Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

Page 13 of 16  

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I said no such thing.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea, not mine.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own creation.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in Doug Miller wrote:

OTOH,you never mentioned the need to ADD a second computer to run your extra override code. Thus,it's natural that we should presume you intended to add extra code to the existing computer programming and use the existing control channels.
Or perhaps you can tell us just HOW you intended to implement your idea of brake override programming?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller

you also never mention how you would have this additional computer interface with the existing system.
you debate dishonestly.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 3:18 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:
Don:

Doug: Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle malfunction, for the override to not work would require a second malfunction. Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than any single malfunction.
In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're potentially exposed to the same fault. A computer malfunction that caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being able to perform the brake safety function.
You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE independent computer. That would have added clarity instead of your reply, which only made it more confusing. And your statement as made is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE computer. That qualification you never made. You seem to expect everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Well, DUH! Obviously.
But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's *your* assumption.
Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation.

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the same computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even suggested.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily had to be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you wouldn't think that a perfectly true statement about probability is somehow false.
That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going to make? Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now, and it's not due back til the middle of next week.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 4:11 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Well if you now agree that Don's meaning was that he was talking about the same computer, then your reply was totally wrong, because it was then up to you to say YOU were talking about 2 different computers. So, your reply makes no sense.

Your getting yourself confused here. You just agreed above it was obvious that Don was referring to one computer, ie the same one that is running the throttle. So, how is it anyone else then supposed to interpret your comments to be referring to anything other than that ONE computer?

You have a problem admitting when you are wrong. And you've been wrong three times now in this thread. Once on the parking brake issue when you first claimed all cars parking brakes use the same pads as the service break. Then wrong again when you said it was bizarre that Mercedes would use a seperate brake pad for the parking brake. Several people spotted it and told you that many cars have brakes where the parking brakes are seperate. I also was wrong when I first implied that all cars were that way. The difference is, I admitted it. Yet you never said you were wrong. And your statement above is still false:
" > >Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a throttle

That is true ONLY IF the two computers are independent of each other. That is a critical missing piece. But you never stated that. It's not up to others to have to make the correct assumptions to go along with what you wrote. It's like saying you can easily survive a jump off the George Washington bridge, but leaving out the part about having a base jumping parachute. Then when called on it, ragging on about others making the wrong assumptions. Also what you call assumptions, I would call paying attention to the thread and following the context of the discussion. I think what Don who made the post was referring to was clear from the context. You agreed to that above, I;ve seen his posts and think he has good sense and knows that if you have a totally seperate computer programmed as the safety brake/throttle override, then it's not a problem. It's very likely he was referring to programming the SAME computer. Yet you came back and implied he was wrong and if you were talking about 2 seperate computers, first the response then doens't make sense, and second, it was up to YOU to say you were talking about two.

Let's see here. Don didn't say whether he meant programming another computer as the brake safety or the same computer we've been talking about in this thread that controls the throttle. Yet you ASSume he meant a seperate computer, which seems less likely given the context, and that's peachy keen. That is the only way the statements that you then made would be correct. So, there are one set of rules for Doug and one for everyone else.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Not really. You're the one confused. But that's ok. I understand that happens to you a lot.
Go play with your straw men, trader. I'm done.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in Doug Miller

you debate dishonestly. You have never mentioned any additional computer or other method of execution of your additional override code.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thank you Jim. Good to see someone following the discussion agrees.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

but most modern cars have probably 30, and some upwards of 100, different computers.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, chaniarts

Wether or not there's a door lock computer is irrelevent.
There's just one controlling the engine, the ECU.
Do you have some insane notion that there's one computer for each spark plug and another bunch for the injectors, etc?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Nomad wrote:

no.
however, there are multiple computers controlling the engine, and all it's assocated subsystems, at least on mine, which is a 94. one would assume that more modern cars have more computers to better control emissions, since the current laws are much more strict than in 94.
all the functions don't have to reside within one computer. they are networked together and cooperate and share data amongst themselves.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:32:12 -0700, chaniarts

nope.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like to see a credible reference that says there is more than one computer controlling the engine on a 1994 car or even most of the cars today. The cars I've been familiar with have had one ECU, or engine control unit and that is the one computer that manages the engine. It only makes sense, because whatever the emissions reqts are, you meet them by correctly running the engine which means you need to measure rpms, temp, airflow, emissions, speed, throttle, etc and all that needs to be factored in to then determine the fuel delivery, timing, etc. It's would seem far easier and simpler to do that in one computer that gets fed all the info.
There are potentially lots of other computers for climate control, entertainment system, tranny, electronic displays, etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:16:13 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

A lot also depends on what you want to count as a "computer".
A relay uses logic. Is it a computer?
How about a toggle switch?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

moving the goalposts.
It looks like you're argueing for the sake of arguing.
An ECU is going to have a master program. It doesn't matter if there are ten trillion computers inside. It is trivial for the master computer to issue the order to shut the fuel off. It is done every time the car is shut off. This isn't a terrible complex concept.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:50:48 -0600, AZ Nomad

????
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mar 3, 7:52 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

???? times two.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:32:12 -0700, "chaniarts"

Your assumptions are wrong 1994 was pre OBD2 - with the mandated OBD2 system the entire power train is controlled by one computer.

But that does not meet the OBD2 requirements.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:03:39 -0700, "chaniarts"

Nope - unless you count all the CanBuss controll modules - and even then 30 would be stretching it.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.