idea..

[Garfield]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:24:59 +0100, sheridan at vanceandhines.com (Brad
Sheridan) wrote:

>>>   You would need to know more than just the pulse length,
...
>>Thats not true.
...
>So are you saying that ALL you need is the pulse width and distance =
sensor
>to determine instantaneous fuel consumption? If so you're wrong.
...
>If you sum the pulse widths you get nothing more
>than the sum of the pulse widths. This is useless for determining fuel
>usage unless you have some sort of time base for it.

Oh well, ya know what they say about fools rushing in....but here goes
anyways.

Guys, guys. You are both in violent agreement, sans a few
miscontructions, that is.

Methinks we have confounding of fuel RATE and absolute fuel CONSUMPTION.

Brad is saying you need the time over which absolute fuel is consumed,
in order to know the RATE. Fine, everybody agrees on that.

Dave is saying if the net psi across the injector is fixed/regulated,
then JUST knowing the pulse width "integration"(added up) will give you
absolute fuel consumed. Fine, everybody agrees on that, too.

Now, here's where the confusion comes in. Brad wants to know RATE and I
presume integrate that over time. So he thinks ya just GOTTA have a time
variable in there. Dave wants to integrate total fuel, and then divide
by distance I presume, to get an average mileage(?). If I get Dave's
drift he's actually thinking of making piecewise estimates of mileage
say every few seconds(?) by summing the total fuel consumed over that
time, divided by distance, or he could divide by the time to estimate
rates, too.

Yous guys are ALMOST talking about the same things. ALMOST.

Garfield (hope that helped, and if NOT??, well just forget I ever lived)