engine oil temp sensor

[dlaing]

BTW Sorry Ratchet for not believing in your cooling finned heat sink idea, at first. Sometimes a good idea takes a while to 'sink' in

[Dan M]

Onward toward 90.

 

 

I just like the idea that a tech topic has gone this far. Even the often volatile cush drive thread only made half as many pages. All this without politics or even one picture of a nipple.

[GuzziMoto]

Here's the thing. I've always subscribed to the fact that the best positive contact should be made when sensing temp. That is how everything that I've ever serviced BG (before guzzi) was designed to operate. I run a shop that specializes in emission repair. Accurate fuel injection is kinda my thing. I thought if I could improve fueling on this stab in the dark system, I'd give it a try. Following that train of thought the goo seemed like the right thing to do. Now after experiencing the trouble I am of the thought that the gap is there for a reason. (as talked about at great length 30ish pages ago) The factory map was likely made with the plastic sensor without goo so that is the way I'm leaning now. Sensing the higher temp spikes with this simple system is unnecessary. As I have said, when an air cooled engine is at an extreme temp you want to add fuel not take it away. Running on a hot day and at slow speeds as when stuck in traffic, the head temp soars. If you are sensing the temp spike and mixture is leaned as a result you are adding to the problem with the increased combustion temps. If the mix stays rich the engine will stay cooler. It would follow that there is an advantage in not reading the high temp spikes. (as the air gap accomplishes)

My bike ran really well before. I'm returning to the way it was designed. It was fine before the change. Why would I not go back to the scene of the crime?

As far as problems experienced by many, it seems like far more have the part throttle, mid rpm, lean misfire to complain about than those who want better economy. But that's just my opinion.

If you feel your bike runs better with less accurate ETS readings, I have no problem with that. I will point out that "the way it was designed" was to meet EPA standards and using a completely different formula of gasoline then most if not all of us have today. Things change. New gasoline that burns leaner/cleaner. The whole goo concept was to fix an issue that many of us had, poor fuel mileage. My wifes bike now gets upwards of 40-45 mpg. Not stellar but better then it was. If your bike gets good mileage already or you don't care about mileage then keep the gap, or better yet add a heat sink to your ETS. But please don't try to tell me that adding a heat sink to your ETS or running a gap between the ETS and the head increases accuracy. Your bike may run better with a low ETS reading but that is not the same as more accurate.

For what it's worth, I like RHs idea of putting a variable resistor on the ETS signal. It is crude but cheap, and will give the user the ability to adjust the overall mixture on the fly. It is no substitute for a PC3 or TuneBoy, but it could be used as a cheaper less effective alternative or even in addition to a proper map to allow you to tune on the fly and adjust for poor fuel quality or what ever.

As far as an advantage in not reading the "high temp spikes", that may be. But my wifes V11 has no issues with them. It would make more sense if the engineers had set it up to add MORE fuel when the temp got over a certain temp and not less, but I would submit that not everything they did when designing spec'ing and building these bikes made sense, was for the best , or was done for a good reason.

[Dan M]

But please don't try to tell me that adding a heat sink to your ETS or running a gap between the ETS and the head increases accuracy. Your bike may run better with a low ETS reading but that is not the same as more accurate.

As far as an advantage in not reading the "high temp spikes", that may be. But my wifes V11 has no issues with them. It would make more sense if the engineers had set it up to add MORE fuel when the temp got over a certain temp and not less, but I would submit that not everything they did when designing spec'ing and building these bikes made sense, was for the best , or was done for a good reason.

 

When did I try to tell you that? I believe you are confusing me with others. I made no such claims. I never said a gap was more accurate and I never suggested that adding a heat sink is something I'd do. I simply stated the gap was how it was designed. I must say that I'm assuming that if it made it to production, it followed their design. I also believe that there was a method to their madness. I refuse to accept the notion that they used plastic because it was cheap and spec'd it's length long enough to create an air gap for no particular reason. As far as I've been able to figure it, they did it for the reasons I've stated above and earlier. This is purely my educated guess nothing more or less.

 

I agree that it would make more sense to add fuel at very high temps but we know it doesn't work that way otherwise you would not net the mileage gain by making better contact with the head, especially in hot weather riding.

[GuzziMoto]

When did I try to tell you that? I believe you are confusing me with others. I made no such claims. I never said a gap was more accurate and I never suggested that adding a heat sink is something I'd do. I simply stated the gap was how it was designed. I must say that I'm assuming that if it made it to production, it followed their design. I also believe that there was a method to their madness. I refuse to accept the notion that they used plastic because it was cheap and spec'd it's length long enough to create an air gap for no particular reason. As far as I've been able to figure it, they did it for the reasons I've stated above and earlier. This is purely my educated guess nothing more or less.

 

I agree that it would make more sense to add fuel at very high temps but we know it doesn't work that way otherwise you would not net the mileage gain by making better contact with the head, especially in hot weather riding.

I'm sorry, not everything I said was specifically to you. I was addressing some things you said and got into some side notes as well. Sorry.

I do think that if you think everything on your Guzzi is that way for a good reason you will be wrong every now and then.

Adding fuel at very high temps should not hurt mileage much if any. Why Guzzi chose to take fuel away I am not sure, but if I were to guess I'd say it was for emissions reasons, not because it worked better.

[pete roper]

I just like the idea that a tech topic has gone this far. Even the often volatile cush drive thread only made half as many pages. All this without politics or even one picture of a nipple.

 

Oh well, I'd better rectify that;

 

[Greg Field]

[emry]

After that image i will not do a head vs sensor vs 4 gas ega reading and post its video record on Youtube. I won't be able to eat cereal for a month. This thread be banned....

[pete roper]

After that image i will not do a head vs sensor vs 4 gas ega reading and post its video record on Youtube. I won't be able to eat cereal for a month. This thread be banned....

 

Sorry. I thought you blokes liked a comely pair of udders?

 

Pete

[savagehenry]

In an effort to kill this/bring 'er to 50...

"Screw yr' Happy Face, Pardner. (Said with "STERN FACE: INSERT: (SPITTING EMOTICON)"...this really HAS turned out to be the proverbial "car wreck"... and I DO usually choose to look away...but in this case, I just CAN'T.

[pete roper]

Here's another beauty!!!

 

[savagehenry]

Rope, yr' a bastaad... :!: ....Haven't seen THAT emoticon in a while... Luv, S.H. 50?

[Guest ratchethack]

SQUARE WHEEL EXPRESS UPDATE

 

 

[. . .sigh . . .] Hard miles indeed . . . But somebody’s just gotta do it. . .

 

For those who’ve been so. . . err, spectacularly incapable of, and/or unwilling to comprehend basic heat flow concepts and simple logic, and who consider experimenting of the kind I’ve been reporting here to be ridiculous nonsense, here’s something that will no doubt seem even more absurd. It’s sure to become your next target for filibustering this thread with another 20 pages full of even more ignorant and empty accusations, irrational demands, scorn, outrage, and prognostications of how wrongedy-wrong it is for me to’ve done what I’ve done, how backward my grasp of what I’m doing is, along with your certainty that what I’ve done can’t possibly work as I present it here -- all based on ZERO experience of your own with anything I’ve done.

 

But before we get all of . . . um, that cranked up to fever pitch again, a few observations on the increasingly astonishing track record of this thread:

 

“Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”

 

- Samuel Clemens, author, essayist, humorist

 

“Those who will not learn have no advantage over those who cannot learn.”

 

- Cdr. Hatchracket, incorrigible road geez, bane of fools and all popular delusions

 

WARNING:

 

Many will find this post well past entirely too much to read, and otherwise incomprehensible. In this case, you’ve disqualified yourself from commenting. So why bother? You’re clearly not sincerely interested anyway. May I suggest hie thee hither and anon to the Hooters Thread without further delay. I’m begging you! Just go away. Based on what others have done previously, you too can hurt yourself here. It’s for your own good, trust me. Do it now! Wrestling with such challenging considerations as, “Mother Nature, or plastic?” may be much more your cup o’ tea, and will hopefully incur far less mental strain. . .

 

LOW MASS HEAD TEMP SENSOR

 

 

OE Guzzi head temp sensor/holder (sensor body ~1.4 oz.) and GM low mass sensor/holder (sensor body ~1 g.)

 

Once again, as was conspicuously flagged (and promptly ignored) with the introduction of my experiments with heat sink and variable resistor, (see post #280, p. 19 of this thread), let no one other than those who’ve already done so (who will of course blindly continue uninterrupted as before) be so silly as to mistake this post for a recommendation to do what I’ve done here! This was merely another experiment like the last, that’s all. This post is (again) subject to error and correction, and may be updated for additional clarity ONLY, as continued testing on the road provides more clarity. As before, in no case will any of the basic points or principles presented here be significantly altered or omitted.

 

Per previous posts on my experiments, I’ve gained quite a bit of understanding of how the OE head temp sensor works (and how it doesn’t work) over the last 2 months. Since it’s considerably warmer here now, I’m able to log more miles of testing not possible earlier, due to rain and cold.

 

Those who are sincerely interested may actually benefit from what I’ve learned and presented here and previously. Yes, I believe this could actually happen. On the other hand, there are a highly conspicuous select few who evidently brought all they will ever know about the OE head temp sensor to this thread (nothing) – and have repeatedly made it clear that their firm intent is NOT to rectify their lack of knowledge and understanding one iota. They apparently have no interest in the topic whatsoever, yet incredibly enough, the most highly vocal "select few" in this category have posted more times here than myself -- without bringing anything new (or old, for that matter) of positive value to the discussion wotsoever. It seems that once they got their dorks wrapped up in a group wad around the ol’ driveshaft, they’ve been pretty well committed. . . I, for one, continue to behold this behavior with awe and amazement. . .

 

OBLIGATORY GREAT WALLOPING DISCLAIMER:

 

(Now required standard issue, and which experience tells me just might actually throw a bit of a fence around the sheer magnitude of continued leaping to false conclusions in group formation -- or not.)

 

This was a $50 USD experiment, $48 more pricey than my last experiment. If you believe that value is always directly proportional to cost, and that this is a hard and fast fundamental rule o' nature, there's a maximum of $50 of value to be found in such an experiment. In many cases, especially for the developmentally disadvantaged, reading comprehension challenged, and those who’ve committed themselves to the Great Brotherhood of Ignorance, there’s as little as none, and if possible, potentially even less than ZERO value to be found for you here. Once again, there was no re-mapping, no brake dyno, no exhaust gas analyzers, multi-channel data loggers, Tune Boys, Axone diagnostic tools, and no wind tunnel. If you believe that the absence of any or all of these invalidates anything or everything I observed and noted below from my extensive testing on the road, you're entitled to your opinion, but I beg you differ, and once again, I b’lieve the evidence on the road speaks more than well enough for itself.

 

Though I believe I've uncovered new, and have also confirmed existing principles of operation of the OE sensor/holder COMMON TO ALL V11's, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN WELL UNDERSTOOD hereabouts, there’s no claim of any magic “cure all” here. Each and every motor, intake and exhaust config, map, and every combination thereof is different than the next, so what worked well for me here and led me in the direction my observations took me based on my "seat o' the pants dyno" MAY BE just as likely NOT to work as well on the next Guzzi. I’ve been experimenting here, that’s all. My observations here may be subject to error and/or revision. On the other hand, some may recognize similarities to their own situation and be encouraged to try something I've demonstrated here.

 

CAN’T YOU JUST GET TO THE POINT AND SUMMARIZE THIS ALREADY?!

 

ANSWER: WHY, YES, BINKY! SO KIND OF YOU TO ASK! I B’LIEVE I CAN!

 

BUT BEST PROVIDE ENOUGH DETAIL TO LEAVE NAUGHT TO THE VAST IMAGINATIONS

 

OF THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT I DREAM THIS STUFF UP!

 

Per previous posts, I’ve fully tested both the OE sensor/plastic holder and the brass holder under a variety of modifications, with and without thermo-compound, filled solid with lead, and various gradations of air gaps, with and without a heat sink, and with and without a variable resistor wired in series with the sensor. The results have led my testing in a direction that provided a more enjoyable riding experience in the process, not to mention the best mileage to date, whilst continuing to expose the source of greatest error and compromise in the OE setup, that being the OE head temp sensor, and its inherent problems of relatively high mass, high thermal inertia, and excessive lag time in read response to temp changes.

 

Again, the OE sensor was designed to be immersed in a bath of circulating fluid, where it can relatively quickly and more thoroughly exchange heat content by ACTIVE CURRENT CONVECTION, and where its 1.4 oz. and relative large mass and thermal inertia are not a hindrance to its performance. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED for use either in air, or in a stagnant mass of thermo-compound – where in either case, via radiation or conduction (respectively) it cannot function without a significant, unwanted, and detrimental LAG TIME in its response to temp changes due to its mass and thermal inertia, as I have observed and noted previously, and as consistently validated on the road over many hundreds of miles of testing.

 

Once I’d fully understood this^ inherent shortcoming of the OE sensor from my experiments with heat sink and var. resistor, where I was able to effectively overcome this shortcoming by adding both passive and active offsetting controls, I got a line on a relatively low mass GM/AC Delco sensor (actually a cross to an aftermarket part from NAPA/Echlin) with similar temp/resistance outputs (<10% error, see output comparison chart below, thanks again to Dan M) that I figured might be worth testing based on what I’d learned, and fabbed-up a holder to work with it. The results have been positive enough by my testing on the road over 200 miles to date, so that (once again) it’ll stay installed on my Guzzi as is, unless or until I modify it, or I identify and test something that I believe works better.

 

I got 35 MPG on the first tank of gas (mostly in traffic and light-to-light), with no sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn loop symptoms under any kind of riding. Significantly, on my first ride on this tankful (no thermo-compound), I got stuck behind 5 miles of crawling traffic backed up at an accident. It was alternate walking speed and stopped dead for about 30 minutes on a 2-lane. I could have passed (illegally here) on the shoulder, but I wasn’t in a hurry at the time and figured this is exactly the kind of stress testing that would be most revealing, so I stuck it out in line: No trace of what would previously have become the typical erratic low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms I’d come to expect over 6 years with the OE sensor (with or without thermo-compound).

 

Though my Guzzi has always run better than perfectly satisfactorily before meddling with the sensor, with the low mass sensor recently installed, it has never run better. I expect better mileage down the road to boot, under more normal back road conditions. Unless or until I discover something that tests better on the road, I b’lieve I’ll be happily riding with the new GM low mass sensor, testing air gaps, thermo-compound, and conductor metals for the forseeable.

 

FRAUD! HYPOCRISY! DOUBLE TALK! GIBBERISH! FIRE AND BRIMSTONE! MASS HYSTERIA! HUMAN SACRIFICE! DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER! NOW HE’S DITCHING THE HEAT SINK AND VARIABLE RESISTOR – EXACTLY AS THE PROPHETS OF DOOM PREDICTED!

 

Get ahold of yourself, Venkman. There are apparently a few too many concepts here that’re a little too far beyond your capacity to comprehend. It might be a good idea to consider not drinking quite so much of your own bathwater – just on the off-chance this might clear up some of your confusion and constipated mental processes.

 

As explained clearly and repeatedly, the reason I previously experimented with the heat sink and var. resistor in the first place (which again, I was also very careful NOT to recommend up front) was to allow testing the use of thermo-compound with the OE sensor. Without both, it would not run acceptably with my PC III map and thermo-compound. If I were somehow restricted to using the OE sensor, I’d still be using all three, and I’d still be happier than I was to start with, particularly with the significantly improved mileage. It would seem obvious to most (with the possibility of a few notable exceptions hereabouts) that it’d be beyond silly to test a heat sink on an ultra-low-mass sensor with a thermoplastic sensor body -- without any inherent thermal inertia problem to offset! There’s been no condition on the road yet that would call for dialing up the added resistance that was required just to run the OE sensor with thermo-compound.

 

WHAT OPERATING PRINCIPLE WAS CONFIRMED?

 

ANSWER: (AGAIN) THERMAL INERTIA OF THE OE SENSOR BODY

 

Sensor body heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms now 100% GONE

 

NEW EVIDENCE: I’ve replaced the high mass OE sensor with relatively low mass GM sensor. By weight, the ratio of OE to low mass sensor bodies is ~40/1. For the first time -- No possible way to induce previous erratic sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms wotsoever – (as in NONE).

 

NOTE: Those who still don’t (or won't) comprehend the concept of thermal inertia (there are at least 3 hereabouts that we’ve been. . . um, “blessed” to become so repeatedly aware of by their posts) – please do look it up in a credible source (NOTE: Wikipedia IS NOT a credible source) and give it some study. It just might save you further embarrassment here -- not if, but when you’re compelled to post about it as if you knew what you were talking about (again). Without at least a middling to fair grasp of this concept, along with at least an equal comprehension of associated basic principles of heat flow analysis, you haven’t had a glimmer about what’s been discussed here for the last 2 months and 20+ pages, and you’ve been broadcasting naught but your own ignorance.

 

For those who posted earlier who are unable/unwilling to look things up and/or for whom the concept of “study” is as loathsome and as habitually avoided as a root canal, (you know who you are, and by now, so does everyone reading this thread) here’s a nice word picture for you: Take your 1.4 oz brass body OE sensor, along with a 1 g. GM plastic body sensor, and heat both up to a normal hot day, hard Guzzi riding sensor temp of 100°C. A little swim up to a nice rolling boil in a pot of H2O will do nicely. Take ‘em out and wait exactly one minute for both to cool. Now suck in your gut, yank open your pants, and drop both of ‘em down the front of your gauchies. Now which one of the two d’you figure will have you screaming like a schoolgirl and doin’ the Lambada at ludicrous speed until you manage to drop your drawers? HINT: It won’t be the GM sensor. That’s thermal inertia, Binky. Capice?

 

By previous testing, I considered 43 mpg on a long, hard mountain climb with the OE sensor/holder, thermo-paste, heat sink and variable resistor (the best to date) to be significant. From this, for the first time, I knew this mileage (and possibly even better) was possible to achieve -- WITHOUT RE-MAPPING, and WITHOUT suffering the annoyance, punishment, and risk of motor damage due to sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms.

 

I’ve tested the “low mass” GM sensor on the road over 200 miles as of this post, and have confirmed what I’d fully expected -- per my oft-presented and oft-explained heat flow analysis, which has been consistently validated without exception by the results on the road throughout all phases of testing over the last 8 weeks: The low mass GM sensor has relatively negligible thermal inertia to overcome, and therefore demonstrates negligible lag time in response to temp changes. AGAIN: Most importantly, it presents NONE of the sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms that I’d experienced with the OE sensor/holder -- both with and without thermo-compound.

 

As unfathomable as this will be to a select few hereabouts, productive experiments tend to develop knowledge and understanding upon which greater knowledge and understanding may be built. And so it has been here. Had I not first tested the OE sensor/holder with a heat sink and variable resistor, I would not have specifically sought out and tested a low mass sensor, which clearly eliminates the primary shortcoming, the inherent application compromise identified in the first set of tests – that again being the thermal inertia and resulting lag time of response of the OE sensor to temp changes, as thoroughly tested, documented, and discussed at length previously.

 

I have no idea how many reading this may have broken their plastic sensor holders, replaced them with the old brass holder from the pre-V11 Sport-i era, and experienced the annoying and potentially destructive sensor heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms as a result. There’ve been several posting with this complaint on this thread, as I recall. My Guzzi, with its current PC III map, doesn’t run worth a damn with the brass holder and OE sensor empty, or regardless of what I filled it with, nor does it run anywhere near acceptably with the OE plastic holder when I put thermo-compound in it, unless I also use a heat sink and variable resistor to offset the inherent thermal inertia error.

 

As I’d flagged conspicuously up front and detailed above, some seem to've had experiences with their sensors ENTIRELY OPPOSITE to those of mine, finding that use of the brass holder wrapped with duct tape apparently provides ideal operation on the road, if such accounts in this thread are credible. As far as I’m concerned, this doesn’t mean either experience is WRONG. I believe it just means we have different combinations of engine, intake, exhaust, and maps, and therefore, we have entirely different head temp sensor/holder and FI control experiences – for what would seem to be fairly obvious reasons. Some -- but by no means all -- seem to be running far richer maps overall (particularly at idle and low throttle openings) than Yours Truly.

 

THIS IS SHEER LUNACY! WHERE ARE YOU GOING NEXT WITH YOUR SQUARE WHEEL EXPRESS?

 

You expected something other than this kind of thing in Winter? I’ve made my low mass sensor holder modular (see photo below), so I can swap out the conducting stud with alternate metals of differing thermal conductivity. I’ve been testing various air gaps, and chompin’ at the bit to run a tankful of fuel through it with thermo-compound added, to see what kind of mileage running it this way will return, or if this brings on the return of the dreaded sensor body heat-soak, low RPM hot lean-burn feedback loop symptoms.

 

Will advise (Part XV).

 

NOTE: Any Q’s, observations, and especially any CHALLENGES to any of the above (or to my understanding of my observations here) from anyone sincerely interested are (again) as equally or even more sincerely welcome, will be respected, and will be responded to in kind, time willing, and to the best of my ability.

 

NOTE (Part II): As before, any reply posts demonstrating mindless ridicule, thudding ignorance, less than sincere interest (clear evidence of not reading what one is responding to being the most spectacularly obvious common trend in this thread), or any combination thereof, are likely to be ignored.

 

Well then. There you have it.

 

- Cdr. Hatchracket, incorrigible road geez, Esq.

 

___________

 

 

TEMP/RESISTANCE OUTPUTS OF GM/NAPA ECHLIN SENSOR vs. OE GUZZI SENSOR:

 

SOURCE: GM Tech Data chart sensor output data provided by Dan M. (Thanks again, Dan.) Dan has tested both the GM sensor and others for many years professionally. It’s found on countless GM models. OE Guzzi sensor output data from Guzzi Service Manual.

 

°C/GM sensor Ω/OE Guzzi sensor Ω

 

-40 100700 100950

 

-30 52700 53100

 

-20 28680 29120

 

-10 16180 16600

 

0 9420 9750

 

10 5670 5970

 

20 3520 3750

 

30 2238 2420

 

40 1459 1600

 

50 973 1080

 

60 667 750

 

70 467 525

 

80 332 380

 

90 241 275

 

100 177 205

 

LOW MASS SENSOR/HOLDER COMPONENT PARTS AND MATERIALS REFERENCES

 

AC Delco P/N 213-243, SENSOR, A/CL AIR TEMP

NAPA Echlin TS4026 - $22.99

Weight, ~1 g.

 

Weight of OE sensor, ~1.4 oz.

 

Weight ratio, OE/GM sensor -- ~40/1

 

AC Delco P/N PY301, ADAPTER, I/S AIR TEMP SEN (This is the connector, not shown in photo.)

NAPA Echlin TSC300 - $25.99

 

 

1” round stock DELRIN® 507 Black - Meets or exceeds ASTM D4181 POM130 B44350

 

SOURCE: http://www.tridentepp.com/Acetal.html

 

Melting point 347ºF (175ºC)

 

Max operating temp 180ºF (82ºC)

 

(Yeah, I’m fully aware^. I’m watching it, but it’s a non-mechanically stressed application, and shows no trace of deterioration so far).

 

SOURCE: http://www.technicalproductsinc.com/delrin%20mat.%20spec.htm

[Dan M]

___________

 

 

 

You're welcome.

 

Looking at your image I see you did not trim the plastic cage from the bottom of the sensor. I was under the impression you were going to have the thermistor actually in contact with the head. As it appears you are sensing air temp (with an air temp sesnor) inside the holder. Right?

If that is how it ended up, I like it. Still an air space as designed to smooth readings but much less lag with the plastic sensor.

Am I seeing it right?

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks for the Q, Dan.

 

I can always remove the cage, and may well do that at some point, but for now it doesn't seem helpful to take it off. My first iteration of this had the plastic cage within a few thou of the conducting stud. I got a few little low RPM hot lean burn pops this way at full operating temp, so I backed it off to a ~2 mm air gap, and the pops disappeared.

 

Since this is an EXPERIMENT, I'll be trying various combo's and different air gaps (and thermo-compound) until I have a better understanding of what the limitations and optimum ranges are. With low or no air gap and thermo-compound in there, this is as direct a thermal connection as may be had. But since the thermal inertia of the naked thermistor is so infinitesimally tiny, as you've observed previously, running with an air gap may ultimately prove to be the best way to "smooth out" unwanted temp spike reads, while still providing very accurate overall reads without appreciable lag time in response to temp changes.

 

I hope to gain more clarity on this later.