|
|
|
At the pumps
- Thread starter markm
- Start date
I'm not in QC but I can pick off several flaws in the test.
How much fuel was in the hose?
How much residual fuel was left in the jerry can?
How much evaporation was there?
How accurate are the cheap looking measuring cups?
What were the dispensing temperatures and the final measuring temperatures?
I would have used weight of fuel as it doesn't vary with temperature. Tare weight of jerry can gets subtracted from total weight. No spillage, evaporation or residuals.
How much fuel was in the hose?
How much residual fuel was left in the jerry can?
How much evaporation was there?
How accurate are the cheap looking measuring cups?
What were the dispensing temperatures and the final measuring temperatures?
I would have used weight of fuel as it doesn't vary with temperature. Tare weight of jerry can gets subtracted from total weight. No spillage, evaporation or residuals.
When you go to fill up - do you care how much fuel was in the hose? Only thing you should care about is that you get what you paid for, right?
Jerry Cans were all brand new, 1st use.
Evaporation? Seriously? how much do you think can evaporate after you pour gas inside jerry can? and after you pour it into measuring cup? (0.001 ml? - just a wild guess here)
Cheap looking measuring cups? - they were calibrated, all measured same 1L amount - close enough.
Use weight, go ahead, confuse people even more.
I like that they tried and they were not doing too bad until they started multiplying the error to get the number of free tanks per year. It would be interesting to see if when you pay for 50 litres you get 50.03 or 51.5 as predicted. My guess is much closer to 50.03.
At the very least the test showed that the three stations were all close to each other and probably not under providing fuel (they say they put a litre in each plastic measuring cup, but the calibration is only as good as your original container. If they used a fourth plastic measuring cup to calibrate, calibration means little (in terms of absolute volume, they could easily calibrate for relative volume)).
We need more people out there keeping businesses honest, we can't expect the government to do it for us.
At the very least the test showed that the three stations were all close to each other and probably not under providing fuel (they say they put a litre in each plastic measuring cup, but the calibration is only as good as your original container. If they used a fourth plastic measuring cup to calibrate, calibration means little (in terms of absolute volume, they could easily calibrate for relative volume)).
We need more people out there keeping businesses honest, we can't expect the government to do it for us.
If anyone trusts that test they're confused beyond help.
Splash
Well-known member
Off topic but if you can't go to YouTube (like I can't at my work) there's a way around it.
Do you have a G+ account? On the right there's a youtube pop-out. Enter your info in there and there will be a pop-up and your youtube video should run fine. For the video above the code is: 8zUb_8GiA0k
As for the original post. I like the result. Quick dirty un-scientific test. I would of liked to see a bigger sample like 10L though.
Who do you think is keeping our merchants honest? http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/Home Our merchants have to use approved measuring devices, there are heavy penalties if they are tampered with and the businesses get inspected regularly. They are much more loosely regulated south of the border(not to mention even further south than that) and tests like this one would show it.
With that being said, I'd like to see larger samples, measured in the same container.
|
|
|
|
|