[Diy_efi] Electronic expertise requested

[Daniel R. Nicoson]

I understand your caution Bruce.  I feel that once you eliminate as many
possible failure modes and provide the backups then you have to do plenty of
ground testing for a project like this.

I think you might be right that two independent systems would be less
trouble than one that switches some components but not all.  That way each
EFI system could be as stock as possible.  I think most of Detroit's efforts
are pretty good as long as components are run as intended, temp ranges etc.

Thanks,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: diy_efi-bounces at diy-efi.org [mailto:diy_efi-bounces at diy-efi.org]On
Behalf Of bcroe at juno.com
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:30 PM
To: diy_efi at diy-efi.org
Subject: [Diy_efi] Electronic expertise requested


Its a lot more complicated than that.  I don't even know
how many failed switches (lose it all) I've replaced.  How
is the standby going to react going from open loop to
closed loop when you change?  Aircraft engineering is
NOT something you trust to the internet.  This is not a
situation where its easy to fix your mistakes.

Bruce Roe

On 19 Jun 03 Shannen at grolen.com writes:

> I wonder about the acceptability of leaving both ecm's connected
> and "running" at one time, but electrically disconnecting
> the injectors and timing control (if used).  Switching between
> the two boxes might be as simple as flipping a DPDT switch?
> Garfield and a few others have gone over different schemes
> to set up dual ecm's.  Those posts should be in the archives.
>
> Shannen

_______________________________________________
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