Gio

^^^^ there speaks an accountant :D (Although if you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion. :D And for old times' sake, if you laid all the female students at Surrey University end-to-end, nobody would be a bit surprised :rofl: ah, happy days...)

And the suggestions will probably be much the same as before ;) All of whom (which?) would be closer than the duffman :D

Some days, the poor old ZClub's server is up and down more often than a whore's drawers. Sometimes it's due to one of they auto porn posting 'bots. Anyroad up, just goes to show how lucky we are to have Mike Gr .... oh b*gger

http://www.mgenthusiast.com/pdfs/MGF.pdf

This lot http://www.taxassist.co.uk/ are a national network of local accountants. Don't know what yours is like but the one down in Windsor is OK.

As a physicist I certainly know that pressure acts in all directions. OK maybe for accuracy I should have said momentum instead of inertia but we were talking principles instead of quantifiable and measurable things. To take this case, Momentum = p = mv (mass x velocity) and we were comparing the momentum of the air already in the intake system to the momentum of the air coming out of the recirc valve. This would show whether they would be in balance or whether one would overcome the other. First approximation is that the mass of the air in the system is probably significantly more than the mass of air introduced by the recirc valve. What's the velocity? Dunno but clearly quite a lot when under throttle. And non-zero when you lift off because recircs avoid compressor stall in the turbos. So somewhere between "some" and "quite a lot". That's for the system air. Now how about the recirc air. Gut feel that its velocity is quite high as it's coming from a compressed into a not-quite-so-compressed chamber. But maybe not as high in proportion as the difference in mass. So for first approximation it appears likely p(system) is greater than p(recirc). Second approximation don't forget the recirc air is coming into the chamber orthogonal to the flow of the system and hence since v (and hence p) are vectors, the resultant is very probably in the same direction as p(system) i.e. towards the turbo. Still, as I said, would be interested to see real measurements (or even references) to test the hypotheses. Point about fuelling refers to feedback loops and the potential confusion of the ECU. If the ECU is fuelling for air that isn't there that will indeed cause rich but then what happens when the effects of the rich running are detected by the other sensors feeding the ECU and it leans off the mixture too quickly by which time you are back on boost and fullthrottle? What is the feedback time of this control loop? No idea. But I can certainly understand why dump valves can confuse the ECU and to me that's not an optimum condition. All noise is indeed caused by wasted energy (unless it's your ICE or horn). The energy losses caused by heat dissipation from the intercoolers should be considered as the same system as that from the recircs - it's not an either / or. The thermodynamics of the situation treat the "thing which does the combustion" i.e. the engine from intake to exhaust as a single "black box" (not "black body" - that's a different thing altogether which we can cover in a different class) with the temperature of its inputs (the fuel and the air), the energy released through the exothermic burning of the fuel, the temperature of its outputs: the exhaust gases and the general waste heat; plus the energy released as noise.

He doesn't claim a massive performance gain. His comments are more that there won't be the lack of pressure cause by boost valves. Which is correct. In any case there is a reasonable amount of inertia in the air already moving through the system which won't suddenly vanish and let through dumped air in the reverse direction. If there are any measurements showing the difference is "almost immeasurable" I'd be interested to see them. By definition, the pressure lost is enough to make those bloody awful noises dump valves make. And, what's worse, as any physicist or engineer knows, noise is a symptom of inefficiency in a process and who wants to make a Z more inefficient than it already is! He does state the ECU reason. So recircs don't confuse the ECU or risk fubaring up the air/fuel mix which is a major cause of detonation.

..

Oh dear. Another myth. If you stop buying petrol from Esso / BP, there will be a lot more demand for petrol from Shell, Total, every other b*gger. And what do you think they will do when demand shoots up? Yes, that's right, put the price up. That's what's called capitalism.

Goose honk is caused by the reed valves in the recirc fluttering: http://www.aus300zx.com/forum/showthread.php?t=251871 and is typically caused / aggravated by induction kits. My stock TT hasn't honked once in 8 years. There's no flaw in his physics. BOVs release system pressure into the outside which does stop compressor stall so the compressor is still going so the pressure on the input side is lower than it would be if the pressure released downstream to stop compressor stall was put back upstream which is what the recircs do. That's one of the reasons Mr Nissan put them there. The quote was taken from one of Twin Turbo net's faqs http://www.twinturbo.net/ttnetfaq/FAQpages/bov.html which has been up there for 6 or 7 years to my memory and they're pretty hot on technical accuracy.

Induction kits are prone to picking up excess water when heavy rain or otherwise damp and this can fubar the MAF. Another one of these mod induced faults which stock Zeds don't suffer from (we suffer from enough already :D )

Recircs are better:

Yes mate - this is the ZClub Swapmeet + 300ZX Annual Event all together. Thanks to Derek Sulley who was organising (as usual) the Swapmeet and managed to sort things out so it was also available as replacement for the cancelled Billing 30th birthday ZClub plus 300ZX Annual Event.

Can I be the first to complain about the weather at this event?

Front camber is not adjustable. You need one of those camber kits or adjustable top links. More background here http://tech.aus300zx.com/faq/align.htm

Good man ;)

Oi shunter - answer yer bloomin' pms then :D

Hallo mate - yep I've now got 2 :D Shame I can only drive 1 at a time. I did try both Heritage and Carole Nash but neither could be arsed to reply to multiple emails so sod'em. Cheers, Gio

Full marks for observation :D At least until I find a good home for the silver one.

Errr think he's talking about an autobox swop?

49 as on the database thread ;) Only another 20 yrs before the big one hehe.

and that was you again this morning, wasn't it? Sorry I was a bit slow - not enough caffeine :D

gio 49 Livingstones Warmans £418 FC, 9yrs NCB, Business use, stock NA 2+2, nr Slough

I just had to insure my 2nd Zed and got the runaround from not only my current insurer but also others. However, I was happy to find Lynbrook Insurance thanks to a thread here who just sold me fully comp on a 1990 TT Z32 as a second car with 2,000 annual mileage for less then £200. Thanks, atc300zx .They also do "Laid-Up" Cover and Agreed Value and will even cover "Basket Cases" which they describe as "a collection of parts which, if assembled, could create most of a car". Might possibly be of use to some fellow members hehehe. They're in Mawdesley, Lancs on 0845 130 4662. I did a list of the insurers I asked for cover on my new L reg NA 2+2 Auto. It's not cheap because it's a main car with Business use (fullly comp) and the Mrs has a few points and we live between Slough and Heathrow: Livingstones Warmans £418 (£300xs) http://www.lwib.co.uk Barry Grainger £450 (£350xs) http://www.barrygraingerinsurance.co.uk Warwick Davis £456 (£350xs) http://www.warwick-davis.co.uk Adrian Flux £463 (£400xs) http://www.adrianflux.co.uk/jp Lifesure (current) £493 (£250xs) http://www.lifesure.co.uk Houghton £550 (£300xs) http://www.houghtoninsurance.co.uk Admiral £573 (£250xs) Osbournes - I did get a quote from these guys and it was in the ballpark but I lost the piece of paper I wrote it down on. I emailed them to resend but they never replied. http://www.osborneandsons.co.uk Budget - no reply to email Carole Nash - no reply to emails Footman James - no reply to emails Heritage - wrong email, several more emails to other emails on their website, no replies. Insurance Factory - no reply to emails Sky Insurance - received my full details and then wanted me to repeat them over the phone. CWOFT. Swintons - would not quote from written details said the Data Protection Act meant they could only do it over the phone. Round dangly things to them for lying. I get really peeved when, having written down full insurance details, address, history, etc etc and faxed or emailed, some insurance monkey says "it'll be easier if we do it on the phone". Easier for who? I've already done the work - all you have to do is punch it into your bloody computer. It is a complete PITA for me to spend hours on the phone repeating the same info time after time after time. I know you do it so we get bored, give in and buy your expensive cover. And if you can't reply to emails, you're not very good are you - so why should I give you my money? Oh, and the main insurance database thread is here

I know journalists are told "never let the facts stand in the way of a good story" but here are some: 1) Blair didn't keep any of the gifts (unlike Thatcher). Here's a quote from the same story So Blair hasn't benefited, the gifts are retained by the State. 2) Mrs Thatcher's gifts (also released under the Freedom of Information Act) are here 3) The Freedom of Information Act was brought in by the Blair government so you would not have found out about the 59 "secrets" if it wasn't for Blair.