Starter Tooth Sensor Question

[Bruce]

As small as the starter's gear is, it doesn't engage many teeth, making a
signifigant change to one would be *iffy* in my opinion.
Bruce



From: "rr" <RRauscher at nni.com>
Subject: Re: Starter Tooth Sensor Question
> Why do I keep thinking that a tooth could be lowered enough
> to skip the sensor and still work for the starter? Then use a
> retriggerable SS to detect the missing tooth.
> BobR.

> bcroe at juno.com wrote:
> > Yes, even if a tooth is a bit battered, it only represents
> > a couple of degrees.  Battered or not, it will not be
> > moving into the position of an adjacent tooth.  And the
> > the shaft runout should be pretty small compared to
> > tooth dimensions.
> > A PIC ought to do it, if it can match the top RPM rate.
> > But I won't be knocking a tooth off it, so something
> > else will be needed for sync on the flywheel, and a
> > second crude sync from the cam/distributor.
> > The Hall devices I picked for experiments
> > (MLX90217) claim to be self adjusting to things
> > including gear wear, rise time of .4 microsecond,
> > and 15KHZ bandwidth.  That sounds like they could
> > do the job.  I understand the OEMs putting a nice
> > missing tooth wheel in their engine, but those of
> > us trying to upgrade 70s engines just have to make
> > do with what we have.
> >
> > Bruce Roe


----- End of forwarded message from owner-diy_efi at diy-efi.org -----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org