emry Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Let me just get this straight. 1st a sensor designed to be submerged in a liquid was used to measure the heated air temp of a solid mass in and enclosed space. 2nd a sensor designed to be submerged in a liquid was was used to measure the temp of a solid mass that heats a liquid in contact between the mass and sensor. 3rd a sensor designed to measure a moving gases temp was used to measure the temp of heated air of a solid mass in an enclosed space. 4th What is the problem? Bad mapping or the wrong spec sensor or both. Are we fixing the sickness, the symptoms, or the reaction to bad medication? WTF. Has anyone mentioned that the damn lookup chart was written in Italy. Guzzi does NO testing outside its local region and the sensor they had avail worked so they adjusted the table to suit. Extreme temp riders be damned. You'll figure it out, you always have. Now we are trying to fix a sensor that isn't broke (but the holder is cause I touched it), cause the table is screwed up. Huh?? Ratch is on the right track with adding the resistance to the sensor to at least alleviate a lean running condition, but he has a Power Commander. What the hell is that for then? Wallet lightening? Doesn't the heat sink just drop the temp of the sensor??? Like adding more resistance... (Same result as far as the ECU knows.) Couldn't the wonder knob do that. Even the udders couldn't keep me away, this thread is like crack - so bad but sooo.... good.... Pete, HELP ME - send me some Yak fat to lube my square wheel bearings with. They spin. That cant be right. Greg, HELP ME - my 50k worth of stock is still worth 15k... Ratch, HELP ME - write a post I can read before I age... Emry, HELP ME - - - - I've tried, there is no help for you.
dlaing Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 And while we're at it, make the sensor adapter out of platinum. The song says diamonds are their best friend, but my wife wants platinum Diamond powder appears to be about $10 per gram++, (if a cts is a carat or 200mg????)
dlaing Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Now we are trying to fix a sensor that isn't broke (but the holder is cause I touched it), cause the table is screwed up. Huh?? Ratch is on the right track with adding the resistance to the sensor to at least alleviate a lean running condition, but he has a Power Commander. What the hell is that for then? Wallet lightening? Doesn't the heat sink just drop the temp of the sensor??? Like adding more resistance... (Same result as far as the ECU knows.) Couldn't the wonder knob do that. The sensor works OK but as you mentioned, it was designed for water cooled engines. The mass of the sensor and the nature of brass is such that it is slow to heat and slow to cool down. Ratchet's resistor alleviates fluctuating conditions that the Power Commander can't fluctuate with. FWIW, The PCIII map does not follow sensor changes the same way the ECU's map does. Essentially different algorithms. I don't understand it exactly, but I think the ECU is changing proportionally, while the PCIII is adding or subtracting, so if you map at the ECU with one set of sensor conditions, when conditions change, the ECU THEORETICALLY will go with the change properly, while the PCIII won't. We could argue for 40 more pages just on that point... The PCIII is still a valuable mod, just not as perfect as tuning the ECU directly. Adding a heat sink is different that just lowering the temp of the sensor. One, it does lower the temperature, allowing the ECU to more accurately match the engineers intended voltage output per degree, if one added thermal conductive goo. Two, it allows the sensor to cool down at a rate closer to the rate of engine cooling down. On the negative side, it will cause the sensor to heat up more slowly, but but but, since the thermal goo is added, and the heat is allegedly read at the probe and not the sensor body, we get an overall improvement. Not as great as if you plugged a sensor of less mass and an accuracy range that works well at a higher temperature, directly into the cylinder head and re-mapped to match the temperature output, but Ratchet's cooling fin heat sink and goo should be an improvement over the stock configuration. But I think his GM air sensor is more ideal because of the reduced mass. He just needs to get the conductivity to closely match ideal running, by setting the air gap or adding some sort of conductive, assuming it is not already ideal. FWIW the wonder knob could do anything if properly designed and administered....but that ain't likely to happen.
dlaing Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Greg, HELP ME - my 50k worth of stock is still worth 15k... Invest in diamond powder futures!
gstallons Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Let me just get this straight. 1st a sensor designed to be submerged in a liquid was used to measure the heated air temp of a solid mass in and enclosed space. 2nd a sensor designed to be submerged in a liquid was was used to measure the temp of a solid mass that heats a liquid in contact between the mass and sensor. 3rd a sensor designed to measure a moving gases temp was used to measure the temp of heated air of a solid mass in an enclosed space. 4th What is the problem? Bad mapping or the wrong spec sensor or both. Are we fixing the sickness, the symptoms, or the reaction to bad medication? WTF. Has anyone mentioned that the damn lookup chart was written in Italy. Guzzi does NO testing outside its local region and the sensor they had avail worked so they adjusted the table to suit. Extreme temp riders be damned. You'll figure it out, you always have. Now we are trying to fix a sensor that isn't broke (but the holder is cause I touched it), cause the table is screwed up. Huh?? Ratch is on the right track with adding the resistance to the sensor to at least alleviate a lean running condition, but he has a Power Commander. What the hell is that for then? Wallet lightening? Doesn't the heat sink just drop the temp of the sensor??? Like adding more resistance... (Same result as far as the ECU knows.) Couldn't the wonder knob do that. Even the udders couldn't keep me away, this thread is like crack - so bad but sooo.... good.... Pete, HELP ME - send me some Yak fat to lube my square wheel bearings with. They spin. That cant be right. Greg, HELP ME - my 50k worth of stock is still worth 15k... Ratch, HELP ME - write a post I can read before I age... Emry, HELP ME - - - - I've tried, there is no help for you. Your point being? This is a technical filibuster. There are no answers...... If there is a summation= It's too cold for everyone to ride.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Ratch, HELP ME - write a post I can read before I age... Sorry, no apologies, Emry. Again, many concepts require more than sound bites to communicate effectively. Some concepts actually require paragraphs to develop properly. Others require chapters. Still others, volumes. This is why we have traditionally had books (now all but obsolete), actually studying books now being an alien concept in itself to more and more of popular kulture today. Fortunately, the relatively simple heat flow dynamics of the OE Guzzi sensor only require a few short paragraphs. As with many concepts, you have to bring both the abilty and the willingness to read, and ablity and the willingness to comprehend. Lacking either (as demonstrated so many times in this thread), there's no chance of understanding -- thus the horriffic length of this thread, the ridicule, the childish ego tantrum behaviors, the leaping to false conclusions in group formation, and the infamous group dork wrap around the ol' driveshaft. Doesn't the heat sink just drop the temp of the sensor??? Like adding more resistance... (Same result as far as the ECU knows.) Couldn't the wonder knob do that. No. This has been covered repeatedly before. But dammit, you seem sincerely interested, so here it is it again: Lacking a continually circulating bath of fluid with which to quickly exchange heat as it was designed, in its application on the Guzzi, the ~1.4 oz brass body of OE sensor acts as a heat reservoir. It stores heat. Its considerable inherent property of thermal inertia means that the sensor body takes time to heat up and cool down. Other than very minor heat leakage by convection, the only way it can gain or lose significant heat is through the temp probe attached to it. The thermistor (the part of the OE sensor that actually reads the temp) does not read the temp of the sensor body. It reads the temp away from the body of the sensor, out at the tip of the sensor probe. For heat flow analysis purposes, the tip and the body of the sensor may be considered distinct and separate. The reading taken by the thermistor inside is influenced both by the temp of the cylinder head, AND by the temp of the sensor body itself, being located between the two (regardless of the presence of thermo-compound or air gap). This means that whether the temp of the head is going up or down -- it reads something between the two, and the heat has to flow both ways. The temperature at the sensor body lags behind the temp of the cylinder head (in either direction) as a function of time, until heat can flow through the sensor probe (again in either direction) as it seeks equilibrium between head and sensor body. This LAG TIME is the source of the ERROR I've been posting about for 20+ pages. The heat sink I used previously on the OE sensor body provides a constant avenue of escape for the heat content of the sensor body. This means that a considerable portion of the heat content of the sensor body no longer has to flow back through the probe into the head and out through the cooling fins of the head when the head cools (providng false reads to the ECU on the way), as it does when the SOURCE of the heat cools, as when backing off the throttles on a long downhill, and/or at a stoplight after hauling down from hard riding. Not coincidentally, this is exactly when (and ONLY WHEN) the symptoms of sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms show up on the road with the OE sensor. If you're using the brass holder, though it's finned and does dump some heat, the scenario above is now confused by providing an alternate avenue for heat flow directly between cylinder head and sensor body without passing through the sensor probe. The minimal fins on the brass holder can't possibly dump enough heat off the sensor body to be effective, so the brass holder only compounds the inherent thermal inertia of the sensor body, since (unlike the heat sink I used) it's thermally connected directly to both the sensor body AND the head. When it's wrapped up in duct tape, the ability of the brass holder to dump heat is lowered even further, and the thermal inertia problem of the sensor body is now increased by direct thermal connection to another ~2 oz. of brass that now can't dump much of any heat whatsoever, creating a significant addition to the problem. If you happen to be running an overly rich map, this can have the beneficial effect of providing better mileage. But at what cost to sensor body heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms? -- Only those running brass holders know for sure. As trade-offs go, it was a disaster in my own tests, it's dependent on map and engine/intake/exhaust config., and it looks like very few are apt to comment on this, or it seems we'd have heard from at least a few by now -- or at least a few who haven't been caught up in the ever-expanding wad and increasing commitment of the Great Driveshaft Dork Wrap. . . Again, the above understanding is consistent with all observations in my experimenting over the last 8 weeks. Good luck.
Greg Field Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Technical fillibuster. Yes. I like that. 44 pages. Outstanding BQ, too!
GuzziMoto Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 That was funny. RH telling someone else that THEY have no concept or understanding of thermal dynamics and the RH goes on to explain how they original sensor has more thermal mass then the cylinder head and cannot react as rapidly as the cylinder head to changes in temp so it ends up running hotter then it should.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 . . .RH goes on to explain how they original sensor has more thermal mass then the cylinder head and cannot react as rapidly as the cylinder head to changes in temp so it ends up running hotter then it should. Say GMoto. You're clearly gunning for Exhibit A status here in the Group Dork Wrap commitment wad. You've posted the same mischaracterization of my words twice now, by my count. If you could put down the glue huffer for a moment -- with your depth of experience testing the Guzzi OE head temp sensor, and your mastery of the fundamental concepts of thermodynamics, I'd like you to please quote me word for word where I posted anywhere that: . . .they [sic] original sensor has more thermal mass then [sic] the cylinder head. . . May I suggest either stop huffing the glue and wait a few hours, or take another great walloping huff and search again. . .
Greg Field Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Only those running brass holders know for sure. As trade-offs go, it was a disaster in my own tests, it's dependent on map and engine/intake/exhaust config., and it looks like very few are apt to comment on this, or it seems we'd have heard from at least a few by now -- or at least a few who haven't been caught up in the ever-expanding wad and increasing commitment of the Great Driveshaft Dork Wrap. . . Again, the above understanding is consistent with all observations in my experimenting over the last 8 weeks. Good luck. I've sold probably several hundred of those sensor holders. I've put them on dozens of bikes. None of my "victims" has yet reported to me that they've discovered the enormity of the horrible crime I've perpetrated on them. Hell, I haven't even discovered the crime I've perpetrated on my dear old CoppaLabia. It refuses to run poorly despite my ruinous sabotages and even mocks my evil intentions by getting better gas mileage. And it's been mocking me thusly for nearly 3 years now, with nary a hickup, even in the SoCal heat last summer. I otter burn the thing to the ground . . . Carry on, though. 44 pages is clearly not enough. Eventually, you will find the real problem. A cheap start would be to run some Redline Fuel Injection cleaner through it. I'd also look at your valves and guides. In the amount of time you've spent on bodging the sensor and writing about it, you could've rebuilt and ported the heads and had the jectors ultrasonically cleaned.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I've sold probably several hundred of those sensor holders. I've put them on dozens of bikes. None of my "victims" has yet reported to me that they've discovered the enormity of the horrible crime I've perpetrated on them. How many of those d'you figure were sold to people who broke their plastic holders, and simply wanted to replace them with something that "wouldn't break"?? In case you haven't noticed, several on this thread have reported problems after converting form OE plastic to the brass sensor. If it hadn't been for the many mentions in this thread of the unrideable symptoms I had testing the one you sold me (again, my Guzzi won't run acceptably with the brass sensor regardless of OE .25" air gap, or any gradation of air gap, including filled solid with lead), I reckon you (and others who may have actually noticed) wouldn't know about mine either. Eventually, you will find the real problem. A cheap start would be to run some Redline Fuel Injection cleaner through it. I'd also look at your valves and guides. Hm. That's quite the diagnosis, Greg. What "real problem", exactly have you diagnosed for me here, and on the basis of what symptoms have you made your diagnosis?? Per multiple previous posts, I HAD NO REAL “PROBLEM” TO SOLVE here, unless very occasional slight hot over-lean symptoms at and off idle and very occasional pinging (detonation) after hard riding in hot weather be considered "problems", which I'd never considered either to be. If I had, I’d have re-mapped 6 years ago. That^ hasn't changed since before it was out of break-in, in over 6 years and 25K miles. If you'd paid any attention to what you were responding to here more often than I've actually posted in this thread, and if you were sincerely interested in what you were responding to, you'd have noticed that even the above is now entirely GONE as a result of what I've learned and applied, exactly as I've presented the case here. Injection cleaner? Worn valves and guides?? Enquiring minds. . .(well, you know). . .
Greg Field Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Apparently, we speak different languages, Commendatore Ratchethack. You did claim a problem. You speculated on the cause of said problem. You mucked about toward counteracting that "cause" by tricking the efi to add more fuel. You claimed improvement. Further, you claimed improved fuel mileage after adding more fuel. Then you mucked about some more and claimed further improvement. Some disclaimer from 38 pages ago does not alter that reality. Who else came away with a similar summation after 44 pages?
GuzziMoto Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I certainly would not have put this much into "fixing" a problem that did not exist. But then , when I read things like; "Its considerable inherent property of thermal inertia means that the sensor body takes time to heat up and cool down.", "The temperature at the sensor body lags behind the temp of the cylinder head (in either direction) until heat can flow through the sensor probe (again in either direction) as it seeks equilibrium between head and sensor body.", "I beleive there are times when the head does cool faster than the OE sensor body,", "that being the heat flow problem and thermal inertia of the relatively high-mass OE sensor body", "(Again) taking measurements OVER TIME would be the entire thrust of my observation of the THERMAL INERTIA and lag-time problem with the sensor, as thoroughly presented and discussed in previous analysis." I tend to think that someone is saying that the problem with the OE sensor is that it has too much thermal inertia, and in this case, "too much" would imply that it has more then the cylinder head so that it cannot change temp as quickly as the cylinder head can.
Ballabio Bertie Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 AAAAAAArgh!!!!!!! 44 pages!!!! Get off the keyboard and just ride the bloody things!!
Guest ratchethack Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Apparently, we speak different languages, Commendatore Ratchethack. You did claim a problem. Apparently different languages indeed. YOU ARE INCORRECT. As I quoted myself (not for the first time) above, I have been VERY CAREFUL to REPEATEDLY STATE -- up front and throughout my posts in this thread -- I HAVE NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE HERE. If you had paid attention to what you were responding to you would have noticed. Obviously you have not been paying attention to what you've been responding to for 20+ pages. If you believe that it is I who am in error here, please quote me where I've said something that would support your position. Now that I've quoted myself once to back up what I said with what I've actually posted, the owness is on you. THE PROBLEM I IDENTIFIED and have referred to numerous times is the thermal inertia and resulting lag time in response to heat changes of the sensor. THIS IS NOT "MY PROBLEM". Who else came away with a similar summation after 44 pages? Consensus doesn't stand up to the clear record of this thread Greg. A consensus of fools who got something wrong will say just about anything imagineable, and many things not imagineable.
Recommended Posts