RutlandRover wrote:

Doesn't that then give you a very unbalanced pulley that will vibrate more?

Just get it bang in the centre and put equal weight of weld at opposing sides. Often see old V / ribbed belts with bits missing out of them, the belts rotate equally as fast as the pulley but around a much larger diameter (because belts route around all the ancillaries)... usually isn't vibration from this condition which is probably a much more out of balance condition. Probably a bit harsher on the first driven ancillary (often AC) than with the rubber in place... but rather than £450 extra to fit a pulley with a rubber dampener that will go wrong again eventually I'd weld it up... That's if it's steel, mind you I'd probably try if it was any metal.

I've welded vibration damper type pulleys up before, works out even cheaper than scrapyards. Also welded up freewheeling type pulleys on alternators.. They never fail again after that!

I accidentally put a self tapper through a wire on Morat's P38, that was one of only 2 occasions I've ever done that on any of my LPG installs.
For a moment when flicking through this thread I got a bit worried, thought it was RutlandRover with the possible short circuit and I converted RutlandRover's car... But I didn't convert Strangerover's car so not guilty! Made it up to Morat since lol.

Sometimes get a brief spurious reading when you first connect up a digital multimeter, probably more of a reflection of it's sampling speed and averaging the reading between open circuit and load.

Anyway mate.. Is it all back together and running well now, oil and water leaks etc?

I know them as clocksprings too. Got to be careful fitting them as apparently once you've unleashed it to unwind there's no winding it back, which is why there's little point getting one from a scrapyard. A bit along the lines of fixing a petrol lawnmower's self returning pull start cable setup except there's no access.

Agreed, given the symptoms started back in October it does seem you needed the lambda probe.

Good, getting somewhere now...!

Worth saying that with that pipe off it obviously must misfire on LPG because that cylinder won't have been getting any fuel when running on LPG. Power would obviously be down running on 7 cylinders. You'll have pulled the pipe off yourself during engine work (hg's etc)?

When I first fit the system I fit an overly long length of pipe to each manifold spud, being longer makes it easier to thread through the holes I make in the plenum and of course it's better to fit too long a length of pipe and cut it down to size than fit too short a length and find out the plenum has to come off again to fit a longer bit. To make it easier to thread the pipes on 2nd fit you can push a length of wire into the end of each pipe and push a short M6 bolt into the end of each pipe to hold the wire, that way you can thread the wire through the holes with the plenum higher up and pull the pipes through when the plenum is almost down, this also helps to prevent kinking (but still do the blow and vacuum checks just before and after bolting the plenum down when the pipes are fully routed to the position they'll be in when connected to injectors... it is possible to pass blow and vac checks but still have a problem if pipes are pushed/pulled later). You could use different colour wires to denote which cylinder each pipe feeds but for this purpose you only really need 2 bits of the same colour wire because the 4 pipes come through 2 sets of holes (so you only need to know which pipe feeds the most forward cylinder through each hole)... To save a bit of time ensuring routing was correct when ECUs didn't feature ability to switch cylinders back to petrol I used to do the 4 different coloured wire thing, then did the 2 same coloured wire thing, these days I'd quickly identify correct routing anyway and just swap injector plugs around to achieve it. Could use stripes of tippex on pipes to denote which cylinder they run to.

With that pipe off at the manifold end it will have been causing some upset for the petrol system too... fuel trims will have been more positive (mostly on the directly affected bank but also on the other bank), the cylinder with the missing pipe will have been running way leaner than the other 3 on the same bank, the other 3 would have been running a slightly rich mixture. All these effects would have diminished with increasing engine load as a vacuum leak has more effect when there is more vacuum but when an engine management system has a limited number of fuel trim ranges if fuel trims become high at low loads it can have the effect of initially causing too rich a mixture at higher loads and if that initial mixture is rich enough it can cause misfires which then cock up the closed loop functionality.. and then open loop at idle the mixture is very lean (without positive trims) due to the vac leak. You probably didn't need the new lambda probe.

Simon

davew wrote:

But how did you know I was a Scouser with a 'tash ??

Maybe I didn't... Or maybe I searched for davew on BT's website and a detailed profile with address etc came up lol ;-)

If you got routing wrong It might be a bit lumpier at idle and during acceleration but might still run fairly smoothly most of the time. You'd notice it mostly during switching from petrol to LPG because there'd be a point when at least 2 cylinders were misfiring at the same time.

With the engine running on petrol pull each pipe off each injector in turn and make sure there's vacuum on them (replace pipe each time before checking the next one)... this is to check a pipe hasn't come off a manifold spud. Then with the engine off try blowing through each pipe, if any are much harder to blow through than others the pipe might be kinked. It would take a much worse kink to cause a misfire at idle (when only a small amount of gas has to flow through the pipe) than at higher engine loads.

Not had that PM from you yet Dave, just found this thread myself ;-)

I've just checked your LPG system map, I didn't set a fuel trim in it but would have set one if for any reason I thought necessary.

On your LPG system it's possible to set individual trims for individual cylinders, if any cylinder was acting strangely in the way it responded to running on gas I would have first checked that no aspect of the LPG install was causing that (and changed LPG parts if necessary) or drawn conclusions about your car and written you a bit of a report on it. I didn't set any individual cylinder trims.

Not saying any of the following insights will lead to diagnosis of the problem but any of them might..
A failing lambda probe can stop giving proper signal on gas before it stops giving proper signal on petrol. Another thing that can bugger lambda probes is contact with engine coolant.
Your LPG injectors are on a rail but they are individual units on a rail... so (remembering your misfire codes for 4 cyls on the same bank) it's extremely unlikely 4 on the same rail would go wrong. But if one went wrong so causing dodgy fuelling (especially if dodgy fuelling led to a misfire on that cyl) it would mess up fuelling for the other 3 cyls on the same bank and could lead to misfires on any cyls on that bank.
Leaky petrol injector.
Duff LPG ECU could cause more than one cylinder to misfire straight away but very unlikely with your ECU... the output (LPG injector) driving electronics of some other LPG ECUs use common electronics for more than one output channel (so outputs usually cock up in pairs) but it seems your ECU (and most others) use discrete electronics for output channels so channels go down individually and I've never known a channel go down on your type of ECU.
Since you've had the manifold off... Crimped pipe between LPG injector and manifold, Crimped / shorted petrol injector break wiring, Routing (check plugs to LPG injectors and pipes between LPG and manifold match up... you don't have to remove anything except plugs to LPG injectors for this. Another indicator of problem routing is if it sputters particularly badly at some point like it's down to running on 6 or less instead of 7/8?).
Individual spark plug / lead
Compression or valve lift/timing on an individual cylinder

Would have to penetrate my tin foil hat then thick skin, especially that at the back of my neck :P Who's after my neck now anyway lol ;-)

Best not open a thread on Brexit eh. Leave that to the Pistonheads lot lol.

This situation probably helps put things in context lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STIvNjWobzA

Not down to me to be a middleman in any argument here and I'm not going to re-read where argument may have got a bit heated or try to explain away what was said or how I interpreted it at the time.. but if people are interested in debate it would be a good idea to let any (perhaps inevitable) heated bits be bygones and others might chime in again. I've met some of the people on thread, all very reasonable, clever and I have no doubt very good at their jobs.

I'll leave it a bit before I come out with any more daft analogies / examples... but for what other reason might I possibly want a Faraday cage?

I'm not being deliberately facetious or trying to wind you up.. but on a friendly forum like this it should be OK to include a bit of humour?

Seems most or all of what you just said refers to individuals (people)... Doesn't this debate all boil down to whether people are being identified by BT? It doesn't seem you'd have a strong enough case that people are being identified by BT.

Along the lines of the Sweeney example much more fault would be attributed to who pulled a knife or shooter rather than who was in the right or wrong over parking privileges, couldn't directly blame the hotspot for causing a dispute over parking privileges, the hotpsot map doesn't even say there's anywhere to park. If the property owner was in the right they could have reported the van to police (granted they wouldn't turn up!).. To what extent could the hotspot or vague map of hotspot locations be blamed for inciting a dispute and/or violence? There are vaguely similar low tech situations... e.g. Man Utd play Millwall, both teams like their fans to buy and wear kit (which might identify which end of the country they come from, at least identifies which team they support) and like away fans to buy tickets for their grounds but is this really the route cause of punch ups between fans or is it stupid fans that want trouble that are the problem? Should fans only wear identifying kit if they somehow opted in or is it obvious they're going to provide others with some vague info about themselves just by buying/wearing the kit and have opted in to that by default by buying/wearing kit? Millwall / Man Utd fans could opt out of identifying themselves at any time by just not wearing the kit but they did choose to buy the kit in the first place and why else would they buy a kit if they're not going to wear it... Why buy from an ISP that by default allows you to use other hotspots - obviously at other customers addresses (or where might we expect them to be) so pretty obvious that your address will be a hotspot - if you don't like that? Note to self.. 1/10 for clarity, analogy and the example Simon lol.

davew wrote:

The main point is that such data combined with that on other databases then allows a PERSONAL PROFILE to be MADE

Reckon I was the first to point out that hotspot location could be combined with land registry enquiries to find the name of the owner of a property with a hotspot?
If there's only a problem when data from multiple databases is combined, aren't the other databases (in multiple) equally guilty.. which even in your view could make government equally as guilty as BT because they offer access to the other database? Maybe even more so... Someone checking BT's hotspot map could easily argue they wanted to know where they could get net access / a milkman might think he really fancied the daughter at that house he used to deliver to but never did get her surname, worth the £3 to get her name by checking land registry records, no other reason to be searching land registry records but no questions asked. Every property owner is opted in on the land registry service without signing up to anything.

I'm only approaching this from kind of a thought experiment kind of view Dave, as much interested in if law agrees with common sense as any other aspect, not on one side or the other.

Looked at your link but it's only 'definitions', might expect the devil to be in details outside of definitions but would agree that in definitions alone it seems a person can be identified not only by name but also by other specifics such as address (? question to all).

Then I looked briefly beyond definitions... In 'principles relating to processing of personal data' 5.1 I don't see anything hotpsots do to contravene legislation... What points do you reckon contravene it?

Kind of broke my own rules by reading into stuff like that and haven't read much further... I reckon if something flies in the face of common sense it's open to being challenged anyway and most people would agree with common sense... so I generally wouldn't bother reading stuff like that when there might something in later points x and y that are exceptions to points a b c. Can't be an expert in law without lots of study but can be very good at common sense which usually prevails and even if it fails everyone with common sense is on side.

You might be going against common sense on this one... An ISP that potentially shares some of your bandwidth with it's other customers, on the flip side so you can share some of their other customers bandwidth when you're away from home, seems a good idea. You don't know who's FON you're using, just that you're using a FON and you know where the FONs are. There's little to read into the ISP saying use of hotspots for their customers is free, the facility is at no added cost in the terms of the contract and if you opted out of that part of the contract (so maybe wouldn't allow others to use a hotspot at your location) there's nothing to say you should pay a lower price. Why should this be illegal? If you don't like the arrangement don't go with the ISP that provides this service...

To me it seems 'livingmap' refers only to the potential for mobile phones and apps to identify the user... i.e. identify a person.

Not sure why you linked to the Strava site, what happens when we zoom in? For sure if a device location was tracked the movement pattern could be used to identify a person (with further effort) but houses with hotspots don't move.

Others here have said that the legislation (GDPR) applies only to the identification of people and so far I don't think you've shown anything that proves this wrong, in fact everything you've said points to the identification of people being the problem (as opposed to pointing to an address being a problem)? However it has occurred to me that it would be possible to identify owners of locations with hotspots (not accurately where many properties are close together but with increasing accuracy when properties are further apart...) by cross referencing hotspot location with land registry records.. at a price (£3 for a name from the UK.gov site). Dunno if that would be illegal in some circumstances but if I were a lazy private investigator who wanted to know who owned a property with a hotspot in a very rural location that's probably how I'd start. To any firm etc wanting to do this en-mass for marketing purposes the costs would probably be prohibitive and the land registry might start to ask questions.

If we put all the above together we're left with... It could be possible to identify the owner of a property who has a hotspot, but no more possible than it would be to identify the owner of any none hotspot property. What can we say is unique to the owner of a property with a hotspot.... considering a high proportion of properties have broadband and the limited difference between having broadband and having broadband that features a hotspot. After all, you didn't previously realise the difference between broadband and broadband with a hotspot so why would others be seeked out because they have a hotspot? The last sentence could take argument in any direction eh!

I looked at post #68... Perhaps if the man in the van was using 4g for internet access he wouldn't have been blocking your drive... but maybe he would. If this went to court there could be an ironic situation in which you claim he was using your FON, he says he was on 4g, you need BT to prove (from their records, if possible) that he was using your FON... Would you (and BT) need to be in breach of GDPR to prove that van man was using your FON? lol.

Laughing aside, if a daft lad or man in a van attacked you with a blade he used for cutting bacca and cleaning out his pipe, so you pulled out a 12 bore and fired at him you could take 90 people's eyes out using the shotgun when you could probably have run away. Millions of BT hotspot users seem to like the service, you could get around all your problems by using a different ISP but you chose to go with the shotgun scenario and blame van man's presence on a service you chose to sign up to.. though you claim not to have realised all the implications of signing up to that service even though you are capable of understanding all this about GDPR. Isn't the real case that you were offended by the van man parking outside your drive on a public road on which you are un-accustomed to strangers parking but have chosen to blame this on BT?

You live out in the sticks, strangers turned up to use your hotspot and this negatively affected your ill neighbour...
Not that it'd necessarily be relevant but I'd be curious to know more detail, e.g. did groups of pot smoking youths turn up in in cars etc? Genuine question, I'm not trying to make light of your or the ill neighbour's experiences.

I don't know anything about GDPR and wouldn't expect to become an expert by reading a few links today.

Seems you're implying a point that there's a difference between, say...
1 - someone picks addresses at random and lists them on a website made just for the purpose of listing the random addresses and calls the website 'some one time randomly generated UK addresses' or 'examples of UK addresses'.
2 - The Ferrari analogy again where some Ferrari dealer lists addresses of customers who have recently bought a new Ferrari.. though it probably wouldn't make much difference if Ferrari called this list 'valued prior customers' or 'list of people who recently bought a new one'.

Seems intuitive but again I'm not an expert. To me, the difference in 1 and 2 is that 1 is just a list of addresses with no context, can't see how that could be of much use to anyone with good or bad intentions, 2 could be put to use by thieves who want to nick a Ferrari or by sales people who knock on doors trying to sell conservatories.

But then when you say 'BT BB WiFi/HotSpot Customers might be similarly unwittingly inconvenienced / harassed etc' I'm not sure if it would make for an all round better situation if customers had to opt in. There will be some people who signed up to the service because they want(ed) / need(ed) to make use of hotspots, plenty other customers who aren't fussed about sharing a small amount of their bandwidth occasionally so others can use hotspots but probably wouldn't bother to opt in if opting in meant having to lift a finger (and similarly wouldn't bother to opt back in if they got a letter saying they'd been automatically opted out but could opt back in again). The likely result of people having to opt in would be that the number of hotspots would become so small as to render hotspots a totally unreliable means of accessing the internet... Maybe not so bad these days with 3g/4g but a few years ago if you'd managed to force BT into making opted out the default instead of opted in I dunno if that would have made you more popular or less popular... If I had to guess I'd say most likely overall less popular.

I just Googled 'BT hotspot', the top search result reads...
Sign up for BT Broadband and get free access to over 5m hotspots across the UK! +5 Million Wi-fi Hotspots. 18 Month Contracts. Unlimited Broadband. Types: Broadband, Fibre Optic, Unlimited, BT Plus.

I wonder if BT would argue that one of the reasons people sign up is to enable themselves to use hotspots and they need to know where hotspots are to use them. By signing up you knew you'd be able to use listed hotspots but also knew your address would become a listed hotspot... Isn't it fairly obvious that by default with such a service your address would be a hotspot and listed? If you never liked the way that works you could have gone with a a different ISP.. You could still switch to a different ISP, why are we in court when plenty other customers appreciate the trade-off.

Isn't that a case of

davew wrote:

‘material’ for them to do the job you paid them for:

?