DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 30 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 074 In this issue: Super T10 parts (corvette) O2 Sensor Question Re: Love This Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin Re: O2 Sensor Question Re: Memcal's Re: Different Strokes Re: Cubic Dollars Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin KS update... Re: Love This Re: O2 Sensor Question Rising rate fuel pressure regulator Copyright info, found this in the search Re: Cubic Dollars Re: Love This Re: O2 Sensor Question Even better Re: Even better Re: home dyno kit?? Re: Cubic Dollars See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: WATCHmeDRV@xxx.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:52:21 EST Subject: Super T10 parts (corvette) I am looking for super T10 parts or the complete trans. It's a 4+3 for a corvette. If anyone can help me with some parts or a complete trans that you might have laying around, It would sure help me out. My # is 706-547-0052, if no answer please leave a message. Thanks, DETROIT AMERSON ------------------------------ From: "Brian Franchuk" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:05:06 0000 Subject: O2 Sensor Question I just looked at the LAF O2 sensor web page at http://www.tech2tech.net/training/laf.htm and I thought of some questions: 1) What is the detection range of a typical lambda sensor? I've heard the range is very narrow. 2) Can the detection range be increased? The web page talks about using a voltage to repel the oxygen ions to control the rate that the ions reach the diffusion chamber. If voltage is applied to a normal sensor, what will happen? Is there is good web page or book I can look at for more info. Thanks Brian F. ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:12:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This - -----Original Message----- From: Greg Hermann To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Love This Easier than that, just mount the rails horizontial, and have the regulator the high point, and vapor that collects rises to the regulator and self purges to the gas tank. On some oem applications the regulator is below the centerline of the fuel rail so the rail accumulates the vapor, and at first WOT can go thru a purge mode.. Course the actual cause of the vapor forming is what needs addressed. As an example of the worst fuel line plumbing look at a 84 F-body with a carb.. The fuel line runs right above the top of the tranny, and within 2-3" of the exhaust. I wouldn't be surprised to find out road vibration plays a part in fuel foaming. Cheers Bruce >>Thanks Greg! I think you have put your finger on a problem that I have >>been having. Please elaborate on the float vent; on what junk cars can I >>remove one and where do I look for it on the car? > >I dunno of any cars that have used one!!! :-) > >Basically all it is is like the float bowl of a carb working in >reverse--the float chamber would be connected to the high point of the fuel >rails--when the float chamber is full of liquid fuel, the float rises, and >closes a needle valve. The outlet side of the needle valve is connected to >your vent line back to the tank. If enough vapor collects for the float to >drop, the needle valve opens, and the vapor goes bye bye into the vent >system. > >There are lots of float vents out there for various industrial piping >systems, but most weigh about 20 pounds, min. > >There are tiny little ones out there, made out of sheet metal, for domestic >hot water heating systems, which would not take the fuel pressure--general >environmental/vibration conditions under the hood at all. > >I have found one, made by Honeywell, which is rated 150psi, 250 degrees F, >which is OK as to bulk/weight, and they rate it as OK for >water/glycol/petroleum based heat transfer fluids, so I think it MIGHT be >OK for use in an automotive fuel system. Have not tried it out yet--and I >would be pretty sure that Honeywell would have a whole litter of kittens if >they found out their product was being used that way, so I am a little >reluctant to state the part # of it. But that should not stop anybody from >getting hold of a Honeywell "Tradeline" catalogue at a local HVAC /controls >wholesaler and figuring out which part it is!! > >Been thinking about asking somebody that makes quality fuel system >stuff--mebbe Barry Grant-- if they would be interested in making them >specifically for our intended use. Prolly would have to go through a bunch >of BS to show them why it's a needed part--and that would be a real PITA. > >Regards, Greg >> >>At 02:01 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Greg wrote: >>(snip) >>>But >>>if you are doing variable pumping alone, for $#% sakes, use a float vent on >>>the rails, so as to get the #$#% bubbles back to the tank!!! >>> >>>Regards, Greg > > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:22:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin - -----Original Message----- From: Roger Heflin To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:45 PM Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin >> Diacom >> Bruce >> >How are you measuring injector opening time? Change in current? >> >Thanks for the info. >> >Tom >How are you measuring it with diacom? One of the parameters displayed by diacom is pulse width. I just twist the knobs around on the ecm bench till I see what I want to see. ie turn the idle speed down to 250 rpm, at 30K/Pa, and see how short of pulse the ecm is generating. Are you lowering the opening >time until they don't open anymore? Yep. If they stop clicking/vibrating they ain't working. There has also been mention of injectors fring/burning up, from being run dry. After a hour of clicking away, they were still room temp, and the resistance is the same, granted their calibration might be history, but they still click for further bench work. Bruce > Roger ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:28:11 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 Sensor Question - -----Original Message----- From: Brian Franchuk To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 10:17 PM Subject: O2 Sensor Question I just looked at the LAF O2 sensor web page at http://www.tech2tech.net/training/laf.htm and I thought of some questions: 1) What is the detection range of a typical lambda sensor? I've heard the range is very narrow. The short story is: The "normal" O2 sensor is more of a switch then anything. Anything much above or below 14.7 happens at about .5v.. The extremes from .5v vary with EGT, and age, so aren't very accurate reliable. 2) Can the detection range be increased? The web page talks about using a voltage to repel the oxygen ions to control the rate that the ions reach the diffusion chamber. If voltage is applied to a normal sensor, what will happen? Not that I've heard of for part one, and probably ruin it by appling voltage to it. Is there is good web page or book I can look at for more info. read the acrhives under EGOR Cheers Bruce Thanks Brian F. ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:28:09 EST Subject: Re: Memcal's In a message dated 1/29/99 5:30:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com writes: > While we're on the memcal subject....I am in need of approx 30 blue > memcal covers....(I had some meet an unfortunate death) Does anyone know > where > to buy these or does anyone have some to sell??????Thanks, Carl, don't say "buy", the wrong people get excited.. 8~) gimme a snail mail address offline.. I have 2 or 3.. Maybe others have some....? MIke V ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:41:56 EST Subject: Re: Different Strokes I have to agree with M.Pitts on the fact that turbos allow you to make the big torque numbers without excessive RPM. With a 4 inch stroke in a small block chev, it sounds like your rod/stroke ratio will be more suited for lower RPM duty. You are adding a torque producer (in the form of a turbo) to a 400-500 foot lb torque monster engine... I think your biggest headache will be traction.(can I come over?).8~) Mike V. > n a conversation with the machine shop this afternoon the engine builder said > I should consider going with a shorter stroke. I can build a 4" stroke 434 > ci, a 3.75" 406 ci, or a 3.48" stroke 355 ci engine. The block I have is > already clearanced for the 4" stroke so the additional cost of preparing the > block isn't a factor. I already own the 4" crank and rods, and the crank > can be traded out for a shorter stroke without any additional cost. ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:34:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:42:20 -0800 Mitch writes: >At 12:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, Greg Hermann wrote: >> >>OK --this is what I was talking about--does anybody know what you gotta do >>to "register" a copyright?? >> >>I freely admit to being WAY out of date on this, but it would seem that >>they cannot sue you over it if they have not registered it. They can register it first, then sue you. It doesn't have to be registered at the time of the offence, just at the time of the suit. If you want to protect something that you wrote, put a copyright notice on it and do something that will prove that it was written before such and such a date. Mailing it to yourself is a common method. When you find that your idea has been stolen, register the copyright, then let the process server pay him a visit. On your day in court, take the still-sealed letter to court and open it in front of a bunch of witnesses. Ray ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:28:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin It makes sense that injecters in series don't open as fast. There is more inductance. It takes the current (and the magnetic field) longer to build to maximum strength. I would be inclined to use a transister to fire each one seperately. A 2N3055 is pretty cheap. Ray On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:19:19 -0500 "Bruce Plecan" writes: >Todays' lesson so far is >series/parrarel injectors don't work, ie 2 groups (of 8 injectors) in > series, and the slow injector openings don't happen. Where a > stock setup will fire injectors to less than 1 msec. the series/ > par, sign off at about 2.1 >The intake air temp., correction makes little difference at idle, > but at higher rpm makes a huge difference. >The above information is specific to a gm 1227730 using a AUJP >calibration. >More to follow >Cheers >Bruce > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:18:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin - -----Original Message----- From: Raymond C Drouillard To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 11:07 PM Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin But, the point was to get hard numbers, and observed results. The attempt was going to be firing 16 injectors without add on electronics. Bruce >It makes sense that injecters in series don't open as fast. There is >more inductance. It takes the current (and the magnetic field) longer to >build to maximum strength. > >I would be inclined to use a transister to fire each one seperately. A >2N3055 is pretty cheap. > >Ray > > >On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:19:19 -0500 "Bruce Plecan" >writes: >>Todays' lesson so far is >>series/parrarel injectors don't work, ie 2 groups (of 8 injectors) in >> series, and the slow injector openings don't happen. Where a >> stock setup will fire injectors to less than 1 msec. the series/ >> par, sign off at about 2.1 >>The intake air temp., correction makes little difference at idle, >> but at higher rpm makes a huge difference. >>The above information is specific to a gm 1227730 using a AUJP >>calibration. >>More to follow >>Cheers >>Bruce >> >> > >___________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > ------------------------------ From: Barry Tisdale Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:39:08 -0500 Subject: KS update... Added a 339 to the 555 KS display circuit - can now use the small AC signal directly from the KS w/o any problems - lots easier than probing around the ECM for hours. Thanks for all the help offered - Barry ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:07:06 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Hermann >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 9:50 PM >Subject: Re: Love This > >Easier than that, just mount the rails horizontial, and have the regulator >the >high point, and vapor that collects rises to the regulator and self purges >to the >gas tank. On some oem applications the regulator is below the centerline >of the fuel rail so the rail accumulates the vapor, and at first WOT can go >thru >a purge mode.. > Course the actual cause of the vapor forming is what needs addressed. >As an example of the worst fuel line plumbing look at a 84 F-body with a >carb.. >The fuel line runs right above the top of the tranny, and within 2-3" of the >exhaust. > I wouldn't be surprised to find out road vibration plays a part in >fuel foaming. >Cheers >Bruce > Yep, that works, but not the best (easiest or most accurate) thing on the regulator. Regulator low, always in liquid, float vent high, to take care of the vapor, if any is one step further. And , yep, it's one more piece to bust. But it will get rid of the vapor virtually INSTANTLY, even after a hot soak. Proper plumbing practice is ESSENTIAL, either way. Good fuel piping has a lot in common with proper refrigerant piping. Regards, Greg > > >>>Thanks Greg! I think you have put your finger on a problem that I have >>>been having. Please elaborate on the float vent; on what junk cars can I >>>remove one and where do I look for it on the car? >> >>I dunno of any cars that have used one!!! :-) >> >>Basically all it is is like the float bowl of a carb working in >>reverse--the float chamber would be connected to the high point of the fuel >>rails--when the float chamber is full of liquid fuel, the float rises, and >>closes a needle valve. The outlet side of the needle valve is connected to >>your vent line back to the tank. If enough vapor collects for the float to >>drop, the needle valve opens, and the vapor goes bye bye into the vent >>system. >> >>There are lots of float vents out there for various industrial piping >>systems, but most weigh about 20 pounds, min. >> >>There are tiny little ones out there, made out of sheet metal, for domestic >>hot water heating systems, which would not take the fuel pressure--general >>environmental/vibration conditions under the hood at all. >> >>I have found one, made by Honeywell, which is rated 150psi, 250 degrees F, >>which is OK as to bulk/weight, and they rate it as OK for >>water/glycol/petroleum based heat transfer fluids, so I think it MIGHT be >>OK for use in an automotive fuel system. Have not tried it out yet--and I >>would be pretty sure that Honeywell would have a whole litter of kittens if >>they found out their product was being used that way, so I am a little >>reluctant to state the part # of it. But that should not stop anybody from >>getting hold of a Honeywell "Tradeline" catalogue at a local HVAC /controls >>wholesaler and figuring out which part it is!! >> >>Been thinking about asking somebody that makes quality fuel system >>stuff--mebbe Barry Grant-- if they would be interested in making them >>specifically for our intended use. Prolly would have to go through a bunch >>of BS to show them why it's a needed part--and that would be a real PITA. >> >>Regards, Greg >>> >>>At 02:01 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Greg wrote: >>>(snip) >>>>But >>>>if you are doing variable pumping alone, for $#% sakes, use a float vent >on >>>>the rails, so as to get the #$#% bubbles back to the tank!!! >>>> >>>>Regards, Greg >> >> ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:11:17 -0700 Subject: Re: O2 Sensor Question >I just looked at the LAF O2 sensor web page at >http://www.tech2tech.net/training/laf.htm and I thought of some >questions: This is about a wide range, or UEGO sensor, not a typical one. > >1) What is the detection range of a typical lambda sensor? I've > heard the range is very narrow. For the typical HEGO, it is indeed very narrow. It basically say oxygen present or not present. Best to consider it as a digital, or on/off sensor. > >2) Can the detection range be increased? No. The web page talks about > using a voltage to repel the oxygen ions to control the rate that > the ions reach the diffusion chamber. If voltage is applied to a > normal sensor, what will happen? But this is talking about a wide band, or UEGO sensor. > >Is there is good web page or book I can look at for more info. An SAE paper # on the UEGO sensors is in the archives. Regards, Greg > >Thanks > >Brian F. ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:17:17 -0500 Subject: Rising rate fuel pressure regulator Some of you may remember my recent post about my desire to build a rising rate pressure regulator to mount in the stock location. Carl Summers informed me that he already has such a device. I just received one and all I can say is WOW! What a nice piece of engineering work! This is something I would expect to see on a Formula-1 racer. If you want to take a peek, I made up a little webpage with photo of Carl's regulator standing next to an OEM Bosch regulator. http://www.emi.net/~mpitts/reg.htm - -Mike ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:17:59 -0500 Subject: Copyright info, found this in the search "Interested parties should submit 15 copies of their written comments to the Office of the General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024. " ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:29:23 -0700 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars >On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:42:20 -0800 Mitch writes: >>At 12:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, Greg Hermann wrote: >>> >>>OK --this is what I was talking about--does anybody know what you gotta >do >>>to "register" a copyright?? >>> >>>I freely admit to being WAY out of date on this, but it would seem that >>>they cannot sue you over it if they have not registered it. > >They can register it first, then sue you. It doesn't have to be >registered at the time of the offence, just at the time of the suit. > >If you want to protect something that you wrote, put a copyright notice >on it and do something that will prove that it was written before such >and such a date. Mailing it to yourself is a common method. When you >find that your idea has been stolen, register the copyright, then let the >process server pay him a visit. On your day in court, take the >still-sealed letter to court and open it in front of a bunch of >witnesses. Absolutely right, Ray--but what I am saying is that with regard to mfgr ecu's and their source code, the mfgrs would rather DIE than make their source code public record, so they would have to get their tail twisted AWFULLY hard before they would register the copyright on it (which requires putting their source code into public record) just so as to be able to sue somebody over copying it. Bottom line is, I am not worried, nor do I think somebody like Hypertech needs to worry. Regards, Greg > >Ray > >___________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:50:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This - -----Original Message----- From: Greg Hermann To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 12:15 AM Subject: Re: Love This I can understand the concern about the regulator, and vapor, having done a fuel/vapor seperator, and included a clear section of tubing during developement (was carb.) the vapor is not a major issue, if bleed out-ie maybe 1-2-3%, it's when there is no effort for it to bleed out that it's a problem. Bruce >>Easier than that, just mount the rails horizontial, and have the regulator >>the >>high point, and vapor that collects rises to the regulator and self purges >>to the >>gas tank. On some oem applications the regulator is below the centerline >>of the fuel rail so the rail accumulates the vapor, and at first WOT can go >>thru >>a purge mode.. >> Course the actual cause of the vapor forming is what needs addressed. >>As an example of the worst fuel line plumbing look at a 84 F-body with a >>carb.. >>The fuel line runs right above the top of the tranny, and within 2-3" of the >>exhaust. >> I wouldn't be surprised to find out road vibration plays a part in >>fuel foaming. >>Cheers >>Bruce >> >Yep, that works, but not the best (easiest or most accurate) thing on the >regulator. Regulator low, always in liquid, float vent high, to take care >of the vapor, if any is one step further. And , yep, it's one more piece to >bust. But it will get rid of the vapor virtually INSTANTLY, even after a >hot soak. >Proper plumbing practice is ESSENTIAL, either way. Good fuel piping has a >lot in common with proper refrigerant piping. >Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:53:10 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 Sensor Question Does this interest anyone? There are other papers on the same topic on this same site, keep looking. If you find anything good, let us know! http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04498968 Thx, - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:05:49 -0500 Subject: Even better This one shows a very simple feedback circuit. http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04841934 - -Mike ------------------------------ From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:18:07 EST Subject: Re: Even better Hi Mike, That number doesn't seem to work can you double check??? - -Carl Summers In a message dated 1/29/99 11:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, mpitts@xxx.net writes: << Subj: Even better Date: 1/29/99 11:09:40 PM Pacific Standard Time From: mpitts@xxx.net (Mike Pitts) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu This one shows a very simple feedback circuit. http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04841934 -Mike >> ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:59:28 -0500 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? > >I would guess that the trigger point or the center of a given spark >(measured in the audio-domain) is probably centered pretty >consistantly at the same point, and since you don't have to do things >real time you can take some time to analyze and determine exactly were >each pulse was centered. And even if they varied a bit, the average >should be pretty good. I did some quick calcs, and 3000 rpm the pulse >spacing is 20 ms, and 3025 rpm is 19.83 ms (DIS), so if you have .1 ms >resolution you would be able to get better than 25 rpm accuracy at >this point. And ao long as you have enough bandwidth to be able to >determine each pulse you should be able to do it. My guess is that a >basic cheap take recorder should give you enough data to do the job. >A 6000 rpm pulse is 100 pps (DIS) or 50 pps (fire every other rpm), so >to get accurate and distinct centers you would not require that much >bandwidth (ie 1-2khz looks to be adequate) > > Roger > If resolution is what you want (and we all do :), how about picking up the peaks from the alternator output? Maybe they can be of some use other than pissing-off stereo installers. I figure 6 peaks per alternator revolution (3-phases, full-wave rectified, complete in one revolution). Since the alternator is "geared" to turn quite a bit faster than the crank, you'd get much better resolution. All you'd need to know is the alternator to crank speed ratio (pulley diameters would suffice). - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:24:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars Well, I've spent a bunch of time looking at copyright stuff. Some summaries follow: 1) The online method for looking for copyrights is archaic, leading to #2 2) I didn't find any copyrights by GM specifically pertaining to software. This is inconclusive by itself. 3) The requirements for registering computer programs depend on whether the program contains "trade secrets" or not. $20.00, plus a completed application, and 50 pages of code gets a copyright. Code can be "blacked out" if it contains trade secrets. There are some small variations to these requirements. 4) The copyright office includes a disclaimer: "Copyright protection extends to all of the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program. Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts." 5) Copyright information must be present in programs copyrighted before 3/1/1989, but is not necessary after that date. This is primarily to reduce or prevent "Innocent violations" 6) A certificate of copyright can be issued at any time up to 5 years after the initial publication of the program, and the program is considered copyrighted from the initial date of publication. 7) Even if the copyright owner has lost no money, and an individual has gained no profit from a violation, the owner may still file for statutory damages, ranging from $200 to $2500 per incident for illegaly bypassing copy protection and from $2500 to $25000 for altering/falsifying copyright information. This is in addition to any criminal penalties. 8) For the sake of copyright protection, "a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of it's operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." (copy protection, here) 9) The only argument for the above that I can see, and it's a stretched one at that, is that by not placing the source code on the eprom, (am I right here...op codes yes, source code no?) there's a "process or treatment" required to gain access. 10) In order to determine the "interoperability" of one program with another, copy protection may be legally circumvented. This falls inder the heading "Reverse Engineering", which is somewhat vague. Taken in context, reverse engineering could be limited to reversing the copy protection, or could include the entire program. Either way you must have a legal right to use the software which you are reverse engineering. 11) Since there is no specific agreement stating otherwise, I have to assume that possession of an eprom, or possession of an ECM, or possesion of the appropriate vehicle constitutes a legal right to use the program. I wonder what would happen in court if you introduced the idea that the EPA requires that you have a right to use the software if you own the vehicle, especially during the emissions warranty period. So. If you own a vehicle which uses the computer for which the program was designed, and you are running the program through promgrammer, or tweaker, or any similar software with the intention of evaluating how well the programs work together, there should be no way to prosecute for copyright violations. Mike, Since the copyright office requires code to be submitted with a copyright application, and the code is available for public viewing, there should be no problem with posting limited amounts of code. Stick to 50 lines max. In addition, after eliminating everything not covered by copyright (see #4), what is left of our simple code? All in all, I think it would be pretty difficult for GM to successfully prosecute for copyright violations, as they don't seem to have gone to any lengths to indicate copyright. There's no security of any kind on the program, no markings anywhere of copyrighted material, and no part of the program which appears to be copyright protected. This is in stark contrast with GM's general approach, as they are very thorough about adding their copyright information to manuals, sales information, diagnostic materials, scan tools, shop software, logos, and on and on. Since GM has set a reliable pattern regarding copyright information, and there is none present in the code, it must not be copyrighted. Successful prosecution aside, GM's lawyers could break my bank in a day. If I had any doubts, I'd sure stay clear of 'em. Here are links to the materials I butchered for this. http://www.loc.gov/copyright http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ A listing of copyrights which have been granted since 1972 can be obtained via ftp at 140.147.254.3. I found some as old as 1962 If anyone follows my advice and ends up getting in trouble because of it, don't come crying to me. I'm a mechanic, not a lawyer. Shannen ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #74 **************************** 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".