Measure fuel consumption from injector signal?

mike wrote:
> I don't want to know what the web thinks about
> the switch, my competence or anything else

Well you have supplied information about the
switch and about your competence so that is what gets
commented on - The rest is a guessing game


> EXCEPT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
> INJECTOR PULSE WIDTH AND FUEL FLOW.
> If you don't have that info, it might be helpful NOT to press that
> "send" key.

Not all injectors work the same
You aren't going to come up with a universal
device for Pre-OBDII cars that converts the
injector signal into miles per gallon


However as a general proposition the duration
of the pulse will correlate to fuel consumption
so you should be able to tell if consumption increases
or decreases. But not very accurately by how much.


> By that method, the MPG
> (claimed by the user) went from
> 34 to 57 with the gizmo turned on. Do YOU believe that???


I believe if you start with a ordinary car that gets 57 mpg,
you can rig it with a switch so that when you flip the switch
you get 34 mpg

but no I don't believe you can improve mileage that much with
something that can be controlled by a switch.
Increasing efficiency that much would have to involve a redesign
of the engine and perhaps even the drive train.


>
> Sometimes, an indirect measurement can tell you what you need to know
> with less experimental error and in much less time.
>
> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time
> non-invasively. No more,

Does "non-invasively" means not disconnecting anything or taking
anything apart?


> no less...
> If what I've proposed won't work, what would it take to fix it up?
> Telling me I'm full of crap won't help me fix it up.
> It's much more helpful to put yourself in the frame of mind of
> an educator
> and teach.

Measuring how much fuel is used for a specific
repeatable drive cycle seems like the simplest
way to get what you say you want.

jim wrote:
> mike wrote:
>> I don't want to know what the web thinks about
>> the switch, my competence or anything else
>
> Well you have supplied information about the
> switch and about your competence so that is what gets
> commented on - The rest is a guessing game
>
>
>> EXCEPT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
>> INJECTOR PULSE WIDTH AND FUEL FLOW.
>> If you don't have that info, it might be helpful NOT to press that
>> "send" key.
>
> Not all injectors work the same

Can you give some details on the differences?
This whole thread has been about that issue.
But no specifics have been disclosed.

> You aren't going to come up with a universal
> device for Pre-OBDII cars that converts the
> injector signal into miles per gallon

I think that might be likely, but I'm still interested
in the error terms and being all I can be.
>
>
> However as a general proposition the duration
> of the pulse will correlate to fuel consumption
> so you should be able to tell if consumption increases
> or decreases. But not very accurately by how much.

That's what I'm counting on. But if I'm gonna write some
code, it seems prudent to be as accurate as I know how.
>
>
>> By that method, the MPG
>> (claimed by the user) went from
>> 34 to 57 with the gizmo turned on. Do YOU believe that???
>
>
> I believe if you start with a ordinary car that gets 57 mpg,
> you can rig it with a switch so that when you flip the switch
> you get 34 mpg
>
> but no I don't believe you can improve mileage that much with
> something that can be controlled by a switch.
> Increasing efficiency that much would have to involve a redesign
> of the engine and perhaps even the drive train.

You're being more generous that I am. 57MPG average repeatable
sustained is preposterous for
a 94 Honda with a stock 34MPG...no, I don't know which model, but I do
know it wasn't an Insight.
>
>
>> Sometimes, an indirect measurement can tell you what you need to know
>> with less experimental error and in much less time.
>>
>> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time
>> non-invasively. No more,
>
> Does "non-invasively" means not disconnecting anything or taking
> anything apart?

I'm gonna clip a current transformer on the wire to an injector.

>
>
>> no less...
>> If what I've proposed won't work, what would it take to fix it up?
>> Telling me I'm full of crap won't help me fix it up.
>> It's much more helpful to put yourself in the frame of mind of
>> an educator
>> and teach.
>
> Measuring how much fuel is used for a specific
> repeatable drive cycle seems like the simplest
> way to get what you say you want.

I agree, in theory.
Practice is somewhat different.
At 57MPG it takes a lot of miles to rack up enough consumption
to accurately determine by reading the pump when you fill up.

On Jul 21, 1:08*pm, mike > wrote:
> ben91932 wrote:
> > Are you of a news-group or message board concerning fuel economy?
> > Ben
>
> Not sure how that helps anybody.
> Not even sure what you're asking.
>
> But, If you're asking what I think you are, the answer is NO!

Wow... that was harsh.
I used to belong to several mpg groups, but gave up on them as most of
the guys were pie-in-the-sky free energy guys.
They had either put 2 ounces of acetone in the gas or a magnet on the
fuel line and claimed wild results.
A few guys had good results with aero mods on Metro's and claimed 55 -
60 mpg which passed the sniff test.
I am ever leery of someone who has a new product that they 'arent
allowed' to talk about, as they mostly seem to
be tin foil hat types who use those silly hydrogen generators or the
tornado intake swirleygig or a top secret 100 mpg carburetor
that the oil companies would kill for...
Good luck with your project.. it would be cool if you pull it off.
The only way I have ever had any luck with repeatable mpg measurements
was on a dyno with super accurate throttle instrumentation and small
fuel runs.

Ben

mike wrote:
-snip-
> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time
> non-invasively. No more,
> no less...


perhaps measuring actual fuel flow might be one approach:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...ers-d_493.html

removing injector variables, unless it's a looped rail system.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"AMuzi" > wrote in message
...
> mike wrote:
> -snip-
>> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time non-invasively.
>> No more,
>> no less...
>
>
> perhaps measuring actual fuel flow might be one approach:
>
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...ers-d_493.html
>
> removing injector variables, unless it's a looped rail system.
>
For what he wants, this is all a waste of time and money. Seriously,
essentially all of this mileage improvement crap
is just a scam.
If he wants a REAL answer, take the car and put it on a
dynomometer.
Dont fart around with cheap fixes that will tell you nothing.

hls wrote:
>
> "AMuzi" > wrote in message
> ...
>> mike wrote:
>> -snip-
>>> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time
>>> non-invasively. No more,
>>> no less...
>>
>>
>> perhaps measuring actual fuel flow might be one approach:
>>
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...ers-d_493.html
>>
>> removing injector variables, unless it's a looped rail system.
>>
> For what he wants, this is all a waste of time and money. Seriously,
> essentially all of this mileage improvement crap
> is just a scam.
> If he wants a REAL answer, take the car and put it on a
> dynomometer.
> Dont fart around with cheap fixes that will tell you nothing.
>


That's the problem The OP wants cheap and easy. Neither of which will
work on the vehicle in question.
Total lack of understanding of the actual systems involved and the "I
can't discuss much about it" BS.

Is it possible to design and build a car that gets very high mileage
(say 50-75 mpg.)
Yes. However it will be a vehicle like a Smart with very limited
abilities and not something that is real practical outside of a large
metropolitan area. Basically an enclosed moped.

--
Steve W.

Steve W. wrote:
> hls wrote:
>>
>> "AMuzi" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> mike wrote:
>>> -snip-
>>>> What I want is a method to measure fuel flow in real time
>>>> non-invasively. No more,
>>>> no less...
>>>
>>>
>>> perhaps measuring actual fuel flow might be one approach:
>>>
>>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fl...ers-d_493.html
>>>
>>> removing injector variables, unless it's a looped rail system.
>>>
>> For what he wants, this is all a waste of time and money. Seriously,
>> essentially all of this mileage improvement crap
>> is just a scam.
>> If he wants a REAL answer, take the car and put it on a
>> dynomometer.
>> Dont fart around with cheap fixes that will tell you nothing.
>>
>
>
> That's the problem The OP wants cheap and easy. Neither of which will
> work on the vehicle in question.
> Total lack of understanding of the actual systems involved and the "I
> can't discuss much about it" BS.

Don't forget the total lack of help from the newsgroup in understanding
the actual systems involved.

>
> Is it possible to design and build a car that gets very high mileage
> (say 50-75 mpg.)
> Yes. However it will be a vehicle like a Smart with very limited
> abilities and not something that is real practical outside of a large
> metropolitan area. Basically an enclosed moped.
>

I talked to a woman at a garage sale today. She was driving a Smart Car.
She said she gets 38MPG.

I wouldn't mind driving a smart car type vehicle, but I'd expect better
gas mileage for my trouble.

At 38MPG, Why bother.

mike wrote:
> Steve W. wrote:

>>
>> Is it possible to design and build a car that gets very high mileage
>> (say 50-75 mpg.)
>> Yes. However it will be a vehicle like a Smart with very limited
>> abilities and not something that is real practical outside of a large
>> metropolitan area. Basically an enclosed moped.
>>
>
> I talked to a woman at a garage sale today. She was driving a Smart Car.
> She said she gets 38MPG.
>
> I wouldn't mind driving a smart car type vehicle, but I'd expect better
> gas mileage for my trouble.
>
> At 38MPG, Why bother.

I have tried them out and wouldn't drive one unless I absolutely had no
choice.

Being a FF/EMT who carries a full gear bag, Med Kit, and some rescue
gear in the vehicle at all times. Plus using it to tow the various
trailers and the "fabulous" roads I usually drive on, I figure a Smart
would probably last about a week.
Just not a practical vehicle for my wife or myself.

What I would love to see would be a vehicle like an S-Blazer/Trailblazer
sized rig with a diesel in it.
I have driven a couple of the Jeep Liberties with the CRD engine. They
were OK but I'm not real fond of the vehicle as a whole.

With some of the calls I have been on it would be great to have a
vehicle that could set there idling for 3-4 hours without sucking my
wallet dry!

Steve W. > wrote:
>
>With some of the calls I have been on it would be great to have a
>vehicle that could set there idling for 3-4 hours without sucking my
>wallet dry!

What you want is a Jeep hybrid. Plus you get plenty of available electric
power in the field along with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."