Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:09:36 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.33] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b2) with ESMTP id 1290112 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:49:16 -0400 Received: from RWolf99@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id q.144.fcb3ec8 (3842) for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:49:12 -0400 (EDT) From: RWolf99@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <144.fcb3ec8.2a378407@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:49:11 EDT Subject: Capacitance Fuel Measurement X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 I understand that the problem (feature?) of getting highly inaccurate readings from a gasoline capacitance fuel probe that is submerged into a gas tank with a puddle of water in it is not unique to home-designed systems. This is characteristic of all of them due to the capacitance difference between gas and water. I wouldn't bother incorporating electronic features to remove that characteristic. Remove the water instead with your fuel drain. I might actually consider this a "feature", since you might be able to detect water in the tank that way. However, I suspect you'd have rough-running (or non-running) engine problems long before there's a big enough puddle to engage the probe. - Rob Wolf