> "pitiful".
>>
>>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
>>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
>>>> estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
>>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
>>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
>>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>>
>>> Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>>
>>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
>>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
>>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>>
>> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
>> certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
>> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
>> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
>> first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
>> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
>> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
>> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
>
> Lol. "Regularly"...?
>
>>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
>>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
>>> on a regular basis".
>>
>> Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
>> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
>> damped. Yes, even the factory ones.
>
> How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
>
>>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
>>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
>>> "operating" temp.
>>
>> Unsupported assertion. As usual.
>
> Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
> bull****.
>
> You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
> an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
> your engine to reach operating temp.


If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) But even without the
latter, that's an awful long time.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Jul 13, 9:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> *gpsman > wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 10:23*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > > > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > > > on a regular basis. *Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> > > > comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. *Such
> > > > consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> > > > limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
> > > > become very good at it.
>
> > > > The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> > > > speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
>
> > > > Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> > > > maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> > > > drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> > > > to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> > > > same road.
>
> > > As has been said over and over:
>
> > Lol. *You're going to begin with proof by ***** your ***** repeated
> > assertions...?!
>
> > Good one!
>
> > > Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed.
>
> > Thanks, Cap'n!
>
> I'll keep reminding you until there is some evidence that you get it.

I get it. You don't understand that maintaining a "constant" speed
isn't difficult and the process of estimating speed doesn't include
estimating it as you pass through it..

> > > As can
> > > clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
> > > halve a known speed,
>
> > Except in that experiment the speed was unknown to the subjects, to
> > wit:
>
> > > Denton [1966]
> > > instructed drivers of cars with ***** obscured ***** speedometers to double
> > > or halve
> > > an initial speed of magnitude, ***** unknown to the subject *****, set by
> > > following
> > > experimenter instructions.
>
> Which doesn't change anything. In order to arrive at an estimated speed
> of 2n, you must have already estimated n.

Your problem understanding is your perfect ignorance. Everything
confuses you because you haven't the prerequisite education to forward
an intelligent thought on the subject.

> > > the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
> > > drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.
>
> > Nope.
>
> > > If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
> > > should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.
>
> > Because all motorists are created equal?
>
> Because you present that as the average error.

Your premise is false. Average motorists cannot be expected to escape
the phenomena of "speed adaptation".

If you had any serious interest in the subject you would have read a
few more lines of the linked chapter. The entire $100 book is
available online for free.

> > Perhaps we should consider your demonstrated inability to understand
> > written English.
>
> > > > Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> > > > without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> > > > estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> > > > errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> > > > than 5 km/h.
>
> > > So three times more than what you claim,
>
> > You can't read: "errors <> **** are typically less **** than 5 kph
> > *****"
>
> > 5kph = 3.10686 mph.
>
> Right. So three times what you claimed. 4.99999kph is "less than 5 kph".

Nope, my claim is ± 1 mph. The test subjects are ± average motorists
off the street. I've been practicing for 50 years, since I was 8. To
claim I can do a bit better is not unreasonable... to a reasonable
person.

> > > and we don't even know for
> > > certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
> > > study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
> > > to draw.
>
> > Yes, well, you've managed to become and remain absolutely certain
> > based on evidence to the contrary, your functional illiteracy and your
> > refusal to examine your own abilities when nothing could be more
> > expedient.
>
> > Your belief system is obviously based on nothing but your faith that
> > you could not be wrong.
>
> > > > Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> > > > closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> > > > consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> > > > speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> > > > km/h.
> > > >http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
>
> > > That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice.
>
> > Obviously. *"Roads" is, of course, the singular of "road", and
> > motorists rarely drive the same roads twice.
>
> > > That
> > > too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.
>
> > Straw man.
>
> > Yer ****ting up another of my threads with your lack of interest.
> > Again.
>
> > From: Alan Baker >
> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
> > Subject: This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in
> > terms of justice
> > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:00:24 -0700
>
> > "The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
> > represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have
> > no
> > interest in how well anyone can answer that question."
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...60bed4a99e3c6f...
> > ode=source
>
> > You have no interest in the speed at which you might be traveling
> > because speed is never relevant! *Good one!
>
> The precise numerical value is never...
>
> ...NEVER...
>
> ...a relevant factor in safe driving.

Lol. Where did you get the idea that ridiculous emphasis will
disguise moving the goalpost into the next ****ing county?
-----

- gpsman

On Jul 13, 11:50*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
> >> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>
> >>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> >>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> >>>>> on a regular basis.
>
> >>>> Laughable.
>
> >>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
> >>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
> >>> "pitiful".
>
> >>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> >>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> >>>> estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> >>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> >>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> >>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>
> >>> Straw man. *The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>
> >>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
> >>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
> >>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>
> >> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
> >> certainly do provide feedback. *E.g. if the water temp is too high,
> >> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
> >> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
> >> first place.) *If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
> >> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
> >> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
> >> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
>
> > Lol. *"Regularly"...?
>
> >>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
> >>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
> >>> on a regular basis".
>
> >> Really? *My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
> >> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
> >> damped. *Yes, even the factory ones.
>
> > How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
>
> >>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. *It's
> >>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
> >>> "operating" temp.
>
> >> Unsupported assertion. *As usual.
>
> > Lol. *Hardly. *It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
> > bull****.
>
> > You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
> > an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
> > your engine to reach operating temp.
>
> If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
> recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
> oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
> noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
> the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) *But even without the
> latter, that's an awful long time.

You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.

What you know about everything that isn't wrong seems it would fit
with room to spare on one side of a matchbook.
-----

- gpsman

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 13, 9:38*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 10:23*pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> > > > *gpsman > wrote:
> > > > > Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > > > > the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > > > > on a regular basis. *Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
> > > > > comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. *Such
> > > > > consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
> > > > > limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers
> > > > > would
> > > > > become very good at it.
> >
> > > > > The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
> > > > > speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
> >
> > > > > Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
> > > > > maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
> > > > > drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
> > > > > to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
> > > > > same road.
> >
> > > > As has been said over and over:
> >
> > > Lol. *You're going to begin with proof by ***** your ***** repeated
> > > assertions...?!
> >
> > > Good one!
> >
> > > > Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed.
> >
> > > Thanks, Cap'n!
> >
> > I'll keep reminding you until there is some evidence that you get it.
>
> I get it. You don't understand that maintaining a "constant" speed
> isn't difficult and the process of estimating speed doesn't include
> estimating it as you pass through it..
>
> > > > As can
> > > > clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
> > > > halve a known speed,
> >
> > > Except in that experiment the speed was unknown to the subjects, to
> > > wit:
> >
> > > > Denton [1966]
> > > > instructed drivers of cars with ***** obscured ***** speedometers to
> > > > double
> > > > or halve
> > > > an initial speed of magnitude, ***** unknown to the subject *****, set
> > > > by
> > > > following
> > > > experimenter instructions.
> >
> > Which doesn't change anything. In order to arrive at an estimated speed
> > of 2n, you must have already estimated n.
>
> Your problem understanding is your perfect ignorance. Everything
> confuses you because you haven't the prerequisite education to forward
> an intelligent thought on the subject.

LOL

>
> > > > the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
> > > > drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.
> >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > > > If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
> > > > should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.
> >
> > > Because all motorists are created equal?
> >
> > Because you present that as the average error.
>
> Your premise is false. Average motorists cannot be expected to escape
> the phenomena of "speed adaptation".
>
> If you had any serious interest in the subject you would have read a
> few more lines of the linked chapter. The entire $100 book is
> available online for free.

LOL

>
> > > Perhaps we should consider your demonstrated inability to understand
> > > written English.
> >
> > > > > Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
> > > > > without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
> > > > > estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
> > > > > errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
> > > > > than 5 km/h.
> >
> > > > So three times more than what you claim,
> >
> > > You can't read: "errors <> **** are typically less **** than 5 kph
> > > *****"
> >
> > > 5kph = 3.10686 mph.
> >
> > Right. So three times what you claimed. 4.99999kph is "less than 5 kph".
>
> Nope, my claim is ± 1 mph. The test subjects are ± average motorists
> off the street. I've been practicing for 50 years, since I was 8. To
> claim I can do a bit better is not unreasonable... to a reasonable
> person.

Three times better isn't "a bit".

>
> > > > and we don't even know for
> > > > certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
> > > > study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you
> > > > want
> > > > to draw.
> >
> > > Yes, well, you've managed to become and remain absolutely certain
> > > based on evidence to the contrary, your functional illiteracy and your
> > > refusal to examine your own abilities when nothing could be more
> > > expedient.
> >
> > > Your belief system is obviously based on nothing but your faith that
> > > you could not be wrong.
> >
> > > > > Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
> > > > > closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
> > > > > consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
> > > > > speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
> > > > > km/h.
> > > > >http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
> >
> > > > That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice.
> >
> > > Obviously. *"Roads" is, of course, the singular of "road", and
> > > motorists rarely drive the same roads twice.
> >
> > > > That
> > > > too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.
> >
> > > Straw man.
> >
> > > Yer ****ting up another of my threads with your lack of interest.
> > > Again.
> >
> > > From: Alan Baker >
> > > Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
> > > Subject: This is why we think that traffic court is a joke in
> > > terms of justice
> > > Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 11:00:24 -0700
> >
> > > "The question that needs to be answered is never "Exactly what number
> > > represents the speed at which I am presently traveling?", so I have
> > > no
> > > interest in how well anyone can answer that question."
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...60bed4a99e3c6f...
> > > ode=source
> >
> > > You have no interest in the speed at which you might be traveling
> > > because speed is never relevant! *Good one!
> >
> > The precise numerical value is never...
> >
> > ...NEVER...
> >
> > ...a relevant factor in safe driving.
>
> Lol. Where did you get the idea that ridiculous emphasis will
> disguise moving the goalpost into the next ****ing county?

You're the one who brought it up, not I.

Why? Because you're a dick.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Jul 13, 11:50*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> > On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
> > >> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > >>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> > >>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> > >>>>> on a regular basis.
> >
> > >>>> Laughable.
> >
> > >>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
> > >>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
> > >>> "pitiful".
> >
> > >>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> > >>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> > >>>> estimable without a gauge. *Depending on vehicle I might also be
> > >>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. *With a
> > >>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> > >>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
> >
> > >>> Straw man. *The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
> >
> > >>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
> > >>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
> > >>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
> >
> > >> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
> > >> certainly do provide feedback. *E.g. if the water temp is too high,
> > >> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
> > >> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
> > >> first place.) *If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
> > >> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
> > >> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
> > >> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
> >
> > > Lol. *"Regularly"...?
> >
> > >>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
> > >>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
> > >>> on a regular basis".
> >
> > >> Really? *My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
> > >> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
> > >> damped. *Yes, even the factory ones.
> >
> > > How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
> >
> > >>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. *It's
> > >>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
> > >>> "operating" temp.
> >
> > >> Unsupported assertion. *As usual.
> >
> > > Lol. *Hardly. *It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
> > > bull****.
> >
> > > You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
> > > an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
> > > your engine to reach operating temp.
> >
> > If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
> > recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
> > oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
> > noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
> > the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) *But even without the
> > latter, that's an awful long time.
>
> You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
> less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
> condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
> never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.

You do say the most ridiculous things. Where is there a place where
vapour can condense into the oil and why would it even be there if it
boils off when the engine reaches temp and you've just claimed that it
appears when a hot engine cools?

>
> What you know about everything that isn't wrong seems it would fit
> with room to spare on one side of a matchbook.
> -----
>
> - gpsman

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On 07/14/2012 02:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
> >,
> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 11:50 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>> On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
>>>>>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
>>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
>>>
>>>>>>> Laughable.
>>>
>>>>>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
>>>>>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
>>>>>> "pitiful".
>>>
>>>>>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
>>>>>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
>>>>>>> estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
>>>>>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
>>>>>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
>>>>>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>>>
>>>>>> Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>>>
>>>>>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
>>>>>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
>>>>>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>>>
>>>>> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
>>>>> certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
>>>>> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
>>>>> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
>>>>> first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
>>>>> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
>>>>> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
>>>>> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
>>>
>>>> Lol. "Regularly"...?
>>>
>>>>>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
>>>>>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
>>>>>> on a regular basis".
>>>
>>>>> Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
>>>>> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
>>>>> damped. Yes, even the factory ones.
>>>
>>>> How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
>>>
>>>>>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
>>>>>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
>>>>>> "operating" temp.
>>>
>>>>> Unsupported assertion. As usual.
>>>
>>>> Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
>>>> bull****.
>>>
>>>> You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
>>>> an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
>>>> your engine to reach operating temp.
>>>
>>> If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
>>> recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
>>> oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
>>> noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
>>> the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) But even without the
>>> latter, that's an awful long time.
>>
>> You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
>> less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
>> condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
>> never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.
>
> You do say the most ridiculous things. Where is there a place where
> vapour can condense into the oil and why would it even be there if it
> boils off when the engine reaches temp and you've just claimed that it
> appears when a hot engine cools?

Eh, it actually can happen, but when your oil temp is stabilized at
110-115C it's a fair bet that there's no condensed water in it. Or I
guess now someone's going to say that VDO gauges as supplied to VW
aren't even accurate to within 15C?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

> On 07/14/2012 02:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > gpsman > wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 13, 11:50 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> >>> On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
> >>>>>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
> >>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Laughable.
> >>>
> >>>>>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
> >>>>>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
> >>>>>> "pitiful".
> >>>
> >>>>>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
> >>>>>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
> >>>>>>> estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
> >>>>>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
> >>>>>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
> >>>>>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
> >>>
> >>>>>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
> >>>>>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
> >>>>>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
> >>>
> >>>>> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
> >>>>> certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
> >>>>> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
> >>>>> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
> >>>>> first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
> >>>>> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
> >>>>> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
> >>>>> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
> >>>
> >>>> Lol. "Regularly"...?
> >>>
> >>>>>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
> >>>>>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
> >>>>>> on a regular basis".
> >>>
> >>>>> Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
> >>>>> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
> >>>>> damped. Yes, even the factory ones.
> >>>
> >>>> How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
> >>>
> >>>>>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
> >>>>>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
> >>>>>> "operating" temp.
> >>>
> >>>>> Unsupported assertion. As usual.
> >>>
> >>>> Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
> >>>> bull****.
> >>>
> >>>> You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
> >>>> an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
> >>>> your engine to reach operating temp.
> >>>
> >>> If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
> >>> recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
> >>> oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
> >>> noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
> >>> the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) But even without the
> >>> latter, that's an awful long time.
> >>
> >> You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
> >> less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
> >> condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
> >> never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.
> >
> > You do say the most ridiculous things. Where is there a place where
> > vapour can condense into the oil and why would it even be there if it
> > boils off when the engine reaches temp and you've just claimed that it
> > appears when a hot engine cools?
>
> Eh, it actually can happen, but when your oil temp is stabilized at
> 110-115C it's a fair bet that there's no condensed water in it. Or I
> guess now someone's going to say that VDO gauges as supplied to VW
> aren't even accurate to within 15C?
>
> nate

I'd still like to know how.

If there's none when your oil temperature is stabilized at 110, so
you've driven it all out (assuming it's there)...

....and then you continue to drive (keeping your engine at operating
temp)...

....and thus keeping out any water vapour...

....then you shut down the engine and it cools...

....with no water vapour in it...

....so where does the water come from to condense into the oil?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:23:07 -0700, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article
>,
> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
>> on a regular basis. Each time a driver consults a speedometer, a
>> comparison can be made between perceived and actual speed. Such
>> consultations are additionally motivated by the need to obey speed
>> limits. The overlearning of this task might suggest that drivers would
>> become very good at it.
>>
>> The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
>> speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies.
>>
>> Shinar, McDowell, and Rockwell [1974] find that drivers instructed to
>> maintain a nominal speed of 60 mph without the aid of a speedometer
>> drove at an average speed of 57 mph on an open road segment compared
>> to an average speed of 53 mph on another tree-lined segment of the
>> same road.
>
>
>As has been said over and over:
>
>Maintaining a speed is not the same task as estimating a speed. As can
>clearly be shown by the inability of drivers to accurately double or
>halve a known speed, the Shinar, McDowell, Rockwell study must have had
>drivers maintaining a speed from a given know speed.
>
>" The ability of drivers to estimate speed without the use of a
>speedometer has been investigated in a number of studies. Denton [1966]
>instructed drivers of cars with obscured speedometers to double or halve
>an initial speed of magnitude, unknown to the subject, set by following
>experimenter instructions. The subjects' attempts to decelerate or
>accelerate to halve or double these speeds were biased by large amounts
>in the direction of the initial speed. For example, the goal of
>doubling an initial speed of 30 mph produced an average speed of 44 mph,
>rather than the nominally correct 60 mph. The goal of halving 60 mph
>produced, on average, 38 mph. "
>
>If estimating speed were as easy as you suggest below, then the drivers
>should have been able to consistently get within 5kph on average.
>
>>
>> Milosevic [1986] and Evans [1970a] asked subjects to estimate speed
>> without specifying where they should look, and find that subjects
>> estimated normal driving speeds without large average systematic
>> errors; errors averaged over all subjects tested are typically less
>> than 5 km/h.
>

If by "drivers estimated normal driving speeds" means they were set
out on a road that would typically be posted for 50 mph and then asked
to do 50 mph it's not surprising that they ran about 50 mph. Study's
consistently show that left to their own devices drivers typically
drive a safe "normal" speed for a road (absent hidden conditions that
would merit slower speeds such as concealed driveways).

The fact is (IOW IMHO based on my experience) 90%+ of drivers have no
need for posted speed limits and the only reason 90%+ of limits are
imposed is to facilitate the collection of revenue by gvt.


>So three times more than what you claim, and we don't even know for
>certain that the findings were accurate or whether the methods of the
>study were sufficiently well constructed to draw the conclusion you want
>to draw.
>
>>
>> Noguchi [1990] instructed subjects to drive at their chosen speeds on
>> closed roads; when the speedometer was concealed, speeds were
>> consistently higher (in all of 14 comparisons) than when the
>> speedometer was visible, with the overall average difference being 3
>> km/h.
>> http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/tsd/CH05.htm
>
>That study quite obviously involved driving the same road twice. That
>too, is not the same as simply estimating a speed from scratch.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:40:14 -0700, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>> On 07/14/2012 02:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> > In article
>> > >,
>> > gpsman > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Jul 13, 11:50 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> >>> On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
>> >>>>>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
>> >>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>> Laughable.
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
>> >>>>>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
>> >>>>>> "pitiful".
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
>> >>>>>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
>> >>>>>>> estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
>> >>>>>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
>> >>>>>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
>> >>>>>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
>> >>>>>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
>> >>>>>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
>> >>>>> certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
>> >>>>> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
>> >>>>> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
>> >>>>> first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
>> >>>>> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
>> >>>>> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
>> >>>>> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
>> >>>
>> >>>> Lol. "Regularly"...?
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
>> >>>>>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
>> >>>>>> on a regular basis".
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
>> >>>>> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
>> >>>>> damped. Yes, even the factory ones.
>> >>>
>> >>>> How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
>> >>>
>> >>>>>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
>> >>>>>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
>> >>>>>> "operating" temp.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Unsupported assertion. As usual.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
>> >>>> bull****.
>> >>>
>> >>>> You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
>> >>>> an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
>> >>>> your engine to reach operating temp.
>> >>>
>> >>> If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
>> >>> recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
>> >>> oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
>> >>> noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
>> >>> the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) But even without the
>> >>> latter, that's an awful long time.
>> >>
>> >> You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
>> >> less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
>> >> condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
>> >> never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.
>> >
>> > You do say the most ridiculous things. Where is there a place where
>> > vapour can condense into the oil and why would it even be there if it
>> > boils off when the engine reaches temp and you've just claimed that it
>> > appears when a hot engine cools?
>>
>> Eh, it actually can happen, but when your oil temp is stabilized at
>> 110-115C it's a fair bet that there's no condensed water in it. Or I
>> guess now someone's going to say that VDO gauges as supplied to VW
>> aren't even accurate to within 15C?
>>
>> nate
>
>I'd still like to know how.
>
>If there's none when your oil temperature is stabilized at 110, so
>you've driven it all out (assuming it's there)...
>
>...and then you continue to drive (keeping your engine at operating
>temp)...
>
>...and thus keeping out any water vapour...
>
>...then you shut down the engine and it cools...
>
>...with no water vapour in it...
>
>...so where does the water come from to condense into the oil?

I thought the presumption was that as it cooled and the vapor inside
the engine contracted it would draw in the outside air and moisture.
Even if true, however, it would be a very small amount. I think most
of the "water" that gets into the oil gets there during engine warm up
when there is some water being produced as a byproduct of the
combustion process... most of it goes out the exhaust but I would
think some of it is in the little bit of blowby past the piston rings.

On 07/14/2012 04:14 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 12:40:14 -0700, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/14/2012 02:08 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> gpsman > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 13, 11:50 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/13/2012 12:54 PM, gpsman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 11:33 am, N8N > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 11:16 am, gpsman > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 13, 8:31 am, N8N > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:11 pm, gpsman > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of the various quantities a driver is called upon to judge, speed is
>>>>>>>>>>> the only one for which instrumented quantitative feedback is provided
>>>>>>>>>>> on a regular basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Laughable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you're referring to your tendency to misunderstand what you read
>>>>>>>>> and forward straw men I think the word you're looking for is
>>>>>>>>> "pitiful".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can see oil pressure, water temperature, fuel level, and
>>>>>>>>>> engine RPM easily, and of those, really only engine RPM is even easily
>>>>>>>>>> estimable without a gauge. Depending on vehicle I might also be
>>>>>>>>>> seeing engine vacuum, oil temperature, and/or ATF temperature. With a
>>>>>>>>>> little effort I can also see things like intake air temperature,
>>>>>>>>>> throttle opening, A/F ratio, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Straw man. The premise is not what a motorist can "see".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many if not most vehicles have no such gauges in your... examples...
>>>>>>>>> other than your ridiculous inclusion of fuel, and do not provide much
>>>>>>>>> if anything in the way of "feedback" to operator input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Odd, all of my vehicles do, save for the company hawler, and they most
>>>>>>>> certainly do provide feedback. E.g. if the water temp is too high,
>>>>>>>> that is an indication to reduce load, turn on heater, or both (and
>>>>>>>> subsequently investigate what condition caused that to happen in the
>>>>>>>> first place.) If oil pressure is lower than expected, or starts
>>>>>>>> fluctuating between load/no load at a constant RPM, then something
>>>>>>>> needs to be investigated (and drastically low oil pressure of course
>>>>>>>> is an indication to pull over and shut down immediately.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol. "Regularly"...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oil pressure and water temp. gauges are typically only representations
>>>>>>>>> of "normal" and so do not provide much if any "quantitative feedback
>>>>>>>>> on a regular basis".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? My oil pressure and water temperature gauges read accurately,
>>>>>>>> within tolerances for error and slightly but not significantly
>>>>>>>> damped. Yes, even the factory ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How did you determine their degrees of accuracy and lag...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you had an oil temp gauge it wouldn't mean anything to you. It's
>>>>>>>>> not as if you're going to motor more gently until the oil warms to
>>>>>>>>> "operating" temp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unsupported assertion. As usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol. Hardly. It's supported by 10+ years of your idiocy and
>>>>>>> bull****.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't have the patience to lift off the throttle for a second for
>>>>>>> an "impaired merger", no way you're going to wait 10-20 minutes for
>>>>>>> your engine to reach operating temp.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your engine requires 10-20 minutes to reach operating temp, I would
>>>>>> recommend replacing the thermostat, and possibly looking into an
>>>>>> oil-to-water heat exchanger if you live in a cold climate (seriously, I
>>>>>> noticed a drastic improvement in warm up time for the oil after adding
>>>>>> the factory GTI/GLI oil cooler to my Scirocco.) But even without the
>>>>>> latter, that's an awful long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You only say that because you've never heard the adage that driving
>>>>> less than 20 minutes doesn't heat the oil enough to boil off the
>>>>> condensation that accumulates when a hot engine cools, and you've
>>>>> never had a digital oil temperature gauge that displays 1° increments.
>>>>
>>>> You do say the most ridiculous things. Where is there a place where
>>>> vapour can condense into the oil and why would it even be there if it
>>>> boils off when the engine reaches temp and you've just claimed that it
>>>> appears when a hot engine cools?
>>>
>>> Eh, it actually can happen, but when your oil temp is stabilized at
>>> 110-115C it's a fair bet that there's no condensed water in it. Or I
>>> guess now someone's going to say that VDO gauges as supplied to VW
>>> aren't even accurate to within 15C?
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> I'd still like to know how.
>>
>> If there's none when your oil temperature is stabilized at 110, so
>> you've driven it all out (assuming it's there)...
>>
>> ...and then you continue to drive (keeping your engine at operating
>> temp)...
>>
>> ...and thus keeping out any water vapour...
>>
>> ...then you shut down the engine and it cools...
>>
>> ...with no water vapour in it...
>>
>> ...so where does the water come from to condense into the oil?
>
> I thought the presumption was that as it cooled and the vapor inside
> the engine contracted it would draw in the outside air and moisture.
> Even if true, however, it would be a very small amount. I think most
> of the "water" that gets into the oil gets there during engine warm up
> when there is some water being produced as a byproduct of the
> combustion process... most of it goes out the exhaust but I would
> think some of it is in the little bit of blowby past the piston rings.
>

Blowby will by its nature contain steam which will condense as it cools.
However in an engine with a properly functioning crankcase ventilation
system, the amount of steam in the engine at any given time will be very
small as it is constantly having fresh air drawn through it. There will
be some there all the time, however.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel