Lee 2002

as long the politics keep on a low level, this thread may continue...... Turns out I wasn't "In Before the Lock" ..... I was "In Before the MAJOR Editorial Revision."

In before the lock.

creggur beat you to it by two weeks.... http://www.vfrdiscussion.com/forum/index.php/topic/63548-bike-ergonomic-web-app

If the wiring diagram provided is correct then situation number one is almost certainly the design. The diagram shows the switch being dropping to ground... so situaiton #3 is ruled out as there would be no source of voltage at the switch (per the diagram provided). Situation #2 would require a unique type of switch of the kind I have never encountered in years of servicing industrial equipment. #1 is, by reasoning, almost certainly the case.... because the type of switch that drops only one lead to the ground would be of a very common type that I have seen in many different applications. From the engineering point of view I would think that the EE who designed the logic side of the circuit would have many logic chips available to choose from that had sinking transistor inputs. However.... there is usually logic present in applications I have encountered that would sense multiple inputs when there should not be (failed switch, operator attempting to bypass a function or shorted wiring)... that would cause the logic chip to put out an error to the ECU and throw the program into a fail safe or keep run mode. I hope gixxer gives this a try so our specualtion can be answered. Edit: well that is what I get for replying to a post before reading to the bottom.... I guess gixxer has shown it is situaiton #1 And I also now notice that gixxer has negated the multiple input problem by snipping the wires above the jumpers.

Nice! Nothing like having your own personal tour guide.

Good try, but not really a good analogy... It would be if you were taking a can of oil off the shelf and oiling the spring. What you are actually trying to do is use the spring to drill, refine, transport and consume the oil by robbing it of it's finite contained energy. Everything you do in that sentence costs you energy. Unless you strike the Well-Full-Of-Oil-That-Violates-The-Second-Law you've wasted a lot of energy moving oil around for nothing. (AKA turning water into water)

What are you trying to accomplish? Better mileage? More power? I never did read a clear explanation of goals. Explain to me again how adding a stoichiometric mixture of one fuel is going to reduce the unburned portion of the primary fuel. I am not seeing the change in the amount of free oxygen available to burn off the original excess primary fuel. Electrolizing water = 2H2O --> 2H2 + O2 (with the input of electrical energy from your motorcycle) Combusting those gasses = 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O (with the creation of heat energy, some of which is lost to the atmosphere) You're converting water into gasses then converting them back into water, correct? But you've used electrical energy from your motorcycle to do it. Unfortunately you don't recieve all that power back, thanks to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Plus, you are taking up the finite space in the cylinder that could be filled with gasoline and air and substituting in a fuel that has a lower specific energy. It has been a long time since I have sat through a Chem lecture, so please feel free to point out any error in my understanding. Add in the pump that you are also running and what I'm seeing is a motorcycle that is less efficient than it was before. A motorcycle that has less power than it did before. And a motorcycle that is mechanically more complicated and argueably less safe than it was before.

Apparently, I have been informed, there is some small amount of maintenance required to retain water resistance. Various concoctions and solutions are on order.

That might be the understatement of the decade. Any war story, not just WWII (but they are the best since they are getting so few and far between) So where does a guy find a photo of Arby's chairs?