[Diy_efi] DIY_WB and stand alone ems

[The Punisher]

With a fresh design like what I was describing, the backup table could just 
learn from observing C/L operations, No(or just a little around the edges) 
hand tuning required for the backup table.

BTW, have you ever seen the tables in the new GM computers like whats on the 
6cyl trailblazer?



From: "Bruce" <nacelp at bright.net>
>Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] DIY_WB and stand alone ems
>Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:02:38 -0400
>
>
>In a word, yes.
>Have several sensors (perferably types), and do a 2 out 3 survey.   If 2 go
>out of parameter things default to backup.
>
>*Maybe* have one *system* as the primary, and run that.   Then the other 2
>have a +- tweak factor in there.   Things go too far out of spec., and you
>default.
>
>If, I'm going to go to the trouble of having a C/L WOT, then I want to run
>it full time, and have a high degree of asssurance that it's dead dumb
>reliable.
>
>If it takes 3-4 hours of driving time to **learn** in the backup 
>parameters,
>that's fine.  But the primary system should be VERY FAST at learning.   ie,
>almost using a look ahead future, or maybe do that, and use the secondary
>systems to make sure where were at is fine.
>
>I think we're there hardware wise, we just need to wrap it all together.
>Bruce
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
From: "The Punisher" <punisher454 at hotmail.com>
>To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 2:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] DIY_WB and stand alone ems
>
>
> > Bruce,
> > So are you saying that you like the concept of lookup tables at WOT 
>better
> > than C/L via wideband ? I understand the redundancy issue completly, but
> > what about 2(or 3) WB's that must be within a certian percentage of each
> > other for the uC to accept the reading. And have a "limp" mode if you
>cannot
> > verify the WB readings.
> > I'm talking about a fresh computer design here, NOT adapting current
> > systems.
> >
> > Punisher
> >
> >
> > >From: "Bruce" <nacelp at bright.net>
> > >Reply-To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> > >To: <diy_efi at diy-efi.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Diy_efi] DIY_WB and stand alone ems
> > >Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 13:27:57 -0400
> > >
> > >
> > >    First Off, I'm not at all to the stage of supporting any C/L loop 
>WOT
> > >fuel controls.  So call me what ever names you want on that issue.   
>But,
> > >at
> > >this stage of the game, I'd want some redundancy in the system.  Using 
>an
> > >Acoustic Knock sensor at this stage is hardly enough to protect an
> > >expensive
> > >engine.
> > >    As been said many times before the DIY-WB is designed as a tuning
>aid.
> > >Nothing more.  I would much rather see someone error on the side of
>caution
> > >then get into a bad situation.   If you're going to run a system, that
>does
> > >C/L, then use the entire system.  After all it's all engineered to to
>work
> > >together.  Who knows what little (or large) tweaks there are in the way
> > >they
> > >designed their system.
> > >YMMV
> > >Bruce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Diy_efi mailing list
> > >Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> > >http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Diy_efi mailing list
> > Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
> > http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Diy_efi mailing list
>Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
>http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com


_______________________________________________
Diy_efi mailing list
Diy_efi at diy-efi.org
http://www.diy-efi.org/mailman/listinfo/diy_efi