From: David Skelton on
Your tampon string?
>
>
> Best regards to all,
>
> Rodan.
>
>

There might be a market for that one ;-)

David

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Bob Cooper on
In article <806g3mFtd8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, bptn(a)kinez.net says...
>
> Rodan wrote:
> > This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that
> > could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace
> > something already invented with something else already invented
> > and call it a new invention.
> >
> > This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the
> > familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of
> > electromechanical parts;...
>
> Is it not true that the drive-by-wire systems have a cable connecting
> the accelerator pedal to the first electronic part? If so, a chain is
> only as strong as its weakest link - literally in this case. If that's
> the case, they'd be foolish to say that one benefit of the hi-tech
> solution is the elimination of the cable. I can believe some of the
> claims of better control of engines systems for power and emissions and
> possibly enhanced safety if it's done right, but they should leave out
> the part about eliminating the mechanical linkage.

The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control over
throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link to the
human foot.
Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the
years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter.
Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it
off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used.
Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control
from the driver's foot is nonsense.
Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle.
Simple as that.
A throttle position sensor works fines.
Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the
wrong engineers run the show.
It is an abomination.
Ask Toyota. That's all the proof you need.
Case closed.
Prediction: Toyota and others who have tossed out throttle cables will
be putting them back.
From: cuhulin on
Never pack a parachute that is wet, it could freeze and not open.In that
case a ripcord or electromechanical device won't help at all.
cuhulin

From: jim beam on
On 03/14/2010 11:39 PM, Rodan wrote:
>
> This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that
> could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace
> something already invented with something else already invented
> and call it a new invention.
>
> This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the
> familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of
> electromechanical parts; Hall-effect position sensors, electric wire
> cables, electrical connectors, power transistor amplifiers, servo motors,
> and an expanded computer program to control it all.
>
> The brilliant scientists who created this new invention promise:
>
> "significant improvement in mileage and pollution
> control and significantly better control for things
> like cruise control and automatic transmissions too"
>
> They have revealed no numbers about how significant the improvements
> will be, but they have pointed out that the new system will bring a big
> improvement in safety. The wire inside the old throttle cable might bind
> or snap, whereas the Hall-effect/position sensors/electric wire
> cables/electrical connectors/power transistor amplifiers/servo motors
> and expanded computer program use electronic parts reliable for millions
> of operations. There is no way the new system can fail.
>
> It's only a matter of time before these scientific savants come up with
> other applications, such as eliminating the ripcord in parachutes.
> Instead of tugging on a ripcord, a skydiver could just touch the button on a
> Hall-effect sensor on his chest, and an electrical cable draped over his
> shoulder would transmit a signal to the parachute's computer telling it
> to let the power amplifiers energize the servomotors to release the latch
> on the chute. Instead of a conventional ripcord that could bind or
> break, a reliable electronically controlled ripcord actuation system
> would finally take all of the fear out of parachute jumping.
>
> The possibilities are endless. Are you tired of pulling a cord to raise
> your venetian blinds? Do it with a servo control system just like the
> electronic throttle. How about your lawnmower starter cable? Your
> church bell rope? Your light fixture pull chain? Your tampon string?
>
> As our lives are impacted by their leadership, the wisdom of the throttle
> cable replacement scientists will be demonstrated again and again.
>
> Best regards to all,
>
> Rodan.
>
>

dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems. diesels
have had control systems from day one. have you any idea /why/ they're
always used? what would you have us do to them?

--
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on
On 03/15/2010 06:08 AM, Bob Cooper wrote:
> In article<806g3mFtd8U1(a)mid.individual.net>, bptn(a)kinez.net says...
>>
>> Rodan wrote:
>>> This electronic throttle thing is great. If you believe everything that
>>> could be invented has already been been invented, do this: Replace
>>> something already invented with something else already invented
>>> and call it a new invention.
>>>
>>> This has been successfully done in automobiles by throwing away the
>>> familiar throttle cable and replacing it with a whole new system of
>>> electromechanical parts;...
>>
>> Is it not true that the drive-by-wire systems have a cable connecting
>> the accelerator pedal to the first electronic part? If so, a chain is
>> only as strong as its weakest link - literally in this case. If that's
>> the case, they'd be foolish to say that one benefit of the hi-tech
>> solution is the elimination of the cable. I can believe some of the
>> claims of better control of engines systems for power and emissions and
>> possibly enhanced safety if it's done right, but they should leave out
>> the part about eliminating the mechanical linkage.
>
> The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control over
> throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link to the
> human foot.

no it's not. there is not a single diesel ever used that gives an
operator direct link to fuel injection - it's all done via a control
module. should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control
system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than
electrical.


> Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the
> years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter.
> Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it
> off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used.
> Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control
> from the driver's foot is nonsense.
> Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle.
> Simple as that.
> A throttle position sensor works fines.
> Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the
> wrong engineers run the show.
> It is an abomination.

no it's not. but, that apparently won't stop info-tards bleating about
stuff for which they have not the slightest clue on usenet.


> Ask Toyota. That's all the proof you need.
> Case closed.
> Prediction: Toyota and others who have tossed out throttle cables will
> be putting them back.

before or after we've smashed the looms ned ludd?


--
nomina rutrum rutrum