My DIY EFI

[Darrell Norquay]

At 03:12 PM 8/19/96 -0500, Tom Cloud wrote:

>Help, I can't stop myself from asking rhetorical questions ...

You should take something for that...

>A week or so ago I wrote (to the effect) that it seemed to me that an
>analog system with little pots under the dash and some feedback (like
>EGO and maybe MAP) would yield a result extremely close to systems
>with lots more sophistication -- time and money.  I am unconvinced
>that that's not the most effective solution.

This is yer basic electronic carburetor approach...  Pot for idle mixture,
pot for baseline a/f ratio, pot for acceleration enrichment, pot for WOT
enrichment, an' you've about got it.  However, that's about where my
agreement with you leaves off.  IMHO, a microprocessor is the only way to
implement this.  Analog electronics can be a real bear when it has to work
flawlessly over a -40C to +85C range.  If a processor runs at all, generally
it works properly...

>Now, we're talking driving.  If building doo-dads is your thing (and
>I've built -- and am building -- lots, but I get paid to do that), then
>this post is not for you.  But, I want to take my pony (Bronco) to the
>mountains and do some trails -- not screw around for the next few years
>playing with electronics !

>So here's one rhetorical question: what's the complaint with little
>pots under the dash?  If you can tune it so it runs (and runs good),
>how's some laptop gizmo that you've got to stop to type on gonna be
>any better, huh?  And the laptop gizmo costs how much more than pots?

MSA. - (My Sentiments Exactly)

>And C, or C++.  Yep, I program in that dratted language.  Clearly assembler
>seems to me to be the faster and better approach for a problem like this.
>So why would one torture themselves by writing in C unless the had to.
>On large apps, I can see it.  Not on this one.

Exactly.  Damn, you think so much like me it's scary...  Like Steve Ciarcia,
my favorite programming language is solder.  After that, assembler runs a
close second.  Leave the C to the egghead programmer geeks (no offense to
any who might be listening) who never get any closer to the hardware than a
keyboard and monitor.  ARRRGGGHH, MATEY, round' here we program down to the
bare metal!

>Then, (not a rhetorical question) does anyone out there have any 'current'
>experience with FORTH.  I used it a long time ago on 8080, 8085, Z-80
>systems and loved it.  The problem I had was getting it to really like
>ROM'ed code -- but it worked nonetheless, and quite well.

I've been thinking about learning FORTH for a long time, but that's as far
as it ever got.  There is a company called New Micros Inc. who specialize in
FORTH embedded systems.  They have compilers for all the 68HC*** processors,
and possibly more as well.  I don't have the address here, but I can dig it
up if you want...


regards
dn
dnorquay at awinc.com