Dan M Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 I don't think it is the case either. I think Dan simply means the GM sensor's thermistor is exposed ("vented") to the air in the small enclosed chamber that Ratchet made. Right Dave I'm talking about the SENSOR. not the holder. The holder is not vented, all of the holders are closed. The factory designed the set up with a small AIR gap so the sensor is actually measuring air temp just a few millimeters off of the cylinder head surface. (man has this been gone over) As designed, the brass sensor is reading AIR temp inside the holder. And for those who don't know the function of one of these, the brass hex on the outside of the holder does not read the temp. It is the probe that resides down inside the holder. The plastic sensor has holes in the bottom. You can see the thermistor in there. So, if you are reading air temp just off of the head surface as it is designed and mapped, the plastic sensor with the holes is better. You are reading air temp with an air temp sensor. Just to clarify, the air temp that is being sensed is not the surrounding atmosphere. It is the air inside the holder in very close proximity to the head surface.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Did you make a perfect running engine run better? . . .(sigh). . . Dave. I b'lieve the number of times I've repeated myself for clarification on this point for those who aren't interested enough in the topic at hand to pay medium-grade attention to wot they're responding to is probably running about 20 or 25, if you count the repetitions of the repetitions and the repetitions of the repetitions of the repetitions, etc. . . Please find anywhere in this thread where I posted that my engine ever ran "perfectly", and post the quote(s) with the usual Forum link(s) back to the source(s), as I have done with your post above. Though there have been many to distort wot I've posted in so very many ways here, exactly as you've done, I'm asking you to do the honors here, not just because you've twisted my words (as usual), but because I know you'll actually conduct an exhaustive search, where others wouldn't bother, even when challenged. NOTE: If you attempt to take my words out of original context, you can count on the fact that I'll put them back in original context for you, and you'll look even more foolish than you and everyone else who has mischaracterized what I've posted previously look now. This has gone waaaaaay past boring now, the open road beckons, and I just gotta go. . .
GuzziMoto Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So, Dan M. When you said "An open to the atmosphere thermistor can read the surrounding air immediately without having to heat and cool the brass encasement" you didn't mean "atmosphere" you meant the air inside the sensor set up, which sounds a lot like "atmosphere" but is spelled slightly differently.
Greg Field Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Remember that it was mapped with Italian air inside the sensor holder. For Ratch to attain Uber-Perfect running requires filling the sensor holder with Italian air, circa 1999 (lower levels of CO2), as the designers intended.
Dan M Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 So, Dan M. When you said "An open to the atmosphere thermistor can read the surrounding air immediately without having to heat and cool the brass encasement" you didn't mean "atmosphere" you meant the air inside the sensor set up, which sounds a lot like "atmosphere" but is spelled slightly differently. That is what the clarification was about 5 or so posts up. I knew you wouldn't get it. I meant not out in the wind. I felt the need to clarify because you, in your wisdom think the factory sensor reads temp from the exposed hexagon which is the only brass part that is out in the wind. You and Dave have a great deal of time to split hairs.
GuzziMoto Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 That is what the clarification was about 5 or so posts up. I knew you wouldn't get it. I meant not out in the wind. I felt the need to clarify because you, in your wisdom think the factory sensor reads temp from the exposed hexagon which is the only brass part that is out in the wind. You and Dave have a great deal of time to split hairs. I have NEVER said the stock sensor reads temp from the exposed brass part of it. I did say that part of the sensor was exposed to the outside air and could (does) radiate heat to the outside air. But you did imply the sensor RH was using was vented to outside air so that it could better measure the temp of the air. I would guess that you just misspoke and that it was not what you meant. But since you accuse me of contradicting myself and slammed dlaing for having "a strong opinion about a device you don't know much about", I have no sympathy for you. You posted incorrect information and then slammed people when you were called on it instead of manning up and clarifying what you meant to say in a polite manor. Everybody makes mistakes, what says a lot about you is how you act when YOU make mistakes. Not only do I have a decent grasp of how thermistors work ( I actually work with them), but I have two Guzzis with the stock sensors (the new Guzzis use the same "bad" sensor as the V11s) and both bikes work quite well. This does not make me unique or special, quite the contrary, many Guzzis with the stock sensors work fine. Again, if RH or you or anybody else chooses to alter the stock cylider head temp signal (or you could do the same with the air temp sensor signal, or TPS, whatever) that is fine. Just please don't try to pass it off as anything other then what it is. You are not improving the accuracy. Everything that has been posted says you are decreasing the accuracy in an attempt to richen up the fuel mixture. Knock yourself out, but be honest about it.
emry Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 Why don't we just drill a hole through the brass holder thus venting it to the atmosphere?? (yes, the outside atmosphere, not the inside one....) That way the sensor will heat up from radiated heat but then the extra heat can just vent out. What a simple solution. I'm surprised after 54 pages no one has tried it yet. Try that guys and you should get at least 10 more pages out this dead horse.
dlaing Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 . . .(sigh). . . Dave. I b'lieve the number of times I've repeated myself for clarification on this point for those who aren't interested enough in the topic at hand to pay medium-grade attention to wot they're posting about is probably running about 20 or 25, if you count the repetitions of the repetitions and the repetitions of the repetitions of the repetitions, etc. . . in this thread. Please find anywhere in this thread where I posted that my engine ever ran "perfectly", and post the quote(s) with the usual Forum link(s) back to the source(s), as I have done with your post above. Though there have been many to distort wot I've posted in so very many ways here, exactly as you've done, I'm asking you to do the honors here, not just because you've twisted my words (as usual), but because I know you'll actually conduct an exhaustive search, where others wouldn't bother, even when challenged. <_> NOTE: If you attempt to take my words out of original context, you can count on the fact that I'll put them back in original context for you, and you'll look even more foolish than you and everyone else who has mischaracterized what I've posted previously look now. This has gone waaaaaay past boring now, the open road beckons, and I just gotta go. . . Sorry dude, I missed the niggling nits. I think I attributed the niggling nits to the preceding words: "If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits," My bad. I guess I don't read as well as I did in 4th grade.... Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. If the bike actually ran anything approaching poorly as is (with the exception of a few niggling nits, by all objective measures it runs perfectly with the OE sensor holder without thermal conductive paste), I'd have re-mapped it long ago.
dlaing Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Ideally, I'd be dynotuning a new map with as direct thermal connection between head and sensor as possible. Glad we agree! I think I left the round tuit where it can't be found for a while, but the more direct connection and remap is on my agenda. Not sure why everyone gets so hostile. Bad technical writing? Even worse reading comprehension!!! Ratchet's solution with GM sensor is fine aside from the raised concerns of deteriorating plastic and nit picking over less than perfection. Dan's solution to the niggling nits parallels Ratchet's in a mysterious way. (perhaps he has a patent pending) Greg Field's solution of goo and duct tape surely could work fine with the right map or state of tune. Whatever GuzziMoto and thousands of others are doing is working fine, too.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 . . . I have a decent grasp of how thermistors work . . . Again, if RH or you or anybody else chooses to alter the stock cylider head temp signal (or you could do the same with the air temp sensor signal, or TPS, whatever) that is fine. Just please don't try to pass it off as anything other then what it is. You are not improving the accuracy. Everything that has been posted says you are decreasing the accuracy in an attempt to richen up the fuel mixture. Knock yourself out, but be honest about it. . . .[sigh]. . . Wrong again, GMoto. Congrat's on your "decent grasp" of how thermistors work. Fundamentally, the way they work is every bit as difficult to grasp as the operation of a light bulb. However, your grasp of heat flow analysis and the most fundamental concepts of thermodynamics, as well as your analytical capabilities, as you’ve consistently demonstrated above and previously, is very poor at best, and badly deluded at worst. By “everything that has been posted” above, I understand that you’re referring to my experiments with thermo-compound, heat sink, and variable resistor with the OE sensor/holder, brass Sport-i holder, as well as the subsequent replacement low mass GM/NAPA Echlin air temp sensor/Delrin holder that I’ve described in some detail, and which I’m running now -- (another never before possible 42 MPG, 120-mile mountain climb loop yesterday). Since you’ve clearly concluded that I haven’t any idea wot I’ve been doing here, and that I’ve apparently been dishonest with my analysis as well, GMoto -- with your superior mastery of “everything that has been posted”, maybe you could honestly explain how it is that in both scenarios above, by “richening up the fuel mixture” and “decreasing the accuracy” (your exact words), I was able to achieve BOTH SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER MILEAGE (~+10%) than ever possible before with the OE sensor/holder, while at the same time, completely ELIMINATING all former rare and infrequent (yet nonetheless annoying) traces of idle and low RPM sensor body heat soak lean-burn feedback loop symptoms? One oft-repeated “explanation” for this achievement^ has been bad valves and guides. D'you buy that one? Or is it your contention that my findings as posted here from hundreds of miles of actual hands-on experience with all of the above have been dishonest fabrications -- as opposed to your own actual hands-on experience with ANY of the above, which clearly amounts to. . . ZIP. . . ?? Enquiring minds. . .(well, you know). . .
Greg Field Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 How again does richening the mixture result in better mileage? I must've missed the explanation to that mystery.
Guest ratchethack Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 How again does richening the mixture result in better mileage? I must've missed the explanation to that mystery. Why, Greg! You've informed me yourself (and everyone else here) -- multiple times -- that "the explanation" for the considerably better mileage I'm getting now (~+10%) and the newfound 100% lack of former rare, yet nevertheless irritating low RPM sensor body heat soak hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms, is that I've got bad valve guides -- apparently escalating rapidly to both valves and guides: . . .your valve guides. . . . . .(probably) worn valve guides. . . . . .I'd also look at your valves and guides. . . I think he should look at his valves and guides. I'd surmise they are as loose as a female porn star's essential equipment. Are you now doubting your diagnosis, Greg? If so, ask GMoto how it works. He claims to fully understand “everything that has been posted” above -- and furthermore, he apparently knows how "decreasing the accuracy" of the sensor response can result in 10% better mileage. . . Why -- with either of you, there's no "mystery" about any o' this wotsoever -- is there?? You've quite evidently missed a great deal, Greg. I'm not about to repeat myself with a full explanation again. If you had any sincere interest at all in what you've been responding to (well north of 100 posts of your own by now, by someone else's count), whether you were prepared to comprehend it or not -- I reckon you'd have picked it up by the third or fourth time I repeated it. “Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.” - Samuel Clemens, author, essayist, humorist “Those who will not learn have no advantage over those who cannot learn.” - Cdr. Hatchracket, incorrigible road geez, bane of fools and all popular delusions If you'd been interested enough to notice the output comparison chart I posted previously that directly compares the resistance @ temp of both the OE and GM/NAPA Echlin sensors side-by-side at 10°C intervals, you'd have noticed that the GM/NAPA Echlin sensor CANNOT POSSIBLY result in a richer mixture -- UNLESS it more accurately matches the response of the thermistor output to head temp, AS NEEDED -- providing lower lag time in response to temp changes at the heads, thereby A MORE ACCURATE READ by the ECU, and therefore results in better overall mileage -- as I've been demonstrating consistently for over a month, and nearly 500 miles of actual results on the road. That's as much of YET ANOTHER repetition as I'm likely to give again, and I'm not inclined to spoon-feed anyone wot I've already covered so many different ways and so many times before. . . This thread clearly hasn't got much productive potential left. Though I've certainly learned a great deal that I didn't know before about the operation of head temp sensors in air cooled motors WRT FI control, and as a direct result, my Guzzi's come out of this with both considerably better mileage numbers AND better low RPM hot running road manners to show for my efforts, it seems that many have by now learned as much as they're capable of learning -- which (ever-so-predictably) turns out to be exactly the same as the supply of sincere interest in the topic at hand that they've brought here -- in a select few cases (yours included), that'd be NONE. I reckon I'm done with my experimenting for the most part, so I'm likely to drop out now unless anyone actually shows sincere interest and wants to discuss the topic like an adult. . . . . .[sigh]. . .
Recommended Posts