electronic throttle
in [Technical]
|
From: clare on 8 Mar 2010 19:59 On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:04:53 -0000, "DAS" <nobody(a)spam.co.uk> wrote: >News, thx for link. According to this the dodginess of my memory is >certainly confirmed. > >Let's see what clare(a)snyder says. In my interpretation gelling would imply >the precipitation of wax. > Correct. Most common cause of fuel gelling (or jelling) Truckers often add a "ant-gel" (not french for anti-freeze) additive - Cheapskates just throw in a bit of gasoline. Most over-the-road diesel trucks have a fuel heater and circulate heated fuel back into the tanks to keep them from setting up in cold weather. >DAS > >To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
From: clare on 8 Mar 2010 20:00 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:12:54 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote: >clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:05:07 -0500, News <News(a)Groups.Name> wrote: >> >>> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:10:20 -0800, "theref" <theref(a)seanet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:99adnZJAetdSdQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>> bjn wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:38:19 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>>>> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic throttle is a >>>>>>>>> problem, and that brakes, transmissions and ignition kill switches can >>>>>>>>> all simultaneously fail causing a driver to lose control, it might be >>>>>>>>> worth auto manufacturers of all stripes to adopt a slightly different >>>>>>>>> implementation of electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical >>>>>>>>> reasons, but to shut the idiots up... >>>>>>>> The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public of the >>>>>>>> impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any time they >>>>>>>> decide to do it depending on political or monetary motivation. IOW - >>>>>>>> the people and companies who do a good job of designing are going to get >>>>>>>> punished anyway (unless they know how to play the game in a corrupt >>>>>>>> system). There are people in our society whose life goal is to make >>>>>>>> sure that that happens. >>>>>>> The problem is that now lawyers, politicians and news media are driving >>>>>>> (no >>>>>>> pun intended) solution. The way I see them talking, cars will wind up >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> a fail-safe throttle that is more fail-safe than the controls of a jumbo >>>>>>> passenger jet. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite certainly >>>>>> contributed in getting to where we're at! >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went to idle >>>>>> about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year ago. Aircraft >>>>>> was totaled but there were no major injuries. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch. >>>>>> >>>>>> JT >>>>> I believe that was traced to icing in the fuel system. SOP now is to cycle >>>>> fuel after prolonged low temp at altitude. >>>> Icing on a JET????????? >>>> Don't think so. >>> >>> Absolutely. Determined to be cause of BA 777 landing short at Heathrow. >> >> OK - I looked it up. Technically this was fuel jelling - common with >> diesel fuel in arctic conditions. In the case of the Rolls turbines, >> it was a design fault in the fuel pre-heater unit which resulted in a >> mandatory replacement with a redesigned heat exchanger. >> >> Different than the carb icing on a prop plane. > > >Good point. > >I like to read the whole technical report as opposed to what was >published in a paper. > >JT > >(Who remembers years ago a VW beetle icing up - A little "dry" gas took >care of the problem quickly) I had my 49 beetle vapour lock and ice up on the same one-day trip with weather in the high 80's F ( and roughly 100% humidity)
From: clare on 8 Mar 2010 20:05 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:07:16 -0500, News <News(a)Group.Name> wrote: >Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >>> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:05:07 -0500, News <News(a)Groups.Name> wrote: >>> >>>> clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 11:10:20 -0800, "theref" <theref(a)seanet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <GrumpyOne(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in >>>>>> message news:99adnZJAetdSdQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>>>>> bjn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:38:19 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>>>>>>> if you buy all this fear-mongering idiocy that electronic >>>>>>>>>> throttle is a problem, and that brakes, transmissions and >>>>>>>>>> ignition kill switches can all simultaneously fail causing a >>>>>>>>>> driver to lose control, it might be worth auto manufacturers of >>>>>>>>>> all stripes to adopt a slightly different implementation of >>>>>>>>>> electronic throttle [e.t.] - if not for mechanical reasons, but >>>>>>>>>> to shut the idiots up... >>>>>>>>> The lawyers, politicians, and news media can convince the public >>>>>>>>> of the impossible (failure even a totally fail safe system) any >>>>>>>>> time they decide to do it depending on political or monetary >>>>>>>>> motivation. IOW - the people and companies who do a good job of >>>>>>>>> designing are going to get punished anyway (unless they know how >>>>>>>>> to play the game in a corrupt system). There are people in our >>>>>>>>> society whose life goal is to make sure that that happens. >>>>>>>> The problem is that now lawyers, politicians and news media are >>>>>>>> driving (no >>>>>>>> pun intended) solution. The way I see them talking, cars will >>>>>>>> wind up with >>>>>>>> a fail-safe throttle that is more fail-safe than the controls of >>>>>>>> a jumbo >>>>>>>> passenger jet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure about this but for sure... The causes you cite >>>>>>> certainly contributed in getting to where we're at! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, don't forget that little incident when a B-777's engines went >>>>>>> to idle about a minute before touch down at Heathrow about a year >>>>>>> ago. Aircraft was totaled but there were no major injuries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cause has been assessed to software/computer glitch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JT >>>>>> I believe that was traced to icing in the fuel system. SOP now is >>>>>> to cycle fuel after prolonged low temp at altitude. >>>>> Icing on a JET????????? >>>>> Don't think so. >>>> >>>> Absolutely. Determined to be cause of BA 777 landing short at Heathrow. >>> >>> OK - I looked it up. Technically this was fuel jelling - common with >>> diesel fuel in arctic conditions. In the case of the Rolls turbines, >>> it was a design fault in the fuel pre-heater unit which resulted in a >>> mandatory replacement with a redesigned heat exchanger. >>> >>> Different than the carb icing on a prop plane. >> >> >> Good point. >> >> I like to read the whole technical report as opposed to what was >> published in a paper. > > >Have at it: > >http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/1_2010_g_ymmm.cfm > >Advise when able. Looks like they suspect water in the fuel, but it does not fully rule out Gelling (the fuel WAS at -10C) because they only identified "probable" causual factors.
From: clare on 8 Mar 2010 20:13 On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:55:13 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >David Skelton wrote: > >> All three had the "air bypass" valve too. >> >> I do not know what you mean with "ISC system". >> >> BTW, I have known some discreet electronic components that have failed due >> to being used too near the maximun demand for too long, would you not >> consider that to be 'wearing out' ?? > >Hah! Yeah - like LED assembly replacements for incandescents that you >buy off of ebay that use LED's designed for maximum current of X, and in >the assembly they each dissipate 1.3X so they can advertise brightness >and compete on an even footing with their competition that is doing the >same thing. So what if the LED's fail in 6 months - they have your >money and you already gave them rave reviews. You Do know that pulsed LEDs CAN run at significantly over rated current almost indefinitely, providing much brighter output than normal, with no visible flicker?? As long as the LED is not caused or allowed to OVERHEAT, it will last virtually forever. Jim Weir of RST Engineering has demonstrated this and provides some neat "overdriver" circuits.
From: Dave on 8 Mar 2010 20:27
"jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message news:0fOdnb-8aZVkBwnWnZ2dnUVZ_oIAAAAA(a)speakeasy.net... > On 03/07/2010 07:13 PM, Dave wrote: >> >> "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:F4udnUySrZ3GZQ7WnZ2dnUVZ_vQAAAAA(a)speakeasy.net... >>> On 03/07/2010 09:52 AM, Bill Putney wrote: >>>> jim beam wrote: >>>>> On 03/07/2010 08:16 AM, Bill Putney wrote: >>>>>> dsi1 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I certainly believe you. You can get a feel for the amount of >>>>>>> reserve >>>>>>> vacuum boost on your car by simply repeatedly pressing down on the >>>>>>> brakes without starting your engine. If your brakes are working >>>>>>> properly, you'll feel the pedal getting firmer until you'll only be >>>>>>> able to move the brake pedal a couple of inches of deflection. At >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> point, you'll have used up all your vacuum reserve. I figure that >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> should be able to get around 3 stabs at the brakes with mostly full >>>>>>> boost. This means you'll only get maybe two chances for full braking >>>>>>> after the initial attempt at braking. That's the breaks I guess. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> My recollection is that boost is noticeably diminished after the >>>>>> second >>>>>> stab, greatly diminished by the third stab - engine overpowers brakes >>>>>> for most common vehicles. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> maybe if the engine is stopped and vacuum gone. but if the engine is >>>>> running, you still have vacuum... >>>> >>>> Then give me some vacuum numbers for idle, and in gear light, moderate, >>>> and heavy acceleration for a typical engine. If you can show that >>>> moderate to heavy acceleration vacuum levels are anywhere near idle >>>> vacuum levels, then I'll concede. >>> >>> dude, for the typical vacuum diaphragm, you only need the smallest >>> vacuum to significantly boost brake pressure. do the math. >>> >> >> You have never driven a vehicle with vacuum actuated wipers, have you? > > no. did they leak? > Notoriously....But the point I was making is that vacuum wipers slow to a crawl or even stop with ANY opening of the throttle. Even when working as designed. And yes, I'm old enough to know. |