10% Ethanol, Narrow and Wide Band Tuning

[Sporty 48]

MAybe it is just a tweak, maybe it requires more thought. 
The concern is about ethanol in the fuel, here in Maine 10%.
Does ethanol change Stoich by that much that we in ethanol states must tune differently?
Does it change the ideal CLB (sensor voltage, millivolts)?
Certainly a wide band is in my future, should I be thinking sooner vs later considering just ethanol?

[Steve Cole]

You need to think of how it works before doing anything. All the O2 sensors are just that O2 sensors NOT AFR sensors. In simple terms:

O2 Sensor= sensor that read oxygen in the exhaust and oxygen in the air and generates a voltage based on those readings.

Narrow Band, Broad Band or Wide Band they are ALL reading oxygen NOT AFR. I think if more people understood this things would be easier. Now once you know the O2 levels you can convert that to a Lambda or AFR reading PROVIDED you know the Stoichiometric value of the fuel being used. So in order for you to use any meter that measures AFR with an O2 sensor of any type you must calibrate that meter to do the conversion to get you to AFR using the proper stoichiometric value. So you first must know the fuel then you must know what the meter was calibrated for.

I hope this makes sense, for your to understand. With all that in mind fuel here in the USA varies the stoichiometric value from ~ 14.4 - 14.68 provided the station moves a fair amount of fuel. Older stations do not have mixers in the under ground tank which allow the fuel to separate. Getting fuel from one of those stations can real screw things up if it's been sitting too long. So yes you do need to tune to the fuel your going to use, but running Closed Loop will cover up for normal variations in the fuel here in the USA.

[Sporty 48]

You need to think of how it works before doing anything. All the O2 sensors are just that O2 sensors NOT AFR sensors. In simple terms:

O2 Sensor= sensor that read oxygen in the exhaust and oxygen in the air and generates a voltage based on those readings.

Narrow Band, Broad Band or Wide Band they are ALL reading oxygen NOT AFR. I think if more people understood this things would be easier. Now once you know the O2 levels you can convert that to a Lambda or AFR reading PROVIDED you know the Stoichiometric value of the fuel being used. So in order for you to use any meter that measures AFR with an O2 sensor of any type you must calibrate that meter to do the conversion to get you to AFR using the proper stoichiometric value. So you first must know the fuel then you must know what the meter was calibrated for.

I hope this makes sense, for your to understand. With all that in mind fuel here in the USA varies the stoichiometric value from ~ 14.4 - 14.68 provided the station moves a fair amount of fuel. Older stations do not have mixers in the under ground tank which allow the fuel to separate. Getting fuel from one of those stations can real screw things up if it's been sitting too long. So yes you do need to tune to the fuel your going to use, but running Closed Loop will cover up for normal variations in the fuel here in the USA.

Thanks.

The narrow band is off-no oxygen, on-oxygen present, a sensor switch, that I understand. Voltage can change the sensitivity of an oxygen value within a small range.

The widebands, broadbands differ, not sure I understand much more than they indicate at a wider range to measure lambda or AFR. i would imagine that sensor voltage, wideband instrument specifications including calibration and fuel composition are the key variables to acceptable, accurate readings.

[Steve Cole]

You need to think of how it works before doing anything. All the O2 sensors are just that O2 sensors NOT AFR sensors. In simple terms:

O2 Sensor= sensor that read oxygen in the exhaust and oxygen in the air and generates a voltage based on those readings.

Narrow Band, Broad Band or Wide Band they are ALL reading oxygen NOT AFR. I think if more people understood this things would be easier. Now once you know the O2 levels you can convert that to a Lambda or AFR reading PROVIDED you know the Stoichiometric value of the fuel being used. So in order for you to use any meter that measures AFR with an O2 sensor of any type you must calibrate that meter to do the conversion to get you to AFR using the proper stoichiometric value. So you first must know the fuel then you must know what the meter was calibrated for.

I hope this makes sense, for your to understand. With all that in mind fuel here in the USA varies the stoichiometric value from ~ 14.4 - 14.68 provided the station moves a fair amount of fuel. Older stations do not have mixers in the under ground tank which allow the fuel to separate. Getting fuel from one of those stations can real screw things up if it's been sitting too long. So yes you do need to tune to the fuel your going to use, but running Closed Loop will cover up for normal variations in the fuel here in the USA.

Thanks.

The narrow band is off-no oxygen, on-oxygen present, a sensor switch, that I understand. Voltage can change the sensitivity of an oxygen value within a small range.

The above statement is completely wrong, thus the reason I am trying to spell it out


The widebands, broadbands differ, not sure I understand much more than they indicate at a wider range to measure lambda or AFR. i would imagine that sensor voltage, wideband instrument specifications including calibration and fuel composition are the key variables to acceptable, accurate readings.

Again, ALL O2 sensors measure oxygen they do NOT switch, they are NOT Off/On devices. The range each works in is different as is the voltage they produce.

Narrow Band = measure in a narrow range of ~ .969 - 1.024 Lambda
Broad Band = measure in a Broad Range of ~ .800 - 1.70 Lambda
Wide Band = measure in a Wide Range of ~ .400 - 25.0 Lambda

Each type sensor has it's own accuracy and so do the gauges that measure them and you have to add them together to really know what the overall accuracy is.

[Tsani]

No, that is not what Steve said. The ECM considers the O2 Sensor online  or offline  depending on weather or not the voltage is above a certain value. The amount of oxygen within the exhaust sample is what changes the voltage reading to the ECM. It is not a switch per se but more like a gauge that the ECM reads.

From Wikipedia:
The sensor does not actually measure oxygen concentration, but rather the difference between the amount of oxygen in the exhaust gas and the amount of oxygen in air. Rich mixture causes an oxygen demand. This demand causes a voltage to build up, due to transportation of oxygen ions through the sensor layer. Lean mixture causes low voltage, since there is an oxygen excess.

[Sporty 48]

Therefore:
"Broad Band = measure in a Broad Range of ~ .800 - 1.70 Lambda"
Does .80-1.7 lambda = AFR 18.4-8.6?

[Steve Cole]

The range expressed in AFR varies based on the fuel being used. This is just why I only used Lambda! Do not forget about understanding the sensors total range and the range they are accurate in. These are two different things that are very important.

[hrdtail78]

Certainly a wide band is in my future, should I be thinking sooner vs later considering just ethanol?

Let me know the true wideband sensor you look at and purchase.  The DTT stuff that is all the rage and is the "best kept secrete" is only promising +-.5.  The 14.68 the "swingers" are so afraid of, is something they can be getting if they target 14.2.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to say Chris is wrong.  +-.5 is all we can expect?  He blames it on the ECM's program.  I'll stick with: this engine design isn't that good.  Maybe that is why DTT calls out 13-14 best cruise.  When it doesn't take a lot of post about you as a tuner to shoot for 14.2 in OL.

[Sporty 48]

Certainly a wide band is in my future, should I be thinking sooner vs later considering just ethanol?

Let me know the true wideband sensor you look at and purchase.  The DTT stuff that is all the rage and is the "best kept secrete" is only promising +-.5.  The 14.68 the "swingers" are so afraid of, is something they can be getting if they target 14.2.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not trying to say Chris is wrong.  +-.5 is all we can expect?  He blames it on the ECM's program.  I'll stick with: this engine design isn't that good.  Maybe that is why DTT calls out 13-14 best cruise.  When it doesn't take a lot of post about you as a tuner to shoot for 14.2 in OL.

Hrdtail78,
By DTT do you mean: http://www.daytona-sensors.com/WEGO3.html ?
I want to understand what you mean about "swingers," Chris, who?, and "When it doesn't take a lot of post about you as a tuner to shoot for 14.2 in OL." Would you please explain?
As far as tuners, am sticking with TTS Mastertune until i get a second bike, but pretty much decided on Power Vision with the wideband option because thinking turbo.
Currently as a naturally aspirated (NA), with Throttle Position(TPS) tune, the narrow band is enough for me, a TT(Tavern to Tavern) guy.
Cannot complain at all about TTS since it is helping me learn tuning, which is a fun, hugely difficult challenge.
Thanks!

[hrdtail78]

yes, Daytona twin tech's stuff.  Chris is the man over there.

Just remember that no matter what sensor or tuning device you use.  All have limitations and tolerances.  These need to known and understood.  AND getting a good signal at the sensor is still key.  If you are not getting a good reading at idle because of reversion.  Don't think you are going to put in a broad or wide band in and get good readings.

[Herko]

Not sure here either where DTT's stated .5 tolerance is directed.
I have run DTT TS/WEGO, Innovate LC-1, Dynojet stack, all simultaneously in a common manifold with lab test gas(es). These particular three units were within .1 of each other...maybe a bounce of one of them to .2 off but then back again. But never have seen .5 or anything near that. So, IME from actual tests performed here, the tolerance of the affordable DTT TS/WEGO shows to be very accurate.

A point of note, I am pretty anal about maintaining a vigilance for sensor drift and overall condition. A good way to maintain sensor accuracy without lab gas etc, is to simply and regularly put new sensors online in your tuning equipment. If buying cross-referenced sensors from your local auto parts store, avoid buying the sensor(s) that have been to an auto repair shop and back to the parts store for a return. To many unknowns about the true condition of a returned sensor.

BTW, a sensor can check fine on the (subjective IMO) free-air cal but have a drift quotient when put under "load" such as when reading in the 13.0 to 14.0 AFR range for example.

[hrdtail78]

In the twin scan directions. He is blaming the -+\.5. On the Delphi system. Not the sensor.

[rbabos]

yes, Daytona twin tech's stuff.  Chris is the man over there.

If you are not getting a good reading at idle because of reversion.  Don't think you are going to put in a broad or wide band in and get good readings.

Ok, work with me here. As you know my WegoTwinscan is coming so.... Thing is there is reversion and egr in play, that's a given. Now we know each cyl needs a specific ratio to run right whether idle or light load, all the way up. I was hoping to find out which cyl isn't getting what it needs to be optimum with this system and bring the ve's more in sinc for the demands of each.  It's damn close but there's always room for improvement.  If what you are saying is fact, why did I piss more money away on this thing? Talk to me.
Ron

[wurk_truk]

You HAVE to tune out the EGR.  Two ways to accomplish this, IMHO...  One is to try and use the TTS egr tools and see how that works, the other would me an open loop tune where you manually experiment to relieve the issue.  With your pipe and build, I feel it will be advantageous to YOU, Ron, to learn how to manually manipulate the whole system while in open loop.  Then...  you should have a WAY better understanding of how things should work together once I talk you back in trying CL.  Some folks don't realize that you are one smart dude overall.   You DO wear a blinder or two from the 113, and it will be OUR job to get you past that.  If you manually massage the VEs to get rid of most of that EGR effect, you will be able to SEE it with this program, instead of simply praying the TTS did its job.  We WILL see the AFRs settle down and play nice.  THEN... we both will be able to go back to CL and know where issues are, how much EGR to input, etc to clean everything back up.

Sometimes you wanna argue instead of listen, so I spanked you into this, to get that bike of yours 'spot on'.

I just burnt up my Dremel cutting the ribs out of the primary, so quit yur bithchin!



Jason, I think Chris is fudging a bit so he has an 'out' when folks bitch at him.  Once we get rolling, I will back up my own readings with the LC1s.

[Steve Cole]

According to the Bosch specifications for the LSU sensor it will drift based on temperature, pressure and fuel mixture. They supply the proper correction curves with the sensor data to be used to remove the drift but the unit would have to measure these at the exact same time as the reading is being taken. There is a temperature curve and two pressure/mixture curves. If the mixture is <1 Lambda you use one curve and >1 Lambda you use the other curve. So with the proper measurements being taken the sensor output can be corrected so that you meet the Bosch specifications. Don't do the measurements and apply the proper corrections and it's any ones guess as to what your seeing at any one time. I've given the specification documents to Wurk_Truk so he can post them if he likes.

[wurk_truk]

Thanks Steve.  And... truth be told, I think all of us, even Steve, likes the Innovate products, like the LC1s, because they do NOT cut off the Bosch trimming resistor.  My beef, tho, is I can't get those puppes in a nice data trace to lock down whats happening...  c'mon Steve, get caught up and give us that analog TTS!!!

[Steve Cole]

I like and use units from ECM as they do what they say. Here is a link to a nice portable unit.

http://ecm-co.com/product.asp?lpro This is used for quick checks both here and at HD.

This one is what we and HD use on our DJ dyno's http://ecm-co.com/product.asp?a-djetm
HD is the one that got them to develop this unit

In the calibration lab this one is used http://ecm-co.com/product.asp?5220

[hrdtail78]

Page 12, step 6.  Also on the page is where they recommend not to it the cumbersome way.

https://www.box.com/s/43c7cd0f1b65adcdc054

[strokerjlk]

Not sure here either where DTT's stated .5 tolerance is directed.
I have run DTT TS/WEGO, Innovate LC-1, Dynojet stack, all simultaneously in a common manifold with lab test gas(es). These particular three units were within .1 of each other...maybe a bounce of one of them to .2 off but then back again. But never have seen .5 or anything near that. So, IME from actual tests performed here, the tolerance of the affordable DTT TS/WEGO shows to be very accurate.

A point of note, I am pretty anal about maintaining a vigilance for sensor drift and overall condition. A good way to maintain sensor accuracy without lab gas etc, is to simply and regularly put new sensors online in your tuning equipment. If buying cross-referenced sensors from your local auto parts store, avoid buying the sensor(s) that have been to an auto repair shop and back to the parts store for a return. To many unknowns about the true condition of a returned sensor.

BTW, a sensor can check fine on the (subjective IMO) free-air cal but have a drift quotient when put under "load" such as when reading in the 13.0 to 14.0 AFR range for example.

good stuff John. I still have the results.
taking coyote's advice ,so I cant read the BS from the  mixer and his boys.
but based on what was re quoted and your post it seems there is some doubt.
looks within range to me
F       R
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.8
12.9,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.7
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
"Firmware ID","Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Program Rev 2.00 CFS 2007"
"Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Data Logged","10/26/2010 6:53:10 PM"
"Comment","AFR W. 13.0 CAL GAS"

[BVHOG]

Not sure here either where DTT's stated .5 tolerance is directed.
I have run DTT TS/WEGO, Innovate LC-1, Dynojet stack, all simultaneously in a common manifold with lab test gas(es). These particular three units were within .1 of each other...maybe a bounce of one of them to .2 off but then back again. But never have seen .5 or anything near that. So, IME from actual tests performed here, the tolerance of the affordable DTT TS/WEGO shows to be very accurate.

A point of note, I am pretty anal about maintaining a vigilance for sensor drift and overall condition. A good way to maintain sensor accuracy without lab gas etc, is to simply and regularly put new sensors online in your tuning equipment. If buying cross-referenced sensors from your local auto parts store, avoid buying the sensor(s) that have been to an auto repair shop and back to the parts store for a return. To many unknowns about the true condition of a returned sensor.

BTW, a sensor can check fine on the (subjective IMO) free-air cal but have a drift quotient when put under "load" such as when reading in the 13.0 to 14.0 AFR range for example.

good stuff John. I still have the results.
taking coyote's advice ,so I cant read the BS from the  mixer and his boys.
but based on what was re quoted and your post it seems there is some doubt.
looks within range to me
F       R
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.8
12.9,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.8
12.8,12.7
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
12.9,12.9
"Firmware ID","Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Program Rev 2.00 CFS 2007"
"Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Data Logged","10/26/2010 6:53:10 PM"
"Comment","AFR W. 13.0 CAL GAS"

Next you will be told how they can no way be accurate because the test was not using them as intended and the temp and pressure are not the same yada yada yada   I can't wait to see what negative replies we have for this proven accuracy.

[Rider57]

Looks stable to me. What are the numbers on the cal gas? interested in THC, CO.

[strokerjlk]

13.9
"Engine Control System","Fuel Injection with WEGO"
"Data Logging Interval","Baro Pres"
.352,29.2
"Elapsed Time","Engine RPM","MAP","TPS","Status Flags","VSS","AFR Command","Front AFR Sensor","Rear AFR Sensor"
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
.35,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
.7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1.06,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1.41,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1.76,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
2.11,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
2.46,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
2.82,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
3.17,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
3.52,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
3.87,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
4.22,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
4.58,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
4.93,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
5.28,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
5.63,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
5.98,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
6.34,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
6.69,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
7.04,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
7.39,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
7.74,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
8.1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
8.45,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
8.8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
9.15,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
9.5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
9.86,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
10.21,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
10.56,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0

skip from 10.56 to 1208.06


1208.06,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1208.42,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1208.77,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1209.12,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1209.47,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1209.82,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1210.18,0,29,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1210.53,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1210.88,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1211.23,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1211.58,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1211.94,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1212.29,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1212.64,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1212.99,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1213.34,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1213.7,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1214.05,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1214.4,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1214.75,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1215.1,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1215.46,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1215.81,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1216.16,0,29,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1216.51,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1216.86,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1217.22,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1217.57,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1217.92,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1218.27,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1218.62,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1218.98,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1219.33,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1219.68,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1220.03,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1220.38,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1220.74,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1221.09,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1221.44,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1221.79,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1222.14,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1222.5,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1222.85,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1223.2,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1223.55,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1223.9,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1224.26,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1224.61,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1224.96,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1225.31,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1225.66,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1226.02,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1226.37,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1226.72,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1227.07,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1227.42,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1227.78,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1228.13,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1228.48,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1228.83,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1229.18,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1229.54,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1229.89,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1230.24,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1230.59,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1230.94,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1231.3,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1231.65,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1232,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1232.35,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1232.7,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1233.06,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.8,13.8
1233.41,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1233.76,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1234.11,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1234.46,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1234.82,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1235.17,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1235.52,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1235.87,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.8,13.8
1236.22,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1236.58,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1236.93,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1237.28,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1237.63,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1237.98,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1238.34,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1238.69,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1239.04,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1239.39,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1239.74,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1240.1,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1240.45,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1240.8,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1241.15,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1241.5,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1241.86,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1242.21,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1242.56,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1242.91,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1243.26,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1243.62,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1243.97,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1244.32,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1244.67,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1245.02,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1245.38,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1245.73,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1246.08,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1246.43,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1246.78,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1247.14,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1247.49,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1247.84,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1248.19,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.8,13.9
1248.54,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1248.9,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1249.25,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1249.6,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1249.95,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.8
1250.3,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1250.66,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1251.01,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1251.36,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1251.71,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1252.06,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1252.42,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1252.77,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1253.12,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1253.47,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1253.82,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1254.18,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1254.53,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1254.88,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1255.23,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1255.58,0,29.1,1.8,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1255.94,0,29.1,36.8,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1256.29,0,29.1,40,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1256.64,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1256.99,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1257.34,0,29.1,25.9,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1257.7,0,29.1,43.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1258.05,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1258.4,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1258.75,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1259.1,0,29.1,33.6,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1259.46,0,29.1,46.4,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1259.81,0,29.1,46.4,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1260.16,0,29.1,78.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1260.51,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1260.86,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1261.22,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1261.57,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1261.92,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1262.27,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1262.62,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1262.98,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1263.33,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1263.68,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1264.03,0,29.1,98.2,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1264.38,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1264.74,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1265.09,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1265.44,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1265.79,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1266.14,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1266.5,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
1266.85,0,29.1,0,2,0,13.3,13.9,13.9
"Firmware ID","Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Program Rev 2.00 CFS 2007"
"Daytona Sensors Twin Scan II Data Logged","10/26/2010 7:09:35 PM"
"Comment","IR 0.87 CAL GAS"

[lonewolf]

Am I seeing that data right that it is all at 0 rpm?

[hrdtail78]

"this proven accuracy"

Proof that the sensor is accruate.  I'm not and can't touch Herko's test.  Why would Chris state a .5+- accruacy of the delphi system?  Maybe sensor placement, maybe style of the vtwin........  It can be a number of things. What I would like to get down to is:  with the things we have at our disposal.  Whats the best way to go about things.  We, as tuners, can only work with what we got.  The twin scan kit is great, but has some linitation and with it needs to have those limitations addressed when using it for tuning.  Just like every other tool you use for a job. 

[Steve Cole]

Next you will be told how they can no way be accurate because the test was not using them as intended and the temp and pressure are not the same yada yada yada   I can't wait to see what negative replies we have for this proven accuracy.

First off it looks like a base test and the readings are stable on a gas that we have no information about. No test pressure information, No temperature information and there is very little in the way of anything concerning the test accuracy. It's a good start but in no way would this be considered a test for accuracy by anyone who knows just a little about running testing.

What one can say is on this day with a gas of "X" it read this but the test conditions are unknown as that information was not recorded with any test equipment at the time of the test.

[wurk_truk]

That ECM 5220 is $10k!!!!!

I think for most of us here, the very first thing we need to concentrate on is sensor placement.  After seeing that pipe/bung at the show...  I am convinced.  Nothing to do with CL or OL... but accuracy for whatever tools we use.  I AM going to beat on this drum for a bit, but I can't think of ANY problems, involving sampling, if we use the Herko Blocks correctly.  Does anyone think this is not so?

Also, on a CL bike, wouldn't a GOOD test of the bung being used by the NBs be this:  Pull the NBs, install BBs like Twin Scan, and test in a map area that that is open loop.  Then jump over to the Herko blocks and test the AFR using them.  If the two tests fairly matched, the bung placement would seem to be OK, but if there is a noticeable difference, reworking the bungs would be in order.  This sound right?

[rbabos]

That ECM 5220 is $10k!!!!!

I think for most of us here, the very first thing we need to concentrate on is sensor placement.  After seeing that pipe/bung at the show...  I am convinced.  Nothing to do with CL or OL... but accuracy for whatever tools we use.  I AM going to beat on this drum for a bit, but I can't think of ANY problems, involving sampling, if we use the Herko Blocks correctly.  Does anyone think this is not so?

Also, on a CL bike, wouldn't a GOOD test of the bung being used by the NBs be this:  Pull the NBs, install BBs like Twin Scan, and test in a map area that that is open loop.  Then jump over to the Herko blocks and test the AFR using them.  If the two tests fairly matched, the bung placement would seem to be OK, but if there is a noticeable difference, reworking the bungs would be in order.  This sound right?

Sounds good to me.
Ron

[wurk_truk]

I am quoting Glens from this thread...

    Member
    Posts: 3094
        View Profile
        Email
        Personal Message (Offline)

Re: O2 Sensors, why do they do that
« Reply #23 on: Tuesday, October 25, 2011. 01:28:27 AM. »


I like the mental image of the sensor essentially being a little battery.  When it's up to temperature and the oxygen differential across (inside/outside) the element is sufficiently within range, the sensor will make DC voltage, varying in proportion to the oxygen differential.

One thing that maybe belongs here in this thread is a general overview of the broadband sensor systems.  The sensing elements themselves are the same as our stock narrowbands, so they have the same voltage output characteristics.  Their innate switching speed will be generally the same (switching speed is the rate at which they are capable of changing output voltage in response to changing O2 differentials).  The thing about these sensor systems that few folk seem to appreciate is that the sensors have an additional "mechanism" which allows air to be "pumped" into/out_of the back (outside the "pipe") of the sensing element, altering the O2 differential, and this aspect is manipulated by their own closed-loop controller which is what puts out the 0-5V signal.  We never see the 0-1V sensing element signal which that controller uses internally.

In exactly the same way as our ECM varies the injector duty cycles to cause the O2 sensor to "switch" back and forth across the set output voltage, the broadband controller varies the amount of O2 being "pumped" in/out the backside of the element, causing the element itself to "switch" back and forth across a set output voltage.  The controller derives its own output voltage (0-5V) based on what it needed to do with the "outside/backside air pump" to get the sensing element itself to act like it was, on average, immersed in the result of a stoichiometric fuel-burn exhaust stream with equal pressure both sides of the element.

That all takes time, and if it's chasing a moving target, like the output of our ECM-controlled injectors provide, it's likely-as-not going to take even more time.

But time itself isn't the deal-killer.  What is is the unknown pressure differential between the two sides of the sensing element.  If there's a differential pressure of anything other than zero, the controller cannot know that.  But it would care, because it's measuring the current it uses in the "pump" to cause the sensing element to switch, and this is its main criteria for putting out a signal (0-5v).  If there's an excess of oxygen (excess from what would be present in the result of a stoich burn) inside the pipe, the controller has to cause excess oxygen to be pumped into the backside of the element in order to reach the proper equilibrium.  If there's an oxygen deficiency (from what would be present in the result of a stoich burn) inside the pipe, the controller has to cause excess oxygen to be pumped out of the backside of the element in order to reach the proper equilibrium.

What happens when the pressures are different on the two sides of the element?  The controller is going to have to pump oxygen one way or the other to make up for that, but it won't know it's doing so for that reason.  It'll think the exhaust is the result of either a richer or leaner burn instead.  Now if there were pressure transducers both inside and outside the pipe, right at the sensor, the controller could poll them and take the readings into consideration when it's developing its output signal (0-5V), and that output signal would be much more pertinent to the task at hand.

Obviously, the temperature of the sensing element would be valuable information for the controller, as well.  But between the two, pressure and temperature, the pressure is going to be the larger error-causing factor when its differential value is only assumed by the controller.

And don't forget that the controller is going to need at least a couple of "switches" resulting from its reference-oxygen pumping action before it can draw any conclusions, and this takes time.  The time factor could be minimized if the sensor's closed-loop controller had intimate communication with the engine's injector controller and knew what was going on in that respect at every instance.  Without that information (and, of course, a bigger, faster "brain"!) you could wind up with a situation anywhere between the two systems being in perfect sync or perfectly out of sync.  And this will prove, in the long run, to be the underlying reason the broadband sensor systems are "slower" than the stock sensors.  It's not that either sensing element is faster than the other (when new, and within design limitations, naturally),  its that the one is standalone and the other is part of a complete closed-loop system of its own.

So what would happen if a dyno operator was using a broadband [system] along with a device to vacuum-pull a sample from the pipe to and across the sensor tip, but he did not include the sensor itself in the same amount of clean-air vacuum, leaving it instead exposed to "outside" air pressure?  Would his readings have a "built in" skew one way or the other?

Steve, would this be true?  On all dynos, vacuum is employed.

[glens]

Steve may well choose to leave that question unanswered.  Though I'd like to see what he has to say I'll not be disappointed if he foregoes comment, either.

I must state that I'd had the "pumping" direction wrong.  The "pump" evidently works on the sample side of the sensing element, not the reference side.  Apart from that glaring error and the necessary descriptive swaps of "rich"/"lean" that result from it, the information should be entirely pertinent.

It would be a rather "simple" test for you to undertake with the equipment you have on hand if you've got the time:  Use one of the broadbands in one of your fancy new bungs and the other in one of your shiny new Herko blocks on the same pipe.  "Free air" calibrate both sensors the same immediately before installation, take note of the readings at various loads/speeds, pull the sensors and check the "free air" calibration then swap them (maintaining sensor/controller pairing).  Repeat the readings at (hopefully the same) various loads, and maybe even check the "free air" calibration one last time after pulling the sensors.  To be very complete, naturally, you'd repeat the test with the sensor/controller pairing swapped to cover all bases.

Of course you'll have to assume that both your custom pipe bung/location and Herko block installation are providing for "good" samples otherwise.  A comparison of the data should indicate either a trend or the lack of one.  At some loading conditions the pipe should be under greater internal pressure than external at your custom bung location, at some greater external pressure than internal.  And I'd assume your Herko block sample would always be at nearly the same pressure differential across its sensor.

You may be able to readily see the effects of pressure differential changes in some of the readings but determine that they're inconsequential at the "AFR" the sensors are "reading" (hahaha).  By the way, it may be best to use a straight "13.5" or so across the board in your fuel table for this, to eliminate that variable.  It wouldn't be so important for this test that the VEs in use were precisely correct because you're merely comparing sensor readings, though it'd be nice if that could be another variable removed from the "equation".

[wurk_truk]

You just gave the 'bung test'  any difference would be showing whether a welded bung is properly functioning.  I was planning on this test using independent LC1s to test bung location.  Throw one LC1 in each hole and they better match, or bung is worthless.

MY thought is since reference air has NO contact with exhaust air (inside of the O2 sensor), and simply reading oxygen content that it doesn't matter.  EVERY DYNO on the face of the earth uses vacuum to pull across the sensor.  One would have to have sufficient vacuum and not too much, to mimic what happens when the O2 is under pressure from exhaust.   Pressure, vacuum... same difference.  Moving oxygen molecules flowing past the sensor head.

DJ used to use a diaphram pump that pulled 15 in of mercury.  Now they use an air operated pump that pulls 35liters per minute.

As long as the reference molecules are in the 'free world' I feel everything is doing its job.  After all, these WERE designed to read FLOWING oxygen molecules -vs- a more 'stationary' set of oxygen molecules for reference, right?

[glens]

I'm not so sure that any difference would show the bung location to be problematic.  The bung location might be perfect but you're pulling too much vacuum on the sample side, as opposed to the reference side, of the "reference" sensor.  And both the bung and the vacuum setup could be wrong...

Not that a "free air calibration" indicates how well the sensor/controller will operate nearer stoich samples anyway (all else being equal), but the "free air" is at exactly the same pressure both sides of the sensing element at the time the reading is taken while that being the case in "usual" operation is probably unlikely.  So there's that discrepancy already.

I think that, ideally, if you're going to "pull" sample gas past the sensor you should "pull" exactly the same amount of reference air past it, too.  Either that or measure the pressures both sides of the sensing element and factor the delta into the controller's reporting scheme.  That sounds about like what the "true" widebands do, and in part would account for the greater cost of those systems.

If you perform the test I outlined above, I'd be grateful if you'd share the results.

[hrdtail78]

Would closing the vents on my lowers cause a pressure drop on my front O2 outside pressure reading?

[wurk_truk]

True wide band, like ECM 5220 has only one pressure transducer.

[glens]

True wide band, like ECM 5220 has only one pressure transducer.

That's all that's needed to determine the pressure delta across the sensor.  Think "gauge" pressure, not absolute pressure.

Would closing the vents on my lowers cause a pressure drop on my front O2 outside pressure reading?

Maybe.  Maybe it's the other way around.  Can you make a 60 MPH wind in your dyno room to check it out?

[wurk_truk]

Well, Glen...  I surely will try this out and report back.  Always GOOD to learn things.