| Author | Post |
|---|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
42 ..thats my Wii-fit age.........  ...
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
Stealth wrote: Anyway - everyone knows that the answer to the ultimate question is .........
42
and theres me thinking it was "8" 
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 09:39 pm |
|
gasinstaller wrote: Have just had car back from MOT station, failed because slight blowing on exhaust, MOT chap says hes unable to test emmisions because slight blowing on the exhaust...therefor failure.... Surly they could do an emmision test if the exhaust as a pinhole leak....The tester told me that if he had tested the emmisions ,the reading would have gone off the scale...
what a load of rubbish..
I think some of these testers have been on the wacky backy..Quoted me £180 to do repair...my son put a little spot weld, job done.. MOT station were not very happy when i took the car back, intimating that the repair was not up to standard, I told them that if they intend to fail the MOT again, then could i have an appeal form,, their attitude changed almost instantly, and they issued the Mot... i would think that a lot of testing stations have a licence to print money by ripping the general public off... a lot of these stations need sorting out...They will have to be up early to catch me..
maybe the clue lies in the colour of the text
|
Wesley
Trade Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 09:24 pm |
|
| glad i had a day in the countryside most chillin
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 08:13 pm |
|
Stealth wrote: KevG wrote: David, For goodness sake. Stop It. thats not what the question was.!
You said:
Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
PS. please check your spelling of PS. it should have a full stop as its an abreviation.
Stop being so pedontic.
Kev.
Oh dear Kev - spelling - you really are leaving yourself wide open - not that I'm being PEDANTIC of course
Your doing it now.!!! LOL
(Its one of my favourite gags.)
Anyway Stealth, Are you going to tell us the answer, we can rely on you.
I think the poor chap that asked the original question will have probably topped himself by now anyway. so no rush.
Kev.
Supercalifragilisticexpialiditious.
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 07:32 pm |
|
Anyway - everyone knows that the answer to the ultimate question is .........
42
|
Stealth
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 140 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 07:29 pm |
|
KevG wrote: David, For goodness sake. Stop It. thats not what the question was.!
You said:
Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
PS. please check your spelling of PS. it should have a full stop as its an abreviation.
Stop being so pedontic.
Kev.
Oh dear Kev - spelling - you really are leaving yourself wide open - not that I'm being PEDANTIC of course
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
David, For goodness sake. Stop It. thats not what the question was.!
You said:
Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
PS. please check your spelling of PS. it should have a full stop as its an abreviation.
Stop being so pedontic.
Kev.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 01:30 pm |
|
Hi Kev
Suppose you are presented with a vehicle were the exhaust system is broken in two, would you then install the analyser probe into the exhaust stream of gasses half way up the system near the front of the vehicle, or would you say that, the exhaust is in such a condition, and the noise is clearly unreasonable for an average silencer in that condition, or would you test the emissions at the tail pipe, knowing a major leak is present, surely no emissions would be emitted from the tail pipe?
If you install your analyser probe into the tail pipe with a major leak of gasses, your analyser will measure nothing, therefore what printout would you produce at a station check?
I would select on computerisation, "emissions not tested", the VE should see also that you issued a VT30 for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise emitted is unreasonable, you can also fail the vehicle exhaust system for a major leak of gasses.
I feel this would be the right course of practice, please advise what you think.
PS Bernoulli is the correct spelling, Daniel (1700 - 82) a Swiss mathematician was best known for his work on hydrodynamics, please do check the dictionary if you feel I am wrong(science or physics)
David
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:49 am |
|
KevG wrote: David wrote: Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
David, You Cannot complete the test without testing the emmisions, If you do not test the emmisions you MUST abandon the test. kev1975 is correct. Of Course he would abandon the full test. So would we all.
How would you enter "emmisions not tested" onto the VT30?
(Please tell me you don't use the "Items not tested" section in the RFR's)
Kev
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:45 am |
|
David wrote: Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
David, You Cannot complete the test without testing the emmisions, If you do not test the emmisions you MUST abandon the test. kev1975 is correct. Of Course he would abandon the full test. So would we all.
(Please tell me you don't use the "Items not tested section on the RFR's")
Kev
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 10:39 am |
|
Hi Albert,
Can't be bothered to google any of that.
Check your spelling of Bernouli
Kev
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 09:20 am |
|
Hi Kev,
Hello Guys, Einstein here;
OK Kev how you doing, I know a little about Bernoulli’s equations, “Check your spelling”, should we take a look at the OTTO internal combustion SI engine, doesn’t really matter which one and start at the intake plenum chamber. Can you advise us of the Mass Flow Rate of gas (Air) into the plenum chamber air box, and outlet pipes into each cylinder up to the intake valve throat area please. Just for a starter course?
We will get to your forum calculations soon, which to me at the moment you seem to have got your Ordinance and Abscissa scales incorrect.
David
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Aug 17th, 2008 09:15 am |
|
Hi Kev1975
Am I right in your understanding that you say you would abandon the emissions test, I.e. Emissions not tested, and issue a fail for a exhaust system in such a condition that the noise is clearly unreasonable, or a major leak of gasses. You wouldn't abandon the full test would you?
David
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
KevG wrote:
If we assume that "X" is the frequency of visits made to the site and that "Y" is the length of time registered on the forum.
We then simply need to calculate the average time between posts and work out the average time between visits on the forum rounding to the second decimal to keep it simple but still in the ballpark.
However, what we do not know is whether there is a holiday involved.
So to factor this in, lets assume that " H " (Holiday) is 4 divided by 52 -8 and factor in the weather. which is at the moment is W-Et . This assumes That H is in UK and Not Abroad in which Case W-Et can be replaced by W4-Rm/HOt=D. If in the Northern Hemisphere. If Southern Hemisphere vacations are involved the sum is of course reversed due to the Corriolis Effect. And H will then become 6 divided by 52-8 as it a long way.
All we then need to to is Add it all together and simply work out the result.
Obviously I,m not going to commit myself to giving an answer, I,m just going to suggest that this either is or is'nt the way to calculate it.
Anyway its all in the manual, Which I carry with me at all times.
PS May I suggest you all go on a remidial maths course.
LOL
Kev
HaHa PMSL.......
|
kev1975
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 324 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 07:00 pm |
|
thats my way of doing things , if a petrol fails on lambda but the leak isn't too bad i would normally advise that the leak is the most likely cause of the failure on lambda .
i will always test the emissions unless there is something obviously wrong , in which case i would abandon the test or refuse to test.
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 06:45 pm |
|
Hi Gasinstaller
Sorry to here of your problems with a MOT Station.
My understanding of the rules with regards exhaust leaks are that unless it is a major leak of gasses, like comparable to the volume of gasses escaping the tail pipe, then I would carry out an emissions test, this way if the analyser then issued a fail for emissions, I can advise of a minor leak, which would then be up to you to repair, unless the noise emitted is clearly unreasonable, like a silencer with a major hole in it, or missing. which it would fail for.
David
Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 07:30 pm by KevG
|
David
Banned
| Joined: | Mon May 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 376 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Hi Guys
Yes been quiet a few days, not been too well. With regards this post not sure what you are all talking about, so if you would like to brief me please.
David
Last edited on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 06:34 pm by David
|
KevG
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 04:40 pm |
|
big..E. wrote: Stealth wrote: KevG wrote: Stealth wrote: KevG wrote:
I'm not going "David" on you!
Kev
Ha,Ha.....Where is the "Genius" anyway???Been quiet for a few days...
Hi Big E
As to the whereabouts of David.
If we assume that "X" is the frequency of visits made to the site and that "Y" is the length of time registered on the forum.
We then simply need to calculate the average time between posts and work out the average time between visits on the forum rounding to the second decimal to keep it simple but still in the ballpark.
However, what we do not know is whether there is a holiday involved.
So to factor this in, lets assume that " H " (Holiday) is 4 divided by 52 -8 and factor in the weather. which is at the moment is W-Et . This assumes That H is in UK and Not Abroad in which Case W-Et can be replaced by W4-Rm/HOt=D. If in the Northern Hemisphere. If Southern Hemisphere vacations are involved the sum is of course reversed due to the Corriolis Effect. And H will then become 6 divided by 52-8 as it a long way.
All we then need to to is Add it all together and simply work out the result.
Obviously I,m not going to commit myself to giving an answer, I,m just going to suggest that this either is or is'nt the way to calculate it.
Anyway its all in the manual, Which I carry with me at all times.
PS May I suggest you all go on a remidial maths course.
LOL
Kev
|
big..E.
Trade Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 08:17 pm |
|
Stealth wrote: KevG wrote: Stealth wrote: KevG wrote:
I'm not going "David" on you!
Kev
Ha,Ha.....Where is the "Genius" anyway???Been quiet for a few days...
|
Current time is 01:27 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
