DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 12 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 198 In this issue: RE: bhp Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality Hydrualic pressure to HP formula Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality RE: bhp RE: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula Re: plugs Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality Re: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula Re: plugs RE: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula Questions RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 Re: intercooler RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 Re: Questions RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp RE: bhp Re: Questions o2sensor on web RE: bhp, spark plug crap Re[3]: bhp beginner Re: RE: bhp Re: RE: bhp Re: Questions Re: RE: bhp, spark plug crap Re: o2sensor on web Re: Re[3]: bhp See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:31:19 +0000 Subject: RE: bhp From: Andrew Rabbitt To: "'diy_efi@xxx.edu'" Subject: RE: bhp Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:51:01 +0100 Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > Can you imagine how out of tune an auto would have to be for ANY > spark > > plug change to give an additional 50 Horsepower? > > The purpose of the plug is to ignite the fuel. In some circumstances, > > different materials are more or less prone to oxidation in heated > environments, so yes, in theory, different plugs might make a > difference. > Also, plugs come in temperature ranges, different gap settings, > different > insulator materials. I've honestly never figured out technically the > reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not > a plug, I'm all ears :) aside from the obvious necessity for an insulator to force the spark to jump a gap rather than taking a resistive path to ground (which includes the insulator getting hot enough to burn off any crud deposited on it -- but not too hot :-) ... some electrodes for the spark to jump between; a terminal to connect the plug wire too; and a good compression seal, I can't see much either. However, things like the quality of workmanship and of the materials used, plus the care in controlling the heat range, plus the type of materials chosen for the electrodes so they don't corrode in the combustion chamber environment -- seems there's definitely the possibility of good and bad plugs. What's being said (I think) is that there's an awful lot of hype (lies) about plugs. Actually, there's hype in every area, not just automotive -- seems you and I discussed your former employer (or do you just own their stock) who specializes in selling **cheap** electronic parts and equipment to unsuspecting, trusting novices 8-0 Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: marchildon@xxx.net Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:43:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality At 09:56 PM 6/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Since there has been some recent talk about Air/Fuel ratios, Heat/Energy >content of various fuels/additives, & other fuel delivery related >topics, I would like to get some opinions on the following: > >1. Re: Optimum A/F ratios > > I understand that most O2 sensors have a fairly narrow band of >operation and give primarily indications of 'too rich' or 'too lean'. I >assume that for this reason, they are used mostly (some say always) at >either idle or cruise. Most agree that they are useless at WOT & part >throttle (agrees w/earlier assumption). A recent post in one of these >lists mentioned a new spin-off of Fel-Pro called FP Performance that has >a computer-controlled FI setup with a wide-range O2 sensor (high dollar >option?) that can sense a 12.5 (or whatever the optimum WOT A/F is). If >this is so - then wouldn't it be best to be in closed loop almost >always? (after engine has reached operating temp of course) Anyone with >experience here? I was thinking seriously about running down to >Ashland, MS (home of FP Performance & about 40 min drive from Memphis >8-) and insisting they hire me on. > >2. Re: Optimum conversion of fuels potential for energy (combustion) > >After being intrigued for many years about engine intake designs - >nothing mixes up conversation better than Smokey Yunick (& other >Otto-cycle designs) and his miracle engines that got 50-60 mpg with no >performance loss (40% gains instead 8-) by HEATING the incoming A/F >mixture to around 400 degrees. Most say 'yeah right - then why are the >factories all producing intercoolers?' Well, I have read many of >Smokey's articles and have the one with the design drawings of his Fiero >experiment in Hot Rod June '84. I understand that internal combustion >engines probably average around 25% efficiency of converting fuels >potential for energy (BTU's?) into actual usable energy (read flywheel >horsepower). And that current designs might be between 30-40 percent in >optimum conditions (read hardly ever). Seems to be alot of room for >improvement here! This is the basis for Smokey's design. Further - >according to several sources (nice one at >http://www.autoshop-online.com/auto101/fuel1.html about all sorts of >things including description of operation of Chrysler X-Ram intakes) the >optimum condition of the incoming mixture are something like: > >"Dry fuel vapor is an ideal form of fuel charge, but present-day fuel >prevents this unless the mixture is subjected to high temperature." > >Attempts to achieve a greater conversion rate (efficiency) are commonly >known as supercharging & turbocharging that 'pump up' the incoming >mixture causing a side effect (cant remember exact mixture >condition/problem) thus the need for intercoolers (say what? >contradiction?), additives, etc. for correction. > >Seems kinda confusing I know - Why not skip the whole mechanical attempt >at regulating all these variables and let a computer control all >(especially temperature/condition of incoming mixture) for an optimum >(under all conditions 8-) conversion/combustion/BURN! > >Comments welcome! > > >"We have the technology... We can build it..." > > >-- You are mixing two very distinctive things here the air and the fuel. I am not a ME but from reading for the past 15years all that I could find I cam to the conclusion that the air has to be as cold as possible to be as dense as possible thus the more oxygen molecules per pound of air, and that the fuel has to be several hundred degrees to be able to burn as quickly as possible this is what Smokey Yunick attempted to do but at the time they didn't have the micros necessary to do it maybe today we could be able to inject the high temperature fuel directly in the combustion chamber. This is just a thought. And my own simple conclusion and if you ask a similar question tomorrow the answer might be different. // marchildon@xxx.net // // Alain Marchildon // ------------------------------ From: Dan Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:42:07 -0400 Subject: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula What's formula for converting hydraulic pressure into horspower? For instance, at 24 Gallons/Min @ 2300 PSI, what's the equivalent horsepower? Thanks, Dan L ------------------------------ From: jb24@xxx.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:24:04 -0400 Subject: Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality I don't know how many of you are familiar with fuel economy record attempts from the seventies, but at a SAE dinner a few years ago, I got to see a presentation from a guy who holds a few of those records. He works for Lubrizol now, and I can't seem to remember his name. Anyhow, the gist of his talk was that fuel economy tricks are the exact opposite of what you do for power. The engine he built for the absolute record (an old V8 no less) was inside an insulated box running pure glycol for coolant. A small carb (really small, like 30mm bore) was fitted. The car also had super high pressure aircraft tires and never broke 10mph, and coasted a lot. So the intake air came from inside this box and always ran full throttle. So he had three things going for his fuel economy: hot coolant means little heat transfer out of the cylinder, full throttle means no-part throttle pumping losses, and hot air means lower density and better vaporization. The record set over a couple mile course was in the thousands of miles per gallon, like 2,500. I would also bet that he was making in the tens of horsepower out of a V8. I would like to know how much Yunick's engine put out. John Bucknell jb24@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Kurt Bilinski Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 07:43:24 -0700 Subject: RE: bhp At 07:23 PM 6/10/97 -0400, frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com wrote: > I've honestly never figured out technically the >reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not a >plug, I'm all ears :) > > I agree. I mean, if the mixture is lit off, isn't that the end of it? Now I can understand the special case of the mixture "going out", but that should be more a function of the ignition box rather then the plug itself. If it's lit, it's lit. What's wrong with that theory? Kurt ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:51:44 +0100 Subject: RE: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula In metric it's easy: 24gal/min = 0.00154 m^3/s; 2300psi = 15.847MPa therefore Power = Volume Flow * Pressure (drop) Assuming all 2300psi is lost across your actuator, then P = 0.00154 * 15.847 = 24.4kW (32.7hp) Obviously not all the pressure will be converted into work due to fluid entry and exit losses, thus you can stuff an efficiency factor in there. It will be an inverse function of your flow rate. Note that this is a derivative of the Work=Force*Distance => Power=Force*Vel. Andrew Rabbitt > ---------- > From: Dan[SMTP:DanLlwln@xxx.com] > Sent: 11 June 1997 14:42 > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula > > What's formula for converting hydraulic pressure into horspower? For > instance, at 24 Gallons/Min @ 2300 PSI, what's the equivalent > horsepower? > > Thanks, > > Dan L > ------------------------------ From: Todd King Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:10:00 PDT Subject: Re: plugs <<< > The purpose of the plug is to ignite the fuel. In some circumstances, > > different materials are more or less prone to oxidation in heated > environments, so yes, in theory, different plugs might make a > difference. > Also, plugs come in temperature ranges, different gap settings, > different > insulator materials. I've honestly never figured out technically the > reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not > a > plug, I'm all ears :) > The spark energy influences the power (by increasing the burn rate) more than the spark plug itself, and this is related to the stored coil energy and not necessarily the plug specification. >>> I just received some new SAE books last night; two of the papers in the combustion book detail results of plug indexing, style (shape, number of electrodes, etc) and gap experiments. All three plug aspects did indeed show differences though the authors generally declined to make recommendations on which way is "best". Interesting that as Andrew points out the spark energy comes from what's stored in the coil, not really varying with the gap as is sometimes implied. Point of diminishing returns is reached from widening the gap when the spark begins finding alternate routes across the ceramic and ignition efficiency drops. Indexing was interesting too; seems that getting the ground electrode out of the "slipstream" of the small flame kernel showed improvement in ignition. However the slipstream (mixture flow) direction appears to vary with rpm, etc so nailing down a "correct" orientation is difficult at best. However both results appear to imply that the ignition process favors having hard parts out of the way of the initial flame kernel. Pretty good reading; it would help to be an ME though... Todd_King@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: "Gregory R. Travis" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:39:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Shane Moseley wrote: > 2. Re: Optimum conversion of fuels potential for energy (combustion) > > After being intrigued for many years about engine intake designs - > nothing mixes up conversation better than Smokey Yunick (& other > Otto-cycle designs) and his miracle engines that got 50-60 mpg with no > performance loss (40% gains instead 8-) by HEATING the incoming A/F > mixture to around 400 degrees. Most say 'yeah right - then why are the > factories all producing intercoolers?' Well, I have read many of > Smokey's articles and have the one with the design drawings of his Fiero > experiment in Hot Rod June '84. I understand that internal combustion > engines probably average around 25% efficiency of converting fuels > potential for energy (BTU's?) into actual usable energy (read flywheel > horsepower). And that current designs might be between 30-40 percent in > optimum conditions (read hardly ever). Seems to be alot of room for > improvement here! This is the basis for Smokey's design. Further - > according to several sources (nice one at > http://www.autoshop-online.com/auto101/fuel1.html about all sorts of > things including description of operation of Chrysler X-Ram intakes) the > optimum condition of the incoming mixture are something like: I'm not real familiar with Smokey's work here - I have a couple of his books. He's, well, different. But isn't his scheme (heat the intake air) basically a straight-forward application of the Carnot cycle? If my understanding of the Carnot cycle is correct, engine efficiency is given by: Efficiency = 1 - (Heat Out / Heat In) (where both Heat Out and Heat In are expressed in an absolute temperature scale) [Therefore, a 100% efficient heat engine would have to take in energy from a heat source that was infinitely hot and convert all of it to an infinite amount of energy all the while producing exhaust at absolute zero. This is not possible so 100% efficiency is impossible. Unless you use Slick 50 and Splitfire plugs.] One of the conclusions that you can draw from this law is that anything you can do to lower the exhaust temperature of your reciprocating internal combustion engine, everything else being equal, will raise its fuel efficiency. (The converse of the law is that the more efficient engine will have a lower exhaust temperature. This is exactly what happens when you raise the compression ratio of an engine) One way of doing this is to place a device in the exhaust stream which absorbs exhaust heat. The resulting exhaust is then cooler. But you now have to do something with that absorbed heat that doesn't involve simply transfering it to the atmosphere. That, after all, would be exhaust! The only thing you can do with the heat then is to transfer it BACK to the input of the engine. This both increases the "Heat In" in the equation and lowers the "Heat Out". According to Mr. Carnot, that will increase the engine's efficiency. This property is put to real-world application all the time in the turbine world. Gas turbines exhaust (excuse me) a tremendous amount of waste heat, relative to piston engines, and are relatively fuel inefficient. To recover this energy, it's popular to put a "regenerator" in the exhaust stream. Physically this consists of some extreme high-temperature material (ceramic matrix, etc.). The regenerator then PHYSICALLY moves the heat from the exhaust to the turbine's intake. For example, Chrysler's gas turbine automobile experiment of the 1960s involve disk-shaped regenerators which rotated slowly. The gas turbine's exhaust was directed at 180 degrees of the disk and the intake was taken through the other 180 degrees. Since the disk slowly rotated, the hot half of the disk (the half exposed to the exhaust) was constantly being rotated over to the intake side where the heat was taken back out. This regeneration allowed the Chrysler turbine to obtain fuel specifics in the 0.4x range - incredible for a gas turbine. Allison's auto engine, without a regenerator, had fuel specifics above 1.0 Interestingly, a regenerator was part of Lycoming's recent piston-engine GAP proposal. In Lycoming's piston diesel, a "disk on a stick" regenerator occupied the cylinder along with the piston itself. The regenerator was driven from above (with the regenerator shaft travelling through and out of the cylinder at the head (and with appropriate seals)). The regenerator disk was to sweep through the cylinder, absorbing extra exhaust heat, while the piston itself was on the downward expansion (exhaust) stroke. Then, after the piston returned to top-dead-center (the regenerator disk (hopefully) having already returned there), the regenerator would follow it back as it went down on the intake stroke - transferring the heat BACK to the intake charge. Lycoming (actually the ReJen corporation which holds the patents on the mechanism) was shooting for fuel specifics in about 0.27 range as a result. NASA thought it a bit too far out... greg ------------------------------ From: Ken Mayer Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Dan wrote: > What's formula for converting hydraulic pressure into horspower? For > instance, at 24 Gallons/Min @ 2300 PSI, what's the equivalent > horsepower? Pressure is force. Power is work per unit time. Work is a force moving through a distance. Pressure and power are not comparable terms. You need to know the fluid density, the pressure differential across the pump, the height to which the fluid is being pumped, and the fluid velocities on the pump inlet and outlet. With all that you can calculate the total pump head and derive power. H=pressure head+velocity head+height difference P=(Q)(gamma)(H) pressure head=(p2-p1)/gamma velocity head= (v2^2-v1^2)/(2g) height difference=z2-z1 Kenneth Mayer, P.E. ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: plugs On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Todd King wrote: > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 09:10:00 PDT > From: Todd King > To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: plugs > > <<< > > The purpose of the plug is to ignite the fuel. In some circumstances, > > > > different materials are more or less prone to oxidation in heated > > environments, so yes, in theory, different plugs might make a > > difference. > > Also, plugs come in temperature ranges, different gap settings, > > different > > insulator materials. I've honestly never figured out technically the > > reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not > > a > > plug, I'm all ears :) > > > The spark energy influences the power (by increasing the burn rate) more > than the spark plug itself, and this is related to the stored coil > energy and not necessarily the plug specification. > >>> > > I just received some new SAE books last night; two of the papers in the > combustion book detail results of plug indexing, style (shape, number of > electrodes, etc) and gap experiments. All three plug aspects did indeed show > differences though the authors generally declined to make recommendations on > which way is "best". Interesting that as Andrew points out the spark energy > comes from what's stored in the coil, not really varying with the gap as is > sometimes implied. Point of diminishing returns is reached from widening the > gap when the spark begins finding alternate routes across the ceramic and > ignition efficiency drops. Indexing was interesting too; seems that getting > the ground electrode out of the "slipstream" of the small flame kernel showed > improvement in ignition. However the slipstream (mixture flow) direction > appears to vary with rpm, etc so nailing down a "correct" orientation is > difficult at best. However both results appear to imply that the ignition > process favors having hard parts out of the way of the initial flame kernel. > Pretty good reading; it would help to be an ME though... > > Todd_King@xxx.com > > Todd, I would be interested in the titles of those SAE publications, could you post them when you get the chance? Thanks, Seth Allen PS- Anyone know where I can get a good air to air intercooler for cheap? ------------------------------ From: Ken Mayer Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:49:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: Hydrualic pressure to HP formula On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Andrew Rabbitt wrote: > In metric it's easy: > > 24gal/min = 0.00154 m^3/s; 2300psi = 15.847MPa > > therefore Power = Volume Flow * Pressure (drop) Wrong. You must also consider the density of the liquid, and the head loss. Head loss is not pressure drop. > > Note that this is a derivative of the Work=Force*Distance => > Power=Force*Vel. Your derivation is wrong. Kenneth Mayer, P.E. ------------------------------ From: "Christopher E. Hill" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:26:04 -0400 Subject: Questions Ladies and Gentlemen, I have lurked on this list for about 6 months, and now I finally get enough time to ask a few questions: 1. On dealing with mass flow rate, formula M(dot)=(Volumetric Efficiency * absolute pressure)/(R * absolute temperature), could I assume that the VE is going to be constant for at that particular rpm, regardless of temperature and pressure? This is from my Thermodynamics I book. 2. On programming using vectors, what language should I use? I had BASIC in high school, and I think I can figure out the logic of any language. 3. With VE's and turbocharged applications, will the M(dot) equation be the same as above? Thanks, PATSY HILL ------------------------------ From: talltom@xxx.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:51:00 PDT Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 Reguarding that Cloud following Tom around, I've heard that Ford retarded all their cams 8 degrees across all models in 72, and that may paly a part in the ford Hp ratings, although all mfg. hps dropped in that era. Tom also sez that hp ratings have come back up on the late models to higher levels than early 70's . My question is where????? Show me all the 375-450 hp ratings today, never mind 550 ft.lb@xxx. ------------------------------ From: mcosta@xxx.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 15:37:19 EST Subject: Re: intercooler Seth, A good intercooler can be had from a late 80's chrysler conquest or mitsubishi starion. Also a larger version of this intercooler is available from the mitsubishi fuso panel truck. Try the local junk yards for either vehicle. Mike Costa ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:51:58 +0000 Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 talltom wrote >Reguarding that Cloud following Tom around, I've heard that Ford retarded >all their cams 8 degrees across all models in 72, and that may paly >a part in the ford Hp ratings, although all mfg. hps dropped in that era. >Tom also sez that hp ratings have come back up on the late models to >higher levels than early 70's . My question is where????? Show me >all the 375-450 hp ratings today, never mind 550 ft.lb@xxx. dang, I took my book home .... I guess you'll just have to trust me 8-) (what I said was, I thought, is they have come back *close* or *near* or something like that) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: jb24@xxx.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Questions I think I can answer the Volumetric Efficiency questions... Volumetric Efficiency (actual volume/volume of perfectly filled cylinder) is somewhat dependent on density of charge. Momentum effects should change the filling at different densities (temperatures), but even more importantly change the pressure wave effects. So my feel for this is that part throttle/lean mixture/spark timing should change exhaust temperature and thus timing of pressure wave events (differences in sonic velocity). However, for a given engine, rpm and throttle position the volumetric efficiency shouldn't change much day to day (fractions of a percentage most likely). It's very hard to predict to many significant figures, that's what testing is for. As to VE in turbos, VE is measured relative to a reference gas. If that reference gas is at the same temperature and pressure as your manifold, you get a good idea of how your engine is breathing. If measured relative to a gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure, the results are somewhat less enlightening, but let you know how much fuel to inject. Mass Airflow Sensors are cool this way - they don't care what your manifold pressure is, although some richening at higher pressures is needed to prevent detonation. Fuels in WWII were rated this way, relative to isoctane and rich limit of detonation. Some of these fuels were in the 140-150 octane range. Too bad they aren't available at your corner station. =oP John Bucknell ------------------------------ From: John Hess Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:11:30 -0500 Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 The engines talltom is talking about are the big blocks. While they are not as common as they once were, it is not at all unusual for a port injected big block to turn 750 hp and 650 ft pounds. Does this qualilfy? On the other hand, how common were 300+ HP small blocks in the '70s (almost all of them, now, are in the area of 300 hp). - ---------- From: cloud@xxx.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 1997 9:52 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 talltom wrote >Reguarding that Cloud following Tom around, I've heard that Ford retarded >all their cams 8 degrees across all models in 72, and that may paly >a part in the ford Hp ratings, although all mfg. hps dropped in that era. >Tom also sez that hp ratings have come back up on the late models to >higher levels than early 70's . My question is where????? Show me >all the 375-450 hp ratings today, never mind 550 ft.lb@xxx. dang, I took my book home .... I guess you'll just have to trust me 8-) (what I said was, I thought, is they have come back *close* or *near* or something like that) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Fred Miranda Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:55:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: bhp How would the ign. box be at fault if the mixture lites then extinguishes? Too short spark duration? Fred At 07:43 AM 6/11/97 -0700, you wrote: >I agree. I mean, if the mixture is lit off, isn't that the end of it? >Now I can understand the special case of the mixture "going out", but >that should be more a function of the ignition box rather then the >plug itself. If it's lit, it's lit. What's wrong with that theory? > >Kurt > > ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:52:07 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:46:39 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:33:17 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:25:29 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:13:59 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:10:09 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:11:00 -0400 Subject: RE: bhp > I agree. I mean, if the mixture is lit off, isn't that the end of it? > Now I can understand the special case of the mixture "going out", but > that should be more a function of the ignition box rather then the > plug itself. If it's lit, it's lit. What's wrong with that theory? But that's not exactly the case, otherwise all spark plugs would be the same size and shape and temperature range. I think the differences has to do with the different compression ratios, since gasoline/air will respond to external forces different under different pressures, volumes. Only thing I could think of.... Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Questions On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Christopher E. Hill wrote: > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 14:26:04 -0400 > From: Christopher E. Hill > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Questions > > Ladies and Gentlemen, > I have lurked on this list for about 6 months, and now I finally get enough > time to ask a few questions: > > 1. On dealing with mass flow rate, formula M(dot)=(Volumetric Efficiency * > absolute pressure)/(R * absolute temperature), could I assume that the VE is > going to be constant for at that particular rpm, regardless of temperature > and pressure? This is from my Thermodynamics I book. > 2. On programming using vectors, what language should I use? I had BASIC > in high school, and I think I can figure out the logic of any language. > 3. With VE's and turbocharged applications, will the M(dot) equation be the > same as above? > > Thanks, > > PATSY HILL > > Um, I wouldn't make that assumption about VE right off, as VE is affected by Helmholtz resonance(tuned length, or pressure wave supercharging), and as the speed of sound changes with density (and to a small degree temperature) and this Helmholtz resonation will affect VE. I doubt that this effect is significant, unless the temp or density changes are large. But I am not an expert. But, I would be willing to bet that the SAE has a few papers on just this topic... Seth Allen ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 20:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: o2sensor on web Attention to all who missed the schematic for the o2 sensor output modifier (aka o2 sensor fooler) again it has 2 inputs for chryslers with 2 sensors. It was used to richen up gaseous fuelled cars (CNG, Propane) It will probably butcher your fuel mileage. You might even melt down your catalyst and burn your car to the ground. But probably you will just run rich. This schematic is available on the web at Don Perlick's site... he was gracious enough to post it there. Now those of you who aren't MIME compliant can read it and download it. There is a 100% moneyback guarantee on this one... Seth Allen ------------------------------ From: FreshMar@xxx.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: RE: bhp, spark plug crap >I agree. I mean, if the mixture is lit off, isn't that the end of it? >Now I can understand the special case of the mixture "going out", but >that should be more a function of the ignition box rather then the >plug itself. If it's lit, it's lit. What's wrong with that theory? >Kurt Well, if the spark does not have enough energy, if the gap is wrong, (everyone who has worked with point- and condenser ignition knows well) the car will not run right. Nowadays elec ingition sends the maximum it can to the plug(right..?). Therefore, a 'light' is not all it needs. It must need more to keep it burning. If the shape of the initial flame kernal was important, you would see effects of the spark plug upper electrode, like a shadow or carbon tracks on the cylender, and you'd get crazy people making sure to line all of their spark plug electrodes pointing the same way. Mario T. mailto:Freshmar@xxx.com-----'76 VW Camper FI A/T,,'79 Fiat X1/9 ------------------------------ From: avos@xxx.au Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 13:47:47 EST Subject: Re[3]: bhp I think we may have an infinite loop here... Does anyone know how to fix this, contact someone to remove the subscriber etc. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: RE: bhp Author: diy_efi@xxx.edu at INTERNET Date: 12/6/97 13:36 Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: Kevin Yoon Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:57:28 -0500 (CDT) Subject: beginner Hi, I've been lurking around this list for a while and I'm now ready to embark on a project. I've been looking at the diy_efi pages, and was wondering if anyone could give me some pointers on where to begin. I'm technically competent in both electronics and programming. What I've been looking at has been the Digital distributorless system using the 68hc11. It seems pretty simple enough, unfortunately, there isn't full schematics for the project and I was wondering if anyone could help me get fuill schematics for it. The other project that I was looking at was the one involving the 68332 chip, which is a little more complicated than I would like to experiment with. Any pointers would be welcome. Thanks Kevin Yoon ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:16:41 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu> has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:16:13 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:25:08 +1200 Subject: Re: Questions Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:42:34 +1200 Subject: Re: RE: bhp, spark plug crap Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:41:06 +1200 Subject: Re: o2sensor on web Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ From: mailuser@xxx.nz Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 16:49:48 +1200 Subject: Re: Re[3]: bhp Automated reply from Massey University Electronic Mail System - --------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ---------- ---- ------ The message you have sent to diy_efi@xxx.edu has been delivered. Please note: This person is currently not an active EMail user and is therefore unlikely to read their mail. All unread mail is deleted after approximately 2 months ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #198 ***************************** 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".