Re: New wideband controller ALM compared to Innovate LM-2
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:53 am
Real jobs are boringJoseph Davis wrote: I decided to fool with cars instead of get a real job, don't ask me why.
TRUE DIY engine management discussion forum
http://forum.diyefi.org/
Real jobs are boringJoseph Davis wrote: I decided to fool with cars instead of get a real job, don't ask me why.
100% correct.antonmies wrote:Real jobs are boringJoseph Davis wrote: I decided to fool with cars instead of get a real job, don't ask me why.
More clear now? You should be much more careful with posts, both reading/interpreting others, and writing your own.Fred wrote:Not possible. You clearly have no idea about engine controlecotrons wrote:control the AFR instantly.
Cummins, not Commins. Well aware, I own one and have worked on them extensively.Commins (the largest diesel engine manufacturer in the world).
You lost your edit rights, sorry. Be more careful with future posts.ecotrons wrote:EDIT: Putting back in content removed while I was asleep when ecotrons realised the magnitude of his mistake:
"Can you show something that you've actually done instead of critisizing others? Have you ever built an ECU or a wideband controller?"
EDIT: I can only imagine the scramble for the edit button that you performed when you realised what you'd done.
Interesting, though I'd expect the lighter weight element to be more at the mercy of the exhaust flow and speed of the heater control logic, not the other way around. Perhaps that is why the spec it to be higher frequency, IE, such that if you stick to their recommendations you have a hope in hell of controlling it properly.antonmies wrote:http://wbo2.com/lsu/cases/C3C4-side.jpg
This might be familiar to you already, but I just come up with this.
The larger is the LSU 4.2. The difference is huge.
Which you think will act faster in heater controller wise in variable conditions where temperature fluctuations can be several hundred degrees centigrade? I bet both will measure the same in some test tube, but real world might differ.
See above. Perhaps this is a language issue, again. This type of comparison with minimal variables is the way to roll, though. It would be cool if Alan did a 4.2 vs 4.9 test with his controller each tuned optimally, but fundamentally the same, except the sensor and tuning. Then we'd have a real world "which one is faster" test. Both for temperature change and for gas flow change and combinations of the two. Comparing two sensors with two controllers in an unknown gas flow and drawing conclusions about the sensor alone is brain dead, to say the least.I also believe that the heater control frequency is not higher only because of the chip but physics. Larger mass requires longer periods to cool down and to heat hence lower frequency. If the heater control frequency would be trivial, it wouldn't be in the datasheet.
No, I don't. Some of my good friends are very average in their English usage. Would I want them writing code for me, no, but they are my friends all the same.ecotrons wrote:It is so obvious that you judge people by whether they can speak good English.
Have you BEEN to Germany? I have. I've spent enough time there to know what level of English to expect from an average German and a highly educated German. I even have German friends in New Zealand and Kiwi friends in Germany. Furthermore, employees who work in large multinational corporations regularly conduct business in English as it's the common exchange format, just as it is on this forum. I bet you a million monopoly dollars that they did.Bosch Engineers at Germany invented the LSU sensors, which you have to use. They do not necessarily speak good English.
Let's clarify this statement a little. I did three things earlier today with respect edits:You EDIT member's post at your will
It costs me time to make such changes, so I generally do not. The fact that the content that another member had quoted to me while I was sleeping was gone before I woke up annoyed me. The fact that you have three accounts on here annoyed me. The fact that you had the nerve to ask me to mask your dishonesty and change the post authors to you also annoyed me. Lastly, you have NO rights here. No one does. Only privileges that you LOST by way of your gutter-level antics. You're still free to post, just not edit. This is no one's fault, but your own. You made the bed, now lay in it.you change member's post rights at your will.
No, absolutely not. I've played no language games in here with you. My professionalism stays with writing truly excellent software of all types, and ensuring that the hardware associated with that software is also of the highest quality. I care about little other than this and the difference between right and wrong, which you're currently in the process of learning. This thread is the third link when you google "alm wideband" without the quotes. It's bound to hurt your business and that seems right and fair to me, and likely others too.You like to play English language games, that's where your professionalism stays.
Suits me.I decide not to respond to your post any more.
The 4.9 has lower thermal mass and a smaller heater. This can be a pro if you engine is running hot, the climate is hot, or the sensor is very close to the exhaust port. This can be a con, if your engine is running cool, the climate is cold, or the sensor is far from the exhaust port. Generally, I think less thermal mass is a pro more than a con.antonmies wrote:
This might be familiar to you already, but I just come up with this.
The larger is the LSU 4.2. The difference is huge.
Which you think will act faster in heater controller wise in variable conditions where temperature fluctuations can be several hundred degrees centigrade? I bet both will measure the same in some test tube, but real world might differ.
I also believe that the heater control frequency is not higher only because of the chip but physics. Larger mass requires longer periods to cool down and to heat hence lower frequency. If the heater control frequency would be trivial, it wouldn't be in the datasheet.
This is what I was aftertoalan wrote: I have run the heater frequency from 100hz to 100khz, it has absolutely no effect on how fast the heater responds, all that matter is the average duty cycle.