one 100-watt lightbulb draws just under 0.15 hp. That means "0.4 ph" is one
hell of a lot of fuel for such a punny output.

Its a gen set and its set at 1800 rpm for the proper hertz, voltage ect..
stay at 1800 rpm with 1 lightbulb on or everything on. Still it averages 0.4
ph.




Jax is not to far off maybe 30% or so, but thats not to bad for a
Mensa genious. My lister 12 HP 2 cly diesel burns 0.4 gallons per hour
under load at constant 1800 RPM's. Thats 8 gallons every 20 hours.

Joe

Its a gen set and its set at 1800 rpm for the proper hertz, voltage
ect..
stay at 1800 rpm with 1 lightbulb on or everything on. Still it
averages 0.4
ph.

JAXAshby wrote:
one 100-watt lightbulb draws just under 0.15 hp. That means "0.4 ph" is one
hell of a lot of fuel for such a punny output.

Hello, Earth to Jax... Earth to Jax... Do you copy, Jax?

We are aware that you don't savvy much math, but does the word "average"
mean anything to you?

Joe said his genset 'averages' 0.4 gph,
not that it burned 0.4 gph regardless of load,
not that it burned 0.4 gph pushing one light bulb.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

doguies, if you don't run it at all it *average* 0.0000 gph.

a 100 watt light is damned little output for even a Honda portable generator.

one 100-watt lightbulb draws just under 0.15 hp. That means "0.4 ph" is
one
hell of a lot of fuel for such a punny output.

Hello, Earth to Jax... Earth to Jax... Do you copy, Jax?

We are aware that you don't savvy much math, but does the word "average"
mean anything to you?

Joe said his genset 'averages' 0.4 gph,
not that it burned 0.4 gph regardless of load,
not that it burned 0.4 gph pushing one light bulb.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

JAXAshby wrote:
doguies, if you don't run it at all it *average* 0.0000 gph.

You're so witty, Jax. What a great come back. That must be why so many
people look up to you.

However, you're wrong. If it doesn't run at all, then the 'hours run'
would equal zero. Anybody who passed fifth grade math knows that you
can't divide by zero, thus it cannot be a valid average.

It's kind of a shame that you were right about that U-boat in Long
Island. Otherwise you'd have a perfect record.

DSK

see, dougies, that's why you have the problems you have. you can't understand
English.

hours exist without regard -- as in totally independent of -- moving pistons.
Really.

Therefore, an engine that is not running doesn't use any fuel at all. Really.

Has nothing to do with either the concept or reality of "zero".

go sleep it off, dougies.

doguies, if you don't run it at all it *average* 0.0000 gph.

You're so witty, Jax. What a great come back. That must be why so many
people look up to you.

However, you're wrong. If it doesn't run at all, then the 'hours run'
would equal zero. Anybody who passed fifth grade math knows that you
can't divide by zero, thus it cannot be a valid average.

It's kind of a shame that you were right about that U-boat in Long
Island. Otherwise you'd have a perfect record.

DSK

JAXAshby wrote:
see, dougies, that's why you have the problems you have. you can't understand
English.

And yet somehow, you're the one who is always making mistakes in basic
reading comprehension.


hours exist without regard -- as in totally independent of -- moving pistons.
Really.

So, an engine hour meter has no correlation to the amount of time that
particular engine has had it's pistons in motion?


Therefore, an engine that is not running doesn't use any fuel at all. Really.

Unless it leaks.

Again, your basic reading comprehension is at fault here. You claimed
that an engine that was never run would have an average fuel consumption
of zero. Of course, due to your peculiar psychological issues, you
cannot admit you made a mistake (much less thousands of them). But you
could at least stop digging.


Has nothing to do with either the concept or reality of "zero".

go sleep it off, dougies.

Is it getting to be your nap time, Jaxxie? Are you getting a little cranky?

DSK

dougies, I keep forgetting how stupid you are and thus keep trying to speak to
you as a grade school graduate.

a generator producing just 100 watts is of no interest in this discussion.
None. You, doguies, don't know what 100 watts is, so you keep trying to force
fit some obscure to you knowledge into the tiny cavity that is your brain.

dogies, the discuss has been about hp vs fuel usage. little hp produced means
little fuel used; no hp produced means no fuel used. That is self-evident and
trivial. It brings nothing to the table in the discussion of hp vs fuel used.

dumb squat. go sleep it off.

see, dougies, that's why you have the problems you have. you can't
understand
English.

And yet somehow, you're the one who is always making mistakes in basic
reading comprehension.


hours exist without regard -- as in totally independent of -- moving
pistons.
Really.

So, an engine hour meter has no correlation to the amount of time that
particular engine has had it's pistons in motion?


Therefore, an engine that is not running doesn't use any fuel at all.
Really.

Unless it leaks.

Again, your basic reading comprehension is at fault here. You claimed
that an engine that was never run would have an average fuel consumption
of zero. Of course, due to your peculiar psychological issues, you
cannot admit you made a mistake (much less thousands of them). But you
could at least stop digging.


Has nothing to do with either the concept or reality of "zero".

go sleep it off, dougies.

Is it getting to be your nap time, Jaxxie? Are you getting a little cranky?

DSK