DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 6 February 1999 Volume 04 : Number 094 In this issue: Re: fusible link questions Re: Plugs for flare fittings? Chip Kelp A little too simple Re: Where to start? Re: A little too simple Re: fusible link questions Re: fusible link questions Re: A little too simple Re: fusible link questions Re: ecu7 Re: ECU7 photos Re: ECU7 Re: fusible link questions Re: A little too simple Re: Chip Kelp Re: fusible link questions gmecm list Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 Computer Suspension Software Re: fusible link questions RE: fusible link questions RE: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage RE: Chip Kelp RE: fusible link questions Re: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage Re: fusible link questions See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom Parker" Date: 06 Feb 99 23:46:53 +1200 Subject: Re: fusible link questions Clarence L.Snyder wrote: >> A switching regulater, when reducing voltage, will increase the current >> (much like a transformer). My idea is to max out the field coil on a >> standard alternater, which will produce a high output voltage (> 100 V). >> The alternater can still supply its rated current at the higher voltage >> because the current is limited mostly by I2R losses. >Actually, the alternator is rated for maximum POWER output. 100 amps at >14 volts is 1400 watts, almost 2 HP. At an optimistic 80% efficiency, it >requires closer to 2.5 HP. Pushing the same current at higher voltage >quickly oveheats the alternator due to the increase in these I^2 R >losses, which increase at the rate of a power of two with voltage >increase - double the voltage, 4 times the heat with the same current. Erm... no. You've just said that the losses due to I^2 R depend on voltage, when there is no voltage term in your equation. What does matter is the current handling ability of the field windings. The original poster proposes to increase the current in the field windings while using some devious switching transformer to keep the output current of the main windings down, and also to step the voltage down to something that won't fry the electronics in the rest of the car. The only extra electrical load on the alternator will be in the extra current flowing in the field windings. The field windings will have to dissapate heat due to the P = I^2 R equation, so if you double your field winding current, you will have to dissapate 4 times the heat in them. (there are also extra mechanical loads, you will stress the bearings and the shaft of the alternator if you ask it to draw such a huge amount of power out of the engine). If you double the voltage output of the alternator main windings, the heat dissapated in the main windings will remain the same, as the heat generated there is due to the current through them only! I can explain the mistake you made applying the P = I^2 R equation if you want, but it might start a huge discussion, which people on the mini-list will know about! - -- Tom Parker - tparker@xxx.nz - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/8381/ ------------------------------ From: "Bill the arcstarter" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 05:30:34 PST Subject: Re: Plugs for flare fittings? steve ravet wrote: >If I wanted to remove the AIR pump on my V8 S-10 conversion, then I'd >have to find some flare plugs to plug the holes in the exhaust >manifold where the AIR connects, right? Any suggestions on where to >find something like that? I've called plumbing and A/C suppliers in Well I just used a 1/4 NPT brass pipe plug to seal off one of mine. It's sleazy and isn't quite right, but it kept it form leaking. A new air injection manifold is about $25. If you really wanted to do it right you could just crimp off the lines...?? My air injection manifold was NOT stainless, and rusted away... - -Bill ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:24:13 -0500 Subject: Chip Kelp I need to get 2 ics Siliconics dg200, I'm having trouble with a min order. Any body gotz some floating around?. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Onebil2mny@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:44:33 EST Subject: A little too simple First, I would like to introduce my self.. I'm Bill, and I'm a caraholic. I am currently working on a 56 BelAir conv with a production line LT4 using a GM ECM from Howell, 700R4 tranny, and all kinds of other non list related mods. I am also building (for my self, the BelAir is for my Father) a 72 442 conv. LS-6 crate motor with a Roller Hydraulic cam, Wiand Team G with injector bungs, Kinsler throttle plate and an Accel ECM. It also has several dozen non list type mods. I think this list may be a little advanced for me, as I'm only an ASE Master Tech, and don't have a Bachelors degree in anything. I've been following a couple of the posts lately, and I don't know a thing about burning proms, much less building a device to modify OBD2 ECMs! Anyhow, here is my query..... I have installed a TBI motor from a 91 Chevy Truck in to a 85 MonteCarlo. The Monte was originally equipped with a TBI 4.3L. I have installed a 91 Caprice ECM & Prom (ECM service # 16136965) and on the monitor everything seems OK, except for the MAT as the Monte was not originally equipped with one. I will install on soon as I have the pin outs, sensor and sensor pig tail.... I just need the terminal at the ECM. My problem is what appears to be a terrible lean condition. I am using the 4.3's throttle body as I was advised it should keep up. It does appear to have the same size throttle bores, and I can only assume injectors are ok.... at least for Idle! Anyhow, I have checked for the obvious, vacuum leaks, etc. but it still runs lean, hesitates, backfires, etc. That is until I dead head the fuel pressure. If I pinch off the return line, it runs fine. I have 12 psi at idle, in spec for a 85 car, but I don't know the proper pressure for a 91. Could low pressure be my problem? Does a 91 Caprice TBI require a higher fuel pressure? Or, is there something wrong with my choice of ECMs? Any suggestions would be great! Thanks for the help. and sorry if this is a little too simple. Bill (feels so uneducated) K ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:58:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Where to start? ECM Bench details: Lawn Tractor Battery power supply-trickle charger-no ground loop problems. Must remember to fuse everything. Too small of power supply, and with a scanner, voltage variance can cause injector PW to vary. 555s for VSS, and rpm. VSS is usually 2,000 ppm, or 4,000 ppm DPDT switch for VSS on, P/N is grounded as vss signal applied. DPDT switch for ignition pulses so MAP signal changes when the engine starts. (figure 6,800 rpm redline for v-8) On/Off for memory clear. On/Off for ecm, injectors, 555s, and misc on. Disable malfunction coode 43 (ESC) Disable VATS if it applies IAT, and Coolant temp sensors use a 10K pot, and a 1K. Finding C/L Learn temp enables much easier with the 1K. MAP works fine with 10K O2 Feedback, have several types around, ie 1 trigger per crank revolution, or one triggered by individual ignition events. Feed this to a 555 and then steady state you can adjust the 555 to maintain a 128/128 BL/Int. Injector loading doesn't seem to affect Pulse width of injectors. Solder, and heat shrink everything. You won't beleve what a tangle of wires you'll wind up with. For the price of a couple switches, and using ganged pots might as well set it up for doing 2 ecms, Use an ignition module The 148 MAF signal is 5vDC 27-147 Hz , 50% duty cycle I'd feed the VSS RPM MAF all thru flip flops to get the 50%, and use that on everything. On the P-4s If ya can afford a Diacom get it. I makes the work so much easier. Thou a scanner will work just fine. Use LEDs for outputs, and label them with pin # and item, since will vary by ecm. Use actual ecm connectors. Bruce I don't have a detailed plan for the bench yet, just a >bunch of pots and a few 555's. Might get a couple trashed (cracked >tip) fuel injectors to throw on there as well. Does anyone here have >details on a bench setup, or possibly that could be one place to >start? I've got the factory manual for my '89 motor, so I've got a good >idea on what the sensors comprise. So, that's probably how I'll >start... Just wondering >if anyone had this stuff documented anywhere. >Feel free to throw comments, flames, whatever at me. ;) >-Andrew M ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:08:16 -0500 Subject: Re: A little too simple - -----Original Message----- From: Onebil2mny@xxx.com> To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 12:52 PM Subject: A little too simple I'm Bill, and I'm a caraholic. Hi Bill. > The Monte was originally equipped with a TBI >4.3L. I have installed a 91 Caprice ECM & Prom (ECM service # 16136965) and >on the monitor everything seems OK, except for the MAT as the Monte was not >originally equipped with one. I will install on soon as I have the pin outs, >sensor and sensor pig tail.... I just need the terminal at the ECM. My >problem is what appears to be a terrible lean condition. I am using the 4.3's >throttle body as I was advised it should keep up. It does appear to have the >same size throttle bores, and I can only assume injectors are ok.... at least >for Idle! Anyhow, I have checked for the obvious, vacuum leaks, etc. but it >still runs lean, hesitates, backfires, etc. As far as I kow the 6965 was only used in 350's with the 65#/hr (Yellow/Brown) injectors. The 91 truck Throttle body has 55's (orange/black). So your jetting is way off. Can you get the matching injectors from the 6965?. Other wise just use the 747 (91 Truck) ecm if you have that. I use the last 3 numbers of the whole ecm as an identifier, and the color code are by the electrical connections on the injectors If this stuff has been tinkered with then all bets are off about what ya got. Bruce ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 13:27:18 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions At 11:46 PM 2/6/99 +1200, you wrote: >Erm... no. > >You've just said that the losses due to I^2 R depend on voltage, when there is >no voltage term in your equation. > Indirectly, there is... I=E/R =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 14:06:17 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions >requires closer to 2.5 HP. Pushing the same current at higher voltage >quickly oveheats the alternator due to the increase in these I^2 R >losses, which increase at the rate of a power of two with voltage >increase - double the voltage, 4 times the heat with the same current. I beg to differ, but the I^2 R losses are independant of the output voltage of the device P = I^2 R (hense the name) That is why power is transmitted using the "high tension" (High Voltage) lines. If you are stuffing current through a resister, the power dissapated by that resister is dependant only on the current through the resister and the resistance. P = I^2 R Let me explain... Power is defined as voltage * current P = IV That is, the current through the resister * the voltage across the resister. The voltage across the resister can be calculated using Ohm's law. V = IR Taking the origional P = IV equation and substituting IR for the V yields P = I * (IV) = I^2 R What I am proposing uses exactly the same princable that has always been used by the electric suppliers to get power from the source to the substations, and finally to your home. One thing that neither of us mentioned is that some of the heat is generated by hysteresis losses in the iron core. That will somewhat reduce the ultimate power that can be supplied by the system, but it'll still be more than the unmodified system will provide. Ray Drouillard, BSEE ___________________________________________________________________ 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: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:40:13 EST Subject: Re: A little too simple Hi Bill, The first thing you want to do is verify the Throttle bores to be the same as a 350...but you will at least have to change the injectors....The 4.3,5.0, and 5.7 all have different injectors,,,,this should fix your major lean problem...hth's - -Carl Summers In a message dated 2/6/99 9:49:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, Onebil2mny@xxx.com writes: << Subj: A little too simple Date: 2/6/99 9:49:12 AM Pacific Standard Time From: Onebil2mny@xxx.com Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu First, I would like to introduce my self.. I'm Bill, and I'm a caraholic. I am currently working on a 56 BelAir conv with a production line LT4 using a GM ECM from Howell, 700R4 tranny, and all kinds of other non list related mods. I am also building (for my self, the BelAir is for my Father) a 72 442 conv. LS-6 crate motor with a Roller Hydraulic cam, Wiand Team G with injector bungs, Kinsler throttle plate and an Accel ECM. It also has several dozen non list type mods. I think this list may be a little advanced for me, as I'm only an ASE Master Tech, and don't have a Bachelors degree in anything. I've been following a couple of the posts lately, and I don't know a thing about burning proms, much less building a device to modify OBD2 ECMs! Anyhow, here is my query..... I have installed a TBI motor from a 91 Chevy Truck in to a 85 MonteCarlo. The Monte was originally equipped with a TBI 4.3L. I have installed a 91 Caprice ECM & Prom (ECM service # 16136965) and on the monitor everything seems OK, except for the MAT as the Monte was not originally equipped with one. I will install on soon as I have the pin outs, sensor and sensor pig tail.... I just need the terminal at the ECM. My problem is what appears to be a terrible lean condition. I am using the 4.3's throttle body as I was advised it should keep up. It does appear to have the same size throttle bores, and I can only assume injectors are ok.... at least for Idle! Anyhow, I have checked for the obvious, vacuum leaks, etc. but it still runs lean, hesitates, backfires, etc. That is until I dead head the fuel pressure. If I pinch off the return line, it runs fine. I have 12 psi at idle, in spec for a 85 car, but I don't know the proper pressure for a 91. Could low pressure be my problem? Does a 91 Caprice TBI require a higher fuel pressure? Or, is there something wrong with my choice of ECMs? Any suggestions would be great! Thanks for the help. and sorry if this is a little too simple. Bill (feels so uneducated) K >> ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:45:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: fusible link questions On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > Actually, the alternator is rated for maximum POWER output. 100 amps at > 14 volts is 1400 watts, almost 2 HP. At an optimistic 80% efficiency, it > requires closer to 2.5 HP. Pushing the same current at higher voltage > quickly oveheats the alternator due to the increase in these I^2 R > losses, which increase at the rate of a power of two with voltage > increase - double the voltage, 4 times the heat with the same current. > > Ford used 2 alternators on some Lincolns; one was 110 volts and used for the rear window heater. What did they change in the alternator to do this? ------------------------------ From: Al Lipper Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:50:08 -0800 Subject: Re: ecu7 Richard, Thanks for checking out the schematic. So far we haven't had real noise problems on those signals, but I'm forwarding your note to John (john@xxx.uk) who is doing the schematic revision, and who has more experience in this area than I do. If we get things going quickly with the PC board layout, you may not need to even bother with the wire wrap! If you're interested in working on the keypad/display section, I can give you the specs on a 4-line x 16 char. display that I was thinking we could use (they're under $20 surplus). The key is that it should interface to the '552's I2C bus. I'm not familiar with the bus, however, so you would end up being the expert in this field. If you would rather work on a different area, just let me know (for example, an ignition control is a possibility for the future. Thanks. Al At 06:22 AM 2/6/99 -0800, you wrote: >Al I read your last e-mail. good looking drawing! >I am wondering if we should look into any further >signal conditioning on the i/o pins. My experiences >with the Intel 80c51 series of up's tells me that >they can be VERY suseptable to noise pickup. I think >that the automotive environment is like using an >AM radio in a thunderstorm! >Tell me more about what you would like me to help you >with. I have already started collecting parts to >build a prototype of this. I will probably use wire wrap. It should >be ok if I watch my lead dressing. > >cul >rhq > > > > >_________________________________________________________ >DO YOU YAHOO!? >Get your free @xxx.com > ------------------------------ From: Al Lipper Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:52:45 -0800 Subject: Re: ECU7 photos Bud, thanks for your ideas. ECU7 will prbably be 2 boards that are piggy-backed (logic and power/control). They should be the same size, but taller. In any case, when we are ready for enclosures, I'll be sure to keep you in mind. It sounds like you do some really nice work. Thanks. Al At 09:05 PM 2/5/99 +0000, you wrote: >Al, >Was just looking at the photos of the ECU6. Nice looking! Sets a new >standard for DIY! >Will ECU 7 be pretty much the same size and shape?? and on what kind of >rough schedule - like "99" or "2001"?? > >I personally like the idea of an ECU being mounted in the engine >compartment, with only a few wires going inside the passenger compartment. >My Cutler is using an "in the engine comp't" 1227727. Because the >environment is much more harsh, the 7727 is packaged much larger and more >sturdy than a 7730, which is in a light weight aluminum sheet metal box. > >Have you ever thought about housing the ECU7 in the engine compartment at >some later date or at a later stage of development? Maybe in something >like a watertight cast aluminum box with fins or ribs and "DIY" or "ECU7" or >"Lipper EFI" or whatever cast on the cover or lid. (Of course it could >also still mount inside the car, under the dash, in the trunk or where >ever.) > >If you think a housing like this might have a place in the future of ECU9 >(or 99) let me know and I would be happy to work on developing some patterns >and having some housings cast. Something on the order of 6" by 8" by 2" >would not cost much more than sheet metal boxes and could look sharp as well >as being functional and sturdy. > >Sorry that I don't have the programming skills to help with that part of >your project, but if you have any interest at all in something like a sturdy >housing, I could start making a prototype housing as soon as you gave me >dimensions and mounting details. > >Bud, ------------------------------ From: Al Lipper Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 12:42:48 -0800 Subject: Re: ECU7 Bob, the 80C51 is available from Allied Electronics (800-433-5700) for about $15. The circuit has been redesigned using a Phillips 80C552, but the PC board layout is still in the works. We may add spark control later, but that's another project. We could certainly use your help, esp with the assembly programming. (Is your experience in asm or just C?) We need help writing routines to: detect rapid throttle movement and detect a missing ignition pulse (engine has stopped). Please look over the EFI02.ASM file and see if the RPM routines make sense. Then I can give you more details on what we need. Welcome aboard! Al At 10:10 PM 2/5/99 -0500, you wrote: >I heard that the 8051GB is discontinued. Do you have an >alternative source? Otherwise it is a fantastic part >with the 2 PCA's; great for sequential EFI as well. > >I have written spark advance software for another project in C >using the 8051FA > >If you need additional help on the software let me know. > >Bob Bailey >Bailey Engineering ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 16:20:56 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions At 12:45 PM 2/6/99 -0800, you wrote: >> > >Ford used 2 alternators on some Lincolns; one was 110 volts and used for >the rear window heater. What did they change in the alternator to do this? > Just the wiring... You can buy a box that hooks up to the alternator on most cars that provides 110VAC for running power tools remotely, while still charging the battery. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Fran and Bud" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 13:26:52 +0000 Subject: Re: A little too simple I see that others have noted the 4.3 injectors as the source of the lean condition. By the way, the color code for the 4.3 is Yellow/Blue. As to bore size, I have other throttle bodies with the same size bores as in my 93 PU 4.3. According to the Production Numbers on the others they are for 5.0 and 5.7. I have also been told by others that they all have the same bore size. And since injector size is at the center of this post, it brings to mind another piece of trivia that I have been told BUT KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT - that the code in GM ECU's includes an address that contains an "injector factor" that is used in conjunction with the mapped data, and which needs to be adjusted when different sized injectors are installed. Can someone elaborate?? If this is the case then should Bill try to find out exactly what was in the Caprice and use that size so that the ECU will match without changing anything? - OR is this down in the "mud level" of details? - ---------- >From: Onebil2mny@xxx.com >To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu >Subject: A little too simple >Date: Sat, Feb 6, 1999, 5:44 PM > >First, I would like to introduce my self.. I'm Bill, and I'm a caraholic. > >I am currently working on a 56 BelAir conv with a production line LT4 using a >GM ECM from Howell, 700R4 tranny, and all kinds of other non list related >mods. I am also building (for my self, the BelAir is for my Father) a 72 442 >conv. LS-6 crate motor with a Roller Hydraulic cam, Wiand Team G with injector >bungs, Kinsler throttle plate and an Accel ECM. It also has several dozen non >list type mods. I think this list may be a little advanced for me, as I'm only >an ASE Master Tech, and don't have a Bachelors degree in anything. I've been >following a couple of the posts lately, and I don't know a thing about burning >proms, much less building a device to modify OBD2 ECMs! > >Anyhow, here is my query..... I have installed a TBI motor from a 91 Chevy >Truck in to a 85 MonteCarlo. The Monte was originally equipped with a TBI >4.3L. I have installed a 91 Caprice ECM & Prom (ECM service # 16136965) and >on the monitor everything seems OK, except for the MAT as the Monte was not >originally equipped with one. I will install on soon as I have the pin outs, >sensor and sensor pig tail.... I just need the terminal at the ECM. My >problem is what appears to be a terrible lean condition. I am using the 4.3's >throttle body as I was advised it should keep up. It does appear to have the >same size throttle bores, and I can only assume injectors are ok.... at least >for Idle! Anyhow, I have checked for the obvious, vacuum leaks, etc. but it >still runs lean, hesitates, backfires, etc. That is until I dead head the >fuel pressure. If I pinch off the return line, it runs fine. I have 12 psi >at idle, in spec for a 85 car, but I don't know the proper pressure for a 91. >Could low pressure be my problem? Does a 91 Caprice TBI require a higher fuel >pressure? Or, is there something wrong with my choice of ECMs? Any >suggestions would be great! > > >Thanks for the help. and sorry if this is a little too simple. >Bill (feels so uneducated) K ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:01:45 EST Subject: Re: Chip Kelp In a message dated 2/6/99 11:24:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, nacelp@xxx.net writes: > I need to get 2 ics Siliconics dg200, I'm having trouble with a min > order. > Any body gotz some floating around?. > Bruce Bruce, did you get any feedback on those? Can rad-shack get'em? Mike V ------------------------------ From: John Hess Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 16:05:51 -0600 Subject: Re: fusible link questions Actually, you haven't really considered that: while P=IE (the basic formula) E=IR, therefore substituting IR for E: P=I*IR or I^2R I=E/R, therefore substituting E/R for I P=E*E/R or E^2/R, etc. To say that one is not related to the other is to refute Omm's Law. Note that this is not electronics theory, it is _LAW_! Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > >requires closer to 2.5 HP. Pushing the same current at higher voltage > >quickly oveheats the alternator due to the increase in these I^2 R > >losses, which increase at the rate of a power of two with voltage > >increase - double the voltage, 4 times the heat with the same current. > > I beg to differ, but the I^2 R losses are independant of the output > voltage of the device > > P = I^2 R (hense the name) > > That is why power is transmitted using the "high tension" (High Voltage) > lines. > > If you are stuffing current through a resister, the power dissapated by > that resister is dependant only on the current through the resister and > the resistance. > > P = I^2 R > > Let me explain... > > Power is defined as voltage * current > > P = IV > > That is, the current through the resister * the voltage across the > resister. The voltage across the resister can be calculated using Ohm's > law. > > V = IR > > Taking the origional P = IV equation and substituting IR for the V yields > > P = I * (IV) = I^2 R > > What I am proposing uses exactly the same princable that has always been > used by the electric suppliers to get power from the source to the > substations, and finally to your home. > > One thing that neither of us mentioned is that some of the heat is > generated by hysteresis losses in the iron core. That will somewhat > reduce the ultimate power that can be supplied by the system, but it'll > still be more than the unmodified system will provide. > > Ray Drouillard, BSEE > > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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: "Fran and Bud" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 14:04:47 +0000 Subject: gmecm list Ran across some additional ECM # info that I did not find in the original "gmecm list" so am passing it on. For 1227165 Replaced by 16198259, (as previously listed); & ALSO by 16198445, for 87-91ST trucks, M vans, and others with LN8 or L38 engines (I think this is 4.3's). For 1227727 Replaced by 16197128, for 88-90; & by 16198260, for 91-93 For 1227730 Replaced by 16196344, for 87-90; & by 16198262 (as previously listed) , for 91-93 Bud ------------------------------ From: Clarence Wood Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 17:00:54 -0600 Subject: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage I have been playing with an idea for some time and today my wife caught me looking, "looking in a suspicious way", at our digital scale. Having seen me look at things in that manner before, she challenged me to prove to her that its dismantling could in some way, be justified. Since I bought the scale at a yard sale for $1.00, I argued, it was mine to do with as I pleased. Well, she batted her beautiful green eyes and scrunched up real close to me and, well, I need some help on this one. Is it possible to use the pressure sensing device in a digital scale to build such things as an electronic fuel pressure gage, or an electronic boost gage, or a boost control? Clarence IZCC #3426 1982 280ZX Turbo GL 1966 El Camino 1982 Yamaha Maxim XJ-1101J Motorcycle 1975 Honda CB750 SS (black engine) 1986 Snapper Comet lawn mower Clarence Wood Software&Such... clarencewood@xxx.net Savannah, TN. ------------------------------ From: "Gary Derian" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:41:34 -0500 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #85 That is exactly what does happen but the output torque can not be higher than the input torque unless there is a third reaction. The distance from the center of the converter on the input side is the same as the output side, otherwise the oil will spill out. You only need a third reaction element when you want to multiply torque. Gary Derian > >It's not a statics problem. You accelerate the oil on one side >Fi = ma with the F coming from the input torque. You decelerate the oil >on the other side Fo = ma. > >Fi depends on the distance form the center on the converter on the >input side (input torque). Similarly for Fo on the output side. > >I don't see a need for a third reaction element. > >Orin. ------------------------------ From: "Mark Romans" Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:07:03 -0800 Subject: Computer Suspension Software I found the software I was looking for. http://www.auto-ware.com/ Suspension & Chassis Software Suspension Geometry and Display Big $. Mark ------------------------------ From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:14:54 EST Subject: Re: fusible link questions Actually, you haven't really considered that: while P=IE (the basic formula) E=IR, therefore substituting IR for E: P=I*IR or I^2R I=E/R, therefore substituting E/R for I P=E*E/R or E^2/R, etc. I wonder if the defination of E in the above 'statement' was not considered ------------------------------ From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:51:25 -0600 Subject: RE: fusible link questions I have worked on a few of the 2 alternator Fords (1977era) . The shop manual shows one alternator for the moon roof and windshield de-icer. And one alternator for the 12 volt systems. The one alternator is indeed 110 volts but at 400 cycles 3 phase AC. It looks like all they did is leave off the diodes and full field the rotor. The people I talked to said they seldom failed. The windshield had 3 heating elements wired in a star configuration and the moon roof was a 3 phase motor star wound. To close the moon roof 2 phases were flopped just like a regular 3 phase motor. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: David A. Cooley [SMTP:n5xmt@xxx.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 3:21 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: fusible link questions > > At 12:45 PM 2/6/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >> > > >Ford used 2 alternators on some Lincolns; one was 110 volts and used for > >the rear window heater. What did they change in the alternator to do > this? > > > > Just the wiring... > You can buy a box that hooks up to the alternator on most cars that > provides 110VAC for running power tools remotely, while still charging the > battery. > > =========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be > approximated. > =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:20:17 -0600 Subject: RE: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage The Scale no doubt uses a 3 wire load cell. The load cell consist of 2 resistors in a balanced bridge configuration. When a force is placed on the load cell the resistance changes and unbalances the bridge creating an offset voltage that is scaled to read pounds. I tried to reverse engineer the scale I had but didn't have to much luck. It was a LCD display type and hard to trace out. If you find a transducer with 0-5 volts or 4-20 Ma a panel voltmeter with the correct scaling resistors would be all you would need. If the transducer you find is a 4 wire bridge then you will need an instrumentation amp and a panel meter. The fact that you are wanting to measure Gasoline pressure will make vendors very nervous. Autometer has an isolated system that uses a rubber diaphragm to isolate the gas liquid. A gauge on the other side of the diaphragm is responding to air pressure. So I would see how much the isolator is and find a pressure transducer and a volt meter. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Clarence Wood [SMTP:clarencewood@xxx.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 5:01 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage > > I have been playing with an idea for some time and today my wife caught > me looking, "looking in a suspicious way", at our digital scale. Having > seen me look at things in that manner before, she challenged me to prove > to her that its dismantling could in some way, be justified. Since I > bought the scale at a yard sale for $1.00, I argued, it was mine to do > with as I pleased. Well, she batted her beautiful green eyes and > scrunched up real close to me and, well, I need some help on this one. > Is it possible to use the pressure sensing device in a digital scale to > build such things as an electronic fuel pressure gage, or an electronic > boost gage, or a boost control? > > > Clarence > IZCC #3426 > 1982 280ZX Turbo GL > 1966 El Camino > 1982 Yamaha Maxim XJ-1101J Motorcycle > 1975 Honda CB750 SS (black engine) > 1986 Snapper Comet lawn mower > Clarence Wood > Software&Such... > clarencewood@xxx.net > Savannah, TN. ------------------------------ From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 19:25:09 -0600 Subject: RE: Chip Kelp If I recall the DG200 were analog switches, I will look around cause I believe I have some. If you are in a real pinch a CD4066 quad analog switch might work. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: ECMnut@xxx.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 4:02 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Chip Kelp > > In a message dated 2/6/99 11:24:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, > nacelp@xxx.net > writes: > > > I need to get 2 ics Siliconics dg200, I'm having trouble with a min > > order. > > Any body gotz some floating around?. > > Bruce > > Bruce, > did you get any feedback on those? > Can rad-shack get'em? > Mike V ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:40:20 -0700 Subject: RE: fusible link questions >I have worked on a few of the 2 alternator Fords (1977era) . The shop manual >shows one alternator for the moon roof and windshield de-icer. And one >alternator for the 12 volt systems. The one alternator is indeed 110 volts >but at 400 cycles 3 phase AC. It looks like all they did is leave off the >diodes and full field the rotor. The people I talked to said they seldom >failed. The windshield had 3 heating elements wired in a star configuration >and the moon roof was a 3 phase motor star wound. To close the moon roof 2 >phases were >flopped just like a regular 3 phase motor. Don Makes perfect sence, except that the frequency of the AC produced would have varied with engine speed. Alternators are wound like a two pole motor, so 3600 ALTERNATOR rpm would have given 60 cycle AC. Regards, Greg > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David A. Cooley [SMTP:n5xmt@xxx.net] >> Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 3:21 PM >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: Re: fusible link questions >> >> At 12:45 PM 2/6/99 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >> > >> >Ford used 2 alternators on some Lincolns; one was 110 volts and used for >> >the rear window heater. What did they change in the alternator to do >> this? >> > >> >> Just the wiring... >> You can buy a box that hooks up to the alternator on most cars that >> provides 110VAC for running power tools remotely, while still charging the >> battery. >> >> =========================================================== >> David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net >> Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 >> I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be >> approximated. >> =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 20:07:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Digital: fuel pressure gage; boost gage Clarence Wood wrote: > Is it possible to use the pressure sensing device in Motorola makes 'em by the barrel. Look at their automotive web site. Tom ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 21:14:08 -0500 Subject: Re: fusible link questions Tom Parker wrote: > > Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > > >> A switching regulater, when reducing voltage, will increase the current > >> (much like a transformer). My idea is to max out the field coil on a > >> standard alternater, which will produce a high output voltage (> 100 V). > >> The alternater can still supply its rated current at the higher voltage > >> because the current is limited mostly by I2R losses. > > >Actually, the alternator is rated for maximum POWER output. 100 amps at > >14 volts is 1400 watts, almost 2 HP. At an optimistic 80% efficiency, it > >requires closer to 2.5 HP. Pushing the same current at higher voltage > >quickly oveheats the alternator due to the increase in these I^2 R > >losses, which increase at the rate of a power of two with voltage > >increase - double the voltage, 4 times the heat with the same current. > Erm... no. > > You've just said that the losses due to I^2 R depend on voltage, when there is > no voltage term in your equation. > > What does matter is the current handling ability of the field windings. The > original poster proposes to increase the current in the field windings while > using some devious switching transformer to keep the output current of the > main windings down, and also to step the voltage down to something that won't > fry the electronics in the rest of the car. > > The only extra electrical load on the alternator will be in the extra current > flowing in the field windings. The field windings will have to dissapate heat > due to the P = I^2 R equation, so if you double your field winding current, > you will have to dissapate 4 times the heat in them. Mabee I didn't explain it 100%, but I THINK that's what I said. Double the power output of the alternator = 4 X the heat to dissipate, due to I^2 R losses. (there are also extra > mechanical loads, you will stress the bearings and the shaft of the alternator > if you ask it to draw such a huge amount of power out of the engine). > > If you double the voltage output of the alternator main windings, the heat > dissapated in the main windings will remain the same, as the heat generated > there is due to the current through them only! Correct - stator current will remain constant, so I^2 R losses will remain constant. Stator heating will not be the problem. - However, if more POWER is required at the same voltage, then both field and stator heating increase at the same "square of increase" rate. > > I can explain the mistake you made applying the P = I^2 R equation if you > want, but it might start a huge discussion, which people on the mini-list will > know about! > > -- > Tom Parker - tparker@xxx.nz > - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/8381/ ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #94 **************************** 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".