|
Post by tonyb on Nov 4, 2016 16:00:07 GMT
OK - I know its wrong. It was not many years ago when I fist put the site up and it is not in the printed version but I got fed up with my diagrams being ripped off so have altered one or two in the online version. I typically get less than one comment a year and when I explain and offer to email the correct diagram most people seem happy.
Regrettably I am away from home for a few days and my laptop does not have all my diagrams otherwise I would post the correct one here.
If you disconnect the negative battery terminal and put a voltmeter between the lead and battery negative the lead will appear to be positive if anything is turned on like a car radio memory etc. I would like to know exactly where this meter was connected when the battery negative showed 12V positive (if I understand the OP and no one else has given him an answer.).
I have just had another read through the thread. I am right in saying Geo stated that he had the alternator/engine running a 2000rpm and he disconnected the D- terminal? If so some diodes and the regulator may well be totally US now. A very green type mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bettina on Nov 4, 2016 21:09:30 GMT
OK - I know its wrong. It was not many years ago when I fist put the site up and it is not in the printed version but I got fed up with my diagrams being ripped off so have altered one or two in the online version. I typically get less than one comment a year and when I explain and offer to email the correct diagram most people seem happy. Regrettably I am away from home for a few days and my laptop does not have all my diagrams otherwise I would post the correct one here. If you disconnect the negative battery terminal and put a voltmeter between the lead and battery negative the lead will appear to be positive if anything is turned on like a car radio memory etc. I would like to know exactly where this meter was connected when the battery negative showed 12V positive (if I understand the OP and no one else has given him an answer.). I have just had another read through the thread. I am right in saying Geo stated that he had the alternator/engine running a 2000rpm and he disconnected the D- terminal? If so some diodes and the regulator may well be totally US now. A very green type mistake. Tony - don't waste any time with it. He is some kind of wind up merchant and was trying to make some childless point about your diagram being wrong, a couple of the guys tried to help him till it came to light what he was doing. Pretty sure he didn't even have a problem to begin with. Enjoy your evening B~
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Nov 4, 2016 22:52:02 GMT
I think you are being churlish. So there is a mistake in a diagram on Tony's site - which contains a wealth of information and is just there to be helpful to other people. Why not just point out the error courteously, rather than mocking? Not very nice. There, Nick, I fixed that for you, TB style.
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Nov 5, 2016 11:12:10 GMT
I think you are being churlish. So there is a mistake in a diagram on Tony's site - which contains a wealth of information and is just there to be helpful to other people. Why not just point out the error courteously, rather than mocking? Not very nice. There, Nick, I fixed that for you, TB style. Your fat letters make it much more understandable, as it was a very nasty action towards Tony's kind help to everyone that needs it, and to his helpful site too.
Peter.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 5, 2016 14:03:13 GMT
There, Nick, I fixed that for you, TB style. Your fat letters make it much more understandable, as it was a very nasty action towards Tony's kind help to everyone that needs it, and to his helpful site too.
Peter.
It was indeed, as I said earlier I don't mind someone playing a trick on me but I am mighty pissed off at finding I was a dupe in someone's nastiness to a third person
|
|
|
Post by flatdog on Nov 5, 2016 17:17:21 GMT
Your fat letters make it much more understandable, as it was a very nasty action towards Tony's kind help to everyone that needs it, and to his helpful site too.
Peter.
It was indeed, as I said earlier I don't mind someone playing a trick on me but I am mighty pissed off at finding I was a dupe in someone's nastiness to a third person Yes, Agreed, I also spent some time trying to fathom out what was wrong, couldn't see anything to help his 'fault', just for the smug bastard to point out the error. Piss boiling that is.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Nov 5, 2016 17:25:20 GMT
Why are you posting that image from TB's training site that you have already showed on CWDF to have an error in it? Well apparently he no longer posts on CWDF or won't until the mods do things the way he wants them. Twat.
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Nov 5, 2016 17:27:45 GMT
It was indeed, as I said earlier I don't mind someone playing a trick on me but I am mighty pissed off at finding I was a dupe in someone's nastiness to a third person Yes, Agreed, I also spent some time trying to fathom out what was wrong, couldn't see anything to help his 'fault', just for the smug bastard to point out the error. Piss boiling that is. The first thing I saw was the copyright TB label. The second thing I saw was the bottom diode triplet drawn the wrong way round and then I remembered that he'd been corrected by TB the previous night and had shown that diagram then over on CW. However the snivelling coward knew he couldn't attack TB over there so he came here to do it.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Dec 14, 2016 1:46:22 GMT
Yes, Agreed, I also spent some time trying to fathom out what was wrong, couldn't see anything to help his 'fault', just for the smug bastard to point out the error. Piss boiling that is. The first thing I saw was the copyright TB label. The second thing I saw was the bottom diode triplet drawn the wrong way round and then I remembered that he'd been corrected by TB the previous night and had shown that diagram then over on CW. However the snivelling coward knew he couldn't attack TB over there so he came here to do it. Oh dear oh dear you live on a forum that has no rules and you get upset when it is used to reveal that someone who posts that only he and a select few should be allowed to post on CW technically. Basically attacking everyone else who might wish to attempt to help, so he gets brought to book and you get upset lol. Level playing field I call it.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Dec 15, 2016 2:51:42 GMT
I don't recall TonyB posting that "only he and a select few" should be allowed to post on technical subjects, or attacking anyone else attempting to help. He, and others, have been known to correct errors made by others, and so, if you have been the target of such posts, ask yourself why.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Dec 15, 2016 8:21:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Dec 15, 2016 11:56:23 GMT
What I have said is that as the other place likes to moderate posts that tell people what they think about them they need technical Mods or Mod advisors who, when things start to get out of control, can look at the topic, take advice and then act to either prevent non-technical readers reading less correct messages or point them to the ones that are correct. That is very different to what Geo seem to be trying to allege.
On here it is a little different in that one can be a bit more forthright without fear of getting banned or the post deleted.
Now why Geo thought it a good idea to resurrect the thread over a moth after it had died I have no idea but as he seem to have very blinkered vision in respect of both amp hour counters and the Smartguage (from opposite view points) one can only agree with Tomsk's comment above.
He is not worth wasting time on in this topic although he c an come up with very valid opinions in others
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Dec 15, 2016 12:34:37 GMT
IMO advise offerers can get a bit precious about their sphere of knowledge. That's at once reassuring and conflict inducing, so maybe if you know you know, supply the answer and refuse to discuss. Leave it to the reader to learn who to trust?
|
|
|
Post by tonyqj on Dec 15, 2016 12:47:21 GMT
IMO advise offerers can get a bit precious about their sphere of knowledge. That's at once reassuring and conflict inducing, so maybe if you know you know, supply the answer and refuse to discuss. Leave it to the reader to learn who to trust? That's okay until someone posts something absurd that nevertheless sounds valid. If it isn't challenged then how is the reader supposed to know how absurd it is?
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Dec 15, 2016 13:05:03 GMT
Also when the absurd poster is the dominant one by sheer weight of posts.
|
|