Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:42:22 -0500, Robert Swinney wrote:

Agreed ? Turbo-charging does nothing more than artificially increase atmospheric pressure -


Er, well, atmospheric pressure is 1 bar. My turbo puts out 1.6someting
bar. So, what forces air into _my_ engine's chambers is only somewhat
atmospheric pressure.


or
raise thin atmosphere to more nearly "ground pressure", such as in the case of high flying
piston-type aircraft. IMO, suction is not a very accurate description of why fuel is drawn into a
combustion chamber.


Yup, that answer equally sucks. When I was a college student I would
have been pretty damn intense about this ****ty question and the fact
that both wrong answers suck equally but I'm having a hard time caring



All non-Diesel piston engines are considered to be normally aspirated, AFAIK.
(someone will correct me, I'm sure) Suction is merely a way of ingesting more stoichoimetric air
and fuel mixture. The earliest IC engines had no compression, thus no suction was present.


And yet, in the last century, so little has changed in toe otto cycle
engine. Isn't that remarkable?


Generally speaking, or typing, as the case may be,
normally aspirated" refers to carbureted engines without turbos. A turbo
fed engine is, obviously, called a turbo charged engine, and then you
have fuel injection.

Jim Chandler

Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:05:14 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:


In article , Carla Fong wrote:

94% here (also messed up the worm gears)



Well, I got a 90%, (also got messed up on worm gears) but I think
there's room to quibble on two others.

#15 presumes a frictionless pulley - I live in the real world and know
that a straight lift with no pulley requires the least force.

#31 has no correct answer stated. The correct answer is 60 since the
actual mechanical ratio for the lever is 5:1.

I had the same problems with poorly written questions in college. My
professors did not seem amused...


And also #24, which they describe as a parallel circuit. Sure, the two lamps
are in parallel -- but they're in series with the switch...


Switches are not considered as part of the circuit for series/parallel
determination.

Jim Chandler


Perhaps not by diesel mechanics. They're treated the same as any
other circuit element in circuit network analysis. For example, they
are sometimes used in parallel with other circuit elements, as in the
question with three light bulbs.

98.


Still not considered a part of the load though, Don. As an amateur radio
operator (N5COT) and an Air force electronics tech. we never considered
a switch as p[art of the load. It is part of the pathway to the load
resistance only.

Jim Chandler

"Phil Kangas" wrote:

Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh


96%, wish I could back up and review answers before 'handing it in'.

Wes

Jim Chandler wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:05:14 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:


In article , Carla
Fong wrote:

94% here (also messed up the worm gears)



Well, I got a 90%, (also got messed up on worm gears) but I think
there's room to quibble on two others.

#15 presumes a frictionless pulley - I live in the real world and
know that a straight lift with no pulley requires the least force.

#31 has no correct answer stated. The correct answer is 60 since
the actual mechanical ratio for the lever is 5:1.

I had the same problems with poorly written questions in college.
My professors did not seem amused...



And also #24, which they describe as a parallel circuit. Sure, the
two lamps are in parallel -- but they're in series with the switch...


Switches are not considered as part of the circuit for
series/parallel determination.

Jim Chandler



Perhaps not by diesel mechanics. They're treated the same as any
other circuit element in circuit network analysis. For example, they
are sometimes used in parallel with other circuit elements, as in the
question with three light bulbs.
98.


Still not considered a part of the load though, Don. As an amateur radio
operator (N5COT) and an Air force electronics tech. we never considered
a switch as p[art of the load. It is part of the pathway to the load
resistance only.

Jim Chandler


You say tomato and I say tomahto. G

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:14:47 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, Don
Foreman quickly quoth:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:55:04 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Did you ever hear the one "Nature abhors a vacuum." Pull the air out of anything and gravity
pushing on the atmosphere causes it (the air) to rush in. Suction really has nothing to do with it,
except that was the method used to eliminate the air. Gasses can be eliminated in other ways, such
as the "getter" in the envelope of a vacuum tube at evacuation.

A correct answer would be "due to pressure differential". Manifold
pressure is seldom atmospheric. It's often lower (engine vacuum) in
an ordinary engine but it might be higher in a turbocharged engine.
"Suction" is created by a lower pressure region causing a pressure
differential, so "suction" is closer to right in this case.

I missed that one, too, and I'm a retired auto mechanic. Grrr.
It may be "atmospheric pressure" at zero to 1 RPM, but is sure isn't
at 8,500 RPM. I'll second "pressure differential", too.

The theoretical obstetricians (I would have said "mathematicians" but,
due to the large, pregnant pauses after we found out our answers were
wrong in their eyes) have some explaining to do for their ambiguity.

--
History is often stranger than fiction. Fiction has to be plausible.
History is what happens when people don't follow the script.
--pete flip, RCM

Ed Huntress wrote:


The trouble with that is that "suction," like "centrifugal force," is not a
term that scientists or most engineers would accept, except in casual
conversation. Suction is just the result of a lower pressure acting
differentially to a higher pressure; centrifugal force is just the effect of
acceleration against the true force involved, which is the centripetal
force.

When I see "suction" used in a technical discussion I can accept it as a
casual term and assume that the person speaking, if he or she is technically
knowledgeable, knows there really is no such thing as "suction," as a real
force. But I'm not used to seeing it on a test of technical subjects.

There really is no "suction." And there really is no "centrifugal force."
They're useful concepts but they aren't technically correct.

--
Ed Huntress




I believe the correct term is "signal".

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:34:39 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

And yet, in the last century, so little has changed in toe otto cycle
engine. Isn't that remarkable?

Generally speaking, or typing, as the case may be,
normally aspirated" refers to carbureted engines without turbos.

It does?

A turbo
fed engine is, obviously, called a turbo charged engine, and then you
have fuel injection.

I think that your apparent absolute statement may have exceptions.

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:34:39 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

And yet, in the last century, so little has changed in toe otto cycle
engine. Isn't that remarkable?

Generally speaking, or typing, as the case may be,
normally aspirated" refers to carbureted engines without turbos.

It does?

Not exactly. "Normally aspirated" means having an atmospheric pressure intake,
which does not imply carbureted, but it definitely does exclude turbocharged
and supercharged engines.

A turbo
fed engine is, obviously, called a turbo charged engine, and then you
have fuel injection.

I think that your apparent absolute statement may have exceptions.

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.
Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:55:53 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

Jim Chandler wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:05:14 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:


In article , Carla
Fong wrote:

94% here (also messed up the worm gears)



Well, I got a 90%, (also got messed up on worm gears) but I think
there's room to quibble on two others.

#15 presumes a frictionless pulley - I live in the real world and
know that a straight lift with no pulley requires the least force.

#31 has no correct answer stated. The correct answer is 60 since
the actual mechanical ratio for the lever is 5:1.

I had the same problems with poorly written questions in college.
My professors did not seem amused...



And also #24, which they describe as a parallel circuit. Sure, the
two lamps are in parallel -- but they're in series with the switch...


Switches are not considered as part of the circuit for
series/parallel determination.

Jim Chandler



Perhaps not by diesel mechanics. They're treated the same as any
other circuit element in circuit network analysis. For example, they
are sometimes used in parallel with other circuit elements, as in the
question with three light bulbs.
98.


Still not considered a part of the load though, Don. As an amateur radio
operator (N5COT) and an Air force electronics tech. we never considered
a switch as p[art of the load. It is part of the pathway to the load
resistance only.

Jim Chandler


You say tomato and I say tomahto. G

Jeff

Indeed. It does what it does regardless of terminology you or I may
use to describe it.

Don W0LAP

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.
Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

Nope.

I have a turbocharged engine with 4 carburetors (which are somewhat
modified fro the usual in order to work properly under pressure, but
which are carburetors, not fuel injectors).

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:26:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:55:04 -0500, "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Did you ever hear the one "Nature abhors a vacuum." Pull the air out
of anything and gravity
pushing on the atmosphere causes it (the air) to rush in. Suction really
has nothing to do with it,
except that was the method used to eliminate the air. Gasses can be
eliminated in other ways, such
as the "getter" in the envelope of a vacuum tube at evacuation.

A correct answer would be "due to pressure differential". Manifold
pressure is seldom atmospheric. It's often lower (engine vacuum) in
an ordinary engine but it might be higher in a turbocharged engine.
"Suction" is created by a lower pressure region causing a pressure
differential, so "suction" is closer to right in this case.

The trouble with that is that "suction," like "centrifugal force," is not a
term that scientists or most engineers would accept, except in casual
conversation. Suction is just the result of a lower pressure acting
differentially to a higher pressure; centrifugal force is just the effect of
acceleration against the true force involved, which is the centripetal
force.

When I see "suction" used in a technical discussion I can accept it as a
casual term and assume that the person speaking, if he or she is technically
knowledgeable, knows there really is no such thing as "suction," as a real
force. But I'm not used to seeing it on a test of technical subjects.

There really is no "suction." And there really is no "centrifugal force."
They're useful concepts but they aren't technically correct.

Agreed. So neither choice was technically correct, while either
response indicates that the respondent understands howitworks.

I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:24:38 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:34:39 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:

A turbo
fed engine is, obviously, called a turbo charged engine, and then you
have fuel injection.

I think that your apparent absolute statement may have exceptions.

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.

a quick google search of:
turbo carb production
....seems to show counterexamples.
Mazda E5T, 78 kW 1.5L Carb 8V SOHC Turbo (limited edition.Turbo. models)
....and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmob...#Turbo_Jetfire

And probably lots more. A turbo with a carb is more trouble but there's
nothing magic about a turbo that makes FI necessary.

Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

Nope on that one. I'm sure there are superchargers that go on one side
of the carbs or the other out there too.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:02:47 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:

Phil Kangas wrote:
Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh

This leads me to
http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/quizzes/MechanicalAptitude.php which
mentions no tests, and takes me to http://www.turbotraining.com/.

How do I find this test? All I see are offers of training courses.

Joe Gwinn

I believe you need to have Flash enabled. I took a look at
it too and didn't see anything. Just a big ole blank spot in
the middle of the screen. I not going enable to Flash to
mess with it any farther either...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:46:04 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

snip
I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!


Wow! I never thought of those "ladies" standing on the
corner as 4-cycle engines before. The description surely
fits though ;-)

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:26:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

snip

The trouble with that is that "suction," like "centrifugal force," is not
a
term that scientists or most engineers would accept, except in casual
conversation. Suction is just the result of a lower pressure acting
differentially to a higher pressure; centrifugal force is just the effect
of
acceleration against the true force involved, which is the centripetal
force.

When I see "suction" used in a technical discussion I can accept it as a
casual term and assume that the person speaking, if he or she is
technically
knowledgeable, knows there really is no such thing as "suction," as a real
force. But I'm not used to seeing it on a test of technical subjects.

There really is no "suction." And there really is no "centrifugal force."
They're useful concepts but they aren't technically correct.

Agreed. So neither choice was technically correct, while either
response indicates that the respondent understands howitworks.

Yeah, that's what I should have said. d8-)


I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!

Hahaha! Oh, I love it....

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:24:38 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 03:34:39 GMT, Jim Chandler wrote:

A turbo
fed engine is, obviously, called a turbo charged engine, and then you
have fuel injection.

I think that your apparent absolute statement may have exceptions.

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.

a quick google search of:
turbo carb production
....seems to show counterexamples.
Mazda E5T, 78 kW 1.5L Carb 8V SOHC Turbo (limited edition.Turbo. models)
....and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmob...#Turbo_Jetfire

And probably lots more. A turbo with a carb is more trouble but there's
nothing magic about a turbo that makes FI necessary.

Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

Nope on that one. I'm sure there are superchargers that go on one side
of the carbs or the other out there too.

Hmm. Guess I learned something today. Thanks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:51:32 -0400, Leon Fisk wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:46:04 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey"

Wow! I never thought of those "ladies" standing on the
corner as 4-cycle engines before. The description surely
fits though ;-)

Not sure announcing you're only good for four strokes with the ladies is
a message you want to go spreading, my friend.

In article ,
Leon Fisk wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:02:47 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:

Phil Kangas wrote:
Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh

This leads me to
http://www.forddoctorsdts.com/quizzes/MechanicalAptitude.php which
mentions no tests, and takes me to http://www.turbotraining.com/.

How do I find this test? All I see are offers of training courses.

Joe Gwinn

I believe you need to have Flash enabled. I took a look at
it too and didn't see anything. Just a big ole blank spot in
the middle of the screen. I not going enable to Flash to
mess with it any farther either...

That was it. With Flash, it worked.

I got 98%, missing only #3 (because I misread it).

Lots of the questions are ambiguous, and one had to guess what the
testwriter was visualizing.

Joe Gwinn

(Doug Miller) writes:

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.
Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

There have certainly been supercharged and turbocharged engines that
were carbureted.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:42:51 GMT, Ecnerwal
wrote:

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

All turbocharged and supercharged engines are fuel injected.
Some normally aspirated engines are fuel injected.
All carbureted engines are normally aspirated.

Nope.

I have a turbocharged engine with 4 carburetors (which are somewhat
modified fro the usual in order to work properly under pressure, but
which are carburetors, not fuel injectors).


They were supercharging engines long before fuel injection was used.
Read a bit about pre-WW-II racing and land speed record engines. In
addition, quite a few WW-II aircraft engines were supercharged and
used carburetors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)

According to Jim Chandler :
Don Foreman wrote:

[ ... ]

And also #24, which they describe as a parallel circuit. Sure, the two lamps
are in parallel -- but they're in series with the switch...


Switches are not considered as part of the circuit for series/parallel
determination.

Jim Chandler


Perhaps not by diesel mechanics. They're treated the same as any
other circuit element in circuit network analysis. For example, they
are sometimes used in parallel with other circuit elements, as in the
question with three light bulbs.

98.


Still not considered a part of the load though, Don. As an amateur radio
operator (N5COT) and an Air force electronics tech. we never considered
a switch as p[art of the load. It is part of the pathway to the load
resistance only.

But switches can make logic arrays. In particular with relay
logic. An example on a CNC machine could be a series of switches (axis
limit switches) in series, with a parallel set of contacts on a manual
override switch (which would also limit axis speeds to a minimum to
allow you to move the axis with problems away from the limit switch.

And for normal automotive applications, there are multiple door
switches in parallel to control the dome light -- and those are in
series with a master switch which often has three positions:

1) Dome light *always* off.

2) Dome light switched by door switches. Any single door, or any
combination of doors open turns on the light, otherwise it is
off.

3) Dome light *always* on.

So -- they can reasonably be referred to as being in
series-parallel combinations.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

According to Ed Huntress :

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news

[ ... ]

I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!

Hahaha! Oh, I love it....

IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 21 Oct 2007 01:36:07 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(DoN. Nichols) quickly quoth:

According to Ed Huntress :

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news

[ ... ]

I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!

Hahaha! Oh, I love it....

IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)

She was a _definite_ hotty and the show was a lot of fun early on.

--
History is often stranger than fiction. Fiction has to be plausible.
History is what happens when people don't follow the script.
--pete flip, RCM

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:53:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2007 01:36:07 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(DoN. Nichols) quickly quoth:

According to Ed Huntress :

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news

[ ... ]

I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!

Hahaha! Oh, I love it....

IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)

She was a _definite_ hotty and the show was a lot of fun early on.
Until the US network directors got involved.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

"cavelamb himself" wrote
snip

Drove to Vegas today, and did a turnaround. Only there a couple of hours.
I will be going back Thursday, and will do my best to get to Curtis and get
that SS. Will let you know this Friday how it went.

Steve

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:52:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:53:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2007 01:36:07 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(DoN. Nichols) quickly quoth:
IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)

She was a _definite_ hotty and the show was a lot of fun early on.

Until the US network directors got involved.

I gave up TV about 6 months ago and recently tried to watch broadcast
TV stations a few times. I wanted to see if they'd killed HEROES and
the new Bionic Woman. They did, but it really hurt to have to kill the
sound for 20 minutes out of each hour just to be rid of those nastyass
commercials which blared out at me. I hadn't realized how bad it had
become. (I used to watch The History Channel, The Movie Channel, and
SciFi, each with fewer interruptions than broadcast TV.) It reaffirmed
my committment to telling U.S. TV broadcasters to frack off. Ick! I'm
cured.

P.S: I believe the lady's name was Cathy Rogers, but I can't find a
single picture of her on the Internet. What's up with THAT?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

92%. I blew it on the planetary drive and worm gear (dumb moves in
both cases) but the fan and the piston-sucking questions were
ambiguous. I don't think it would matter which way the first fan was
blowing, as long as it was blowing TOWARD the second fan.
Ond the piston-suck vs atmosphere-pushing, it all depends on how
esoteric you want to be. That's the only one where I had to actually
guess. I chose "suck" because it implied that the piston was moving,
whereas the "atmosphere" may or may not have gone down the hole with NO
piston movement.

Pete Stanaitis
---------------

Phil Kangas wrote:
Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh

Look for the review button to see your
test results.
Phil Kangas

SteveB wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote
snip

Drove to Vegas today, and did a turnaround. Only there a couple of hours.
I will be going back Thursday, and will do my best to get to Curtis and get
that SS. Will let you know this Friday how it went.

Steve



Did you get my email?

Richard

In article ,
spaco wrote:

92%. I blew it on the planetary drive and worm gear (dumb moves in
both cases) but the fan and the piston-sucking questions were
ambiguous. I don't think it would matter which way the first fan was
blowing, as long as it was blowing TOWARD the second fan.

The way I resolved the ambiguity was to consider how such a setup would
look if seen from the side, as shown in the drawing. The blades would
seem to be rotating in the same direction, never mind that the fans
point in opposing directions.


Ond the piston-suck vs atmosphere-pushing, it all depends on how
esoteric you want to be. That's the only one where I had to actually
guess. I chose "suck" because it implied that the piston was moving,
whereas the "atmosphere" may or may not have gone down the hole with NO
piston movement.

I guessed too, but in defense of the atmosphere answer, if this little
experiment happened in a vacuum, no sucking would happen no matter how
hard the piston tried, so the atmosphere is essential.

Joe Gwinn


Pete Stanaitis
---------------

Phil Kangas wrote:
Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh

Look for the review button to see your
test results.
Phil Kangas

Edward A. Falk wrote:

I got 98%. The only one I got wrong was the governor, because I assumed
the ring was fixed and the shaft could move.

A lot of the questions were ambiguous though, and could have multiple
interpretations. I got lucky there, because the alternate (or more
correct) answer wasn't one of the options.

One of the lever questions was just plain wrong, IMHO.

98% here also, I got nunber 7 wrong regarding the drive types. I
reviewed the questions and didn't understand what the result for 7
indicated. Like you and a number of others I though a number of those
question were ambiguous.

DoN. Nichols wrote:

According to Jim Chandler :

Don Foreman wrote:


[ ... ]


And also #24, which they describe as a parallel circuit. Sure, the two lamps
are in parallel -- but they're in series with the switch...


Switches are not considered as part of the circuit for series/parallel
determination.

Jim Chandler


Perhaps not by diesel mechanics. They're treated the same as any
other circuit element in circuit network analysis. For example, they
are sometimes used in parallel with other circuit elements, as in the
question with three light bulbs.

98.


Still not considered a part of the load though, Don. As an amateur radio
operator (N5COT) and an Air force electronics tech. we never considered
a switch as p[art of the load. It is part of the pathway to the load
resistance only.


But switches can make logic arrays. In particular with relay
logic. An example on a CNC machine could be a series of switches (axis
limit switches) in series, with a parallel set of contacts on a manual
override switch (which would also limit axis speeds to a minimum to
allow you to move the axis with problems away from the limit switch.

And for normal automotive applications, there are multiple door
switches in parallel to control the dome light -- and those are in
series with a master switch which often has three positions:

1) Dome light *always* off.

2) Dome light switched by door switches. Any single door, or any
combination of doors open turns on the light, otherwise it is
off.

3) Dome light *always* on.

So -- they can reasonably be referred to as being in
series-parallel combinations.

Enjoy,
DoN.

But nowadays the dome light is probably controlled by the output of some
damn computer and you'd have to be a digital Houdini to figure it all out.

The dome lights in our two "21st century" cars slooooooowly dim down to
off under certain conditions of the doors, ignition, ambient lighting
and G-d only knows what else. I haven't bothered to study that enough to
understand it. That slow dimming to off suggest to me what dying might
feel like someday. G

Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:26:31 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


snip

The trouble with that is that "suction," like "centrifugal force," is not
a
term that scientists or most engineers would accept, except in casual
conversation. Suction is just the result of a lower pressure acting
differentially to a higher pressure; centrifugal force is just the effect
of
acceleration against the true force involved, which is the centripetal
force.

When I see "suction" used in a technical discussion I can accept it as a
casual term and assume that the person speaking, if he or she is
technically
knowledgeable, knows there really is no such thing as "suction," as a real
force. But I'm not used to seeing it on a test of technical subjects.

There really is no "suction." And there really is no "centrifugal force."
They're useful concepts but they aren't technically correct.

Agreed. So neither choice was technically correct, while either
response indicates that the respondent understands howitworks.


Yeah, that's what I should have said. d8-)


I recall a description of the operation of a 4-cycle engine as "suck,
squeeze, pop, phooey" It omits a few thermodynamic details and
perhaps isn't achingly accurate, but it is certainly descriptive!


Hahaha! Oh, I love it....

--
Ed Huntress



Lim time....

I say, "Phooey" to little Miss Grace,
Who will not let my cock in her 'place'.
But though she'll not **** it,
She'll squeeze it and suck it,
And let it pop off in her face.


(I got four out of four....)

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.98*10^14 fathoms per fortnight.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:21:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:52:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:53:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2007 01:36:07 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(DoN. Nichols) quickly quoth:
IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)

She was a _definite_ hotty and the show was a lot of fun early on.

Until the US network directors got involved.

I gave up TV about 6 months ago and recently tried to watch broadcast
TV stations a few times. I wanted to see if they'd killed HEROES and
the new Bionic Woman. They did, but it really hurt to have to kill the
sound for 20 minutes out of each hour just to be rid of those nastyass
commercials which blared out at me. I hadn't realized how bad it had
become. (I used to watch The History Channel, The Movie Channel, and
SciFi, each with fewer interruptions than broadcast TV.) It reaffirmed
my committment to telling U.S. TV broadcasters to frack off. Ick! I'm
cured.

P.S: I believe the lady's name was Cathy Rogers, but I can't find a
single picture of her on the Internet. What's up with THAT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Rogers
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Go a Google search and look at the pictures not the web.
Cathy Rogers
Several pictures...

It was her first job -

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Life; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:52:44 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:53:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2007 01:36:07 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(DoN. Nichols) quickly quoth:
IIRC, this description was used by the lady who hosted the early
"Junkyard Wars" TV program from the UK. :-)
She was a _definite_ hotty and the show was a lot of fun early on.
Until the US network directors got involved.

I gave up TV about 6 months ago and recently tried to watch broadcast
TV stations a few times. I wanted to see if they'd killed HEROES and
the new Bionic Woman. They did, but it really hurt to have to kill the
sound for 20 minutes out of each hour just to be rid of those nastyass
commercials which blared out at me. I hadn't realized how bad it had
become. (I used to watch The History Channel, The Movie Channel, and
SciFi, each with fewer interruptions than broadcast TV.) It reaffirmed
my committment to telling U.S. TV broadcasters to frack off. Ick! I'm
cured.

P.S: I believe the lady's name was Cathy Rogers, but I can't find a
single picture of her on the Internet. What's up with THAT?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:03:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gerald Miller quickly quoth:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:21:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

P.S: I believe the lady's name was Cathy Rogers, but I can't find a
single picture of her on the Internet. What's up with THAT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_Rogers

Please point out the picture, Gerry. I still couldn't find one larger
than 45 pixels.

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:27:00 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Please point out the picture, Gerry. I still couldn't find one larger
than 45 pixels.
Sorry about that. That's what happens when I'm reading the group
postings with one eye and watching the ball game with the other. They
must have made a great effort to avoid supplying raw material for
computer enhancement.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:26:09 -0700, "William Noble"
wrote:

kinda amusing - I got 92% - at least once I hit the wrong answer and hit
submit just as my brain said "that's wrong" -

I wonder if the test results correlate with anything

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...
"Phil Kangas" wrote:
Found this site on RMH, posted here for
your enjoyment:

http://tinyurl.com/379fuh

Look for the review button to see your
test results.

Interesting, thanks. I got an 82%, most of which were gear issues, half
of which were due to over-confidence on simple ones (my achilles heal).

Jon


The questions are pretty standard mechanical aptitudes test questions
I've seen all of them, in one form or another, in nearly every test
I've taken since I joined the Air force back in '52.

I was once an instructor teaching the sons of Indonesian rice farmers
(Peasants) how to be mechanics. The Chief Instructor got the bright
idea of administering a similar test to the students. They failed
every question - never seen a gear, never owned a bicycle, lived a
totally non-mechanical existence. Environment has a large effect on
the results of "aptitude tests". they should probably be termed
"experience tests".


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:displayed e-mail
address is a spam trap)