Please stop calling them apps!

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 09:20:16 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Nope. There's always been a spinning reserve to cope with sudden surges.
Renewables don't change that. There's always going to be mix as each type
of generator has pros and cons. Nuclear is cheap, but slow; hydro is very
fast, but limited; renewables are very cheap, but unreliable.

Both solar and wind have a highre demand on spinning reserve than just
about anything else.

So what. The net result is still a reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of
energy generated. That is what's relevant and important.

Its marginal.

No it's not. I provided a link that shows a 17% improvement in carbon
efficiency.

Some calculations of lifetime carbon suggest that wind
generators in particular generate more CO2 over their lifetime than is
saved by their use.

Evidence?

"Eric Stevens" kirjoitti viestissä
...
On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:30:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:06:47 +0100, Apd wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
I don't go into my gar to mow the lawn, so why would I use an app on
my computer? Why are people too ****ing lazy to use the whole word
anymore? If "application" is too difficult, what about "program"?

When I started programming in the 70s we wrote computer programs. I
don't remember when or why "application" became popular. It sounds
like a poultice you apply to an infected wound. So, yes, I prefer
"program".

I also laugh at "execute" the program. It sounds like you want it
killed. And an "executive" in a business should be the one that chops off
people's heads when they misbehave.

"executing" a program dates back to before you were born and has a
very good reason for it's usage. In those early days one loaded a
program into the computer and it sat there, fat and happy, doing
absolutely nothing. Then when you had the courage to try it, you
issued the command "execute", whereupon it leaped into life (or death)
and did whatever you had actually asked it to do (not necassarily what
you had though you had asked it to do).

The term has a naval background. In the days of ail the officer in
charge of the deck would issue a command e.g. 'Prepare to luff", where
upon members of the crew would leap to various ropes, lines, sheets
and haliards, getting ready to do whatever had to be done. At the
appropriate moment (maybe in the midst of a close tacking duel) the
officer would issue the command 'Execute!' whereupon sheaves would
whir, ropes would run, and yards and booms would swing round to their
new position.

If you go to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary you will find
the word 'execute' has various threads of meaning all dataing from
Middle English and having something to do with the performance of
something or other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".
"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

On Thu, 30 May 2019 18:15:56 +0100, T.K wrote:


"Eric Stevens" kirjoitti viestissä
...
On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:30:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:06:47 +0100, Apd wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
I don't go into my gar to mow the lawn, so why would I use an app on
my computer? Why are people too ****ing lazy to use the whole word
anymore? If "application" is too difficult, what about "program"?

When I started programming in the 70s we wrote computer programs. I
don't remember when or why "application" became popular. It sounds
like a poultice you apply to an infected wound. So, yes, I prefer
"program".

I also laugh at "execute" the program. It sounds like you want it
killed. And an "executive" in a business should be the one that chops off
people's heads when they misbehave.

"executing" a program dates back to before you were born and has a
very good reason for it's usage. In those early days one loaded a
program into the computer and it sat there, fat and happy, doing
absolutely nothing. Then when you had the courage to try it, you
issued the command "execute", whereupon it leaped into life (or death)
and did whatever you had actually asked it to do (not necassarily what
you had though you had asked it to do).

The term has a naval background. In the days of ail the officer in
charge of the deck would issue a command e.g. 'Prepare to luff", where
upon members of the crew would leap to various ropes, lines, sheets
and haliards, getting ready to do whatever had to be done. At the
appropriate moment (maybe in the midst of a close tacking duel) the
officer would issue the command 'Execute!' whereupon sheaves would
whir, ropes would run, and yards and booms would swing round to their
new position.

If you go to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary you will find
the word 'execute' has various threads of meaning all dataing from
Middle English and having something to do with the performance of
something or other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".
"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

Indeed. And if your neighbour tells you to do something, he says "do it", not "execute it".

On 5/30/2019 1:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 18:15:56 +0100, T.K wrote:


"Eric Stevens" kirjoitti viestissä
...
On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:30:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:06:47 +0100, Apd wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
I don't go into my gar to mow the lawn, so why would I use an app on
my computer?* Why are people too ****ing lazy to use the whole word
anymore?* If "application" is too difficult, what about "program"?

When I started programming in the 70s we wrote computer programs. I
don't remember when or why "application" became popular. It sounds
like a poultice you apply to an infected wound. So, yes, I prefer
"program".

I also laugh at "execute" the program.* It sounds like you want it
killed.* And an "executive" in a business should be the one that chops
off
people's heads when they misbehave.

"executing" a program dates back to before you were born and has a
very good reason for it's usage. In those early days one loaded a
program into the computer and it sat there, fat and happy, doing
absolutely nothing. Then when you had the courage to try it, you
issued the command "execute", whereupon it leaped into life (or death)
and did whatever you had actually asked it to do (not necassarily what
you had though you had asked it to do).

The term has a naval background. In the days of ail the officer in
charge of the deck would issue a command e.g. 'Prepare to luff", where
upon members of the crew would leap to various ropes, lines, sheets
and haliards, getting ready to do whatever had to be done. At the
appropriate moment (maybe in the midst of a close tacking duel) the
officer would issue the command 'Execute!' whereupon sheaves would
whir, ropes would run, and yards and booms would swing round to their
new position.

If you go to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary you will find
the word 'execute' has various threads of meaning all dataing from
Middle English and having something to do with the performance of
something or other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded
the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still
prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".
"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

Indeed.* And if your neighbour tells you to do something, he says "do
it", not "execute it".

....and when Captain Jean-Luc Picard wants his starship to go he says
"engage".
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--

On Thu, 30 May 2019 18:59:55 +0100, Ron C wrote:

On 5/30/2019 1:48 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 30 May 2019 18:15:56 +0100, T.K wrote:


"Eric Stevens" kirjoitti viestissä
...
On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:30:35 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 16 May 2019 00:06:47 +0100, Apd wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
I don't go into my gar to mow the lawn, so why would I use an app on
my computer? Why are people too ****ing lazy to use the whole word
anymore? If "application" is too difficult, what about "program"?

When I started programming in the 70s we wrote computer programs.. I
don't remember when or why "application" became popular. It sounds
like a poultice you apply to an infected wound. So, yes, I prefer
"program".

I also laugh at "execute" the program. It sounds like you want it
killed. And an "executive" in a business should be the one that chops
off
people's heads when they misbehave.

"executing" a program dates back to before you were born and has a
very good reason for it's usage. In those early days one loaded a
program into the computer and it sat there, fat and happy, doing
absolutely nothing. Then when you had the courage to try it, you
issued the command "execute", whereupon it leaped into life (or death)
and did whatever you had actually asked it to do (not necassarily what
you had though you had asked it to do).

The term has a naval background. In the days of ail the officer in
charge of the deck would issue a command e.g. 'Prepare to luff", where
upon members of the crew would leap to various ropes, lines, sheets
and haliards, getting ready to do whatever had to be done. At the
appropriate moment (maybe in the midst of a close tacking duel) the
officer would issue the command 'Execute!' whereupon sheaves would
whir, ropes would run, and yards and booms would swing round to their
new position.

If you go to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary you will find
the word 'execute' has various threads of meaning all dataing from
Middle English and having something to do with the performance of
something or other.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded
the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still
prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".
"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

Indeed. And if your neighbour tells you to do something, he says "do
it", not "execute it".

...and when Captain Jean-Luc Picard wants his starship to go he says
"engage".

Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've engaged the clutch, not killed it.

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

program...

Indeed. And if your neighbour tells you to do something, he says "do
it", not "execute it".

...and when Captain Jean-Luc Picard wants his starship to go he says
"engage".

Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because
you've engaged the clutch, not killed it.

startships do not have clutches, nor do all cars.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 29/05/2019 12.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 08:03:48 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 29/05/2019 03.44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Even if you do. An iddling engine uses little fuel.

The mix passes on all costs.

It might not be using much fuel but it is still incurring capital
charges, maintenance, depreciation and staff salaries and wages. It
wouldn't cost much more to run even if it was at full power.

They know all that when they bid.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 30/05/2019 03.00, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 10:46:29 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 09:20:16 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 May 2019 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2019 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 5/24/19 5:36 PM, Peter Jason wrote:


anyone buying an electric vehicle would likely upgrade their garage
wiring.

Why bother. A petrol engine is cheaper to buy & run, has proven
technology, and a longer range by far.

Where are they getting the fuel to generate all the electricity for
electric cars. Coal? Nuclear?

They claim that the generating plants are much more efficient than car
engines. I don't know if that's true or not.

Electric cars allow the use of renewable energy sources (solar, wind,
hydro, etc) thereby reducing carbon emissions, plus reduce pollution in
cities.

Yes. Charging your car overnight with the solar power cells on the
roof of your house makes particular sense.

Snark noted. There are other forms of renewable energy that work in the
dark. Also cars are charged at all times of the day. You may have noticed
that cars spend most of the time parked.

Are you aware that wind power requires that a usually fuel burning
power plant remains on line to keep it backed up through wind
fluctuations? That doesn't make it cheaper or reduce carbon emissions.

Of course it does. Uk carbon intensity has dropped 17% since 2016.
http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-12-months/

Its only cheaper if you dont count the cost of maintaining a spinning
reserve.

Nope. There's always been a spinning reserve to cope with sudden surges.
Renewables don't change that. There's always going to be mix as each type
of generator has pros and cons. Nuclear is cheap, but slow; hydro is very
fast, but limited; renewables are very cheap, but unreliable.

Both solar and wind have a highre demand on spinning reserve than just
about anything else.

So what. The net result is still a reduction in CO2 emissions per unit of
energy generated. That is what's relevant and important.

Its marginal. Some calculations of lifetime carbon suggest that wind
generators in particular generate more CO2 over their lifetime than is
saved by their use.

What about the energy needed to build the coal or gas generators?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:15:56 +0300, "T.K" wrote:

[snip]

In the 80's we Commodore computer users used the word "run". We loaded the
program into the computer and then issued the "run" command. I still prefer
to say "run the (whatever)program".
"Execute", it just sounds so out of place, capital punishment for a
program...

I think of "execute" more as doing things. I am not much into
killing.

The MTS operating system which ran on IBM and compatible
mainframes had the $RUN command. When a program started, MTS printed
# EXECUTION BEGINS
Something for the both of us!

Going your way, in business, we could have
CRO: Chief Running Officer.
No more chubby chief exec^Wrunners?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 29/05/2019 19.14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:



For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not
accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine
speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the car
start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car.* My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999.* Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does.* As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Lower gear does not apply more power, it applies more torque. The power
output from the engine is basically the same for the same fuel. If there
is more power, there is more pressure on the accelerator.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 30/05/2019 05.49, Eric Stevens wrote:
Er, if I want to accelerate a little, I push my foot halfway down. If I want full power I push it all the way down (and therefore expect the lowest gear). I've never had a car which relies on the speed I push the pedal.

Who on earth has said anything about the speed of the pedal push?


I don't know if any did. However...

On carburettor engines, as you push the accelerator a small pump squirts
a little extra gasoline to give the engine a kick. The faster you push
the accelerator, the bigger the kick, which you can feel on your back.

Injection engines can emulate this simply by injecting more, then relaxing.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 04:49:38 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2019 18:14:05 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 24 May 2019 11:45:13 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2019 22:48:34 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 23 May 2019 04:02:58 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2019 20:32:11 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Wed, 22 May 2019 05:56:11 +0100, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2019 22:31:54 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2019 22:22:32 +0100, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

On Sun, 19 May 2019 12:33:36 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

[snip]

Are you telling me they now have a two switch mouse with one button over it?
That is monumentally stupid. Imagine if they made a car like that
with one big pedal that accelerated if you touched the right end of it
and braked on the left.

Well, you push (and up) on the left of a steering wheel to go
right and push (and up) on the right of a steering wheel to go left.

I can't believe you think of it like that. I treat it as one wheel which turns the car the way I turn it. Which is why when someone gives me that weird instruction when reversing "left hand down", I say "what the ****? do you want me to go left or right?"

Some gas pedals have a different effect if one floors it at once
versus gradually building up the pressure.

No need for that. All auto cars I've had simply increase power directly proportional to how far I've pushed the pedal down. If that needs a lower gear, it'll select it.

But then, you have told us that the cars you buy all have a relatively
high mileage. If that is the case they will be several years behind
the times.

I'd say the other way round. A car my father had about 40 years ago had "kickdown", presumably because it was badly designed. You actually had to tell it to accelerate harder.

I think you will find that the car had an automatic transmission which
could be made to change down by applying full throttle. In those days
it probably had a three speed aoutomatic transmission.

And nowadays the car can work out when to change down all by itself. And I don't see why it ever couldn't. The more you press the throttle, the more power you want, it really isn't a complicated instruction you're giving it. If the pedal pressure is not going to allow more acceleration in the current, gear, drop a gear.

Even in the days of kick down they could change gear of them selves.

What I don't understand is why they used to have kickdown. Surely all you need to provide is an amount of required acceleration, from zero to full throttle pressure.

Deep sigh ... normally the car is in high gear. If if you put your
foot right down you will get acceleration, but if you were in a lower
gear you would get *more* acceleration. So, how do get into a lower
gear at the moment you put your foot down? In the days we are talking
about you probably had a wiggly stick behind the steering wheel.
Changing gear with this at the same time as you put your foot down is
likely to confuse the hydraulic brains which control the gearbox (even
if you had avoided selecting the wrong gear). So, they provided a
switch under the accelerator pedal to attend to the down change for
you. That was the kick down.

Er, if I want to accelerate a little, I push my foot halfway down. If I want full power I push it all the way down (and therefore expect the lowest gear). I've never had a car which relies on the speed I push the pedal.

Who on earth has said anything about the speed of the pedal push?

That's what kickdown is.

For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the car start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car. My autos were 1988, 1998 and 1999. Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does. As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Right. So you haven't studied applied mechanics. Infinite acceleration
requires infinite force. No engine can go from 1200rpm to 4000rpm
instantaneously.

When did I say it changed instantly to 4000? I said instant acceleration, which means the car begins speeding up immediately. Of course this is possible.

You need that to overtake. Straight away I got the lowest gear possible for that speed, and full throttle to the engine.

You might get it quickly but you don't get it instantaneously.

It was instantaneous enough not to notice it. Why would there be any delay anyway?

So now you are fudging your definition of instantaneous.

I'm being realistic.

In any case I was describing the same situation. But I have a 3.5L V6
which is quite leisurely at only 50kph. Further a manual change into
low is possible at that speed but 2nd is all that is available in the
automatic range, and that entails a considerable increase in engine
speed which is not instantaneous.

Which is why we have torque converters. You don't just jump from top gear to 2nd.

Are you suggesting the torque converter can maintain drive while the
gearbox is between gears?

Yes. That's precisely what it's for. You can (below 40mph) actually drive in 1st and a half. Try this: accelerate gently from a standstill to 40mph. The rev counter will remain at precisely 2000rpm, while the car gradually speeds up. No specific gears, just a gradual change.

But did they change down two gears in the process?

Yes, if required. They were all 4 speed boxes. If I was going at a slow town type speed and put my foot right down, it would drop two gears, maybe even three.

That's unusual. It is uncommon to have an automatic change down to low
unde thos circumstances.

WTF? I would expect any auto car to use the lowest gear possible if I use full throttle. It means I need to move quickly, either to overtake or pull out of a junction into a small gap. Not dropping a gear at that point would be downright dangerous.

What was the car?

VW Golf TDI 1.9 (1998), Honda CRV 2 litre petrol (1999), Range Rover 3.5L V8 (1988).

I have tried to check the owner's manuals. Unfortunately the VW manual
doesn't seem to be available from a site which does not set my
antivirus screaming.

Get a less fussy AV.

The Honda CR-V manual is available on line. It has a 4-speed automatic
transmission. The owners manual says:

"For faster acceleration, you can get the transmission to
automatically downshift by pushing the accelerator pedal to the
floor. The transmission will shift down one or two gears, depending
on your speed."

... so you never get to the lowest gear.

You claimed above that you were surprised you could drop two gears. 3rd to 1st is a drop of 2 gears, which the manual you just read says is possible.

I found the Range Rover details at
https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-sp...-I-35i-v8.html
or http://tinyurl.com/yxz339cs
Your car would have had a ZF 4HP22 automatic transmission. As far as I
can tell, the only time that ever goes into low gear is when the
vehicle is stopped. So kicking down on the move does not get you the
lowest gear.

Since it has 4 gears, 4th to 2nd would have also denied your surprise at "But did they change down two gears in the process?"

So there I am trundling along at about 1200 rpm and by going to full
throttle I am asking it to go to about 4000 rpm in 2nd gear. What
would you have it do? Slam it straight into 2nd and have the inertia
of the car jerk it up to speed? Or would you delay the engagement of
2nd gear until the engine was up to speed? I know which I would
prefer.

There is no jerk with a torque convertor. And it takes virtually no time to spin an engine up anyway. Try this - sit in your drive with the car in neutral at 1200rpm, stand on the accelerator. Look how quick it gets to full revs.

The torque convertor is not involved in the gear change. It's all done
by clutches inside the gear box.

Of course it's used, it's why you don't feel it changing gear. As you press the throttle a little, the engine revs increase but you stay in the same gear, this is the torque convertor slipping. As you press the throttle more, the car decides to change gear and the torque convertor adjust accordingly.

I certainly feel it changing gear. When I'm changing down there is a
sudden thump in the back as the power goes on.

I'd get that checked if I were you. Clunking auto boxes mean imminent failure.

When I'm changing up as
the car accelerates I feel the change in thrust as the gear change. As
I have already said, the gearchange is not done by the torque
convertor. Certainly it may slip under the increased load but at the
higher speeds of fuill acceleration it is probably locked up.

The slippage is what stops the car lurching. That's why there is a torque convertor.

At 4000 revs my torque convertor has locked up.

I'm not sure at what revs or speed it locks up, but I never got any jerks. Something was smoothing the changes, even overtaking at high speed.

Adrenalin?

No, the torque convertor, that's it's purpose.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:24:57 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 29/05/2019 19.14, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2019 04:15:13 +0100, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:50:51 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:



For what it is worth, if I am travelling at a steady 50kph and
suddenly plant my foot on the accelerator, the car will not
accelerate
imediately. Certainly the engine revs increase as the engine
speeds up
to match 2nd gear at 50kph. Only when it gets there does the car
start
to accelerate.

You must have a really **** car. My autos were 1988, 1998 and
1999. Every one of them accelerated instantly I pressed the pedal.

Rubbish! No engine has instant acceleration.

Of course it does. As soon as more fuel is available and/or a lower
gear is selected, more power is applied to the wheels.

Lower gear does not apply more power, it applies more torque. The power
output from the engine is basically the same for the same fuel. If there
is more power, there is more pressure on the accelerator.

Lower gear means higher revs for the same car speed, thus you have more power from the engine. Higher revs means more fuel burning cycles, so more power. Think about encountering a steep hill in 5th gear, your car will not go up it. Select 3rd and it will, because there's more power.

On Thu, 30 May 2019 20:07:54 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Which makes perfect sense, when your car moves, it's because you've
engaged the clutch, not killed it.

Actually if you *engage* the clutch you will *not* move, you have to
*disengage* a clutch in order to link engine output shaft to drive
shaft. Been driving a standard transmission for over 45 years...

Wrong wrong wrong. When you press the pedal you DISengage the clutch. Engaging the clutch brings the plates together so power passes to the wheels.