Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Discuss MegaSquirt, VEMS and other non-free hardware and software here.
toalan
Wideband Wizard
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:53 am
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by toalan »

DelSolid wrote:
toalan wrote:You are saying that you can fully oxidize or reduce the gas in the sample chamber in a shorter time, much much shorter than anyone else claims about their own wideband controllers, while telling me that you are not violating the current limit?
This is a good question and one that cuts right to the meat of it so I asked the designer to address it since he will say it far clearer and more accurately than I could. Here is his response;
designer wrote:Nope, Everybody pumps the same flux of ions per unit of current. 2.54ma will completely offset the diffusion influx at a partial pressure of oxygen of 0.208bar.

When there is a step change in oxygen partial pressure at the diffusion orifice, the required current to maintain equilibrium changes almost immediately.

Starting with a measurement cell at Lambda 1.0, with Lambda 1.0 gas at the diffusion orifice, the net pump current is zero to maintain the Nernst voltage at 450mv.

If there is a step change in the gas at the diffusion orifice of +0.208bar of oxygen, the instantaneous current required to maintain the measurement cell at Lambda 1.0 (450mv at Nernst cell) is 2.54ma RFN. The speed that the Nernst cell responds at (dv/dt) is related to its temperature and the resistive load that it is driving. But, it starts responding almost immediately, given the diffusion time of oxygen @650C to the surface of the Nernst cell (less than 3ms) because of Bosch’s “planar design”.

The Nernst voltage may only drop from 450mv to 445mv within 3ms. But, if your system is clean enough to resolve such a small difference, you can use a high enough effective gain to get to the proper 2.54ma pump current much sooner than others. No need to go to 6ma or more. It’s all about how high a gain you can maintain without going unstable. A straight PID loop is probably not going to cut it. DSP is required. Imagine a dynamic FIR filter that adapts to the actual diffusion/Nernst latency, for example. (Or… be like Innovate and just let it go unstable, then measure the oscillation.)
It may be hard to get your head wrapped around it but there is a reason it has been in R&D since 2011. It requires precise, fast, clean signals to operate and a unique processing environment with critical timing control. And remember that the signals clean output was also noted by Helmut in his initial review. It's not just fast, it's also clean, and that took a lot of doing.
Do you have a measurement resistor for the pump current in your system? If not then the 2.54 ma figure I will accept on face value. If you do then, I contend that the 2.54ma figure is not the total pump current into the pump cell and is probably just the current across the measurement resistor which is not the total pump current into the pump cell.

If you can immediately transport exhaust gas into the sample chamber, the change in the feedback line (change from 450mv) is less than 3ms, I would say it is in the order of 1ms. Mounting the sensor directly facing the exhaust gas will allow the transport of exhaust gas into the sample chamber more quickly, though that type of mounting in a real exhaust system will quickly kill the sensor and give you inaccurate readings.
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

toalan wrote:Do you have a measurement resistor for the pump current in your system? If not then the 2.54 ma figure I will accept on face value. If you do then, I contend that the 2.54ma figure is not the total pump current into the pump cell and is probably just the current across the measurement resistor which is not the total pump current into the pump cell.
We do not have a measurement resistor in our system and you are correct that if one were present, the current flowing through it would not be the entirety of the total current into the pump cell because it neglects the current going through the cal resistor, which is in parallel to the measurement resistor.

But for a more detailed answer, I posed your question to the designer because again, he will explain it 100x better than I can, and he responded:
designer wrote: You are correct. I did not want to get into the whole “normalized” vs. actual current thing. The average ACTUAL current is about 3.75ma. This is the effect of paralleling the trim resistor with the 61.9ohm shunt. What Bosh is trying to get people to do is calculate the current as if there were no trim resistor. They are not super clear on this.

The pump current values quoted in the Bosch spec are NOT actual current values. They are INFERRED current values. Based on the voltage across the shunt resistor. The values given reflect what the current WOULD be if there were no trim resistor. i.e. only the 61.9R shunt. They want you to just assume the shunt is 61.9R and forget the actual current values. i.e. If the measured shunt voltage is 100mv, then dividing by 61.9R gives an INFERRED current of 1.616mA. But.. that is not the actual current.

The REAL shunt resistance includes the trim resistor, in parallel. Given the CJ110 formula of 1.053v/mA. We get a gain of 1053:1 We know the shunt value is somewhere around 40R. So assuming a nice round number like 25:1 for the gain of the internal amp, the nominal shunt resistance would be 1053 / 25 = 42.1R. 61.9R parallel with 131.6R gives a shunt resistance of 42.1R and 131.6R is nicely in the middle of the specified trim resistor value range of 30R to 300R

So, given a nominal trim resistance of 131.6R, we get an actual shunt resistance of 42.1R

So... to convert the ACTUAL current to the inferred current in the spec. We must multiply by the ratio of the actual shunt resistance over the spec resistance.

i.e. 42.1R / 61.9R = 0.680:1

The free air value in the Bosch Spec is 2.55mA of inferred current.

The actual value is 61.9R / actual shunt resistance x 2.55mA

in the typical case of shunt resistance = 42.1R, the actual measured current should be 3.749mA
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.
toalan
Wideband Wizard
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:53 am
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by toalan »

Ok, that clarifies things.

In the end you do not use a measurement resistor, and if you did; you know that the pump current across the measurement resistor is not the total pump current. In either case, I have no issue.
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

toalan wrote:Mounting the sensor directly facing the exhaust gas will allow the transport of exhaust gas into the sample chamber more quickly, though that type of mounting in a real exhaust system will quickly kill the sensor and give you inaccurate readings.
With that in mind, what are your thoughts regarding the Innovate "Heat-Sink Bung Extender #3729" and the Innovate "Exhaust Clamp #3728"? Please see the patent drawings describing their construction. Am I correct in inferring that it is your position that using either or these devices "will quickly kill the sensor and give you inaccurate readings", regardless of the controller brand used?
US07089811-20060815-D00010.png
US07089811-20060815-D00009.png
US07089811-20060815-D00008.png[/attachment [attachment=0]US07089811-20060815-D00007.png
Attachments
US07089811-20060815-D00007.png
US07089811-20060815-D00008.png
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.
toalan
Wideband Wizard
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:53 am
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by toalan »

I can not speak with confidence about the bung as I have never studied it or used it. The exhaust clamp depends on a venturi effect to move exhaust gases to the sensor, it is barely a venturi WRT textbook examples of a venturi or venturi based vacuum systems for CNC machining which I do alot of. The clamps efficiency at moving exhaust gas through the clamp is very limited, it is just enough to get samples to the sensor. The clamp is installed at the end of the exhaust system so pressure and temperatures are much lower there.

As for the bung, it looks like it also uses venturi effect so it's efficiency at moving gas through it is probably very limited, which in the context of O2 sensors is a good thing.
toalan
Wideband Wizard
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:53 am
Location: Toronto Canada
Contact:

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by toalan »

For for the bung if the exhaust hole is to the outside (atmosphere) rather than back into the exhaust stream, then it would be equivalent to your test rig, well more equivalent than not.
HelmutVonAutobahn
LQFP112 - Up with the play
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:10 am

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by HelmutVonAutobahn »

The "Heat-Sink Bung Extender"s are pretty well known to extend sensor life, at least, with Innovate controllers.

It also seems like they are driven more by hydrodynamic force than venturi effect.
User avatar
DelSolid
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:41 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by DelSolid »

HelmutVonAutobahn wrote:The "Heat-Sink Bung Extender"s are pretty well known to extend sensor life, at least, with Innovate controllers.

It also seems like they are driven more by hydrodynamic force than venturi effect.
I would think they would do a decent job of reducing some types of non gas-borne contaminants from reaching the sensor, plus the obvious sensor cooling properties if you have a hot sensor problem.
1969 Plymouth Satellite Wagon with a 440 & TF727
1929 Ford Roadster with a 2JZ and a T400, GT47, 1,100WHP, 240+ MPH
1930 Ford Roadster with a 42 Merc Flathead with triple Holley 94's. Major work in progress
I work for AEM but am not here schilling for them. Nothing I say is official.
baldur
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by baldur »

The old AEM gauges were horrible. The analog output was nowhere close to the specifications. The new LSU4.9 gauges seem to have that problem fixed.
baldur
QFP80 - Contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Widebands That You Would or Wouldn't Buy

Post by baldur »

Another thing, I installed one of those LSU4.9 AEM deals the other day and when the car is idling the wide band analog output oscillates at around 2Hz.
It looks like the analog output dips for 120ms every 500ms or so. It seems less prevalent at higher engine speeds, possibly because there it's operating further from stoich, or possibly for other reasons. Disclaimer: it's possible this is caused by an exhaust leak, but the frequency doesn't really match up with the engine speed.

Image
Image
Image
Post Reply