A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: Martin Brown on 15 Dec 2009 11:42 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:52:54 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> > wrote: > >> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >> news:H3DVm.414201$ua.294023(a)en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com: >> >>> Hey, don't cars with automatics generally get a mile or two per gallon >>> better mileage than manuals? ;-) >>> >>> ---Joel >>> >>> >> Manuals usually get better mileage,but that is changing in -some- >> models,because of the addition of lockup torque converters and CVTs. And in high end cars flappy paddle gearboxes where the computer does the gear shift without requiring the driver to coordinate anything at all. Typical auto transmissions seem to be about 10% worse on fuel consumption than the comparable manual/same engine when driven at similar speeds and styles. Consumer reports is slightly more pessimistic about it: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm >> automatics eliminate the need for driver competence. >> >> Note that "unintended accelleration" crashes occur only with automatics. > > You're living in the past... I can't recall any car using a purely > "slush" type torque converter for at least 30 years, maybe longer. > > ...Jim Thompson It seems that there have been a few in the recent past. Lexus and a few other Toyota brands in California. ISTR they blamed the floormats or something. Brake servos don't behave too well when the engine is running flat out. Though I am inclined to blame most of the claimed "unintended acceleration" events on driver error. The only thing I find with autos is that sooner or later I will forget and declutch the brake pedal when approaching a carpark pay booth (and stopping well short of the window). I drive a manual transmission car. Regards, Martin Brown
From: Jim Yanik on 15 Dec 2009 11:50 Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in news:q6efi5t0666h44sna3qgrojpat2ln4990d(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:02:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >>Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:52:54 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> >>> wrote: >>> > [snip] >>>> Manuals usually get better mileage,but that is changing in -some- >>>> models,because of the addition of lockup torque converters and >>>> CVTs. >>>> >>>> automatics eliminate the need for driver competence. >>>> >>>> Note that "unintended accelleration" crashes occur only with >>>> automatics. > > Nonsense, it's a stuck accelerator pedal. No,because the brakes on a car are fully capable of holding a car with a stuck accellerator pedal. (And I wasn't talking about cars going down the highway and then "running away" because of a stuck gaspedal,but cars that "ran away" upon startup. You know,the ones that drive thru storefronts,or thru the garage,or into the house....like the infamous Audi runaways. > So shoving in clutch or > pushing PRNDL handle into neutral... what's the difference? People driving manual tranny cars have their feet on the right pedals,no left-foot braking,and no confusion about which foot they're jamming down and the car "not stopping".Manuals have control over the engine power to the wheels. The runaway cars happened because people dropped the car into "drive" without having their foot on the brake pedal,and then stomped on the -gas- ,while thinking they were stomping on the brake. This -still- happens a lot,and it's all automatics. BTW,I'd rather just turn off the ignition than unload a runaway motor and have it throw a rod or otherwise destroy itself. > >>> >> >>They should start teaching the basics again in drivers ed. Like how a >>car works. In Germany you used to not be able to get a license unless >>you could explain how an engine worked, and how other stuff such as >>clutch, gear box or differential worked. I BUILT my first car from two junkers,two 1964 Truimph Heralds.I still do most of the work on my present car,2003 Nissan SE-R Spec V. I really miss the old USAF Auto Hobby Shops. Great places to work on your car. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Joerg on 15 Dec 2009 12:09 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:02:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:52:54 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> >>> wrote: >>> > [snip] >>>> Manuals usually get better mileage,but that is changing in -some- >>>> models,because of the addition of lockup torque converters and CVTs. >>>> >>>> automatics eliminate the need for driver competence. >>>> >>>> Note that "unintended accelleration" crashes occur only with automatics. > > Nonsense, it's a stuck accelerator pedal. So shoving in clutch or > pushing PRNDL handle into neutral... what's the difference? > How about the brake? Aircraft brakes must be able to hold the whole thing in one location with full thrust applied on all engines. Isn't there a similar rule for cars? There should be. >> They should start teaching the basics again in drivers ed. Like how a >> car works. In Germany you used to not be able to get a license unless >> you could explain how an engine worked, and how other stuff such as >> clutch, gear box or differential worked. >> >> We still learned how to hobble a stalled car off railroad tracks by >> using starter, clutch and first gear. > > If you think fast. In 1957 lost 5 high school classmates who skidded > on the ice and got stuck on the track. Got hit by a Norfolk and > Western coal train doing about 100MPH :-( > > (Thompson's rule: RUN perpendicular to the tracks ;-) > >> Of course now they have switches >> on the clutch that don't let the starter engage unless fully depressed >> which defeats that extra safety measure. > > That's really not new. I had a 1950 Nash and a 1953 Hudson Jet that > both required full depression of the clutch to activate the starter > switch. > Luckily one can remove that "feature". >> >>> You're living in the past... I can't recall any car using a purely >>> "slush" type torque converter for at least 30 years, maybe longer. >>> >> But they all have to keep sloshing around some of the oil around the >> shaft lock. There's a reason why even new automatic transmissions run >> hotter than gear boxes. And warmer = more losses. > > Keep deluding yourself... you're fitting better and better into > Californication ;-) > Well, do you know any car where the automatic version eats less fuel than the manual? Not just on paper but in real tests. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: John Larkin on 15 Dec 2009 12:11 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:02:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:52:54 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> >> wrote: >> >>> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>> news:H3DVm.414201$ua.294023(a)en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com: >>> >>> >>>> Hey, don't cars with automatics generally get a mile or two per gallon >>>> better mileage than manuals? ;-) >>>> >>>> ---Joel >>>> >>>> >>> Manuals usually get better mileage,but that is changing in -some- >>> models,because of the addition of lockup torque converters and CVTs. >>> >>> automatics eliminate the need for driver competence. >>> >>> Note that "unintended accelleration" crashes occur only with automatics. >> > >They should start teaching the basics again in drivers ed. Like how a >car works. In Germany you used to not be able to get a license unless >you could explain how an engine worked, and how other stuff such as >clutch, gear box or differential worked. > >We still learned how to hobble a stalled car off railroad tracks by >using starter, clutch and first gear. Of course now they have switches >on the clutch that don't let the starter engage unless fully depressed >which defeats that extra safety measure. > > >> You're living in the past... I can't recall any car using a purely >> "slush" type torque converter for at least 30 years, maybe longer. >> > >But they all have to keep sloshing around some of the oil around the >shaft lock. There's a reason why even new automatic transmissions run >hotter than gear boxes. And warmer = more losses. My Audi is weird: it's a 6-speed automatic, but it has no torque converter. It has two gear trains, one for odd gears and one for even, and each train has its own automated clutch. Something like this: http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2007/09/dsg_audi.jpg http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.my-gti.com/wp-content/uploads/dsg_trans_7_speed__550nm_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.my-gti.com/887/volkswagen-dsg-7-speed-dual-clutch-gearbox-high-output&usg=__HFLOWMT2oKZ_i_DYIYjnc-zry5g=&h=905&w=1280&sz=221&hl=en&start=137&sig2=GfNeSyQkB6wul0biVhiuJQ&um=1&tbnid=1b9WYcJGttn2QM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daudi%2Bdrive%2Btrain%2Bdual%2Bclutch%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D120%26um%3D1&ei=esMnS9OnHYmssQPA6fG1DA John
From: Joerg on 15 Dec 2009 13:22
John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:02:56 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> Jim Thompson wrote: >>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:52:54 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>>> news:H3DVm.414201$ua.294023(a)en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hey, don't cars with automatics generally get a mile or two per gallon >>>>> better mileage than manuals? ;-) >>>>> >>>>> ---Joel >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Manuals usually get better mileage,but that is changing in -some- >>>> models,because of the addition of lockup torque converters and CVTs. >>>> >>>> automatics eliminate the need for driver competence. >>>> >>>> Note that "unintended accelleration" crashes occur only with automatics. >> They should start teaching the basics again in drivers ed. Like how a >> car works. In Germany you used to not be able to get a license unless >> you could explain how an engine worked, and how other stuff such as >> clutch, gear box or differential worked. >> >> We still learned how to hobble a stalled car off railroad tracks by >> using starter, clutch and first gear. Of course now they have switches >> on the clutch that don't let the starter engage unless fully depressed >> which defeats that extra safety measure. >> >> >>> You're living in the past... I can't recall any car using a purely >>> "slush" type torque converter for at least 30 years, maybe longer. >>> >> But they all have to keep sloshing around some of the oil around the >> shaft lock. There's a reason why even new automatic transmissions run >> hotter than gear boxes. And warmer = more losses. > > My Audi is weird: it's a 6-speed automatic, but it has no torque > converter. It has two gear trains, one for odd gears and one for even, > and each train has its own automated clutch. > > Something like this: > > http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2007/09/dsg_audi.jpg > > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.my-gti.com/wp-content/uploads/dsg_trans_7_speed__550nm_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.my-gti.com/887/volkswagen-dsg-7-speed-dual-clutch-gearbox-high-output&usg=__HFLOWMT2oKZ_i_DYIYjnc-zry5g=&h=905&w=1280&sz=221&hl=en&start=137&sig2=GfNeSyQkB6wul0biVhiuJQ&um=1&tbnid=1b9WYcJGttn2QM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daudi%2Bdrive%2Btrain%2Bdual%2Bclutch%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D120%26um%3D1&ei=esMnS9OnHYmssQPA6fG1DA > Wow, that looks like one expensive repair job if anything breaks in there. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |