electronic throttle
in [Technical]
|
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:07 On 03/15/2010 09:22 AM, Rodan wrote: > "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote; > > dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems. > diesels have had control systems from day one. > have you any idea /why/ they're always used? > what would you have us do to them? > ______________________________________________________________ > > Please ask an experienced diesel mechanic that question. > Surely he/she will tell you that diesels have no throttle > plate to control, therefore no use for a throttle plate cable. how is it possible to be so clueless? you don't even know what you don't know! > > As you gain experience as a devil's advocate, please try > to keep your demurrals related to the subject at hand, > lest your sincere postings be mistaken for trolling. > > Rodan. > yeah, the advice of the clueless is always helpful. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim beam on 16 Mar 2010 00:08 On 03/15/2010 03:39 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. 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. >> >> first, lets understand e.t. functionality: >> >> 1. open the throttle when demanded >> 2. close throttle when demanded >> 3. allow "demand" to account for additional requirements like >> a. de-throttle on shifting for automatics, >> b. throttle appropriate to load at high demand [eg. full throttle at >> low rpms can choke an engine and significantly reduce output - thus >> de-throttle until revs support full open] >> >> if we analyze the above [which is not exhaustive, but representative], >> we find that in almost all situations, an e.t. needs to be more closed >> than demanded, but seldom, if ever, more open. > > I can think of two exceptions: Cruise control yes, cruise would be the facer. > and idle control have to revert o idle air control valves. > (for > engine loads like air conditioning). In addition, mechanical throttles > are often equipped with dash pots or other overrides to keep them from > slamming shut too fast. > > The idea behind electronic throttles is that with one actuator, all of > these functions can be implemented in software. i got that. the problem is the political dimension of how to implement it. -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Tony Harding on 16 Mar 2010 14:32 On 03/13/10 12:20, Bill Putney wrote: > Jim Warman wrote: > >> ...And it isn't a bus... it is a BUSS... > > Not really - bus and buss are alternate and acceptable spellings - just > like gauge and gage. Many FSM's spell it bus. Bus is in fact a way more > common spelling than buss in industry, including the military. Buss is > almost obsolete. Usage kind of wins out over time. Perhaps the Bussmann > Fuse company (now Cooper Bussmann) spelling is confusing you? I've been in the computer business since I joined IBM in '65. Seen untold 1,000's of references to a/the [system] bus, but have never seen it spelled with 2 esses. To me a "buss" is a kiss. Now to the dictionary...
From: Scott Dorsey on 16 Mar 2010 15:26 In article <hnois606p3(a)news1.newsguy.com>, Tony Harding <tharding(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >On 03/13/10 12:20, Bill Putney wrote: >> Jim Warman wrote: >> >>> ...And it isn't a bus... it is a BUSS... >> >> Not really - bus and buss are alternate and acceptable spellings - just >> like gauge and gage. Many FSM's spell it bus. Bus is in fact a way more >> common spelling than buss in industry, including the military. Buss is >> almost obsolete. Usage kind of wins out over time. Perhaps the Bussmann >> Fuse company (now Cooper Bussmann) spelling is confusing you? > >I've been in the computer business since I joined IBM in '65. Seen >untold 1,000's of references to a/the [system] bus, but have never seen >it spelled with 2 esses. To me a "buss" is a kiss. Now to the dictionary... Sure, but IBM always makes up silly words for things that nobody else uses, like IPL and DASD.... but yeah, it was official IBM policy to spell it "bus" and to call an external I/O bus a "channel." --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Dean Dark on 16 Mar 2010 15:55
On 16 Mar 2010 15:26:18 -0400, kludge(a)panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>I've been in the computer business since I joined IBM in '65. Seen >>untold 1,000's of references to a/the [system] bus, but have never seen >>it spelled with 2 esses. To me a "buss" is a kiss. Now to the dictionary... > >Sure, but IBM always makes up silly words for things that nobody else >uses, like IPL and DASD.... but yeah, it was official IBM policy to >spell it "bus" and to call an external I/O bus a "channel." Not just IBM. I've worked in that business since nineteen <mumble> canteen and "buss" was only ever used to refer to an electrical (power) bus (hence buss fuses), which is quite a different animal. I can't think of any computer maker who called his backplane a buss. |