Ox sender actual function

Orin Eman orin at wolfenet.com
Wed Nov 25 22:31:09 GMT 1998


> >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??

BTW, this part of the test was with a sensor _downstream of the cat_.
2% misfire, the cat would handle just fine I would think and you
wouldn't see any difference.  Above 2%, well, my feeling is
that the cat can't cope...  And on top of this, they are running
closed loop... the known effect is that the ECU will start running
everything a little richer with the misfire.  The cat is only really
effective in a narrow range.  Is there any surprise that after
the cat, we start getting a rich indication when we have a forced
rich condition to start with?

We really need the rest of the paper.  Do they explain why the sensor
indicates lean after the cat under normal conditions?
Also, so far there is no mention of nitrous oxides.  Does reduction
of the nitrous oxides in the cat provide significant quantities of
oxygen?  Chemists?

Orin.



More information about the Diy_efi mailing list