Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 386069 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:43:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.29; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02.01 201-2131-111-104-103-20040709) with ESMTP id <20040831034242.KAWT21895.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:42:42 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: MAP filter Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c48f0c$9cfc3390$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C48ED1.F09D5B90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C48ED1.F09D5B90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Al, been there, doing that with the RC thing - .04"/1mm and a cheap=20 generic plastic fuel filter work very well at all RPM and load ranges. I = can send you some datalogs if you wish. If the orifice is too small, the = ECU has to wait a few tenths of a second for an accurate MAP signal.=20 This causes a short period of enleanment and a momentary stumble. It's=20 actually the flow in and out of the capacitance that you're restricting, = not the extremely miniscule flow that the sensor diaphragm generates, if = any. I think most MAP sensors are strain gauges. You want=20 Manifold->R->C->MAP sensor as your sequence of parts. I've spent many=20 hours getting this right by trial and error and have extremely smooth=20 sensor response even at .01 second data logging intervals at 800 rpm = idle. =20 -Mike =20 Can't argue with success. Yes, you would not want a very small = restrictor upstream from the accumulator. My logic was telling me that the most effective pulse dampening with the least effect on response time would = be a smaller restrictor on the controller side. But logic doesn't always = match reality, and I suppose that option was one of your trials. =20 What application and ECU are you using? Do you suppose it is = independent of those things? =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C48ED1.F09D5B90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>

Al, been there, doing that with the RC thing - .04"/1mm and a cheap =

generic plastic fuel filter work very well at all RPM and load ranges. I =

can send you some datalogs if you wish. If the orifice is too small, the =

ECU has to wait a few tenths of a second for an accurate MAP signal. =

This causes a short period of enleanment and a momentary stumble. It's =

actually the flow in and out of the capacitance that you're restricting, =

not the extremely miniscule flow that the sensor diaphragm generates, if =

any. I think most MAP sensors are strain gauges. You want

Manifold->R->C->MAP sensor as your sequence of parts. I've spent many

hours getting this right by trial and error and have extremely smooth =

sensor response even at .01 second data logging intervals at 800 rpm = idle.

 

-Mike

 

Can’t = argue with success.  Yes, you would not want a very small restrictor upstream = from the accumulator.  My logic was telling me that the most effective = pulse dampening with the least effect on response time would be a smaller = restrictor on the controller side.  But logic doesn’t always match = reality, and I suppose that option was one of your trials.

 <= /font>

What = application and ECU are you using?  Do you suppose it is independent of those = things?

 <= /font>

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C48ED1.F09D5B90--