Simple engine fuel controller patent

Discuss MegaSquirt, VEMS and other non-free hardware and software here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Simple engine fuel controller patent

Post by Fred »

Albert and Bruce used to have a patent back in 2003 for the original MS controller. It has been updated/replaced with new content by application filed April 17 2007 and (re?)issued on December 27 2007.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7313474-fulltext.html

http://www.google.com/patents?id=2CyBAAAAEBAJ

http://www.google.com/patents?id=9EyhAAAAEBAJ

I found this line particularly amusing :
Another object of an embodiment of the present invention is to provide an EFI system with reduced susceptibility to electronic noise.
Could they be much further from the mark? The common ground system used pretty much ensures that noise is a big issue for many users. Voltage drops forced onto signal lines by current drawn along them by power components cause extraneous readings to be par for the course. Exemplary grounding can render this a non issue, however the gauge of wire required is significantly increased because of this single ground single power scheme. See the hardware design wish list for some discussion on how to address these severe issues and limitations.

It's important to realise something about patents :
The patent act makes it clear that patents are only supposed to be awarded on ideas that are non-obvious to those who are considered skilled in the field.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20060626/1227245.shtml

Basically that patent (and it's predecessor) are similar to patenting the wheel of a car for being round or a mouse on a computer for being able to move a cursor. It would get thrown out of court so fast it just isn't funny.

The only thing I can see in there which is even remotely out of the norm of published work on EFI is sampling the MAP sensor synchronously. I would definitely argue that this is obvious to someone skilled in the field. In fact, I would argue that this is obvious to someone not overly skilled in the field such as myself. It is very well known that air has inertia and that engines suck it in pulses, due to common sampling frequency properties, you will get excess noise in your signal if you are not in phase with it. Further more, even if you are in phase, you will get different amplitudes depending on where in the phase you are. Common knowledge to any engine enthusiast if you ask me. I'm certain the courts would agree.

Worth a laugh to read anyway :-)

Thank you for the link.

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
GartnerProspect
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:14 pm

Re: Simple engine fuel controller patent

Post by GartnerProspect »

:-) Yay. I love tearing down frivilous patents!
gearhead
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: Simple engine fuel controller patent

Post by gearhead »

I agree that the rest of the system is pretty hard to defend on the electronic side. The obviousness issue is a difficult thing, though. If we did not have the MS to work on and with, would it really be obvious that the synchronous map sampling is required or desired? That is a tough one. There are a number of things that we need to get out in the public domain, and quickly, so that they are not used privately, IMO.

One thing that Fred and I have discussed is the concept of a running engine position variable from the crank trigger + cam trigger with the possibility of interpolating between teeth to achieve precision necessary for certain engine monitoring and control events. This allows for windowing of events for monitoring as well as scheduling events based on angle and angle duration instead of event and time based.

Another is the rough concept of an engine management algorithm based on crank angle domain instead of time + crank position as it is now. This requires a rethink of the whole speed density concept.

The one thing that I am a bit surprised about is that the B&G concept of "engine model based control" that they have been talking about for some time is not patented. I wonder if it is patent pending.

Gearhead
User avatar
Fred
Moderator
Posts: 15431
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Home sweet home!
Contact:

Re: Simple engine fuel controller patent

Post by Fred »

gearhead wrote:If we did not have the MS to work on and with, would it really be obvious that the synchronous map sampling is required or desired? That is a tough one.
I don't think so. When I read that Al's code did NOT interpolate cells in the VE table in MS2, I was shocked to say the least. When I learned that synchronous sampling was a new feature and hadn't been there all along, I was equally shocked. The trouble with the MS code base is that it was sort of kludged together, it wasn't thought out first. If you just start coding without having thought about the implications of what you are trying to measure and control then these oversights are bound to happen. It certainly came as no surprise to me that sampling in that way would reduce noise on the MAP signal line. Conversely it is no surprise to me that if you say you sample at some arbitrary frequency and your signal source is of varying and different frequency, you WILL get noise. It is obvious to me that ignition and injection events that generate noise will also be positively handled by such a scheme. I also would not be surprised if it reduced or at least smoothed noise of other types too. In summary, I think it is definitely obvious, and many other things that MS deems advanced or new are also obvious.

For example, and very much along the same lines : the semi sequential mode that both ms2 main and extra have picked up late last year. It's been obvious to a lot of people for a long time that this IS required for good transient response and AFR stability etc yet B&G have been marketing the "it doesn't matter" thing to us for a very very long time. I fell for that for a while, however, once you break free of the "ms mindset" many things quickly become obvious. With MS you are almost tricked into seeing it how they want you to. If opposing views are posted up, things are often removed immediately. I am aware of at least 2 instances of people trying to suggest better control algorithms (when the code is supposedly open and free to change for ms purposes) where their posts have been removed for no reason other than "challenging the established system". In both of these cases, the posters were accurate and correct. In both cases their material was removed without discussion. That is one of the primary reasons we are here, to allow EMS tech to grow with an OPEN mind. That is not possible on msefi.com IMO.

Think about the code NOT interpolating cells for a second. Surely that is obvious right? Yet it was not done. Same in many other aspects.

With regards that MAP sensing issue, there is certainly documentation available that shows pressure variations in the manifold over time. And there is documentation that shows signal sampling aliasing effects and the cause and how to avoid it. IMO 2+2 = 4 IS obvious. There may even be documents from Freescale or other old patents from OEMs (which are many moons ahead of B&G tech wise) that show exactly this behaviour and scheme.

Fred.
DIYEFI.org - where Open Source means Open Source, and Free means Freedom
FreeEMS.org - the open source engine management system
FreeEMS dev diary and its comments thread and my turbo truck!
n00bs, do NOT PM or email tech questions! Use the forum!
The ever growing list of FreeEMS success stories!
Post Reply