I have an engineering certificate too. I printed it off the net...

Mao. Answer the questions raised in this thread and this one please. [url]http://www.perth-wrx.com/vb/mechanicals/51795-engine-control-unit-issues-15.html[/url]

People are starting to get tired of being lied to.

Didn't Ricecake start that thread to warn off unaware first time customers? Lol. Working like a charm in tandem with this thread.

Hey Kato,

1) Curtin University. Class of 1999. Head of Dept Rangan.
I will not provide anymore personal info in a public forum.
Couple of founding members of P.WRX can verify this. One of them is
XRW 147 who I met, when I was doing my second degree in accounting, after the former degree.

2) I did my tuning training in the LA and was also taught by HKS Yuji Kaibara both here and in Japan. That is my little background.

3) It is 10:45am, I am in the middle of work.

4) That is Tony's graph on the Dynapack. Have to wait for him to get his car back in to print scaled forum friendly one.

5) Be happy to discuss more later.


[QUOTE=Kato;725530]Happy to discuss on the forums so everyone can learn. That is the whole purpose of it.

Discussing in person only benefits the two people discussing it.

I am happy to be corrected on anything that I have said being wrong. I know I am wrong or lacking in knowledge on a great deal of topics concerning tuning. It is not my day to day activity, which is why I ask those who do it on a regular basis to increase my knowledge. The whole purpose of the forum is to discuss and from the collective group of knowledge we can all learn more.

So far when I have tried to discuss area under the curve in multiple threads, you refuse to listen or come up with such strange things (area above the curve for instance) that a lot of people are questioning your engineering background. Like I have said, these topics are very basic and covered in great detail in many books.

I am not sure why you do not wish to discuss these items in greater detail to help the whole community out.

I also do not know why you have not just reprinted Tony's original graph from your dyno for it to be uploaded here. The only response we currently get is to come see you at your shop. I have been to your shop numerous times and discussed parts with you numerous times. This is helpful, but only helps me and not the community.[/QUOTE]

Ahh i know, mr Nivatongs too.. small world.

Does it really prove anything, no.

Does it mean i can defy the laws of physics or maths, no.

Kato brings up a good point, the idea of helping the greater pwrx community has always been why I've frequented the site. Quite a few members here work for engineering firms or are in specialised fields which deal with things more complex and life threatening than just a vehicle.

Now...

Get back to the crux of the argument instead of the "i have an engineering certificate, trust me!" lines so the rest of us can "learn".

[QUOTE=mao;725542] when I was doing my second degree in accounting, after the former degree.[/QUOTE]

I'm an accountant and I would love to hear some of your accounting theories, i bet they're "creative".

What are you trying to imply?

Think before answering.

[QUOTE=Sharpy.au;725561]I'm an accountant and I would love to hear some of your accounting theories, i bet they're "creative".[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mao;725588]What are you trying to imply?

Think before answering.[/QUOTE]

That if your accounting skills are anything like your comprehension of simple maths they would be entertaining as fuck.

And which part of the maths am I not comprehending?

[QUOTE=Sharpy.au;725683]That if your accounting skills are anything like your comprehension of simple maths they would be entertaining as fuck.[/QUOTE]



FYI, I have never known him as Nivatongs.

Read my posts properly. Defying the laws of physics? which part?

I was stating the power run graph on the Dynapack cannot be compared to f(x) conditions. It is multi dimensional, no where near single or double dimensional.

And yes, my work is not life threatening. I only choose to do what I enjoy.

[QUOTE=Intra;725544]Ahh i know, mr Nivatongs too.. small world.

Does it really prove anything, no.

Does it mean i can defy the laws of physics or maths, no.

Kato brings up a good point, the idea of helping the greater pwrx community has always been why I've frequented the site. Quite a few members here work for engineering firms or are in specialised fields which deal with things more complex and life threatening than just a vehicle.

Now...

Get back to the crux of the argument instead of the "i have an engineering certificate, trust me!" lines so the rest of us can "learn".[/QUOTE]

Ok. The power run chart is 2D.

If we look at it squarely, it is the just an outline. But in tuning, we do it on a data spreadsheet as everyone already knows.

Try picturing it say in a 3D format with Load as the 3rd Dimension.

Will stop here for now and get a 3D plot and share in the next post as to why it can be above the graph.

EDIT: If there are any Geologists here who can chip in. I used to do contour drawings using Excel. It is in fact very similar.

[QUOTE=Kato;725530]Happy to discuss on the forums so everyone can learn. That is the whole purpose of it.

So far when I have tried to discuss area under the curve in multiple threads, you refuse to listen or come up with such strange things (area above the curve for instance) that a lot of people are questioning your engineering background. Like I have said, these topics are very basic and covered in great detail in many books.

I am not sure why you do not wish to discuss these items in greater detail to help the whole community out.
[/QUOTE]

Nice article regarding area under the curve:

[url=http://www.modified.com/editors/technobabble/0108scc_technobabble/]Sport Compact Car Magazine: Technobabble: August 2001[/url]

[quote]Let's take a step back to see why this is. If you plot anything out on a standard x/y graph (that's Cartesian coordinates, for those of you who like old, stuffy, European sounding names for your graphs), the area under that plot will be the sum of whatever your x-axis is times whatever your y-axis is. That doesn't make any sense at all, does it?

It will, if you look at an example. Say you plot speed on the y-axis and time on the x-axis for a car that is going a constant 1 mile per minute (that's 60 mph) for 5 minutes. Even without a graph, it's pretty simple to figure out how far the car traveled. Speed times time equals distance, so the car traveled five miles. Great.

But guess what? The area under that curve (which happens to be a line, in this case) is exactly the same thing. Since the area under this curve is a rectangle, area simply equals length times width, or speed times time. Amazing. This parity remains even when the curve is a strange shape, so if that same car wandered through traffic making an erratic speed vs. time curve, the area under that curve would still be the distance traveled.

OK, so what? Let's look at something a little more exciting than wandering through traffic. How about accelerating? Acceleration multiplied by time gives you speed, so on a chart of acceleration vs. time, the area under the curve will tell you the final speed. Now here's something we can brag about. All this rambling about charts and graphs starts getting relevant when you remember that acceleration is directly proportional to force, and force is simply what torque becomes when your drive wheels hit the road. So, torque vs. time, along with a few constants like gear ratio, tire size and vehicle weight, will give you speed. Ah, ha! Now you see why the area under the torque curve is the most important of all.

This explains why the 150 hp from Volkswagen's turbocharged, five-valve 1.8T seems so much more powerful than the 150 hp from a Neon. The torque curve of the Volkswagen is tall, wide and of bountiful area.

Of course, it should be noted that torque vs. rpm, as you would get off a dyno chart, is not the same as torque vs. time. Because the car will be going faster at high rpm, the engine will spend less time around 7000 rpm than it did, say, around 3000 rpm. And, of course, to get any truly useful data, you need to look at the force at the contact patch after the engine's torque has been multiplied by the various gear ratios and divided by the radius of the wheel and tire. The area under the curve argument is still good for general comparisons, however, and is most often useful when comparing various modifications to the same car, in which case all the questions about rpm vs. time, gearing and tire size become pretty much irrelevant.[/quote]