DIY_EFI Digest Tuesday, 20 August 1996 Volume 01 : Number 236 In this issue: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: Truck parts Dynamometer. (Why not a water brake?) Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: EGO sensors Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: Truck parts Dynamometer. (Why not a water brake?) Ford EEC-IV help Re: CD Ignition Re: Rover engines Re: Electric vehicle Re: Truck parts Dynamometer.--telma Re: pressure measurements with piezoelectric transducer re: Electric vehicle DIY_EFI for OSU!!!!!!!!!!!! Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: Ford EEC-IV help Re: My DIY EFI Re: Truck parts Dynamometer.--telma Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) '97 Corvette engine, DIS ZEV's Re: pressure measurements with piezoelectric transducer Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Re: EGO sensors Re: My DIY EFI See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: brewer@xxx.com (John Brewer) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 06:49:05 -0500 Subject: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. It is nothing more than enviro-wacko induced, government mandated, Barbera Streisand. You get 5 million jokers in the San Fernando Valley hooking their ZEV's up to the grid everynight to recharge them for their 50 mile commute the next day and I am fairly certain that the peak hours for electric generation will shift, not to mention the rates for electric power- especially after they get you over a barrell. So the term "Zero Emissions Vehicle" is a LIE. They ought to be called "Remote Emissions Vehicles" (REV) since they just shift the emissions point to another location. In most cases out in to the country where the power plants are located. That's just like city-folk, absolutely destroy their environment, then dupe everybody into a plan that dumps all their emissions outside of town! Even if you get a REV with decent efficiency *after* you get the cells charged, what can be said about transmission line losses from the power company to your humble abode? Are these losses factored in to the efficiency ratings? Are we going to use solar power to charge these babies? Let's not forget wer're home AT NIGHT! Maybe we could turn the flood lights on. Are we going to charge them with solar power while we're at work? What if it decides to rain- are we all going to spend the night at work? Or will the power company let us hook up to the grid during their peak hours on a system that is begin run at the breaking point to keep up with current demand. This may seem a flame but dang it- government mandate is the absolute worst way to do anything. This whole REV debate is so shot full of holes from merely a practicle standpoint that the whole thing needs to be scrapped along with the politicians who backed it. John Brewer P.S. I debated as to whether or not to send this so don't think that I'm a complete reactionary- just a partial reactionary! "Any man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin ------------------------------ From: "John Faubion" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:26:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Truck parts Dynamometer. (Why not a water brake?) Hi Paul, >For some ball park type numbers, try 12 inch disks with about 50% of the disk as 1/2 inch holes. Say 3 >or 4 disk in all. What kind of spacing are we talking about between the disks? quarter inch or so? John Faubion jfaubion@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: rickydik@xxx.com (RD Rick) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:15:01 -0700 Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Brewer wrote: > >Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. It is nothing more than >enviro-wacko induced, government mandated, Barbera Streisand... >So the term "Zero Emissions Vehicle" is a LIE. They ought >to be called "Remote Emissions Vehicles" (REV) since they just shift the>emissions point to another location... >Even if you get a REV with decent efficiency *after* you get the cells >charged, what can be said about transmission line losses from the power>company to your humble abode? Are these losses factored in to the>efficiency ratings? Are we going to use solar power to charge these>babies? Let's not forget wer're home AT NIGHT! Well put. You neglected to mention the waste of hauling a half ton of batteries that aren't otherwise needed. Those make for heavier tires, brakes, etc., ad infinitum. Don't forget the hazmat spills. Imagine the headlines, "Child eaten by battery acid." >This may seem a flame but dang it- government mandate is the absolute >worst>way to do anything. Usually yes. However, we could not even buy cars equipped with seatbelts before their mandate. Smog laws have helped, also. >This whole REV debate is so shot full of holes from >merely a practical standpoint that the whole thing needs to be >scrapped along with the politicians who backed it. Amen. Every fourth person in the world lives in China. When they all get motorbikes, it will be an ecological disaster. When they all try to buy cars, the price of oil will skyrocket. Tips: Invest in oil stocks or oil wells. Strive for really efficient personal transportation, which is what we all want. RD Mass transit is like car insurance: everybody wants the other guy to have it. ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (tom cloud) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:29:13 -0500 Subject: Re: EGO sensors After some research, I have found a few tidbits that might be of interest. The 'standard' EGO's output curve is sharply non-linear (like a stair step), with the flat part occuring at stoich with about .45 volts output. Above and below this point, the voltage curve is very steep and its relation to A/F does not seem to be well documented. Well, that much I already knew (as did most everyone else). The interesting point is that the EGO can give useful information above and below stoich. But, the temperature of the sensor greatly affects the sensor's response to the A/F mixture, so it's not of much use (without knowing its temp and having calibrations curves). ------------------------------ From: "Hans Hintermaier" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 16:28:57 MET Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Hello John, Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:34:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Truck parts Dynamometer. (Why not a water brake?) I had that same idea a while back, but wasn't able to find any of the *Math* behind it in the library. Where are you getting your sources? I am not a mech. engr. so I don't know what the "Standard Handbook of Mechanical Engineering" is? It seems that this shouldn't be too hard to implement??? Famous last words! Thanks. - -Thomas At 03:05 PM 8/18/96 -0400, you wrote: >I've been reading this dynamometer thread for a bit and though I would >add my 2 cents. >It is probably easier to use a water brake than to deal with all the >wear and heating problems of a truck brake. However a truck rear axle >is probably a good source of parts. > >The general concept (straight out of my Standard Handbook of Mechanical Engineering) is to mount a series of perforated disks to >the shaft one wishes to load. The disks alternate in being attached to >shaft (disk 1), fixed to the frame(disk 2), attached to the shaft(disk3). >The number of holes in the disk and the size of the disks are proportional to the amount of power to be absorbed. Put the entire thing >in a tub of water, preferably with the disks vertical and the shaft horizontal and vary the water level to control loading. For long runs and >high power levels a radiator and circulating pump may be necessary. > >For some ball park type numbers, try 12 inch disks with about 50% of the disk as 1/2 inch holes. Say 3 or 4 disk in all. > >Gives a very stable load and allows independent adjustment of load >and rpm > >Paul Neelands > > > ------------------------------ From: vanir@xxx.com (Sven Pruett) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:49:23 Subject: Ford EEC-IV help Greetings all, I am new to this list and have found it to be a refreshingly detailed forum. Though I can appreciate the dedication that many of you have in developing an entire EFI system, my interests are much more specialized. In short, I am interested in manufacturing my own "piggyback" chips for Ford EEC-IV and EEC-V processors. I am admittedly a novice when it comes to this process so please pardon whatever academic questions I may have. Anyway, here goes: 1) I am interested in corresponding with any of you who have experience working with the Ford EEC-IV and V series computers. Particularly, those who have successfully extracted and manipulated the code from these processors. 2) I had heard rumor that some members of this list have constructed real-time data collection devices that monitored every sensor in/out signal for a period of time. If this is true, would you be willing to share such technology? 3) Is there available any software programs that can successfully interpret the Ford Code into something recognizable to the average human? 4) What programming language should I begin to familiarize myself with in order to begin work with the Ford code? So far, my programming experience has revolved around developing Windows automotive software in Layout 3.01c and a little Quickbasic. 5) Having absolutely no experience in manufacturing my own boards, etc. Can any of you recommend a few good references to guide me in the process or someone who can perform such work economically when presented with a concept? I realize these questions may be a tall order. However, I would appreciate any constructive feedback from this list. Kindest regards, Sven Pruett Vanir Technologies ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (tom cloud) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:02:23 -0500 Subject: Re: CD Ignition > >Oh contrare. Back when I lived in Edmonton (-40C temps.) I installed a CD >ignition into my Datsun 510. [ snip ] >So if I know when to fire the plugs I can program the micro to appy current >through the coil for n milliseconds to keep dwell constant and coil heating >down. So lets say 5ms dwell at 12 volts and a coil resistance of 12 Ohms. >Then we have 1 Amp for 5 ms and when current is broken, fild collapses and >ignition occurs. At cold temperatures and a battery voltage of 6 volts >during cranking we get only 500ma and much less energy. So.... do I step up >the voltage to 24 volts with a switching power supply and decrease dwell by >50% and then still trigger the coil with the FET transistor. > >In other words, before uComputers was the CD Ignition with the Capacitor and >the SCR just an elegant solution to the problem? > >John. > > No. A coil is used (could use Cockroff-Walton, or other voltage multiplier) to amplify voltage to the 10 - 20 kV required to jump plug gap at high pressures. The coil is actually an autotransformer -- and only works on AC, not DC. Well, a 'change' in voltage / current looks like AC to it, so applying and removing current causes a pulse on the secondary. Now, there's been lots of clever ways to do this. Points is just a switch. Transistor and FET (still a transistor) systems are still just switches. With this system, the coil field is expanded by passing current through it. Once the field has reached its fullest, additional "dwell" time is of no further value. It's the collapsing field that generates the spark (i.e. opening the switch / removing the current source). Problem is, at high RPM's there's not enough time to build the field up -- hence less spark energy at high RPM's. To get extra energy for starting, the coil is made to operate at less than normal battery voltage, hence the need for the series 'running' resistor. CD systems store the spark energy in a capacitor. With a short time constant circuit, this can be done mucho quickly. Then, the energy is discharged into the coil, producing the spark. This removes the RPM limitation, for all practical purposes. Either system can cause excessive heating in the coil if not properly designed. Any pulsed coil will ring. Some CD systems clamp the ringing. MSD has made their trademark (multi-spark) out of a naturally occuring phenomena. The rate of ringing (pps) can be changed by the coil design or external components and it can be clamped after a pre-determined period of time if so desired. Methinks my Ford EEC-II is a transistor switch system. Apparently most of the aftermarket systems are some form of CD. Don't know of any better way -- just better implementations of it. I'm interested in hearing of any newer technology. Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: DJohn77284@xxx.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:30:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Rover engines Martin, FYI the Buick 300 crankshaft can be made to fit a Rover block but:- main bearing diameter is 63.5mm - Rover std is 58.4mm externally balanced - Rover std internally balanced Buick crankshaft is longer, i.e. flywheel flange is approx. 14mm further back, that will cause problems with an auto box differences in rear main oil seal arrangement requires machining and the design of a "labyrinth" oil seal. Regards, Dave DJohn77284@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: ptimmerm@xxx.GOV Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 09:34:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Electric vehicle An interesting duscussion you guys have started. The current best thinking coming from my shop is that batteries are to be used for pulse type power for starting and hill climbing, (very high specific power) while the range is given by very high energy devices, such as the aforementioned turbine or our favorite, the direct oxidation, liquid feed, methanol fuel cell. Ultra capacitors may also prove useful in this mix. Correct sizing could allow some outrageous starts, but not to many in a row. paul t- ------------------------------ From: tom sparks Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:42:56 -0500 Subject: Re: Truck parts Dynamometer.--telma At 01:40 8/16/1996 CET, you wrote: >>Other stupid ideas...... >>Build a back yard dyno out of a truck axle..... > >Not so stupid... Know what a Telma is? >It's an electromagnetic brake system used on trucks & buses. >They are normally mounted inline with the propeller shaft. >If you've noticed the bus driver activate braking through a >multiposition stalk near the steering wheel, that's the control stick. > >They should be fairly easy to find at appropriate breakers yards. >The nice thing about them is that the braking effect is current >controlled. So they should need only (very) high current drivers >to be directly controlled from a micro. They are also small and >light in proportion to their braking effect. > >Einar > >-- >einarp@xxx.no ( Maserati Biturbo Spyder ) > > > Is anybody in the U.S. on this list familiar with a "Telma"? This sounds like just the ticket! ------------------------------ From: Jerry Wills Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 11:11:27 PDT Subject: Re: pressure measurements with piezoelectric transducer I found Kistler on the web and sent email for info. The answer was, transducer with charge amp to cover a number of ranges is $3500. what is your application, IMEP,Peak ? we will be sending you by mail, a selection guide. That outside my budget :^) Jerry Wills I'll have enough POWER when I can spin the tires at the end of the straight! 89 FJ DERSLYR, DoD#500 KotF(Flag) Mark Donahue, about 917's USC/Information Sciences Institute (USC/ISI) SoCal (310) 822-1511 x 236 90's cowboys, ride iron horses, and punch Deer!!! You done violated Physics, BOY! Assume the position..... (Rider 5/92) ------------------------------ From: Doug Rorem Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 13:56:38 -0500 Subject: re: Electric vehicle >> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 22:38:31 -0500 >> From: Ryan Minnig >> Subject: re: Electric vehicle >> George M. Dailey wrote: >> >> I can speak from experience with electric vehicles. I was the >> electrical man for TWO solar electric vehicles for Mankato State Univ, >> in MN for Sunrayce '93 and Sunrayce '95 respectively. Battery >> technology sucks. So does Solar power. The most affordable >> photovoltaics per energy output cost ~$5000 for 8m^2 which produces 1KW >> of electric energy, not good only about 12-14% of the energy hitting the >> earth from the sun. Anyway on to your question. Since batteries suck, >> the only affordable batteries are lead-acid which are heavy and have a >> very low energy density, the most reasonable thing to do is just build a >> car that uses a 5hp gas motor. Sure electric is very clean, but >> performance is terrible. Consider this, if you run a gas motor to >> charge the batteries and run the electric motor you only get about 75% >> of the energy that the gas motor outputs. Try to follow me. >> >> Gas --> output to shaft. >> 100% -2% from mechanical resistance =98% >> >> Gas --> Generator --> Electric motor --> output to shaft. >> 100% -5% elec. resistance -5% elec. resistance -2% from mech. >> resistance =88% >> >> >> Gas --> Generator --> Battery sotrage --> Electric motor --> >> output to shaft. >> 100% -5% elec. resist. -25% chemical resist. -5% elec. resist. >> -2% mech. =63% >> >> In each instance follow the path that the power has to change states. >> Remember NOTHING is 100% efficient. Even if the motor and generator >> were made form superconducting wire, there is resistance from the >> contact points and very very very small ohmic resistance in the wire. >> Even just using a belt or chain drive loses about 1-5% due to friction >> in the chain or belt. We will eventually have to use someithing other >> than fossil fuels, but the technology has to come a long way. We still >> have a lot to do with gas engines. With all the refinements made to >> engines we only get about twice the gas mileage as compared to a Model A >> FORD. >> >> I don' mean at all to shoot your idea down, I think it is great that >> someone else is interested in doing something innovative, these are just >> some of my experiences and the hurdles to overcome. >> >> Any other thoughts?? -Ryan >> I think you're somewhat generous with the 25% loss on the lead-acid batteries. It was my understanding that you lost somewhere around 50% of the energy you put into them to heat, etc. before getting it back out. That's why there's interest in other energy storage forms - flywheels, hydraulic accumulators and motors, etc. You pretty much have to rely on wall current to charge the batteries rather than charging on a hybrid vehicle due to these losses, and have the engine-generator provide the power needed for cruising speed. - -- Doug Rorem University of Illinois at Chicago (312)-996-5439 [voice] EECS Department RM 1120 (312)-413-1065 [fax] 851 S. Morgan Street (708)-996-2226 [pager] Chicago, IL 60607-7053 rorem@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: fife Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 03:15:16 -0700 Subject: DIY_EFI for OSU!!!!!!!!!!!! Hello, I was searching the FSAE pages and I found this address concerning advice on building your own EFI system. I thought it curious that we have someone here at ohio state who is knowledgeable about EFI and how to build them and has yet to contact the home team. We at OSU FSAE are very interested in this subject and would like to discuss it with you. My name is Neil Fife and I am motor devopment leader here at Ohio State. I can be reached at The Center for Automotive Research ph#688-4084 during the day. My E-mail is fife.5@xxx. Looking forward to your reply, Neil F. Fife ------------------------------ From: Matthew Lamari Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:19:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) At 04:28 PM 8/19/96 MET, you wrote: > >Hello John, >You are absolutely right! The efficiency rate from power-producer >to end user is not more than 10% (I am not shure, but I can get >exact numbers if you want) >Also solar power is not the cleanest. Some years ago there was a >study about solar-cells. It said, that solar cell production consumes >more energy than the cell will bring back in it's lifetime. >Maybe things have changed in between, but "zero emmission" is >something else. >Sorry, I don't have better ideas neither (spelling?), so we have to >make the best out of existing energy possibilities. >Regards >Hans > >hiha@xxx.de >Munich / Germany > > How about alcohol in a hybrid? So it takes twice as much methanol to produce the same amount of energy as petrol; but at least you get all the convenience of fuels (use it when you want.) Okay, you'd have to screw with compressions and stuff; but it wouldn't mean an engine redesign of any more epic proportions than souping up your car for a massive compression ratio change. I seem to remember back in North Queensland when all the cane farmers and processing mills were getting interested in something. They were going to turn the cane into Ethanol and mix it in with Petrol (in parts so compression didn't have to be changed on a regular vehicle.) It had been tested and worked well. Alas, as it opposed the best interests of those in the oil industry it went away. Sure it seemed expensive; but think of it in volume. The farmers get $30 a tonne for the cane. Somewhere in between would be a competitive price. You don't get anything particularly nasty when you burn alcohol. Not like some of the stuff that comes out (even with a catalytic converter) when you burn petroleum. It can be made directly from plants that efficiently use sunlight. Any energy used in the process of making the actual alcohol would be used by higher-efficiency (than the cars) dedicated machinery. Someone with a heavily modified engine would merely use more alcohol, not add to any pollution problem (except maybe water vapour/humidity? :) At the end of the day you'd have a fuel that didn't really pollute, renewable from solar energy, and always ready to produce plenty of power, conveniently located in the fuel tank. Matthew. ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (tom cloud) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:40:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Ford EEC-IV help [snip] In short, I am interested in manufacturing >my own "piggyback" chips for Ford EEC-IV and EEC-V processors. I >am admittedly a novice when it comes to this process so please >pardon whatever academic questions I may have. Anyway, >here goes: > ============= ================ Sven ... so am I -- please keep me posted on what you find out, and I'll do the same for you. ============= ================ Now, first, the chips in EEC units are soldered in -- all commercially available units [try http://www.superchips.com/ ] plug into the computer between it and the cable. This means that they are 'simply' trying to intercept and modify inna's and outta's, which can't be a very satisfying experience. >1) I am interested in corresponding with any of you who have >experience working with the Ford EEC-IV and V series computers. >Particularly, those who have successfully extracted and manipulated >the code from these processors. ============= ================ Once again, please keep me posted on what you find out. ============= ================ > >2) I had heard rumor that some members of this list have >constructed real-time data collection devices that monitored every >sensor in/out signal for a period of time. If this is true, would >you be willing to share such technology? Ditto -- > >3) Is there available any software programs that can successfully >interpret the Ford Code into something recognizable to the average >human? You mean like a dis-assembler? Yes. > >4) What programming language should I begin to familiarize myself >with in order to begin work with the Ford code? So far, my >programming experience has revolved around developing Windows >automotive software in Layout 3.01c and a little Quickbasic. ============= ================ tell me what you find out. ============= ================ > >5) Having absolutely no experience in manufacturing my own boards, >etc. Can any of you recommend a few good references to guide me in >the process or someone who can perform such work economically when >presented with a concept? I have circuit boards made all the time -- who's going to do your layout? Not an inexpensive proposition (could cost thousands if you don't do it yourself -- there is a freeware version of PCB-PADS that you could use). Then, a 'simple', double-sided board will cost about $50 to $100, plus about the same in set-up. Quantity pricing can get the same board down to tens of dollars, and will make the setup charge essentially disappear. But, you're talking lots of time and money. Most typical scenario: buy an SBC (single-board-computer) development kit from someone (I lean toward the 68HC11 or similar, though there are many available) and write code for it on your PC using a cross assembler or (gad) C. Let me say here, that it is possible to write the code in BASIC and compile it -- but the odds of you finding a cross- compiler for the SBC are slim. The compiler generate code that is capable of executing from ROM'ed code and using tables and constants that are also in ROM and not RAM. May I also pontificate a little here: as many previous posts have stated: It's not necessary to get real complicated. A factory EFI controller is trying to do things you don't necessarily care about. Seems to me that me and thee want to just modify the code in the existing unit (and maybe add (or delete) a funtion or two) (note the correctly 'nested' parenthesis). Hopefully, all that would be necessary would be the removal of the PROM and putting in an EPROM. This might entail making an adaptor board which would most likely make the unit too big to go in the enclosure which would ..... > >I realize these questions may be a tall order. However, I would >appreciate any constructive feedback from this list. > >Kindest regards, > >Sven Pruett >Vanir Technologies > > > ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (tom cloud) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:12:39 -0500 Subject: Re: My DIY EFI >At 09:56 8/17/96 -0700, Messr. Knighton wrote: > >> I personally think some of the levels of sophistication that's going >>into some of these DIY EFI's are a bit ridiculous. > > I have to agree with Todd here .. you really have to decide whether you want > a running car .. or an academic exercise ... > [ snip ] > IF YOU CANT MAKE IT RUN IN 8K of ASSEMBLER then YOU CANT MAKE IT RUN!!! > > (Yes, I know .. you ALL wanna program in C++ ... ;) [ snip ] > > Jim Help, I can't stop myself from asking rhetorical questions ... A week or so ago I wrote (to the effect) that it seemed to me that an analog system with little pots under the dash and some feedback (like EGO and maybe MAP) would yield a result extremely close to systems with lots more sophistication -- time and money. I am unconvinced that that's not the most effective solution. Now, we're talking driving. If building doo-dads is your thing (and I've built -- and am building -- lots, but I get paid to do that), then this post is not for you. But, I want to take my pony (Bronco) to the mountains and do some trails -- not screw around for the next few years playing with electronics ! So here's one rhetorical question: what's the complaint with little pots under the dash? If you can tune it so it runs (and runs good), how's some laptop gizmo that you've got to stop to type on gonna be any better, huh? And the laptop gizmo costs how much more than pots? And C, or C++. Yep, I program in that dratted language. Clearly assembler seems to me to be the faster and better approach for a problem like this. So why would one torture themselves by writing in C unless the had to. On large apps, I can see it. Not on this one. Then, (not a rhetorical question) does anyone out there have any 'current' experience with FORTH. I used it a long time ago on 8080, 8085, Z-80 systems and loved it. The problem I had was getting it to really like ROM'ed code -- but it worked nonetheless, and quite well. Okay, lets have it. Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Niels Ezerman Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:27:48 +0200 Subject: Re: Truck parts Dynamometer.--telma tom sparks wrote: > Is anybody in the U.S. on this list familiar with a "Telma"? This sounds > like just the ticket! Look at: http://www.telma.com We use 2 small telma's for engine dyno and 1 for truck chassis dyno, this is feed it with 120 V, and max 15 Amp (if i remember right). Niels Ezerman, Danish Technological Institute. ------------------------------ From: John Dammeyer Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 14:44 PDT Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) At 06:49 AM 19/08/1996 -0500, you wrote: >Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. It is nothing more than >enviro-wacko induced, government mandated, Barbera Streisand. [Big Snip] You're right! Just transfers the problem elsewhere. Not to mention th horrific costs involved in manufacturing the battery technology to the scale that is required if everyone started to use Lead Acid Based cars. The energy and pollution costs and associated lead poisening possibilities should also be factored in for that. Realistically a different power source is required, like fuel cells using hydrogen and oxygen. As i understand it in Vancouver there is already a pilot project under way that uses fuel cells in a few buses. There are still emissions but this time the hydrogen combines with the oxygen to produce water. Now to make the hydrogen we're back to using remote electricity for separating water into it's constituant elements. Down side, still uses electricity. Up side, controllable power generation without transmission line losses etc. Other major side-effect, release one oxygen into the air for every two hyrdogen; or bottle that and use it in industry but..... heaven forbid if something went wrong with the oxygen bottling program and some escaped into the atmosphere....... John Pioneers are the ones, face down in the mud, with arrows in their backs. Automation Artisans Inc. Ph. 604-544-4950 6468 Loganberry Place Fax 604-544-4954 Victoria BC CANADA V8Z 7E6 ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:02:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) Highly entertaining my friend! I think you've got me confused with one of your ZEV fans. I was just wondering if the technology was there to make it happen. As I mentioned before, I do work for the power company...but I'm just a salried employee, not an owner. You should post this to the group. I'm sure others would also find enjoyable to read. PS, Speaking of pollution, the plant I work at was built in the early 70's and engineered for oil. High sulfur #6 crude oil that is (remember OPEC and the gas lines). Thanks for responding dude, GMD At 06:49 AM 8/19/96 -0500, you wrote: >Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. It is nothing more than >enviro-wacko induced, government mandated, Barbera Streisand. You get 5 >million jokers in the San Fernando Valley hooking their ZEV's up to the >grid everynight to recharge them for their 50 mile commute the next day and >I am fairly certain that the peak hours for electric generation will shift, >not to mention the rates for electric power- especially after they get you >over a barrell. So the term "Zero Emissions Vehicle" is a LIE. They ought >to be called "Remote Emissions Vehicles" (REV) since they just shift the >emissions point to another location. In most cases out in to the country >where the power plants are located. That's just like city-folk, absolutely >destroy their environment, then dupe everybody into a plan that dumps all >their emissions outside of town! > >Even if you get a REV with decent efficiency *after* you get the cells >charged, what can be said about transmission line losses from the power >company to your humble abode? Are these losses factored in to the >efficiency ratings? Are we going to use solar power to charge these >babies? Let's not forget wer're home AT NIGHT! Maybe we could turn the >flood lights on. Are we going to charge them with solar power while we're >at work? What if it decides to rain- are we all going to spend the night >at work? Or will the power company let us hook up to the grid during their >peak hours on a system that is begin run at the breaking point to keep up >with current demand. > >This may seem a flame but dang it- government mandate is the absolute worst >way to do anything. This whole REV debate is so shot full of holes from >merely a practicle standpoint that the whole thing needs to be scrapped >along with the politicians who backed it. > >John Brewer > >P.S. I debated as to whether or not to send this so don't think that I'm a >complete reactionary- just a partial reactionary! > > >"Any man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben >Franklin > > > > ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:28:19 -0500 Subject: '97 Corvette engine, DIS Are the rumors true, Direct Ignition on the '97 Corvette 5.7l LT1? Are there any technical tidbits available? Feed me info ...please! GMD ------------------------------ From: RABBITT_Andrew@xxx.au Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:25:26 est Subject: ZEV's >Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. a good ZEV will do sub 0.2kWh/mile, whereas your average 30-35 mpUSg car is more like 1.0kWh/mile, therefore you have to have a few losses to stoop :) to the IC engine level. This doesn's seem like crap to me! >I am fairly certain that the peak hours for electric generation will >shift And not before time, the energy consumption plots currently look like the Himalayas, Leveling this out has to give significant emissions (CO2 and other) benefits by reducing shut-down and start-up losses. >So the term "Zero Emissions Vehicle" is a LIE. They ought >to be called "Remote Emissions Vehicles" (REV) since they just shift >the emissions point to another location. people generally don't congregate around a power station exhaust stack, but cars and people must co-habitate generally at close range, therefore zero tail-pipe emissions is beneficial from a public health point of view. >government mandate is the absolute worst way to do anything. just like democracy is the worst form of government.... :) PS: I don't think this is the right forum for this discussion, but now the imbalance has been redressed, we can all get back to burning fossil fuels (lots!!!). ------------------------------ From: Darrell Norquay Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: pressure measurements with piezoelectric transducer At 11:11 AM 8/19/96 PDT, Jerry Wills wrote: >I found Kistler on the web and sent email for info. >The answer was, transducer with charge amp to cover a number of ranges >is $3500. what is your application, IMEP,Peak ? we will be >sending you by mail, a selection guide. > >Thats outside my budget :^) I figured so. Even if you figure most of the 3500$ is for the fancy multirange electrometer amplifier, multiply the $500-700 per sensor by 6 or 8, along with the hassle of buliding your own amp/data logger, and you see why nobody without a government research grant is doing it... regards dn dnorquay@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Darrell Norquay Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Zero Emissions Vehicle (was Electric Veh.) At 06:49 AM 8/19/96 -0500, John Brewer wrote: >Let's just cut all the crap about a ZEV. It is nothing more than >enviro-wacko induced, government mandated, Barbera Streisand. Can I have an amen for John! My sentiments exactly. They should be concentrating on making engines for hydrogen, along with a cheap way to make it. IMHO, this will be the only sane alternative to oil in the future. regards dn dnorquay@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Darrell Norquay Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: EGO sensors At 09:29 AM 8/19/96 -0500, Tom Cloud wrote: >After some research, I have found a few tidbits that might be of interest. >The 'standard' EGO's output curve is sharply non-linear (like a stair step), >with the flat part occuring at stoich with about .45 volts output. Above Ah, Tom, the flat part occurs at each end of the curve. The central portion around .4-.5V is almost vertical. >The interesting >point is that the EGO can give useful information above and below stoich. I've been wondering lately how much sweat it would be to apply some linearization to the curve, in order to get a more useful output. The curve is essentially a stretched "S" shape, the math for this should be a piece of cake (for someone so inclined). OK, so you may not get a perfectly linear curve, but you should be able to get something resembling a straight line with way wider a/f range than it now has. Any comments? regards dn dnorquay@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Darrell Norquay Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: My DIY EFI At 03:12 PM 8/19/96 -0500, Tom Cloud wrote: >Help, I can't stop myself from asking rhetorical questions ... You should take something for that... >A week or so ago I wrote (to the effect) that it seemed to me that an >analog system with little pots under the dash and some feedback (like >EGO and maybe MAP) would yield a result extremely close to systems >with lots more sophistication -- time and money. I am unconvinced >that that's not the most effective solution. This is yer basic electronic carburetor approach... Pot for idle mixture, pot for baseline a/f ratio, pot for acceleration enrichment, pot for WOT enrichment, an' you've about got it. However, that's about where my agreement with you leaves off. IMHO, a microprocessor is the only way to implement this. Analog electronics can be a real bear when it has to work flawlessly over a -40C to +85C range. If a processor runs at all, generally it works properly... >Now, we're talking driving. If building doo-dads is your thing (and >I've built -- and am building -- lots, but I get paid to do that), then >this post is not for you. But, I want to take my pony (Bronco) to the >mountains and do some trails -- not screw around for the next few years >playing with electronics ! >So here's one rhetorical question: what's the complaint with little >pots under the dash? If you can tune it so it runs (and runs good), >how's some laptop gizmo that you've got to stop to type on gonna be >any better, huh? And the laptop gizmo costs how much more than pots? MSA. - (My Sentiments Exactly) >And C, or C++. Yep, I program in that dratted language. Clearly assembler >seems to me to be the faster and better approach for a problem like this. >So why would one torture themselves by writing in C unless the had to. >On large apps, I can see it. Not on this one. Exactly. Damn, you think so much like me it's scary... Like Steve Ciarcia, my favorite programming language is solder. After that, assembler runs a close second. Leave the C to the egghead programmer geeks (no offense to any who might be listening) who never get any closer to the hardware than a keyboard and monitor. ARRRGGGHH, MATEY, round' here we program down to the bare metal! >Then, (not a rhetorical question) does anyone out there have any 'current' >experience with FORTH. I used it a long time ago on 8080, 8085, Z-80 >systems and loved it. The problem I had was getting it to really like >ROM'ed code -- but it worked nonetheless, and quite well. I've been thinking about learning FORTH for a long time, but that's as far as it ever got. There is a company called New Micros Inc. who specialize in FORTH embedded systems. They have compilers for all the 68HC*** processors, and possibly more as well. I don't have the address here, but I can dig it up if you want... regards dn dnorquay@xxx.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #236 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".