Post by thread:[EE] Fuel economy measurement across the globe

Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people have different ways of doing things. Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and a gallon is about 3.78 liters. And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used in an upcoming open source PIC project). Thanks! Cheerful regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:06:49 -0400 (EDT), spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTian.org said: > It's worse than just having various types of units. > > You also have to define how you measure it. Your MPG will vary bases on > how fast you are driving. And if you have to speed up and slow down. Or > stop. Or idle. Or go up and down a hill. I think that part is generally understood. But you didn't say where you live or what units you use. > The US recently changed how they calculate city milage, and suddenly all > the cars now get worse city fuel economy. Well the stated numbers go > down, the actual economy (or lack of it) has not changed. There's a calculator(you can look at the source of the web page to see the formula) to switch between the two, and also a link to the measurement methods: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml Cheerful regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again

I'm from Ireland, and we're neither fully metric nor fully imperial here. For the most part we tend to be metric, but you'll hear imperial measurements, especially for measuring distances in miles, a person's weight in stones, and a person's height in feet. Strangely enough we use "miles per gallon" over here, even though very few people here know what a gallon is. I myself tend to talk about how many miles I get for a tenner (i.e. tenner = 10 Euro), which has dropped lately because of increased fuel cost. My Toyota Starlet gets me 69.7 miles for a tenner, while my Peugeot 205 gets 47. If you wanted to be SI about it then go for "metres per cubic metre" :-D One thing about volume: I know at least one person who tries to buy his petrol in the morning rather than later in the day because when it's cooler it's denser, so you get more mass for the same amount of money. As for how denser it is, I don't know. For me, I make sure I get more fuel by stretching out the fuel tube so that I don't leave the petrol station with the tube still full of petrol. .....piclistKILLspam@spam@ian.org wrote: {Quote hidden}> It's worse than just having various types of units. > > You also have to define how you measure it. Your MPG will vary bases on > how fast you are driving. And if you have to speed up and slow down. Or > stop. Or idle. Or go up and down a hill. > > The US recently changed how they calculate city milage, and suddenly all > the cars now get worse city fuel economy. Well the stated numbers go > down, the actual economy (or lack of it) has not changed. > > -- > Ian Smith > http://www.ian.org >

Bob Blick wrote: {Quote hidden}> Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the > different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. > Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system > anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people > have different ways of doing things. > > Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure > fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and > a gallon is about 3.78 liters. > > And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per > Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). > > For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have > heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of > specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? > > So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where > you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used > in an upcoming open source PIC project). > > Thanks! > > Cheerful regards, > Bob > > Canadians typically express in litres/100km. South Africans typically express in litres/100km too, but also in km/litre sometimes (at least it was done 10 years or so ago). Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the SI unit is litre as well. You may want to get that right if you are planning to support international markets... ;-) Rolf

Bob, Here in NZ litres/100km is the "official" measure, but km/litre is common, and most of us oldies can still relate to mpg (the gallon being the imperial variety). (After all we only went metric in 1976). Richard P 2008/7/10 Rolf <learrKILLspamrogers.com>: {Quote hidden}> Bob Blick wrote: >> Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the >> different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. >> Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system >> anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people >> have different ways of doing things. >> >> Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure >> fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and >> a gallon is about 3.78 liters. >> >> And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per >> Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). >> >> For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have >> heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of >> specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? >> >> So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where >> you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used >> in an upcoming open source PIC project). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Cheerful regards, >> Bob >> >> > Canadians typically express in litres/100km. > South Africans typically express in litres/100km too, but also in > km/litre sometimes (at least it was done 10 years or so ago). > > Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the > SI unit is litre as well. You may want to get that right if you are > planning to support international markets... ;-) > > Rolf > > -

Thanks for asking this! I had asked before but didn't get much comment. Now I nee to update my calculator: http://driveslowly.org/13/mpg-and-savings-calculator With options for litres per 100km litres per km km per litre miles per imperial gallon Although, that nearly fills the problem space. Need to keep it simple, but I could make an advanced calculator with two options for input, and three for output: Volume units (Gallons, Imperial Gallons, Litres, Hogshead) Distance units (Miles, KM, Furlongs) Efficiency Measurement (Volume per distance, distance per volume) Cost measurement (cost per volume, volume per cost, distance per cost, cost per distance) ...should take care of the most common permutations, and allow for simple expansion to add the odd measurements later... -Adam On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Bob Blick <EraseMEbobblickspam_OUTTakeThisOuTftml.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the > different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. > Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system > anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people > have different ways of doing things. > > Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure > fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and > a gallon is about 3.78 liters. > > And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per > Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). > > For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have > heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of > specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? > > So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where > you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used > in an upcoming open source PIC project). > > Thanks! > > Cheerful regards, > Bob > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. > > -

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote: > One thing about volume: I know at least one person who tries to buy his > petrol in the morning rather than later in the day because when it's > cooler it's denser, so you get more mass for the same amount of money. > As for how denser it is, I don't know. > > For me, I make sure I get more fuel by stretching out the fuel tube so > that I don't leave the petrol station with the tube still full of petrol. > Apparantly this one has some basis of fact, but more in fiction. Yes, the colder fuel is more dense, and thus you get more enery density from the pump, but, it ignores a 'fact' about the ground the petrol station's tank is buried in (pretty much every fuel station has an underground storage tank...), and that is that the temperature underground is pretty constant (for example, in Canada (well, in southern ontario where i have a little experience with this) we often have geo-thermal house furnaces that use the ground at about 5feet deep as a heat exchange. The ground temperature at 5feet deep is about 10 degrees summer or winter - from +30 in the summer to -30 in the winter). As a result, the fuel you get in your car is going to be the same temperature regardless of when you fill up. The best you can hope for is that (in the summer) the fuel has been in the tank for a while and cooled down from the deliver truck, and in winter, it is fresh in the tank from the delivery truck. More on that here: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/gastips.asp and on geothermal heat pumps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump Rolf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 TomÃ¡s Ã“ hÃ‰ilidhe wrote: [snip] | Oh God I'm wrong again. | | | 1 metre is 10^1, not 10^0. | | | So if you've got metres per 100 km, then that's m^1 / m^5 | | | Then that gives you: m ^ -4 | | | Hopefully this is the last time I correct myself on this! | | ... and again... the number of metres in one metre is one, and 1 = 10^0, not 10^1. (10^1 = 10). Also, the answer is 1e5 not 1e-5, because the question was "how many metres per 100km". The answer to this question is given by defining a fixed distance, expressing that distance in terms of both units, then dividing the expressions. I select the fixed distance to be 100km. There are 100,000 metres in 100km, and one 100km in 100km. Thus divide 100,000 by 1 and get 100,000, which is 10^5 aka 1e5. It would clearly be ridiculous to say that the number of metres per 100km is less than one: a metre is smaller than 100km, so clearly there must be more than one metre in 100km. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GnuPT 2.7.2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkh1kqIACgkQiD2svb/jCb5A1QCaAqi4KTBe/Slh7CMQ6Ie5SqFF L7kAoIfguYgtC+fsM+zWFeT8Sa0D5HJ9 =SziW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote: >>>> P.S. what is a good abbreviation for "metres per 100km"? > > Because it's "per", you divide, so you've got: > > 10e0 divided by 10e5 Geesh folks, this is basic stuff. Yes the "per" implies division, but you've got it backwards. "meters per 100Km" means "the number of meters in 100Km", or 100Km / 1m. Then you are confused about the XXeYY notation. As far as I know, this came from early attempts to express scientific notation in linear text, specifically in Fortran floating point values. XXeYY means "XX times ten to the power of YY", or "XX * 10**YY" (where hopefully it's obvious to everyone that ** is the exponent operator). So 10e5 = 10 x 10**5 = 1,000,000, which is wrong since you were tring to express 100,000. > which is: > > 10e-5 Other than that the 10 should be a 1 and the -5 should be a 5 it's perfect. The correct answer is 100,000 or 10**5 or 1e5. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Litre is French, isn't it? Or maybe also British English (like Centre vs. Center - yep, Liter and Center are underlined with red on the British spell checker). Anyway, for some reason I thought the SI is not Li<something> :-) but the equivalent cubic decimeter (ehh, decimetre :-) strange French/British spellings). Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gerhard Fiedler < spamBeGonelistsspamBeGoneconnectionbrazil.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Rolf wrote: > > > Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the > > SI unit is litre as well. > > Are you sure? I think that depends on the language the document you're > reading is written in, and AFAIK there's no "SI language standard". > > In Germany the corresponding SI unit is called "Liter" and in Brazil it is > called "litro". AFAIK, both are "correct" (as is "liter" in the US). > > To answer the original question: In Germany the only consumption unit in > use is l/100 km ("Liter [not litre] pro hundert Kilometer") and in Brazil > it's km/l ("kilómetros por litro [not litre]"). > > Gerhard > >

Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > Rolf wrote: > > >> Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the >> SI unit is litre as well. >> > > Are you sure? I think that depends on the language the document you're > reading is written in, and AFAIK there's no "SI language standard". > > In Germany the corresponding SI unit is called "Liter" and in Brazil it is > called "litro". AFAIK, both are "correct" (as is "liter" in the US). > > To answer the original question: In Germany the only consumption unit in > use is l/100 km ("Liter [not litre] pro hundert Kilometer") and in Brazil > it's km/l ("kilómetros por litro [not litre]"). > > Gerhard > > Well, looking in to it further, litre is not even a base SI unit, which is of course cubic meters m³. But, Wikipedia has an interesting article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre and also references the differences in spelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-re.2C_-er Interesting that the unit should normally be abbreviated as 'l', but that is too much like '1', so, to avoid confusion it is symbolized with 'L', which is contrary to the 'norm' of only using upper-case symbols if they abbreviate a person's name (like K for Kelvin). In all, it seems to be a localization thing with mixed effectiveness. For example, in Canada, I believe the (English) unit will be spelled litre officially, but, because most of us have US-based spell checkers, a good portion of us will be confounded by that and prefer liter. By way of example, the 'officail' fuel consumption guide for 2008 in Canada is here (4.8meg download): http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/fuel-consumption-guide-2008.pdf This clearly is a 'reference' work for Canadian consumers, and it has the following info that Bob will/may find interesting: the units are expressed as L/100km, and the spelling 'litre' is used throughout. This 'conforms' with my understanding of both British and Canadian usage of Litre. Then you also have sites like CTV.ca (canadian news site) which has mixed messages: The following (incorrectly) uses liter: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080708/oil_dollar_080708/20080708/?hub=TorontoNewHome while the next is interesting because it correctly names the car 'One-Liter' and describes the efficiency as one litre per 100 km http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080708/AUTOS_micro_gas_080708/20080708/ So, Canada has a mixed usage because of the US influence. Rolf

Not at all. In SI the volume is represented by m3 (cubic metre). But li(-tre, -ter, -tro, etc) is allowed unit, and it = 1E-3 (m3) cubic decimetre :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit ** Tamas Rudnai a écrit : {Quote hidden}> Litre is French, isn't it? Or maybe also British English (like Centre vs. > Center - yep, Liter and Center are underlined with red on the British spell > checker). Anyway, for some reason I thought the SI is not Li<something> :-) > but the equivalent cubic decimeter (ehh, decimetre :-) strange > French/British spellings). > > Tamas > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gerhard Fiedler < > TakeThisOuTlistsEraseMEspam_OUTconnectionbrazil.com> wrote: > > >> Rolf wrote: >> >> >>> Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the >>> SI unit is litre as well. >>> >> Are you sure? I think that depends on the language the document you're >> reading is written in, and AFAIK there's no "SI language standard". >> >> In Germany the corresponding SI unit is called "Liter" and in Brazil it is >> called "litro". AFAIK, both are "correct" (as is "liter" in the US). >> >> To answer the original question: In Germany the only consumption unit in >> use is l/100 km ("Liter [not litre] pro hundert Kilometer") and in Brazil >> it's km/l ("kilómetros por litro [not litre]"). >> >> Gerhard >> >>

Hi Bob, In Australian we tend to use l/100km, and my car gets about 11.5l/100km. As with New Zealand many are happy also quoting in mpg. Cheers Justin On 7/10/08, Artem Zezyulinskiy <RemoveMEartemzezTakeThisOuTsedatelec.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Not at all. In SI the volume is represented by m3 (cubic metre). > But li(-tre, -ter, -tro, etc) is allowed unit, and it = 1E-3 (m3) cubic > decimetre :) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit > > ** > Tamas Rudnai a écrit : >> Litre is French, isn't it? Or maybe also British English (like Centre vs. >> Center - yep, Liter and Center are underlined with red on the British >> spell >> checker). Anyway, for some reason I thought the SI is not Li<something> >> :-) >> but the equivalent cubic decimeter (ehh, decimetre :-) strange >> French/British spellings). >> >> Tamas >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gerhard Fiedler < >> listsEraseME.....connectionbrazil.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Rolf wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the >>>> SI unit is litre as well. >>>> >>> Are you sure? I think that depends on the language the document you're >>> reading is written in, and AFAIK there's no "SI language standard". >>> >>> In Germany the corresponding SI unit is called "Liter" and in Brazil it >>> is >>> called "litro". AFAIK, both are "correct" (as is "liter" in the US). >>> >>> To answer the original question: In Germany the only consumption unit in >>> use is l/100 km ("Liter [not litre] pro hundert Kilometer") and in Brazil >>> it's km/l ("kilómetros por litro [not litre]"). >>> >>> Gerhard >>> >>> >

On 7/10/08, Rolf <EraseMElearrrogers.com> wrote: > By way of example, the 'officail' fuel consumption guide for 2008 in > Canada is here (4.8meg download): > > http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/tools/fuelratings/fuel-consumption-guide-2008.pdf That is really very nice and with a little bit of searching I find that the US fuel economy database is downloadable: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/download.shtml I wonder if the canadian version is downloadable, and if there's a unified EU version I can get. Which is fantastic! I'll have to add some new features to my website... <giddy with excitement that will no doubt wear off once I actually start trying to work with the data> You can do searches for cars based on model/year, fuel economy, class, etc from their website: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm -Adam -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org

In the other thread there was the Google Calc mentioned, so: *11.5 l/100km = 20.453442 miles per gallon **11.5 l/100km = 8.69565217 kilometers / l* www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+mpg&btnG=Google+Search&meta= http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+km%2Fl&btnG=Search&meta= In case if anyone wonders.. :-) Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Justin Richards <RemoveMEjustin.richardsEraseMEEraseMEgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi Bob, > > In Australian we tend to use l/100km, and my car gets about 11.5l/100km. > > As with New Zealand many are happy also quoting in mpg. > > Cheers > > Justin > > On 7/10/08, Artem Zezyulinskiy <RemoveMEartemzezspam_OUTKILLspamsedatelec.com> wrote: > > Not at all. In SI the volume is represented by m3 (cubic metre). > > But li(-tre, -ter, -tro, etc) is allowed unit, and it = 1E-3 (m3) cubic > > decimetre :) > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit > > > > ** > > Tamas Rudnai a écrit : > >> Litre is French, isn't it? Or maybe also British English (like Centre > vs. > >> Center - yep, Liter and Center are underlined with red on the British > >> spell > >> checker). Anyway, for some reason I thought the SI is not Li<something> > >> :-) > >> but the equivalent cubic decimeter (ehh, decimetre :-) strange > >> French/British spellings). > >> > >> Tamas > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gerhard Fiedler < > >> RemoveMElistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Rolf wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and > the > >>>> SI unit is litre as well. > >>>> > >>> Are you sure? I think that depends on the language the document you're > >>> reading is written in, and AFAIK there's no "SI language standard". > >>> > >>> In Germany the corresponding SI unit is called "Liter" and in Brazil it > >>> is > >>> called "litro". AFAIK, both are "correct" (as is "liter" in the US). > >>> > >>> To answer the original question: In Germany the only consumption unit > in > >>> use is l/100 km ("Liter [not litre] pro hundert Kilometer") and in > Brazil > >>> it's km/l ("kilómetros por litro [not litre]"). > >>> > >>> Gerhard > >>> > >>> > > --

> -----Original Message----- > From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamEraseMEmit.edu [KILLspampiclist-bouncesspamBeGonemit.edu] On Behalf > Of Olin Lathrop > Sent: 10 July 2008 15:45 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [EE] Fuel economy measurement across the globe > > Sean Breheny wrote: > > How does the valve at the end of the tube "know" whether the pump is > > still feeding gas? > > It doesn't. The pump supplies a roughly constant pressure, and the valve > at > the nozzle either lets gas thru or it doesn't. The flow is measure and > accumulated in the pump. There is a sensor in the nozzle that can tell > when > liquid gets to its level and shut the nozzle off to prevent overfilling > and > spilling. > > This system makes a lot of sense. Is it really different in Ireland or is > Tomas just confused? I can't speak for Ireland, but every pump I have used in GB is as you describe. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

No, there is a small tube within the nozzle/valve assembly larger tube that goes in the vehicle fill point. The vehicle fill point is restricted, where the only legal nozzle (and there are exceptions) like unleaded gasoline fits snuggly. When the tank is full and fuel backs up (usually momentarily until air burps out), the smaller tube experiences a sudden pressure change. The smaller tube is connected to a pressure diaphragm which exerts force on the latch, including if hand held open, and forces the valve which is spring loaded closed to close. This is a safety device for the automatic fill. Some states do not permit unattended filling and the automatic latch on the hand valve is missing. Some vehicle gas caps can be jambed under the hand valve to keep it open and the auto fill safety will shut the fuel off when fill, well at least 99% of the time. One should always stay very close to the fill point, but not in line with being a target if fuel suddenly spurts out. Also mind the static electricity issues. see: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question25.htm www.petrodirect.com/category.asp?cID=10&sort=T&VIEWALL=TRUE http://www.opw-fc.com/product_category.aspx?cid=7 Sean Breheny wrote: {Quote hidden}> How does the valve at the end of the tube "know" whether the pump is > still feeding gas? It would seem to me that one could just hold the > handle at the nozzle end and keep the valve open. > > Sean > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Michael Rigby-Jones > <EraseMEMichael.Rigby-JonesEraseMEbookham.com> wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <@spam@toe@spam@spam_OUTlavabit.com> wrote: >>> >>>> For me, I make sure I get more fuel by stretching out the fuel tube so >>>> that I don't leave the petrol station with the tube still full of petrol. >>>> >>> {Original Message removed}

In italy they use km/l or l/100 km, witchever sound best at the moment :-(( But the real problem is that the tests are not taken on the road... only in laboratory!!! Rolf wrote: {Quote hidden}> Bob Blick wrote: > >> Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the >> different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. >> Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system >> anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people >> have different ways of doing things. >> >> Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure >> fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and >> a gallon is about 3.78 liters. >> >> And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per >> Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). >> >> For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have >> heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of >> specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? >> >> So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where >> you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used >> in an upcoming open source PIC project). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Cheerful regards, >> Bob >> >> >> > Canadians typically express in litres/100km. > South Africans typically express in litres/100km too, but also in > km/litre sometimes (at least it was done 10 years or so ago). > > Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the > SI unit is litre as well. You may want to get that right if you are > planning to support international markets... ;-) > > Rolf > >

> But the real problem is that the tests are not taken on the road... only > in laboratory!!! Yes, the actual consumption is dependent on too many things (including driving skills and style, quality of fuel, actual settings of the engine, road surface, tyres, air pressure - like if you are in a high mountain -, temperature, if you are using the car only for short distances, and that also involves particular extraction on the combustion chamber etc). Same thing as with the acceleration or the highest speed, calculated numbers on the 'datasheet' only - these numbers are good indicators though. Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Nicola Perotto <spamBeGonenicolaKILLspamnicolaperotto.it> wrote: {Quote hidden}> In italy they use km/l or l/100 km, witchever sound best at the moment :-(( > But the real problem is that the tests are not taken on the road... only > in laboratory!!! > > Rolf wrote: > > Bob Blick wrote: > > > >> Apropos of the "best calculator" thread, I am curious about the > >> different methods of measuring vehicle fuel economy across the globe. > >> Being from the United States I am of course ignorant of what system > >> anyone else uses. But I am enlightened enough to know that other people > >> have different ways of doing things. > >> > >> Just for the record, in case anyone is curious, in the USA we measure > >> fuel economy in Miles per Gallon, where a mile is about 1609 meters and > >> a gallon is about 3.78 liters. > >> > >> And I bet that in parts of the United Kingdom they also use Miles per > >> Gallon, but maybe those are Imperial Gallons(4.54 liters). > >> > >> For sure in true metric countries they must use metric units, but I have > >> heard it's reversed, and "Liters per 100 Kilometers" is a typical way of > >> specifying fuel economy. If this is so, is this the norm? > >> > >> So if you want to chime in with how you specify fuel economy and where > >> you live, it would be much appreciated (and the information will be used > >> in an upcoming open source PIC project). > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> Cheerful regards, > >> Bob > >> > >> > >> > > Canadians typically express in litres/100km. > > South Africans typically express in litres/100km too, but also in > > km/litre sometimes (at least it was done 10 years or so ago). > > > > Just by the way, in most 'metric' places it is litre, not liter, and the > > SI unit is litre as well. You may want to get that right if you are > > planning to support international markets... ;-) > > > > Rolf > > > > > > -

> That must be US gallons. > I make that 24.56 mp imperial gallon. True - interestingly Google also knows this. Sorry I am just so amazed how good is this calculator :-) *11.5 l/100km = 24.5635698 miles per Imperial gallon* http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+miles+per+imperial+gallon&btnG=Search&meta= Actually it is so weird to me these exotic measuring systems - gallon but which, mile but which... Was looking at the different measurements at Dictionary.com and so funny how many different measure are there for length for example - and no one are related to decimal number system, many for 12 or 60 or some very exotic ones or is that only cryptic for me? http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/styleguide/weights.html Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Richard Prosser <TakeThisOuTrhprosser.....TakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> 2008/7/11 Tamas Rudnai <TakeThisOuTtamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com>: > > In the other thread there was the Google Calc mentioned, so: > > *11.5 l/100km = 20.453442 miles per gallon > > **11.5 l/100km = 8.69565217 kilometers / l* > > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+mpg&btnG=Google+Search&meta= > > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+km%2Fl&btnG=Search&meta= > > > > In case if anyone wonders.. :-) > > > > Tamas > > That must be US gallons. > I make that 24.56 mp imperial gallon. > > RP > -

So far as I can gather, if they are anywhere in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, references to gallons are traditionally Imperial. I have been experimenting with different Googles asking "1 gallon in litres". google.ca returns US gallons. google.co.uk returns Imperial gallons. google.com.au and google.co.nz return US gallons, seemingly a contradiction to local custom. It seems like a good reason to go all-metric :) Cheerful regards, Bob On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:53:26 +1200, "Richard Prosser" <.....rhprosserRemoveMEgmail.com> said: {Quote hidden}> 2008/7/11 Tamas Rudnai <RemoveMEtamas.rudnaispamBeGonegmail.com>: > > In the other thread there was the Google Calc mentioned, so: > > *11.5 l/100km = 20.453442 miles per gallon > > **11.5 l/100km = 8.69565217 kilometers / l* > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+mpg&btnG=Google+Search&meta= > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+km%2Fl&btnG=Search&meta= > > > > In case if anyone wonders.. :-) > > > > Tamas > > That must be US gallons. > I make that 24.56 mp imperial gallon. -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class

Interesting observation. The Irish may hate the British Empire or not sure the reason but google.ie seems returning US gallons... Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Bob Blick <spamBeGonebobblick@spam@spam_OUTftml.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> So far as I can gather, if they are anywhere in the UK, Australia, or > New Zealand, references to gallons are traditionally Imperial. > > I have been experimenting with different Googles asking "1 gallon in > litres". > > google.ca returns US gallons. > > google.co.uk returns Imperial gallons. > > google.com.au and google.co.nz return US gallons, seemingly a > contradiction to local custom. > > It seems like a good reason to go all-metric :) > > Cheerful regards, > > Bob > > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:53:26 +1200, "Richard Prosser" > <TakeThisOuTrhprosserspamgmail.com> said: > > 2008/7/11 Tamas Rudnai <tamas.rudnaiEraseMEgmail.com>: > > > In the other thread there was the Google Calc mentioned, so: > > > *11.5 l/100km = 20.453442 miles per gallon > > > **11.5 l/100km = 8.69565217 kilometers / l* > > > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+mpg&btnG=Google+Search&meta= > > > > www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=11.5l%2F100km+in+km%2Fl&btnG=Search&meta= > > > > > > In case if anyone wonders.. :-) > > > > > > Tamas > > > > That must be US gallons. > > I make that 24.56 mp imperial gallon. > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class > > -

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:15 -0700, Bob Blick wrote: > So far as I can gather, if they are anywhere in the UK, Australia, or > New Zealand, references to gallons are traditionally Imperial. > > I have been experimenting with different Googles asking "1 gallon in > litres". > > google.ca returns US gallons. See, and this to me is the reason I so dislike gallons. Whenever the word "gallon" is used in Canada there is an ambiguity, is it the US gallon or the imperial (British) gallon? Officially Canada is of course metric, but gallon is still used from time to time, and there is always confusion as to which gallon is referenced. Another completely off topic, but REALLY annoying ambiguity is date formats. Officially in Canada one permitted format is dd/mm/yyyy. Unfortunately many people/companies use the American format which is mm/dd/yyyy. So anytime I'm looking at a date in that format, and the day field is <=12 I have no clue which one it is. Usually I have to find another time that entity specified a date and hope it's a case where the dd field is above 12. Very annoying, and I'm sure alot of errors have happened because of it. TTYL

In theory the american format is mm/dd/yy while the EU format is dd-mm-yy. Unfortunately many people use the wrong delimiter. Personally I prefer dd-mmm-yy where mmm is the three letter abreviation, as in 10-JUL-08. No ambiguity there... -Adam On 7/10/08, Herbert Graf <EraseMEmailinglist4@spam@farcite.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:15 -0700, Bob Blick wrote: > > So far as I can gather, if they are anywhere in the UK, Australia, or > > New Zealand, references to gallons are traditionally Imperial. > > > > I have been experimenting with different Googles asking "1 gallon in > > litres". > > > > google.ca returns US gallons. > > See, and this to me is the reason I so dislike gallons. Whenever the > word "gallon" is used in Canada there is an ambiguity, is it the US > gallon or the imperial (British) gallon? Officially Canada is of course > metric, but gallon is still used from time to time, and there is always > confusion as to which gallon is referenced. > > Another completely off topic, but REALLY annoying ambiguity is date > formats. Officially in Canada one permitted format is dd/mm/yyyy. > Unfortunately many people/companies use the American format which is > mm/dd/yyyy. So anytime I'm looking at a date in that format, and the day > field is <=12 I have no clue which one it is. Usually I have to find > another time that entity specified a date and hope it's a case where the > dd field is above 12. Very annoying, and I'm sure alot of errors have > happened because of it. > > TTYL > > -

In Hungary - and I believe in Japan as well - we use yy/mm/dd format. When you say 01-02-03 for me sometimes is even more confusing which year are you talking about, 2001 or 2003? :-) Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 9:54 PM, M. Adam Davis <@spam@stienmanspam_OUT.....gmail.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> In theory the american format is mm/dd/yy while the EU format is dd-mm-yy. > > Unfortunately many people use the wrong delimiter. > > Personally I prefer dd-mmm-yy where mmm is the three letter > abreviation, as in 10-JUL-08. No ambiguity there... > > -Adam > > On 7/10/08, Herbert Graf <spamBeGonemailinglist4EraseMEfarcite.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:15 -0700, Bob Blick wrote: > > > So far as I can gather, if they are anywhere in the UK, Australia, or > > > New Zealand, references to gallons are traditionally Imperial. > > > > > > I have been experimenting with different Googles asking "1 gallon in > > > litres". > > > > > > google.ca returns US gallons. > > > > See, and this to me is the reason I so dislike gallons. Whenever the > > word "gallon" is used in Canada there is an ambiguity, is it the US > > gallon or the imperial (British) gallon? Officially Canada is of course > > metric, but gallon is still used from time to time, and there is always > > confusion as to which gallon is referenced. > > > > Another completely off topic, but REALLY annoying ambiguity is date > > formats. Officially in Canada one permitted format is dd/mm/yyyy. > > Unfortunately many people/companies use the American format which is > > mm/dd/yyyy. So anytime I'm looking at a date in that format, and the day > > field is <=12 I have no clue which one it is. Usually I have to find > > another time that entity specified a date and hope it's a case where the > > dd field is above 12. Very annoying, and I'm sure alot of errors have > > happened because of it. > > > > TTYL > > > > --

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Herbert Graf <mailinglist4spamBeGonefarcite.net> wrote: > See, and this to me is the reason I so dislike gallons. Whenever the > word "gallon" is used in Canada there is an ambiguity, is it the US > gallon or the imperial (British) gallon? Officially Canada is of course > metric, but gallon is still used from time to time, and there is always > confusion as to which gallon is referenced. Agreed agreed agreed. It's also tricky due to our proximity to the US. Juice and milk come in US gallon containers, not Imperial gallons. > Another completely off topic, but REALLY annoying ambiguity is date > formats. Officially in Canada one permitted format is dd/mm/yyyy. > Unfortunately many people/companies use the American format which is > mm/dd/yyyy. So anytime I'm looking at a date in that format, and the day > field is <=12 I have no clue which one it is. Usually I have to find > another time that entity specified a date and hope it's a case where the > dd field is above 12. Very annoying, and I'm sure alot of errors have > happened because of it. I like to use yyyy/mm/dd when I'm timestamping files. That way they'll sort correctly (by date) and make things a bit easier. If I'm in a directory with only one kind of file then I do yyyy_mm_dd_FileName.Ext. If there are multiple types of files I use FileName_yyyy_mm_dd.Ext. I guess not a perfect standard but works for what I'm doing for now. Josh -- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

> The big bonus is that alphanumeric sorting of such data will also > arrange it chronologically. Exactly. That's why we Hungarians were so lucky with the 70s - 80s computers - we just kept our date and name format natively and used simple sorting algorithms to get our database sorted :-) -- We use surname first, then 'firstname', but 'firstname' it is a bit confusing in this context. We were only unlucky with the weird accents we use - not only because have to enter and display, but also have to sort it right. Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Rolf <RemoveMElearr@spam@spamBeGonerogers.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Tamas Rudnai wrote: > > In Hungary - and I believe in Japan as well - we use yy/mm/dd format. > When > > you say 01-02-03 for me sometimes is even more confusing which year are > you > > talking about, 2001 or 2003? :-) > > > > Tamas > > > Which all boils down to the best format being yyyy/mm/dd with _any_ > separator from '/' to nothing.... > > 20080710 > 2008/07/10 > 2008-07-10 > 2008.07.10 > 2008_07_10 > > Then, add the time too, and you get... > > 20080710.172933 > etc. > > The big bonus is that alphanumeric sorting of such data will also > arrange it chronologically. > No issues with centuries. > No ambiguity. > Can make it part of filenames, URL's, etc. > > Rolf > > -

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:27 +1000, cdb wrote: > > :: In Australian we tend to use l/100km, and my car gets about > :: 11.5l/100km. > :: > :: As with New Zealand many are happy also quoting in mpg. > > I have never quite understood why metric centred fuel measurement uses > the L/100klm formula, to me MPG (imp or US) says - you've travelled so > far and used so much, of course if you used KPL you'd end up with > fractions or some bright spark would think your talking about Key > Perfomance Learnings or some such trash. I don't know why L/100km exists, but I do prefer it. The reason is pretty specific to where I am, but here goes: Since the speed limit in most areas results in people driving around 100km/h on average, that L/100km figure can often be changed to L/hour. Since most people where I'm from refer to distances in number of hours needed to get there (i.e. North bay is about 6 hours north of Toronto is VERY commonly heard), it makes it REAL easy to figure out how much fuel you need. 6 hours to North Bay, car gets 6L/100km, which is about 6L/hour, so that's roughly 36L to get there. This may sound strange to some, but that's how we do things! :) TTYL

Hmm, L/hour, never thought that way, but makes sense when you stuck in the traffic. Common measurement in airplanes anyway :-) L/100km is convinient as you have a rough idea how much petrol/diesel you need to get somewhere. Or maybe as we just got used to it. Tamas On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Herbert Graf <.....mailinglist4RemoveMEfarcite.net> wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:27 +1000, cdb wrote: > > > > :: In Australian we tend to use l/100km, and my car gets about > > :: 11.5l/100km. > > :: > > :: As with New Zealand many are happy also quoting in mpg. > > > > I have never quite understood why metric centred fuel measurement uses > > the L/100klm formula, to me MPG (imp or US) says - you've travelled so > > far and used so much, of course if you used KPL you'd end up with > > fractions or some bright spark would think your talking about Key > > Perfomance Learnings or some such trash. > > I don't know why L/100km exists, but I do prefer it. > > The reason is pretty specific to where I am, but here goes: > > Since the speed limit in most areas results in people driving around > 100km/h on average, that L/100km figure can often be changed to L/hour. > > Since most people where I'm from refer to distances in number of hours > needed to get there (i.e. North bay is about 6 hours north of Toronto is > VERY commonly heard), it makes it REAL easy to figure out how much fuel > you need. > > 6 hours to North Bay, car gets 6L/100km, which is about 6L/hour, so > that's roughly 36L to get there. > > This may sound strange to some, but that's how we do things! :) > > TTYL > > -

Thanks for the reply, Olin, but I wasn't talking about how the pump knows to stop pumping. As I understood it, several piclisters were saying that the valve at the nozzle end normally stays closed to prevent people from emptying the tube after the pump has shut down. I was wondering how the valve at the nozzle end "knows" to close after pumping is finished. I would have thought that it would open whenever the handle was squeezed closed. Sean On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistSTOPspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Sean Breheny wrote: >> How does the valve at the end of the tube "know" whether the pump is >> still feeding gas? > > It doesn't. The pump supplies a roughly constant pressure, and the valve at > the nozzle either lets gas thru or it doesn't. The flow is measure and > accumulated in the pump. There is a sensor in the nozzle that can tell when > liquid gets to its level and shut the nozzle off to prevent overfilling and > spilling. > > This system makes a lot of sense. Is it really different in Ireland or is > Tomas just confused? > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote: > Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> 2008-05-07 is the one that's least ambiguous. It's always yyyy-mm-dd. I >> think there's an ISO standard for it. > > And I bet it's 200 pages long :-D Bet how much? Think you lost... :) Given the complexity of the issue, the number of different formats and the many different ways dates are referred to, this standard is not excessive at all, IMO. ISO 8601:2004 Data elements and interchange formats -- Information interchange -- Representation of dates and times A good summary: <www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html> Wikipedia, also good: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601> More to the point, Wikipedia provides a direct download link for the ISO document (40 pages): <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199> ISO's own summary: <www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format> Here you can buy it (not sure how this relates to the link published in Wikipedia): <http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874> A short overview of the formats in list form, from an older version of ISO 8601 (1988): <http://www.hydracen.com/dx/iso8601.htm> The W3C take on this (they basically adopted a subset of ISO 8601): <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/iso-date> <http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime> Gerhard

Sean Breheny wrote: > Thanks for the reply, Olin, but I wasn't talking about how the pump > knows to stop pumping. As I understood it, several piclisters were > saying that the valve at the nozzle end normally stays closed to > prevent people from emptying the tube after the pump has shut down. I > was wondering how the valve at the nozzle end "knows" to close after > pumping is finished. I would have thought that it would open whenever > the handle was squeezed closed. I'm not sure what you're asking as it's not making much sense. The valve for starting and stopping gas flow when filling your car is in the nozzle. This valve is usually activated by a grip that you squeeze. When your tank is full this valve shuts off by itself, or you manually release the grip to shut it off. If you were to squeeze the grip again, more gas would flow, but you'd also get charged for that. The pump senses when you return the nozzle to the holder in the pump and completes the billing. On some pumps this is done by swinging a lever which phisically locks the nozzle in place. It won't be released until the next billing has started. Some pumps shut down the internal pump, but of course it is turned on again when the nozzle is removed by the next customer. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haven't you ever filled up a car before? If not, go with someone next time they do it. It's really not complicated, and it's pretty obvious how the system works when you look at it. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

On 7/11/08, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistEraseME@spam@embedinc.com> wrote: > Some pumps shut down the internal pump, but of course > it is turned on again when the nozzle is removed by the next customer. The modern gas stations where I've seen the 'back room' have a variable frequency drive pump for each storage tank of fuel. The pumps feed all the dispensers. This method is less expensive overall and easier to stop in case of emergency. Generally they don't buy a large enough pump to feed all the dispensers at once, so when lots of people are fueling you can tell it's fuelling more slowly than usual. further, some stations buy smaller pumps for the less frequently used fuels. The dispensors aren't much more than payment machines with meters (and ads) and safety equipment... -Adam -- EARTH DAY 2008 Tuesday April 22 Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet http://www.driveslowly.org

Hi Olin, I may be relatively young (28) but I've been driving for 10 years and certainly have filled up a car before :) Let me try to rephrase my question by giving an example. Let's say I go to fill up. First, I slide my credit card and select the type of gas I want. Then I remove the nozzle and place it into the filler tube in the car. Next I squeeze the handle and the pump starts pumping fuel. When the tank fills and the nozzle detects gas next to the small holes on the outside of the nozzle, it closes the valve at the nozzle and the gas stops flowing. I could "top it off" by continuing to cycle the handle through open and closed. Now, I put the nozzle back into the holder on the pump and complete the transaction. At this point, the entire tube from the pump to the nozzle is still full of gas, right? Now if I remove the nozzle from the holder again, without swiping my card again, and then squeeze the handle, how come I don't get the contents of the tube spilling out? Sure, the pump will not deliver more gas into the tube, but I would think that the gas inside the tube could still come out. I can only think of a few ways this could be prevented: 1) suck the fuel back out of the tube into the pump 2) somehow enable the pump to signal the valve at the nozzle to remain closed when there isn't an active transaction going on. 3) Have the entire connection from pump through to nozzle be so air tight that no air could get back in to displace the gasoline so that it will not come out unless the pump is pumping (I'm having trouble trying to determine whether this would work as it seems that normally even a tube which is sealed at one end and filled with liquid can still be emptied from the other end). 4) have the valve at the nozzle end require a minimum pressure to open (which is greater than the pressure developed by gravity on the vertical height of gasoline in the tube) My question is which of these is done (or what possibility did I not consider) Thanks, Sean On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamBeGoneembedinc.com> wrote: {Quote hidden}> > I'm not sure what you're asking as it's not making much sense. > > The valve for starting and stopping gas flow when filling your car is in the > nozzle. This valve is usually activated by a grip that you squeeze. When > your tank is full this valve shuts off by itself, or you manually release > the grip to shut it off. If you were to squeeze the grip again, more gas > would flow, but you'd also get charged for that. > > The pump senses when you return the nozzle to the holder in the pump and > completes the billing. On some pumps this is done by swinging a lever which > phisically locks the nozzle in place. It won't be released until the next > billing has started. Some pumps shut down the internal pump, but of course > it is turned on again when the nozzle is removed by the next customer. > > I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haven't you ever filled up a car > before? If not, go with someone next time they do it. It's really not > complicated, and it's pretty obvious how the system works when you look at > it. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -

In the USA, the EPA mandates certain spill prevention and leak detection methods. One of these is, if the nozzle valve is open when the pump starts ( or manifold valve in the case of many dispensers on one pump). The unrestricted hose end will be interpreted as a broken hose leaking and the mechanical (no electrical required) leak detector before the dispenser hose will shut the flow off to a trickle. Reseting requires fixing the leak (close the nozzle valve) and shutting off the source (pump usually) briefly. Here is a good description of the entire fuel dispensing system, above described is "MLD" http://www.acetank.com/Public/Solutions/ServiceStations/index.cfm?requesttimeout=100 Sean Breheny wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi Olin, > > I may be relatively young (28) but I've been driving for 10 years and > certainly have filled up a car before :) > > Let me try to rephrase my question by giving an example. > > Let's say I go to fill up. First, I slide my credit card and select > the type of gas I want. Then I remove the nozzle and place it into the > filler tube in the car. Next I squeeze the handle and the pump starts > pumping fuel. > > When the tank fills and the nozzle detects gas next to the small holes > on the outside of the nozzle, it closes the valve at the nozzle and > the gas stops flowing. I could "top it off" by continuing to cycle the > handle through open and closed. > > Now, I put the nozzle back into the holder on the pump and complete > the transaction. At this point, the entire tube from the pump to the > nozzle is still full of gas, right? > > Now if I remove the nozzle from the holder again, without swiping my > card again, and then squeeze the handle, how come I don't get the > contents of the tube spilling out? Sure, the pump will not deliver > more gas into the tube, but I would think that the gas inside the tube > could still come out. > > I can only think of a few ways this could be prevented: > > 1) suck the fuel back out of the tube into the pump > 2) somehow enable the pump to signal the valve at the nozzle to remain > closed when there isn't an active transaction going on. > 3) Have the entire connection from pump through to nozzle be so air > tight that no air could get back in to displace the gasoline so that > it will not come out unless the pump is pumping (I'm having trouble > trying to determine whether this would work as it seems that normally > even a tube which is sealed at one end and filled with liquid can > still be emptied from the other end). > 4) have the valve at the nozzle end require a minimum pressure to open > (which is greater than the pressure developed by gravity on the > vertical height of gasoline in the tube) > > My question is which of these is done (or what possibility did I not consider) > > Thanks, > > Sean > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistKILLspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you're asking as it's not making much sense. >> >> The valve for starting and stopping gas flow when filling your car is in the >> nozzle. This valve is usually activated by a grip that you squeeze. When >> your tank is full this valve shuts off by itself, or you manually release >> the grip to shut it off. If you were to squeeze the grip again, more gas >> would flow, but you'd also get charged for that. >> >> The pump senses when you return the nozzle to the holder in the pump and >> completes the billing. On some pumps this is done by swinging a lever which >> phisically locks the nozzle in place. It won't be released until the next >> billing has started. Some pumps shut down the internal pump, but of course >> it is turned on again when the nozzle is removed by the next customer. >> >> I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haven't you ever filled up a car >> before? If not, go with someone next time they do it. It's really not >> complicated, and it's pretty obvious how the system works when you look at >> it. >> >> >> ******************************************************************** >> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products >> (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. >> --

Sean Breheny wrote: > Let's say I go to fill up. First, I slide my credit card and select > the type of gas I want. Then I remove the nozzle and place it into the > filler tube in the car. Next I squeeze the handle and the pump starts > pumping fuel. > > When the tank fills and the nozzle detects gas next to the small holes > on the outside of the nozzle, it closes the valve at the nozzle and > the gas stops flowing. I could "top it off" by continuing to cycle the > handle through open and closed. > > Now, I put the nozzle back into the holder on the pump and complete > the transaction. At this point, the entire tube from the pump to the > nozzle is still full of gas, right? > > Now if I remove the nozzle from the holder again, without swiping my > card again, and then squeeze the handle, how come I don't get the > contents of the tube spilling out? Sure, the pump will not deliver > more gas into the tube, but I would think that the gas inside the tube > could still come out. It may be that even with a wide open valve that air can't get back up into the hose to displace the gas. There must be some elasticity in the hose and you probably would get a little extra gas. In any case, it would be fraud to try to take more gas from the pump after you indicated you were done by placing the nozzle back into the holder. If you could get a meaningful amount of gas this way and there were enough dirtbags that did this, there would be measures to prevent it. This is all rather different from what Tomas was talking about. Can someone from Ireland comment of whether the system really is different over there, or did Tomas just get confused in the excitement of thinking he was getting something for nothing? ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

{Quote hidden}> Sean Breheny wrote: > > Let's say I go to fill up. First, I slide my credit card and select > > the type of gas I want. Then I remove the nozzle and place it into the > > filler tube in the car. Next I squeeze the handle and the pump starts > > pumping fuel. > > > > When the tank fills and the nozzle detects gas next to the small holes > > on the outside of the nozzle, it closes the valve at the nozzle and > > the gas stops flowing. I could "top it off" by continuing to cycle the > > handle through open and closed. > > > > Now, I put the nozzle back into the holder on the pump and complete > > the transaction. At this point, the entire tube from the pump to the > > nozzle is still full of gas, right? > > > > Now if I remove the nozzle from the holder again, without swiping my > > card again, and then squeeze the handle, how come I don't get the > > contents of the tube spilling out? Sure, the pump will not deliver > > more gas into the tube, but I would think that the gas inside the tube > > could still come out. In my mis-spent youth at 2am I remember being about 40 miles from home and out of gas in a small town whose gas stations had long since closed We drained the hoses from a couple gas stations and got enough to get home. This was back in the days when hoses were never locked to the pumps. w..

Consulting the Oracle (google) we find this example: http://www.opw-fc.com/product_category.aspx?cid=7 apparently some fuel nozzles (pump handles to us, fuel nozzle to the industry) do allow one to dispense product from an unpressurized hose. There are fuel nozzles, however, that will not dispense product until the line is under pressure, preventing this sort of theft. These pressure sensitive nozzles are marketed more as spill and 'loss' prevention. -Adam On 7/11/08, Sean Breheny <shb7spam_OUT@spam@cornell.edu> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi Olin, > > I may be relatively young (28) but I've been driving for 10 years and > certainly have filled up a car before :) > > Let me try to rephrase my question by giving an example. > > Let's say I go to fill up. First, I slide my credit card and select > the type of gas I want. Then I remove the nozzle and place it into the > filler tube in the car. Next I squeeze the handle and the pump starts > pumping fuel. > > When the tank fills and the nozzle detects gas next to the small holes > on the outside of the nozzle, it closes the valve at the nozzle and > the gas stops flowing. I could "top it off" by continuing to cycle the > handle through open and closed. > > Now, I put the nozzle back into the holder on the pump and complete > the transaction. At this point, the entire tube from the pump to the > nozzle is still full of gas, right? > > Now if I remove the nozzle from the holder again, without swiping my > card again, and then squeeze the handle, how come I don't get the > contents of the tube spilling out? Sure, the pump will not deliver > more gas into the tube, but I would think that the gas inside the tube > could still come out. > > I can only think of a few ways this could be prevented: > > 1) suck the fuel back out of the tube into the pump > 2) somehow enable the pump to signal the valve at the nozzle to remain > closed when there isn't an active transaction going on. > 3) Have the entire connection from pump through to nozzle be so air > tight that no air could get back in to displace the gasoline so that > it will not come out unless the pump is pumping (I'm having trouble > trying to determine whether this would work as it seems that normally > even a tube which is sealed at one end and filled with liquid can > still be emptied from the other end). > 4) have the valve at the nozzle end require a minimum pressure to open > (which is greater than the pressure developed by gravity on the > vertical height of gasoline in the tube) > > My question is which of these is done (or what possibility did I not consider) > > Thanks, > > Sean > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclist@spam@embedinc.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you're asking as it's not making much sense. > > > > The valve for starting and stopping gas flow when filling your car is in the > > nozzle. This valve is usually activated by a grip that you squeeze. When > > your tank is full this valve shuts off by itself, or you manually release > > the grip to shut it off. If you were to squeeze the grip again, more gas > > would flow, but you'd also get charged for that. > > > > The pump senses when you return the nozzle to the holder in the pump and > > completes the billing. On some pumps this is done by swinging a lever which > > phisically locks the nozzle in place. It won't be released until the next > > billing has started. Some pumps shut down the internal pump, but of course > > it is turned on again when the nozzle is removed by the next customer. > > > > I'm not really sure what you're asking. Haven't you ever filled up a car > > before? If not, go with someone next time they do it. It's really not > > complicated, and it's pretty obvious how the system works when you look at > > it. > > > > > > ******************************************************************** > > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > > --

:: As I understood it, several piclisters were :::: saying that the valve at the nozzle end normally stays closed to :::: prevent people from emptying the tube after the pump has shut :::: down. I :::: was wondering how the valve at the nozzle end "knows" to close :::: after :::: pumping is finished. I would have thought that it would open :::: whenever :::: the handle was squeezed closed. Is there a syphoning effect happening at the pump when it is switched off? One of the reasons why some pumps seem to have a lag between squeezing the trigger, fuel being dispensed (and annoyingly the meter whizzes around before fuel has started to flow) is due to the fuel station not priming it's pumps properly and leaking pump seals. So it maybe that the hose is empty if the fuel is 'sucked' back into the pump, though the primed pump should expel the air quickly when the next user switches the pump back on. ( a fuel stations manager's trick to skim some extra money is not to prime the pumps each day, the fuel dispensed that is registered, but actually hasn't flowed, may be smallish, but over the course of a day's trade, amounts to 100% profit.) Colin -- cdb, RemoveMEcolinEraseMEKILLspambtech-online.co.uk on 12/07/2008 Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk Hosted by: http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359

The pumps are all submersible, and have a check valve after the pump turbines (very close, the entire pump including motor, turbine and check valve, probably less than 2 feet long). The entire system is liquid(and for all practical purposes air too) tight, When the pump is turned on for the first time (new, after maintenance or running the tank dry) after being immersed in fuel, it will self prime very quickly and the air will get compressed in the piping, dispenser, and hose to the nozzle. Opening the nozzle valve will allow the air to be expelled from the system. Once this is done (should be done by the system operator, and not customer) there should not be any air in the system, though it would be possible to drain the liquid in the hose by turning off the pump (read as including a manifold valve if multi dispenser system) and opening the nozzle valve with the nozzle lower than it's attachment to the dispenser. Most meters I have seen only measure liquid, and not air, but this may not be always true. Older dispensers (1950's) had a glass sight glass with a little turbine in it to verify there was flow, and no air. The nozzle valve is a spring loaded normally closed valve, otherwise, when the pump is turned on there would be flow, which would not be safe big time. The nozzle valve closes for 2 reasons: 1: Stop squeezing the lever. 2: A full vehicle tank condition is sensed, and the valve is closed automatically, no matter what is keeping the valve open, either a hand, the auto fill latch, or a gas cap or something jambed under the hand lever. Stretching the hose might yield a fluid ounce or so, I don't consider it worth my time. Draining the hose, is cheating the next customer since he is going to get charged for it. One item hasn't been discussed, vapor recovery. As a tank gets filled, fuel vapors are displaced by fresh liquid. Conversely, as a tank is emptied, fresh air is drawn in, unless there is another hose to allow the vapors to transfer from the filled tank to the emptied tank. For vehicle filling, there is a neoprene (usually black) accordion boot on the tube that goes in the vehicle fill point sealing the area, and the vapors leave the nozzle in a coaxial hose (it will be large diameter than usual). For tank truck delivery, there is a separate hose the truck drive must connect to return the vapors to the transport tank. Upon return to the distribution terminal where we will assume the fuel is delivered via a pipe line from some distant point, the fuel vapors are condensed back to product. I have been told this could result in 5 gallons recovered from a 8000 gallon transport. cdb wrote: {Quote hidden}> :: As I understood it, several piclisters were > :::: saying that the valve at the nozzle end normally stays closed to > :::: prevent people from emptying the tube after the pump has shut > :::: down. I > :::: was wondering how the valve at the nozzle end "knows" to close > :::: after > :::: pumping is finished. I would have thought that it would open > :::: whenever > :::: the handle was squeezed closed. > > Is there a syphoning effect happening at the pump when it is switched > off? One of the reasons why some pumps seem to have a lag between > squeezing the trigger, fuel being dispensed (and annoyingly the meter > whizzes around before fuel has started to flow) is due to the fuel > station not priming it's pumps properly and leaking pump seals. So it > maybe that the hose is empty if the fuel is 'sucked' back into the > pump, though the primed pump should expel the air quickly when the > next user switches the pump back on. > > ( a fuel stations manager's trick to skim some extra money is not to > prime the pumps each day, the fuel dispensed that is registered, but > actually hasn't flowed, may be smallish, but over the course of a > day's trade, amounts to 100% profit.) > > Colin > -- > cdb, spamBeGonecolinspam_OUTRemoveMEbtech-online.co.uk on 12/07/2008 > > Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk > > Hosted by: http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359 > > > > > > > > >

Carl Denk wrote: > The pumps are all submersible, and have a check valve after the pump > turbines (very close, the entire pump including motor, turbine and check > valve, probably less than 2 feet long). The entire system is liquid(and > for all practical purposes air too) tight, When the pump is turned on > for the first time (new, after maintenance or running the tank dry) > after being immersed in fuel, it will self prime very quickly and the > air will get compressed in the piping, dispenser, and hose to the > nozzle. Opening the nozzle valve will allow the air to be expelled from > the system. Once this is done (should be done by the system operator, > and not customer) there should not be any air in the system, though it > would be possible to drain the liquid in the hose by turning off the > pump (read as including a manifold valve if multi dispenser system) and > opening the nozzle valve with the nozzle lower than it's attachment to > the dispenser. Most meters I have seen only measure liquid, and not air, > but this may not be always true. This is generally how all pumps work I've seen in recent decades, but things were not always so. Back when I was in grade school we were driving thru northern Arizona and New Mexico, and happened to need gas in the Hopi indian reservation. We had ask around a bit for where there was a gas station, but eventually we were directed to a town on the top of a hill a few miles from the main road. The gas pump had a big upside down jar on top, looking sortof like one of those replacable water jugs of office water coolers. Except this jar was a bit bigger, glass, and on top of the pump at eye level. The gas station attendent asked how much gas we wanted, then worked a mechanical pump by hand that caused the big glass jar to fill up. It was marked off in gallons. Once he got to the gallons we requested, he stopped pumping and the car was filled by gravity from the big jar. Pretty cool. I vaguely remember gas cost in the low 30 cents per gallon range. The cheapest gas I remember was in the middle of noplace Nevada (maybe Utah or Arizona). It was at a crossroads of two paved roads with a gas station on 3 of the 4 corners with pretty much nothing else around for 10s of miles. The gas price was 18 cents/gallon, which was a great deal even then. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Yep, that was the equipment used in the 30's and 40's. By the 50's they were all gone except for a few isolated instances. Today, they are museum pieces. The neat thing of those devices, was, you could see the fuel color and the quantity you were getting. Today we rely on the electronics and we all know how good and how that can be hacked. In Ohio, most states are similar, the county auditor has people that go around with calibrated containers, and check the accuracy of the meters. The dispenser if good, gets a dated seal sticker that is good for a year. Some states check the quality of the fuel for purity and octane rating, Ohio does not! Last week, I picked up 40 gallons of off road (no highway tax) diesel fuel for our tractor at the local distributor that services farmers and businesses. I pumped from a 3000 gallon above the ground tank with a pump/meter unit mounted on top. This was the exception to the submersible tank setup. The nozzle tube was at least 1" diameter, no way could you get it into a car fill point. :) Olin Lathrop wrote: {Quote hidden}> Carl Denk wrote: > >> The pumps are all submersible, and have a check valve after the pump >> turbines (very close, the entire pump including motor, turbine and check >> valve, probably less than 2 feet long). The entire system is liquid(and >> for all practical purposes air too) tight, When the pump is turned on >> for the first time (new, after maintenance or running the tank dry) >> after being immersed in fuel, it will self prime very quickly and the >> air will get compressed in the piping, dispenser, and hose to the >> nozzle. Opening the nozzle valve will allow the air to be expelled from >> the system. Once this is done (should be done by the system operator, >> and not customer) there should not be any air in the system, though it >> would be possible to drain the liquid in the hose by turning off the >> pump (read as including a manifold valve if multi dispenser system) and >> opening the nozzle valve with the nozzle lower than it's attachment to >> the dispenser. Most meters I have seen only measure liquid, and not air, >> but this may not be always true. >> > > This is generally how all pumps work I've seen in recent decades, but things > were not always so. Back when I was in grade school we were driving thru > northern Arizona and New Mexico, and happened to need gas in the Hopi indian > reservation. We had ask around a bit for where there was a gas station, but > eventually we were directed to a town on the top of a hill a few miles from > the main road. The gas pump had a big upside down jar on top, looking > sortof like one of those replacable water jugs of office water coolers. > Except this jar was a bit bigger, glass, and on top of the pump at eye > level. The gas station attendent asked how much gas we wanted, then worked > a mechanical pump by hand that caused the big glass jar to fill up. It was > marked off in gallons. Once he got to the gallons we requested, he stopped > pumping and the car was filled by gravity from the big jar. Pretty cool. I > vaguely remember gas cost in the low 30 cents per gallon range. > > The cheapest gas I remember was in the middle of noplace Nevada (maybe Utah > or Arizona). It was at a crossroads of two paved roads with a gas station > on 3 of the 4 corners with pretty much nothing else around for 10s of miles. > The gas price was 18 cents/gallon, which was a great deal even then. > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. >

On Jul 10, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote: > > > Gerhard Fiedler wrote: >> 2008-05-07 is the one that's least ambiguous. It's always yyyy-mm- >> dd. I >> think there's an ISO standard for it. > > > And I bet it's 200 pages long :-D And if you're really unlucky, instead of using ISO standards, you have to live in the telecom world where the ITU is the place to go. ITU standards will often have an Annex -- an add-on that changes the standard completely. And if it's from ITU it costs big money to get a "real" copy. And upon receiving it and reading it you find that it describes six different ways to do the same thing, therefore doesn't "define" a standard at all. Start with ITU H.320, compare to H.323 -- one's ISDN, the other IP -- but after that they're the same. Then try to find all of the appropriate videoconferencing standards underneath H.323. Then realize that you're looking for an audio answer and the overlying standard just calls out other standards, in this case... it's actually G.729.1 Annex C that you're REALLY trying to find. And shake your head when you realize that G.729.1 and G.729.1 Annex C aren't even using the same technology or CODEC, but ended up the same number because G.729 was "extensible". Did the above just this week... because some $20 software client said it did G.729.1 and the customer thought that meant it would do G.729.1 Annex C. And we pay for the privilege of having copies of this slop. :-) -- Nate Duehr .....nateRemoveMEnatetech.com

On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Carl Denk wrote: > Last week, I picked up 40 gallons of off road (no highway tax) diesel > fuel for our tractor at the local distributor that services farmers > and > businesses. I pumped from a 3000 gallon above the ground tank with a > pump/meter unit mounted on top. This was the exception to the > submersible tank setup. The nozzle tube was at least 1" diameter, no > way > could you get it into a car fill point. :) If it was the "standard" larger diesel nozzle size used by 18- wheelers, the Volkswagen diesel cars not only can handle the larger diameter nozzle, but also have a special air return system (a valve activated by the larger nozzle being inserted opens an air "escape" valve that allows air to escape at a much faster rate from the fuel tank up through a tube to that plastic valve in the filler port. This allows you to fill up at the much bigger nozzle pumps the trucks use at a horrendously fast rate. But you'd better watch it closely because it'll easily overfill and cause a spill at those pumps. You have to love VW engineers for including it, though. Since this air return system also incorporates a small pocket of air molded into the top of the fuel tank, many VW diesel drivers will carry a few disposable latex gloves or similar and on long trips where they want the maximum fuel in the tank during a fill-up, they'll reach in with a finger and push the air valve open while using a regular "car sized" small diesel nozzle, which will allow for "topping off" the tank with quite a bit more fuel into that "air space" at the top. It's a pretty significant amount of fuel, but I don't remember how much. I didn't have gloves with me the day I messed with it on my wife's Jetta Wagon, and I smelled like diesel for the rest of the day, even with trying to wash it off... gloves highly recommended. :-) Meanwhile the thing's highway fuel economy is so high, that even if I watch my water and/or coffee intake when on a long road trip, the diesel car will always outlast my bladder -- "extra fillup" or a regular one. One tank of fuel from just south of Mt. Rushmore, South Dakota to the south suburbs of Denver, CO is WAY too long to be in the driver's seat... I didn't even attempt it. But I didn't have to fill up... Not particularly interested in finding out what Deep Vein Thrombosis and pulmonary edema from a blood clot passing through my heart is like. Only really messed with filling the car with the larger "truck" pumps once. It was full so fast, it was amazing, even only opening the pump to the first "notch" on the locking mechanism. WHOOOOSH. Nice if you had to, but not really worth the nervousness that goes with it. -- Nate Duehr nate@spam@natetech.com

Agreed. I should of said, that the object of different size nozzles and restrictions is to prevent using an improper fuel, either intentionally or not, and the diesel nozzle won't fit in a gasoline either with or without lead fill point. I was fueling a 1979 Ford Bronco (full size SUV) in Helana Montana.THe vehicle required unleaded fuel since it had a catalytic converter. I selected gasohol dispenser, not reading that it was not unleaded. The nozzle wouldn't fit, and then I read the label and had to switch dispensers. Along the same lines, the off the road fuel is dyed bright red! I have been told the red will persist in your tank for a long time, and the fine for road use can be substantial, in the $1000's. Our standby electric generator for the house backup fuel is highway use gasoline. The 175 gallon tank is used mainly for road vehicles. Most small aircraft can be fueled either gasoline or jet fuel since the fill point is usually large enough. The fill point is required to be labeled type fuel and capacity, but a plane crashing from wrong fuel is not unusual :( Some are caused by the transport delivery driver filling the wrong tank, or a mix up at refinery or terminal! The fuels are different color and it is the pilots responsibility to check the color and presence of water or other containments after fueling and before flight. Nate Duehr wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Carl Denk wrote: > > >> Last week, I picked up 40 gallons of off road (no highway tax) diesel >> fuel for our tractor at the local distributor that services farmers >> and >> businesses. I pumped from a 3000 gallon above the ground tank with a >> pump/meter unit mounted on top. This was the exception to the >> submersible tank setup. The nozzle tube was at least 1" diameter, no >> way >> could you get it into a car fill point. :) >> > > > If it was the "standard" larger diesel nozzle size used by 18- > wheelers, the Volkswagen diesel cars not only can handle the larger > diameter nozzle, but also have a special air return system (a valve > activated by the larger nozzle being inserted opens an air "escape" > valve that allows air to escape at a much faster rate from the fuel > tank up through a tube to that plastic valve in the filler port. > > This allows you to fill up at the much bigger nozzle pumps the trucks > use at a horrendously fast rate. But you'd better watch it closely > because it'll easily overfill and cause a spill at those pumps. > > You have to love VW engineers for including it, though. > > Since this air return system also incorporates a small pocket of air > molded into the top of the fuel tank, many VW diesel drivers will > carry a few disposable latex gloves or similar and on long trips where > they want the maximum fuel in the tank during a fill-up, they'll reach > in with a finger and push the air valve open while using a regular > "car sized" small diesel nozzle, which will allow for "topping off" > the tank with quite a bit more fuel into that "air space" at the top. > > It's a pretty significant amount of fuel, but I don't remember how > much. I didn't have gloves with me the day I messed with it on my > wife's Jetta Wagon, and I smelled like diesel for the rest of the day, > even with trying to wash it off... gloves highly recommended. :-) > > Meanwhile the thing's highway fuel economy is so high, that even if I > watch my water and/or coffee intake when on a long road trip, the > diesel car will always outlast my bladder -- "extra fillup" or a > regular one. One tank of fuel from just south of Mt. Rushmore, South > Dakota to the south suburbs of Denver, CO is WAY too long to be in the > driver's seat... I didn't even attempt it. But I didn't have to fill > up... > > Not particularly interested in finding out what Deep Vein Thrombosis > and pulmonary edema from a blood clot passing through my heart is like. > > Only really messed with filling the car with the larger "truck" pumps > once. It was full so fast, it was amazing, even only opening the pump > to the first "notch" on the locking mechanism. WHOOOOSH. Nice if you > had to, but not really worth the nervousness that goes with it. > > -- > Nate Duehr > EraseMEnateRemoveMESTOPspamnatetech.com > > > >