Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Harry Bloomfield verbally sodomised in
: Ok - in a moment of madness, I have just bought my first ever automatic (Scorpio) and apart from 1/4 mile in a Jag twenty years ago, I've never driven one before. It is to be a secondary car, rather than my primary one and to be honest I was dreading trying to get used to it. I have been quite surprised how quickly I got to be familiar with the basics, though I there has not been any traffic yet to deal with - I done about 75 miles on a variety of roads - sticking to just D and R when needed. The first few miles were rather hairy, until I had worked out to stick my left foot behind my right, but now I don't need to do that. I'm now thinking it might even be useful to cover the brake with my left in traffic - good or bad idea? The manual doesn't give many clues as to how to use the gearbox properly, it's got the usual P, R, N, D, 3, 2, 1. What's the best way to actually use the box (1 2 3 and D)? Also are you supposed to put it in neutral when stopped in traffic, does P actually provide an equivalent to leaving a manual in gear? Is it normal for them to creep forward slowly at tick over, when the brake is off? Any points to be wary of? Cheers.. Glad to see you're still as clueless as ever, Hazza! Have you figured out how to switch your headlights on yet? ROFFLE! -- Phil Kyle™ T h i i s s l f i l S o n o i u e n g r s g |
#2
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Phil Kyle" wrote in message .. . Harry Bloomfield verbally sodomised in : manual in gear? Is it normal for them to creep forward slowly at tick over, when the brake is off? Yes. Your car uses a torque converter (fluid flywheel) which relies on centrifugal force to work. Make sure that the engine is idling at the recommended RPM (revolutions per minute), and not faster. Any points to be wary of? Check the oil level _now_, and at the recommended intervals. Don't ignore oil leaks. Sylvain. Cheers.. Glad to see you're still as clueless as ever, Hazza! Have you figured out how to switch your headlights on yet? ROFFLE! -- Phil KyleT T h i i s s l f i l S o n o i u e n g r s g |
#3
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ,
Sylvain VAN DER WALDE wrote: Yes. Your car uses a torque converter (fluid flywheel) which relies on centrifugal force to work. A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A torque convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable. -- Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#4
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words: A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A torque convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable. In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#5
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Guy King" wrote in message ... The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words: A torque convertor and fluid flywheel ain't the same. A fluid flywheel only transmits up to the maximum torque the engine is producing. A torque convertor - as the name implies - multiplies it in a similar sort of way to a reduction gearbox, but hydraulically and near infinitely variable. In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one and the same. But then, what do I know... -- Steve Velocette Venom Clubman Velocette Venom Thruxton Milk floats, stainless steel sinks |
#6
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Threadstopper" steve at pvl dot co dot uk wrote in message
... I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one and the same. Torque converter has an extra vaned bit in the middle over a fluid flywheel- the stator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_coupling The howstuffworks article on torque converters is better than usual - it's actually useful, rather than just a paraphrase of a marketing leaflet. cheers, clive |
#7
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ,
Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. -- *I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#8
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ,
Threadstopper steve at pvl dot co dot uk wrote: I always thought that a fluid flywheel and a torque convertor were one and the same. But then, what do I know... You'd know if you compared autos fitted with each one. R-R and M-B used 4 speed fluid flywheel autos until the late '60s, then changed to 3 speed torque convertor ones. The gearchanges on the later ones are much smoother - and the step off from rest better, despite having one less gear. -- *I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#9
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... |
#10
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
PC Paul wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. |
#11
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote:
PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... Just a larger value of infinite than the other one. You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing) `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10 `\|/` ` |
#12
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Silk" wrote in message
... Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Eh? That makes no sense whatsoever in a variety of ways. And even if we dig past your possibly confused explanation, it's still wrong. cheers, clive |
#13
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
The message
from Silk contains these words: You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger infinity. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#14
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Ace" wrote in message
news ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a rigorous manner, |
#15
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Guy King" wrote in message
... The message from Silk contains these words: You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger infinity. You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way you do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere on the complex plane if you like). |
#16
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote:
PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. It's always amusing when people make an effort to display their ignorance on usenet. -- Champ ZX10R GPz750turbo My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle |
#17
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ,
PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? -- *I brake for no apparent reason. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#18
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ,
gomez wrote: "Ace" wrote in message news ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a rigorous manner, One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-) -- *Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#19
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Silk wrote:
PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. No its not. |
#20
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Guy King wrote:
The message from Silk contains these words: You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger infinity. You can multiply it by zero as well. |
#21
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
The message
from "gomez" contains these words: You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way you do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere on the complex plane if you like). A good point - and well made. I plead distraction for making me think of division by zero. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#22
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , gomez wrote: "Ace" wrote in message news ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a rigorous manner, One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-) But ****loads more interesing than the original topic |
#23
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
... In article , PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween. cheers, clive |
#24
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In communiqué , "Dave Plowman (News)"
cast forth these pearls of wisdom BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? A continuum innit. -- +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: | | Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z | | Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ |
#25
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? Here you go, knock yourself out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity |
#26
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Guy King" wrote in message ... The message from "gomez" contains these words: You can multiply infinity by zero if you like. Depending on the way you do it, the result can come out to be anything you like, including infinity, minus inifinity, zero or anything inbetween (or anywhere on the complex plane if you like). A good point - and well made. I plead distraction for making me think of division by zero. Ooh, no! You can do that too. |
#27
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Clive George" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween. cheers, clive Find out what integer and real numbers are. |
#28
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Guy King wrote: The message from Silk contains these words: You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger infinity. You can multiply it by zero as well. Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that? All that calculation for nothing. :-) Mike. |
#29
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Mike G wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Guy King wrote: The message from Silk contains these words: You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. Nonsense. You can multiply infinity by anything you like (apart from zero, of course), it just comes out as infinity again. Just a bigger infinity. You can multiply it by zero as well. Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that? All that calculation for nothing. :-) Not at all. Infinity times zero can be any number. Consider: 3/0=infinity. now (3/0) * 0 is obviously 3, because the zeros cancel out...;-) Mike. |
#30
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? No. There is an infinite set of real numbers between e.g. 1 and 1.00000000000000000001 |
#31
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Clive George wrote:
How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc. etc... the minimum is obviously 1, No. its zero. There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-) ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween. cheers, clive |
#32
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , gomez wrote: "Ace" wrote in message news ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. Slightly longer than that. At least 17th century, resulting in the works of Newton and Leibnitz and the ancient Greeks had a philisophical dabble, though they lacked the maths to express their ideas in a rigorous manner, One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-) Well it was only in the 20th century that the concept of numbers infinitely bigger than infinity, for example, was nailed down. |
#33
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Doctor Drivel" wrote in message
reenews.net... "Clive George" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween. Find out what integer and real numbers are. Um, I think I know that already, ta. What relevance does your comment have to my statement? clive |
#34
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
... Clive George wrote: How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc. etc... the minimum is obviously 1, No. its zero. There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-) Maximum/minimum numbers, not numbers of numbers... cheers, clive |
#35
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
"Clive George" wrote in message ... "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Clive George wrote: How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, The maximum is infinite. 1, 1.0000000000000001,1.000000000000002 etc. etc... the minimum is obviously 1, No. its zero. There are NO integers between 1 and 2...;-) Maximum/minimum numbers, not numbers of numbers... Apols if you were just trying to be funny - sense of humour slightly disjointed by presence of drivel talking crap... cheers, clive |
#36
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words: But can their be? The maximum ratio is fixed, so surely to have an infinite number the other has to be 0? Any number space can be infinitely subdivided. -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#37
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
The message
from "Mike G" contains these words: You can multiply it by zero as well. Yeah, but what would be the point in doing that? All that calculation for nothing. :-) At least it's reasonably easy to get the right answer! -- Skipweasel Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. |
#38
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:11:52 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: One of the most pedantic bits of thread drift for a while. Sorry folks. ;-) 's'wot happens when you x-post to ukrm. A damned sight more interesting than poxy auto gearboxes anyway. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing) `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10 `\|/` ` |
#39
Posted to demon.local,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote: How many numbers are there between 1 and 2? The maximum is 2, the minimum is obviously 1, ie non-zero, and as you should know the answer is an infinite number. Same as for your number of steps inbetween. cheers, clive Find out what integer and real numbers are. The group cretin believes boiler efficiencies can be more than 100% and now wants to eductate others about maths... -- *Honk if you love peace and quiet. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#40
Posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.caravanning,uk.d-i-y,uk.rec.motorcycles
|
|||
|
|||
New to automatics
Ace wrote
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:03 +0100, Silk wrote: PC Paul wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Guy King wrote: In what way /isn't/ it infinitely variable? There's a limit to the ratios each end, but as far as I know, no steps inbetween. That's what I meant - it doesn't go to zero. Doesn't go up to infinity either. BUT it can still be infinite steps in between... Just a larger value of infinite than the other one. You can't have infinite steps because if you, for example, double the ratio, you would have to multiply infinity by 2, and that's impossible. You're clearly not up to date with twentieth-century[1] mathematics is you think that's the case. Of course you can double it - it's infinite, so you can make it as much bigger as you like. [1] Yes, it's really been that long since mathematicians have theorised about larger and smaller values of infinity. I dunno. I heard some programme the other day where they were talking about advances in making rational use of whole sets of infinities to do modern sums with and how some really interesting work was being done on it all right now. It had a professor on it and everything so it must have been good. -- steve auvache i rate dates |