Starter Teeth Sensor

[Bernd Felsche]

Greg Hermann tapped away at the keyboard with:

> >The math's isn't very "comfortable" but necessary for
> >implementation. Their main concern at the time was the "computing
> >load" and simplifying the algorithms.

> Paper published in '99, work probably done in'97 and '98, likely using
> hardware from '96 or so vintage??

> Concern with the cost, feasibility, and processor time of such
> calculations has decreased by what, 80 or 90%, since then??

Correct... more like 90% in terms of performance. Hardware cost
remains relatively unchanged for a "box". Software costs increase
with complexity.

> 555 PPC "Black Oak", and/or parallel processing, here we come !!

It's not immediately necessary to implement the first computation
method on the most-powerful uC hardware! Trying to get a relatively-
accurate timing reference is something that's useful, but it's not
something deserving hundreds of dollars in hardware.

There is more than one way to approach the calculation. Certainly
more than one way to implement the same algorithm. An cheap 8-bit uC
can probably be used to provide accurate micro-ticks and other
information directly to the ECU. i.e. your flywheel position sensor
becomes a "smart" sensor.

That is the trend anyway; to sensors that pre-process the raw data
and communicate filtered and compensated data to the ECU. As long as
the communications protocol is "open", that promotes modularity. Not
only does that mean that the ECU requires less grunt, it also means
that sensors can be replaced by improved sensors without any change
to the ECU.

----- 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