Ox sender actual function

[Greg Hermann]

>Maybe I shouldn't have posted only the first two pages.  With only part of
>the paper, you don't get the whole picture.  The paper is actually quite
>well written and makes it's points in a convincing fashion. They just
>don't START with the assumption that the sensor senses oxygen. This
>approach was needed because they were getting conflicting results from
>their misfire tests. Comments below.
>
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Orin Eman wrote:
>
>> The first paper sets my BS detector off... as in the writers were
>> completely clueless or they had some political agenda...
>
>Do tell, what would that agenda be?

More power for the bureaucracy , and more reasons to steal our money in the
name of "doing good things"!

If anything, they were annoyed because
>they had been told by the manufacturers "this sensor senses oxygen", and
>they found in their misfire tests that it didn't, as many of us have been
>told, and are understandably annoyed.

It does sense O2. The physics of it are "theory", yes. But pretty damn well
confirmed theory, and over a far longer period of time than the period
during which the price of making the cells got down low enough to make it
practical to use them on vehicles. These cells have been used in the
exhaust stream of large stationary boilers (to tune a/f ratio, and thus
improve boiler efficiency )  for decades!! They work, and work as claimed.
Coal fly ash is one $%^*& of a lot nastier environment than an IC engine
exhaust stream, with a lot more, different fouling elements present!! Have
you ever looked at a serious coal fuel analysis??? There is probably enough
neat stuff in there in most coals to make it worth refining the ash to get
it out, if anyone ever took a really serious look at it!! And none of that
stuff is particularly good for the sensors!! But they still work, and work
well.

(For us it means we can't build our
>own AFR sensor!)

WANNA BET??? Stay tuned!!
>
>I don't buy into conspiracy theories or "the gummint is just a big buncha
>idiots".

I do not believe in conspiracies, or the "big buncha idiots" idea either.
But I DAMN well do believe that there a fair quantity of them what be in
gummint who are dumb like foxes!!

How else do you explain the fact that several members of some of the
richest,  most rapacious families in the country (and their stooges)
virtually invented the progressive income tax (and sold it to the voting
masses with class envy and "compassion")--surely it could not be cuz they
wanted to restrict access to their own level of wealth, just as they tried
to restrict access to competition for their businesses??? NAHHHH!! They're
nice folks---they CARE--they wouldn't act THAT way!! Just ask Mary Jo
Kopechne!! (She wasn't as lucky as Monica!)

Howboutcha explain to me why the most efficient greenhouse gas of them
all--H2O vapor at high altitude--has received virtually no press in about
25 years??? Could it just mebbe be cuz the source of most of it is
turbo-fan engines operating at high altitude on passenger jets??? And
politicians love to fly off on junkets, and, mebbe more important these
days, low cost overseas air fares are an essential (maybe critical) source
of new Dummocrat voters??
>
>> <<However, very rich A/F ratios did not result in hIgh port sensor
>> voltages when there was no ignition.>>
>>
>> No surprise here either.  No ignition means 20% oxygen, same as
>> on the other side of the sensor - so no voltage produced.
>> The sensor really measures 'lack of oxygen' in the exhaust.
>
>Ah, but where the surprise comes in is that at higher misfire rates, the
>sensor indicates rich!

So either soot fouls the sensor, then burns off, or the high misfire rate
cools it down out of its operating range--or both--where's the surprise in
that????
>
>> <<These results indIcated that some physical property of the unburned
>> air/fuel mlxtures, such as the relatively high  concentrations of
>> hydrocarbons. or the absence of other types of reducing agents,
>> such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide, inhibited the voltage generating
>> capabilities of the sensors.  >>

Like I said above--the physical property in question is pretty likely
sensor temperature. Did they document the temp of the sensor when it did go
to a rich indication??
>>
If you do not believe that the first principal of gummint grantsmanship is
"Test all these theories and tell us how much more correct ours is!" you
are either terribly naive or a good player of the game who is afraid to
admit the secret lest THEY are watching!

Apologies for going off subject here--just couldn't stand the high-minded
sounding BS!!

Regards, Greg