SAAB DI coils - was Re: "ION" information ...

[Gar Willis]

On Sun, 16 May 1999 09:52:04 +1000, Peter Gargano
<peter at ntserver.techedge.com.au> wrote:

>Well, 4862093 is a conceptial diagram, and certainly
>good enough to describe what's happening, but the difference
>between a conceptial circuit and an actual schematic
>with transistor type numbers etc...
>
>I was wondering if anyone has had a look at a real SAAB
>ION-sense module and come up with a real schematic. I ask
>this because I read in the archives that there were a few
>of these SAAB modules floating around (some time ago) and
>someone was going to check it out (but I could find no
>reference of this actually happening). Jim Crance's
>email made me wonder if the modules he has are the ION-sense
>versions.

Tisk tisk, you musta missed some of the article contents, cuz I related
how I HAD unpotted a SAAB assembly, traced the circuit, and discovered
MUCH to my surprise that the patent circuit was almost identical to the
actual wiring of the mfg'd part. I was about to publish a list of parts
values to accompany their patent circuit, when Robutt Hairass threatened
to see if he couldn't stir up SAAB's legal department to sue me for
infringement, even tho the exploration we were doing was COMPLETELY
within both the spirit and letter of patent law. (There's a discussion
of this 'playing with patents' and why/how it's perfectly legal AND
ethical in the archives, I'd recomment you peruse). Because nobody came
to my defense when I posted his threats publically and complained, I
decided to demure on handing out the goodies. Just one of life's many
'realities'. All this histery (sic) is in the archives if you care to
look.

Only other 'problem' is that the circuit in the patent is NOT the
circuit in their later/current versions, but only in the one they used
to introduce the technology in '90. By 1992 (the only revision they've
had in all the subsequent years!), they had gone to a newer design,
which was never published, to my knowledge.

>I also understand that the later SAAB ION-sense modules
>are potted and impossible to actually get into.

ALL the SAAB systems are of necessity potted. They're not tryna hide
anything; it's needed due to the nature and packaging of the system. But
concerning "potted and impossible", that's a misconception. ANY potted
system can be "gotten into" with the right chemicals and techniques, but
you may efface so much of the ID info on the parts that you really have
a detective job on yer hands, even tho you indeed have the parts wiring.
The more chips in there, the more this obtains.

IF Saab actually had wanted to hide their largely analog circuitry via
potting (which the patent's disclosure of the actual circuit seems to
prove otherwise, on the face of it), they would have just integrated key
parts of the circuit in an analog partition that could NOT be viewed
without sophisticated chip reversing equipment, which is eXactly what
has been done with the EGOR module, and will also be done with the
IONeyes module.

>Anyway, I don't really want a SAAB module, but a real 
>life schematic of an ION-sense circuit so I can start
>playing with it on my 68HC11 ignition controller.

Yes, understandable; exactly! Just give us a couple months and you'll be
able to license just such a circuit and PLANS from us FOR PERSONAL USE
ONLY, including the none-too-trivial HV supply and CDI-like IGN system
that MUST accompany any such IONeyes attempts. The reason for the last
statement is that the IGN event has to be kept short enough to close off
quickly and open the window for ION to look into the combustion chamber.
Standard inductive IGN is simply WAY too long-lived an event, and can
completely mask the most important time period needed to inspect for a
detonation signature.

You will of course need to buy an IONeyes module from us (it WILL be
nominally priced) in order to use the PLANS and to implement the other
key parts of the circuit, but beyond that, there's a GREAT deal to layer
onto that, in order to build up a complete engine/boost management
system, which includes IONeyes, EGOR, and IGN advance control. Once
those pieces are integrated together, you'll at long last have a
complete WOT proformance engine management ability, because for the
first time, you'll have misfire/detonation/preignition detection you CAN
rely on, and WOT O2 measurement. This, AFAIK, will be the first time a
hobbyist person will safely be able to push the envelop in terms of AFR
tuning and forced induction.

Dr. Pelican I believe some time ago was the only one I've seen to
realize and make this estute observation, that EGOR & AFR measurement is
wunnerful, but it's all dressed up with nowhere to go, if you don't ALSO
have a reliable method to determine/predict the onset of detonation. If
you don't have that last ION piece (or have reliable acoustic detection,
of course), you may know what the AFR is precisely, but you still don't
know WHAT AFR is safe until after the fact, and after the detonation
damage is done.

Gar