Stamp EFI

[Simon Bosworth]

Matthew,
I believe you would be better off going with a regular PIC (not stamp).  This would allow faster
processing and more options memory wise.  I believe there are 8-16k EEPROMs available.

Cheers,
Simon


Matthew Harding wrote:

> The main problem for what I am thinking about is memory, there is simply
> not enough to keep a whole 2D fuel map with what the stamp has to offer....
>
> is this correct..
>
> if I measure MAP at 5 bits = 32 points  -       (probably only high enough for NA
> engines)
>
> RPM at 5 bits = 32 points                       -       (for a redline of 8000 prm this is in 250rpm
> intervals)
>
> and store 8 bits in each location for pulse width
>
> 32 x 32 = 1024
>
> 1024 x 8 bits = 8192 bits or 8k
>
> the EEPROM only has 2k total, and even then it has to be shared with the
> actual program code...
>
> the only memory options they offer standard at Parallax is the 'RAMpack B'
> which gives 8k, but is interfaced serially, resulting in the access to
> memory being too slow for such an application as Fuel injection.... yes?
>
> maybe something could be done better forgetting the stamp and going
> straight for the Pic processor?
>
> someone let me know if I am way off here, cause I'm really only learning
> this stuff as I go....
>
> thanks
> Matthew Harding
> ---------------
>
> reply to any of these....
>
> mharding at qonline.com.au
> bernie at ronscomputers.com.au
> bernie at browse-cafe.com.au



--
------------------------
Simon Bosworth
simonb at primenet.com