WB vrs NB info

[Len Sabatine]

      In the real world , we need to focus on averaging , since with an I.C.E.
      the AFRs are going to always be changing . The 50mV change
      noted seems a serious discussion topic. Possibly there's need to not
      attempt to micro manage and over analyze conditions which are difficult
      to control , down to minute quantities. Back pressure or the lack of does
      alter any engines torque curve. Moving the O2 sensor up or down in the
      exhaust stream is more of a heat and response time issue , than response
      to back pressure , IMHO. In a total combustion and exhaust cycle there's
      going to be variations in the total system flow at fixed points 
versus the time
      slice of the monitoring interval. The more samples gathered in a 
particular
      time slice, the better we can arrive at meaningful corrections to mixture
      conditions , without over correcting. That being said , it's easy to 
see the
      need to insure the diy Uego circuit is producing the desired data versus
      as monitored mixture status.
      Don't loose focus of the fact that an engine tuned for max _ safe 
power is
      best corrected from the richer side of stoich rather than the leaner 
side.
      The Diy Uego really needs to be tested on a number of different optimized
      engine combinations , then the acquired data results be compared to get
      a better total picture of it's operation in the field. This is a time 
consuming
      endeavor .
      Len


> >Thank you for the input Frank, but this is what still confuses me.
> >SpeedPro and yourself found that pressure differences *don't seem to
> >matter in the real world*. Then you say above, that you saw the same as
> >Bruce (I assume you mean like he did, going from pre to post turbo
> >placement of the sensor), with noticeable wb changes. Bruce was using the
> >original diy version, and says he saw a 50mV change. I look at the curves
> >from the original circuit files, and they indicate that on the rich side,
> >that is very near a 1/2 afr change. The only way I know of reconciling
> >these two statements is to assume that nobody thinks a 1/2 afr change
> >matters in the real world. Can that be true? Tnx for any help on this.
> >Recollecting what *size* of afr changes you observed would be helpful, if
> >you can recall that info. Still curious about getting the *quantities*
> >straight in all this. Tnx.
>
>NTK says pretty much the same thing in the SAE paper, too!!
>
>Might be that higher EGT and higher backpressure go together and affect the
>sensor output in an opposite manner, might be the difference between theory
>and the actual way that the sensor is built, might be most anything else,
>but the d*mn things seem to work OK in the real world!
>
>Might just be like trying to understand women! :-)
>
>Greg
>
> >Brian "real-world industrial control number cruncher" Massey
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
>in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org

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