Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: A concept for boost enrichment...


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1344
Date:
RE: A concept for boost enrichment...


depending on the turbo setup,some combos will see full boost sooner than others,could the timing change be made adjustable,user selectable parameters?

__________________

09 busa.????? now what....still got what it takes.......!

I got what you need...!
www.poweredbyford.com

www.marc@poweredbyford.com

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

also why i tested both sensors and made a spreadsheet to compare

Where is that spreadsheet avail ?

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1344
Date:

shure petrik,i will post it or do you want it in a e-mail attachment?  That was one of my things that i needed to know when i first started to want to implement boost fueling in the ecu..I ahve had to do this kind of comparison when turbochargeing car engines,using different standalones and sensors,trying to troubleshoot fueling problems,especially with fast xfi system on a twin turbo 400ci small block ford.obtw,it is using a gen1 sensor?is that ok?

__________________

09 busa.????? now what....still got what it takes.......!

I got what you need...!
www.poweredbyford.com

www.marc@poweredbyford.com

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

Has anyone made any decent power (>350 hp) on a gen2 turbo controlled via ecu reflashing?

There are so few gen 2 turbo bikes out there...I have only seen one on suzukihayabusa.org that was making decent power and they seem to have gone silent.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

turbogixxer sold his bike, and the other guy I think hasn't ben back to the dyno with 1:1, 60 psi fuel pressure, and different turbo.

Im hoping to head to RCC around xmas time with mine, though all i have is stock rods and pistons, and still debating how far to turn it up in the name of testing the stock injectors LOL



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Would appreciate some help from anyone knowing GNU compiler or help in getting renesas c-compiler license to make progress on e.g. boostfuel ...

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=99460&p=3&topicID=33343601

-- Edited by PetriK on Sunday 10th of January 2010 07:38:46 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

This is for you gen1 turbo owners. This bike is tuned mainly with ECUeditor and secondaries are running from a very crude one dimensional enrichmend box.


www.streetbomber.com





__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Greg did his tuning session getting 270hp with boostfuel module. During the tuning session it was figured out that the response to fuel adjustments is not linear with the boostfuel module.

The story is in full here:
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=99460&p=3&topicID=32305205

Lesson learned from this excersise is that there is an opportunity tweak more fuel out of the stock fuel system by using injector balance setting 50/50 for TPS area 80-100. Based on testing this will also make the tuning response of the boostfuel module more linear. It looks like the 20/80 limits the boostfuel power levels to around 270hp (depending on AFR, ie. BFSC)

With 20/80 setting its very difficult get more than 75% of the fuel delivered, or that would require in addition to the boostmap also adding fuel to the TPS. Anyhow its possible to get 100% of injector duty cycle out with the boostfuel module with 50/50 setting. With this setting its possible to get around 1/3 more power out of the system bringing the total hp up to 360hp when using 1:1 regulator.

Below is what I come up based on numbers from greg and using oscilloscope to track the injector pulse width. Someone needs to prove that stock regulator is good to make a 300hp turbo with an upgraded pump (like Bosch unit which is a direct fit, exept power connector) without a raising rate regulator.


injbalance_boostfuel_comparison.jpg



-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 30th of January 2010 06:58:37 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

Is there any detriment to running the 50/50 split for all turbo applications? I understand that there may be benefit for normally aspirated bikes. but I would imagine the drivability benefit would be less with the turbo application.

This was, the injector duty cycle displayed would in fact be total injector duty cycle.



Also, PetriK, I believe I have identified a supplier who can modify an injector to make it 08 drop in(other than the connector) that will flow ~ 460 cc/min. Unfortunately, I do not have a gen2 bike and have no need to have them.

Will the boost fueling module allow changing just one set of the injectors to larger? Seems it would be ok to do so.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

petrik has code for this already :)

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Yep, the secondary injector size feature is untested - but secondaries size change seems to be an option, not changing primaries though.

Dont really understand the possible detriment. 50/50 means that both injectors run the same cycle up to 100%. Running 20/80 means that secondaries are 100% well before primaries.

The number 50/50 is not limiting total flow, its rather injector balancing number that always equals to 100.

If someone can modify injector, then would be interesting to know the flow pattern. The secondaries shoots in the middle of the secondaries plate - so too narrow pattern is not necessarily a very good thing.









__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

Do we know the flow pattern of the stock injectors?


PetriK wrote:

This is for you gen1 turbo owners. This bike is tuned mainly with ECUeditor and secondaries are running from a very crude one dimensional enrichmend box.


PetriK,  did that bike use the method you previously described of plumbing the SAP sensor into the airbox?

-- Edited by sportbikeryder on Saturday 30th of January 2010 08:16:27 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:


No - a locally made/designed controller was used in this one. A lot of difficulties with limited resolution, but tuning TPS map was really the key to make the bike working and getting decent power out of that.



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:


I recall seeing the spec for this injector family, have not flowed gen2 by myself yet. The comment was related to the fact that enlargening the holes just may change the flow pattern to be too narrow or even directional and causing splashes back to airbox.

The initial injector balancing pattern is propably not only due to the power advantage of positioning the injectors upper but also avoid splashes back to airbox at lower RPMs.



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Greg asked for the boostcontroller, the one below is what we are planning to use in the project bike - this one is 24ohm, 12V. The busa pair is 21ohm, 12V so this should work well.

Pierburg PA6-GF30, should be available from any parts store selling VAG (Volkswagen / Audi) parts. Should be one of the common parts for any Audi turbos, propably used in many Volvos too.

Other part the GM3bar sensor is already discussed earlier, I guess.

pierburg-1.jpg


pierburg-2.jpg

3portDiagram.gif




-- Edited by PetriK on Sunday 7th of February 2010 05:09:40 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

this one i think?  Are you saying it should work plugging directly into PAIR, meaning doesn't need a solenoid, if so I will buy one to test with.
http://www.aboveallmotorwerks.com/Products/PIERBURG-Turbo-Solenoid-Valve__PIERBURG_9155936_S.aspx



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

oops i think i posted wrong one looks like 2 port

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

I tested the pierburg valve for a short while and it seems to work with a straight connection to pair connector - opens and closes at the set pressure.

Obviously not an in depth test - but a promising start.

rgds, petrik

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

What we have today in ee2.1 code is boost limits per gear and ignition retard by gear. We can leave it to that for some time now and maybe in the future to look into building a real boost controller that gives more linear response to throttle even with larger turbos.

Maybe something like the below - a map that defines boost solenoid duty cycle at any given RPM/TPS setting.


BaseWGDCmap.gif

Comments - feedback ?

http://www.cobbtuning.com/info/?ID=3482



-- Edited by PetriK on Sunday 7th of February 2010 08:19:36 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

Petrik, got a chance to do some testing this evening with ECU boost control :)

I had a choice to either drag the bike out to the barn where my tools and air compressor are, or rig up an air tank with a regulator on it to be the supply source.  I basically have an air supply feeding a 1/8 npt air solenoid that is controlled by your software petrik, then on the output of the solenoid i am feeding the top side of the wastegate, gm 3 bar map sensor, and a mechanical boost gauge for me to watch.  Engine is off, and just monitoring boost pressure on the top of the gate.  I have a small air leak somewhere, but a leak of some sort is needed so that the wastegate can relieve itself, i think with the adjustable exhaust leak i have on the solenoid you can tune how quickly the boost bleeds back off when you downshift to a lower gear, making it leak off quicker will make the solenoid have to run more continous to maintain pressure.

Anyhow here are 2 videos, 1st with lower pressure, 2nd with higher pressures, there is some overshoot, but its hard to say how actual behavior on the road would be as I would be just using the manifold for air source vs 30 psi coming from an air tank, it would have longer to build up and probably overshoot less.

Anyhow, man for a first crack this seems to work pretty darn good!

Video 1
www.boostbysmith.com/Videos/ecuboost.wmv

Video 2
www.boostbysmith.com/Videos/ecuboost2.wmv

Thanks for all you do sir, the busa ecu flashing community wouldn't exist without you.

Greg



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

Looking good greg...videos wouldn't download though.

Are you the only one with a Turbo Gen 2 bike??? Doesn't seem like anyone else is tuning turbos.

-- Edited by sportbikeryder on Tuesday 9th of February 2010 02:42:00 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

whats the video say?  Egarms said the same thing, i have watched them on all 3 laptops here, try right click and save as.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 741
Date:

Greg is the solenoid connected directely to the pair connector? thats pretty acurate. 

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

smithabusa wrote:

whats the video say?  Egarms said the same thing, i have watched them on all 3 laptops here, try right click and save as.




 Worked now....just went to a page not found error. Maybe it was a bandwidth thing, only allowing one connection at a time.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

busa2001 wrote:

Greg is the solenoid connected directely to the pair connector? thats pretty acurate. 




 yeppers :)



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

Here ya go put on you tube for ya :)

 

Video 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO3IJjoQm28

 

Video 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrvjct_abME



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

looks great Greg.

This is controlled similar to how an AMS1000 is controlled. It is shooting for a target backside gate pressure.

In the bike, it will be targeting an intake pressure which may require some sort of damping in order to prevent alot of surging / hunting for the boost target. Since there will be a few degrees of freedom in the controol to command loop rather than just targeting a single pressure (gate backside pressure will control gate, gate will control turbine, which is powered by the engine and powers the compressor which in turn provides manifold pressure....)

Hopefully it will still work in a predictable manner. The MSBC-1 sort of worked in this manner if configured to do so.

-- Edited by sportbikeryder on Tuesday 9th of February 2010 08:50:39 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

yep, just 1 solenoid control, at the moment you can play with the bleed setting, the less bleed off the easier it is (less solenoid cycling) to maintain pressure on the gate, but takes some time to bleed that pressure back off when going down in gears.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

During the past months this concept of boosfuel has proven to work on several gen busas. The concept has been frozen now for a couple of months to get validated results and feedback from users.

When tuning today one gen2 with some modes 0.7bar boost when raising the boost to 0.8bar we come to realize tht changing boost only by 0.1bar the net effect on small TPS openings was quite radical leading to making the bike running 1-1.5 points richer AFR. At full throttle the net effect was minimal.

This led us thinking about the boostfuel concept. The initial concept is using the Yoshbox fuel enrichment for boost enrichment by allowing the boost sensor to add fuel to the internal ecu variable that otherwise would be used for Yoshbox TPS map compensation.

Today I then read the Yoshbox compensation code and actually it looks like yoshbox is not adding a % of fuel (like claimed so many) its rather a direct add to the calculated fuelpulse. So the first thing to fix in the thinking is that Yoshbox is adding a fixed amount rather than a multiplier. This concept works extremely well with Nitrous fuel enrichment as there nitrous flow is to be added on top of the all motor.

The glitch is in a way in the boost mapping. The way how I understand turbo operations - but I am not an expert.... The volymetric efficiency of increased boost is not a direct add to the all motor engine, its rather a multiplier. In practise the all motor engine sets a baseline which will be then is multiplied by the turbine efficiency. This means that if VE is 60% at small TPS openings, then with turbine efficiency 2 the fuelling needed would be 2x60%. If VE is 110% and turbine efficiency is 2 then fhe fuelling needed would be 2x110%.

With the current way of fuelling we set a map that is not based on VE x Turbine efficiency but rather VE + Turbine efficiency. All this means one big thing to the tuners. The mapping for a fixed pressure works easily with the current boostfuel control, but if the user changes the max boost pressure then there may be a need for full remapping the boost fuelling for new turbine efficiency map.

So the key question here is: What would happen if instead of adding to the pulsewidth we would multiply the pulsewidt ? Would the tuning for different pressures be easier for particularly part throttle areas without the need for remapping the full boostfuel for new turbine efficiency chart ?

This is now a new area to me as I am not so familiar with turbo tuning, so any comments are appreciated !




__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

what type of tps conditions did he see this?  we made quite a few pulls at different hp levels at part throttle etc and i didnt see any huge swings in AFR, i paid particular attention to that as with a stock arm i assume i will be in and out of the throttle and part throttle a lot.  I thought it worked like we are now proposing so a little lost LOL

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

PetriK, I am not quite following your thought on "+" vs "X". Is this not taken care of with teh multiple manifold pressure columns in the boost fuel compensation map? If the fueling were to be modified to be a multiplier, I am not quite sure how this would work if the map was still also based on indiidual linear maps for the pressure compensation.

Are you referring to making the compensation map 2D rather than 3D?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

Ill start with saying i have had a few beers, and been reading this post.....bad combination probably LOL

Anyhow, when you say we are adding on top of the tps table, what determines the percent addition actually equals?

What I mean is, for random number sake, a 10% increase in the boostfuel table, the way i thought it was working was whatever fueling we received on a stock motor at current conditions, now gets 10% more fuel. So 5 ms pulsewidth now = 5.5 ms pulsewidth.

If we say we add 10% or we multiply what was there by 110% is there a difference? Or am I out in left field?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Completely mapped bike, then raised pressure. At 100% TPS full boost the mapping was perfect. At 30% TPS the boostfuel needed to be retuned - this is quite natural as with increased boost the pressure also raises much faster.

This is a sample what it looks like with the current logic:
100%TPS maps, 8000-9000rpm: TPS:180 + BOOST:60 = total 240
30% TPS maps, 8000-9000rpm: TPS:80 + BOOST:60 = total 140

So 240 is what it should be, but 140 is way too rich.

Alternatively if VE map is multiplied then the results more or less adjust according to the all motor base VE map.
100%TPS maps, 8000-9000rpm: TPS:180 * (1+ BOOST:33%) = total 240
30% TPS maps, 8000-9000rpm: TPS:80 * (1+BOOST:33%) = total 105

But like said this is entering a new territory for me and the current system works already perfectly.

Its only a thinking process as if we use e.g. boostcontrol solenoid to modifyt the pressure then the system will not be operating on a fixed boost and therefore we need to find a linear response for the tuning regardless of the level of the initial boost the bike is tuned for ...



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

well if its easy to recode it like you suggest, should only be part throttle stuff that would change right?  And it would go leaner then where it is, only one way to find out, if they are on dyno still are they wanting to give it a try?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1247
Date:

PetriK, are you saying that the current fueling is "base + absolute number" and the proposed new fueling would be "base + percentage of base"

If so, then I agree that the "base + percentage of base" is the way to go.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

pretty sure thats what is being said, and was how we origonally thought it worked

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

The issue here is that with partial throttle openings I am not sure if the percentage of base is enough.

The way how we looked at the concept in beginning was "absolute ms add to fuelpulse based on pressure". This is how its now implemented in a way relative to 100% throttle opening.

I need to reread the code and do some testing as I have forgotten and even start to doubt myself, its about an year since initially developed this concept.

The reason why this is becoming interesting is the need to implement boost controller and with varying boost and varying tps position we are getting added complexity.



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1344
Date:

when i was working on the gen1 boostfueling, seb always said to have a base map, with  a corrosponding multiplier table of the same resolution...?

__________________

09 busa.????? now what....still got what it takes.......!

I got what you need...!
www.poweredbyford.com

www.marc@poweredbyford.com

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1344
Date:

final pulsewidth=(pw*(base and + or - of multiplier), so you can have + or - multiplication in all the cells, so that fuel can be varied eventhough rpm/tps load cell does not match...? just trying to help, i am no expert...



__________________

09 busa.????? now what....still got what it takes.......!

I got what you need...!
www.poweredbyford.com

www.marc@poweredbyford.com

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Yep, along those lines - need to find time for some testing. Now tied up with accounting for a few weeks.



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

How does this approach to boostfuel look to you ? (Idea from a member of this board).

I.e.
1) Define a duty cycle for each gear, the duty cycle will be applied after a gate pressure. Before reaching the gate pressure the duty cycle is 0%. Between gate pressure and max boost pressure the duty cycle is applied.
2) Define a max boost. If max boost pressure is reached, then duty cycle is automatically 100%



boostfuel110.jpg

boostfuel_lines.jpg


-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 8th of May 2010 07:49:25 AM

-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 8th of May 2010 01:09:26 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

are we assuming normally open or normally closed solenoid?  My preference would be normally closed solenoid, that way if wiring to it fails no boost is added.

if max boost is reached shouldn't it shut off and go to 0% if assuming a normally closed solenoid?

Not sure never tried like suggested, but Jussi should be on the dyno wednesday of next week i think right?  Be a good time to test it and see results first hand :)

-- Edited by smithabusa on Saturday 8th of May 2010 12:28:53 PM

-- Edited by smithabusa on Saturday 8th of May 2010 12:29:34 PM

-- Edited by smithabusa on Saturday 8th of May 2010 12:30:58 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:


Greg (S), I will implement an overboost limit to boostfuel which will supposedly cut both fuel and ignition - so we dont need to consider bleed systems that are not fast enough.



__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

petrik are you talking about normally closed or open solenoid?

Having 0% duty cycle wouldn't effect spool time if we are talking about a normally closed solenoid. And 100% duty cycle would add a ton of boost, so either I am thinking backwards or we are talking about a normally open solenoid operation.

I personally like normally closed for the safet if it became unplugged or wiring failed that it would add no boost.

As a side note, the solenoid that Jussi has from me is a normally closed solenoid.  Inlet and outlet ports are only connected when solenoid is energized.

-- Edited by smithabusa on Saturday 8th of May 2010 03:56:15 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

Boost control solenoids seem to usually have 3 ports so normally open or closed depends how it is connected to pressure lines ? Ecueditor.com allows one to choose if the operation is normally open or normally connected. (I have another 3 port solenoid here for J if needed.)

Anyhow the way how solenoid is connected should be able to open the dump very fast. If a bleed is used to vent the pressure to the atmosphere then that kind of operation may be too slow for boost controller. Where as if the solenoid is used to control on top of the wastegate like in picture it will control the boost fast as it has high pressure controlled but ramp pressure slower. This is the preferred action to ensure fast enough boost control ?

Overboost limit feature should handle the disconnected hoses - so that should not be considered as a factor here ?



-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 8th of May 2010 04:09:15 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

threre are 3 ports

In
Out
Exhaust

On a normally closed solenoid

no power and ground = out and exhaust connected to each other
power and ground = inlet and outlet are connected to each other.

inlet connected to a boost source
outlet connected to top of wastegate
exhaust in this case will be venting to atmosphere

This is how jussi's solenoid would be setup

so 0 duty cycle applied = no boost added
100% duty cycle = lots of boost



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 953
Date:

i see what u mean now, either connecting boost source to inlet or exhaust port could work depending on code configuration.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

The ecueditor.com 2.2 is now latest tested version.

First untested version published as Ecueditor.com version 2.3 for seeing the boost control user interface alive.

http://www.ecueditor.com




-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 8th of May 2010 09:04:18 PM

-- Edited by PetriK on Saturday 8th of May 2010 09:04:38 PM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 546
Date:

Overboost protection is a great idea, thinking about many motors esp with internal wastegates that could have been saved ..
Quote from your post at ORG
New features going to testing:
- Overboost setting that sets ignition and fuelcut when overboost limit is reached
- Gear based boost control, i.e. boost control duty cycle setting per gear, e.g. 10% for gear1,... 100% for gear 6.
- Gear based max boost limit , after reaching this pressure 100% duty cycle will be applied to set a maximum boost pressure for each gear
- Gate pressure per gear, i.e. the duty cycle of boost solenoid will be 0% until reaching the gate pressure to enable faster boost pressure build up

"after reaching this pressure 100% duty cycle will be applied to set a maximum boost pressure for each gear"
Not sure i get what you mean here , will you call the % figure that makes your maximum boost level 100% or do you intend applying 100% DC

"the duty cycle of boost solenoid will be 0% until reaching the gate pressure to enable faster boost pressure build up"
That would work in reverse, 100% DC would put equal pressure on the top and bottom of the wastegate as pressure builds holding the wastegate closed untill preset gate pressure is reached .... Watch here for boost spikes if initiating PWM does not release pressure quick enough
Also from memory, my settings from a similar setup with 6 psi base pressure were 30% =~10 psi, and 80%=~20psi total boost , low DC numbers did not do much and it became progressively responsive as DC increased




__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2338
Date:

As the solenoid can be defined to two different methods:
1) Normally closed
2) Normally open
Therefore I am referring 100% when least boost pressure is produced and 0% as when most boost pressure is produced, i.e. in a way duty cycle % determines how much boost is vented to atmosphere. So my selecting NO or NC the user can change e.g. 10% duty to 90% duty in solenoid operations - but in program it will show 10%.

Anyhow if there is a clearer or more commonly used definition, lets do this differently.

I think this document is very good in explaining different configurations that one may want to consider:
http://www.turbosmartonline.com/index.php?s=file_download&id=289

http://www.turbosmartonline.com/index.php?id=241


-- Edited by PetriK on Sunday 9th of May 2010 06:09:40 AM

__________________

When asking a question, you can also consider posting it to facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/ecueditorcom

«First  <  1 2 3 4 57  >  Last»  | Page of 7  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard