Thermal Sensor and Load Sensor

[John Honnold]

Hi All:

I may have missed something in this thread, but why not just use a MAP
sensor for load.  I would think that you would get much more dynamic
range then with the drive shaft sensor, and it also takes into
consideration altitude and/or boost changes.

Regards,

John Honnold

bamcknig at postoffice.syspac.com wrote:

> Sender: diy_efi-owner at esl.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Received: from esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (esl.eng.ohio-state.edu
> [128.146.90.233])
>         by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.12) with ESMTP id
> NAA22138;
>         Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:51:32 -0400 (EDT)
> Received: (from mail at localhost)
>         by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA24059
>         for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:47:33 -0400
> X-Authentication-Warning: esl.eng.ohio-state.edu: mail set sender to
> owner-diy_efi using -f
> Received: from ultra2.syspac.com (ultra2.syspac.com [204.96.14.39])
>         by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA24055
>
>         for <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>; Fri, 17 Jul 1998
> 13:47:31 -0400
> Received: from mailrelay.syspac.com ([204.96.14.7]) by
> ultra2.syspac.com
>           (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a  ID#
> 0-37030U5000L500S0)
>           with ESMTP id AAA11540 for
> <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>;
>           Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:42:59 -0700
> Received: from p57123.syspac.com (p57050.syspac.com [204.181.57.50])
>         by mailrelay.syspac.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11534
>         for <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>; Fri, 17 Jul 1998
> 10:42:57 -0700 (MST)
> From: bamcknig at postoffice.syspac.com
> Message-Id: <199807171742.KAA11534 at mailrelay.syspac.com>
> Comments: Authenticated sender is <bamcknig at postoffice.syspac.com>
> To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:16:21 +0000
> Subject: Re: Thermal Sensor and Load Sensor
> Priority: normal
> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
> Sender: owner-diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
>
> Jjustin
>
> I believe in the early 60s the phase detection system was
> commercially produced  If my memory is correct, It was like two 3(?)
> phase alternators at the ends of a drive shaft.  I don;'t remeber how
> they determined the phase relationship.  They could have just hooked
> them in series with an appropriate load and measured the voltage.  In
> anmy event we went with a shaft that had strain gauges mounted to it.
>  This was OK in the lab, but in the real world it didn't work.  Too
> many variables and no cheap Single Board Computers.
>
> Bob McKnight
> Phoenix AZ