dlaing Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Today I didn’t get anywhere near the mileage I’d hoped for, even though the miles were mostly in similar terrain as above, less the mountain climb, and only up to ~4,400 ft (1,342 m). It was just after a rain and lots cooler, ~55 - 60°F (~12 - 15°C) and much slower going (typically 40 – 50 mph) and lots of on-off-on throttle behind numerous long lines of traffic winding up and down the foothills and canyons. Seems everyone came out after the rain, same as me. Mileage: 36.55 MPG. But equally flawless running under all conditions and at all times. And there you have it (Part II). Thanks for the update. How much of the riding was with the resistor activated? I'd guess that because it was cooler today, you did not need to enrich the mixture by activating the resistor, but you did get behind long line of traffic, so maybe you needed it then in order to run flawlessly.
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 See the size of the contact patch available when you run square wheels? Dunlop assures me we'll be able to run cornering forces of 3g, or possibly more. Valentino Rossi's heard the hype and is about to sign on . . . catch the wave, boys . . . Nice!! Subtle!! ...but would TX approve?
Guest ratchethack Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 How much of the riding was with the resistor activated?I'd guess that because it was cooler today, you did not need to enrich the mixture by activating the resistor, but you did get behind long line of traffic, so maybe you needed it then in order to run flawlessly. Being ~20°F (11°C) cooler yesterday made a difference. I only dialed up added resistance at extended stops. There were wind warnings in East County, and that probably had an effect as well in the north-south valleys. I probably only used it 2 or 3 times total, not at all for shorter stops, and could easily have gone without entirely, if I'd felt like listening to a couple of stumbles at idle, knowing it would eventually drop into an over-lean hot-burn sensor body heat soak loop. Once dialed to about +300 Ω, within maybe 10 -15 seconds, it hasn't skipped more than a beat or so at idle so far, regardless of how hot the motor is. I had no need for it underway, even stuck behind the infamous So CA Sunday Driver's conga lines. Riding on square wheels takes a certain amount of adjustment and personal sacrifice to get used to, but if you put your mind to it, one can talk oneself into tolerating just about any degree of self-inflicted torture and suffering. . . WARNING: There are individuals who seem to take unusually focused personal offense to certain "politically incorrect" new and unorthodox ideas -- evidently ONLY when those ideas are backed up by well documented actual experience. Such individuals apparently feel compelled to mount a sustained crusade to ensure that such ideas that could have merit (at least by illustrating how things that are poorly understood actually work), that they get sufficient sustained ridicule so that they never catch on. . . I never cease to find this kinda thing a truly astounding phenomenon to observe. . . On the other side o' that coin, there are also individuals who are apparently easily intimidated by such badgering, despite the complete absence of any credible grounds for such behavior. This is just me, but I never cease to find this an astounding thing to observe, too. . . Frankly, the promise of more amazement of this kind^ to come alone is enough encouragement for Yours Truly to continue experimenting and reporting it here. . . . . .Being an equal opportunity kinda Guy, I'm not backing off until we're all having fun here. . .
Greg Field Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 As I've already pointed out, I'm just doing my part to ensure that we achieve the bloviation quotient (BQ) to which this thread aspires. And to get it to 40 pages. Both are thankless tasks. One wonders, though, how milage improves when one cobbles up a mixture control that when used dumps in extra fuel.
Guest ratchethack Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 One wonders, though, how milage improves when one cobbles up a mixture control that when used dumps in extra fuel. I've determined not to start repeating what's already been thoroughly covered here, lest the all-too-familiar repetition train leave the station under a full head o' steam and gain serious momentum -- but to anyone lacking either the willingness or ability to comprehend such wonders, it would appear that Voodoo spells, or outright lying by Yours Truly hereabouts may be afoot. . . But I reckon such wonders are easily enough resolved with a grasp of the principles at work as fully presented in this thread for a couple hundred pages now. . . On the other hand, mendacity has been running rampant these days hereabouts, and you can't ever be too careful. . .
Guzzi2Go Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Now I am concerned that we will loose heatsink even before we reach page 40.... This will, of course, be discretely tucked in between the endless lines of nonsense produced by yours truly, so noone will ever notice. Go Ratchet, go!
Greg Field Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Precisely. Principles that come across like a square tire. But, hey! We're at 33 pages. Only 6 more, and we'll be on the cusp of the magic 40. I have bought short $600 million in stocks, so I need the Dow to sink to 4,000 to become the richest man on earth. Help me get there, won't you?
Skeeve Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 I probably only used it 2 or 3 times total, not at all for shorter stops, and could easily have gone without entirely, if I'd felt like listening to a couple of stumbles at idle, knowing it would eventually drop into an over-lean hot-burn sensor body heat soak loop. Once dialed to about +300 Ω, within maybe 10 -15 seconds, it hasn't skipped more than a beat or so at idle so far, regardless of how hot the motor is. I had no need for it underway, even stuck behind the infamous So CA Sunday Driver's conga lines. Hey Ratch', here's an idea: They sell "under spark plug" cylinder head temp sensors, which being connected directly to a probe inside the combustion chamber [aka "the spark plug"] might be considered a more accurate reading of CHT. What about a negative feedback loop utilizing one of these to adjust your pot on the stock unit w/ the goop, brass body & heatsink? That way, as the fuel is leaned out too much, the temp sensed by the spark plug CHT decreases the resistance on the pot, so the ecu senses the higher temp and increases fuel, cooling the combustion chamber. [or is that the other way round?] Anyway, I think that with enough sensors, resistors and whatnot, we can fool the ecu into doing what Guzzi should have had it do in the first place...
Guest ratchethack Posted March 23, 2009 Posted March 23, 2009 Hey Ratch', here's an idea: They sell "under spark plug" cylinder head temp sensors, which being connected directly to a probe inside the combustion chamber [aka "the spark plug"] might be considered a more accurate reading of CHT. What about a negative feedback loop utilizing one of these to adjust your pot on the stock unit w/ the goop, brass body & heatsink? That way, as the fuel is leaned out too much, the temp sensed by the spark plug CHT decreases the resistance on the pot, so the ecu senses the higher temp and increases fuel, cooling the combustion chamber. [or is that the other way round?] Anyway, I think that with enough sensors, resistors and whatnot, we can fool the ecu into doing what Guzzi should have had it do in the first place... I like your thinking, Skeeve. Thanks. I b'lieve you're referring to a thermocouple. I'm familiar, having run them before on turbochargers on 2 different cars with a Fluke digital thermocouple reader. But on the Guzzi, for my objectives, using it to monitor CHT for FI control would be too prohibitively complex (and error-prone) for what would appear to be such a simple problem to solve with a properly designed thermistor/sensor/holder. "[or is that the other way round?]" -- It's t'other way around, a sound enough idea as far as I can tell, a bit too fiddly for Yours Truly, and by all means, to each his own. As of this morning, I've enlisted the help of a Pro to spec a commercially available "low mass" thermistor with the same temp/resistance output as the OE sensor (<10% error) that may be interesting to test with a custom composite holder. Will advise.
dlaing Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 Hey Ratch', here's an idea: They sell "under spark plug" cylinder head temp sensors, which being connected directly to a probe inside the combustion chamber [aka "the spark plug"] might be considered a more accurate reading of CHT. What about a negative feedback loop utilizing one of these to adjust your pot on the stock unit w/ the goop, brass body & heatsink? That way, as the fuel is leaned out too much, the temp sensed by the spark plug CHT decreases the resistance on the pot, so the ecu senses the higher temp and increases fuel, cooling the combustion chamber. [or is that the other way round?] Anyway, I think that with enough sensors, resistors and whatnot, we can fool the ecu into doing what Guzzi should have had it do in the first place... Or maybe an Exhaust Gas Temperature sensor! I'll bet I could get my WBO2's five volt output would be ideal, but I'd have to figure out how to smooth the signal out more.
dlaing Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 As of this morning, I've enlisted the help of a Pro to spec a commercially available "low mass" thermistor with the same temp/resistance output as the OE sensor ( Will advise. Cool! Less thermal inertia!!! Now you are talking! Speaking of thermal inertia, I think if your custom composite holder had an aluminum base to better match the thermal qualities of the engine, it would heat up and cool down faster than brass, more closely following the groovin' dancin' moves of the massive inertiaful cylinder head. Thermistors don't have much mass. Do you mean the sensor is low mass. Are you sourcing an aluminum sensor?
Greg Field Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 The copper used in the stock holder does heat up and cool down faster than if it were aluminum.
Guest ratchethack Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Are you sourcing an aluminum sensor? The sensor I’ll be using is thermoplastic. The only metallic part is the thermistor itself. I presume you mean to ask about the holder? Haven't got that far yet, but no aluminum. Will fab this up, and likely use brass for the base part that screws into the head, and something relatively non-conductive for the rest of the holder. Copper would be preferred over either for the base: Thermal conductivity copper -- 231 BTU/(hr-ft-°F), or 10.15 watts/in-°C brass -- 69 BTU/(hr-ft-°F), or 3.03 watts/in-°C aluminum -- 136 BTU/(hr-ft-°F), or 5.98watts/in-°C SOURCE: http://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm But then, this ain’t exactly rocket science, is it? There are many effective ways to deliver an enemy combatant to his 72 virgins that are more effective than a sling and stone, but no need to call for a laser-guided missile strike when a well-planned and carefully placed single head shot from a thousand yards will do quite nicely.
Recommended Posts