Greg Field Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 What is most apparent in all this is that you keep changing your mind on whether you're chasing a problem or not. I cannot help you with that. At first you were. Then, suddenly, claim that you weren't. Then, suddenly, not one but two problems. Then none again. Edit all your posts so they regain some sense. Or leave them as a monument to the glories of colon self-exam . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motomonster Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So, to sum up: Once upon a time, RH had a 2000 V11 that ran perfectly with no problems, so he worked tirelessly for months to not-solve this non-problem, in the face of overwhelming ridicule by a legion of fools who didn't understand the principles of junior-high physics until he finally succeeded in not-solving a problem he wasn't having. And now his bike runs perfectly with no problems. Although, he concedes that if he actually were having a problem, he'd add the goo and get a better map. Why can't you idiots understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuzziMoto Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 When you put it that way it makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badmotogoozer Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I take being insulted by RH as a good thing. It means I'm on the right side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 So, to sum up: Once upon a time, RH had a 2000 V11 that ran perfectly with no problems, so he worked tirelessly for months to not-solve this non-problem, in the face of overwhelming ridicule by a legion of fools who didn't understand the principles of junior-high physics until he finally succeeded in not-solving a problem he wasn't having. And now his bike runs perfectly with no problems. Although, he concedes that if he actually were having a problem, he'd add the goo and get a better map. Why can't you idiots understand that? There are two potential "problems" here. One: (This is the problem that Ratchet denies he has, and that I was gullible enough to consider that I might have.) Greg's absurd premise that bikes that inexplicably don't run well with brass adapter, filled with conductive goo, and wrapped in duct tape MUST have a problem. Two: (This is the problem that Ratchet is working on a solution for, whether or not he admits it) The brass sensor acts as a heat reservoir, such that the heat does not accurately follow the cylinder head temperature. His bike works fine, despite this design problem. Yes it would run better if the sensor better followed the CHT but it is NOT A PROBLEM. Subjective definitions of the word, problem, seem to be clashing. What is interesting, is that Greg takes a stock bike, that has a "problem" and fixes it by adding brass holder, goo, and duct tape. (not a bodge (sarcasm intended)) Meanwhile, my bike and Ratchet's have no problem, but when we try adding brass adapters and or goo which creates a problem, it is our bikes that are abnormal and problem plagued. Simply mind boggling square wheel logic. I think Greg is just yanking our dorks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I picked up about 3 mpg. That was the problem I solved. (It's liberating to admit that you have a problem.) The goal was to get the sensor to full temp quickly, through good thermal contact with the sensor tip and then to keep the heat in so it stays lean and uses less fuel. The stock plastic thingie could serve just fine, with either draw-filing for good contact or with goo. Mine broke, so I replaced it with the brass one. Then I used the tape to make the brass one act less like a heat sink. Works great. Has for many folks. But only if everything else is up to snuff. Only if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlaing Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I picked up about 3 mpg. That was the problem I solved. (It's liberating to admit that you have a problem.) The goal was to get the sensor to full temp quickly, through good thermal contact with the sensor tip and then to keep the heat in so it stays lean and uses less fuel. The stock plastic thingie could serve just fine, with either draw-filing for good contact or with goo. Mine broke, so I replaced it with the brass one. Then I used the tape to make the brass one act less like a heat sink. Works great. Has for many folks. But only if everything else is up to snuff. Only if. Short distance commuters will probably pick up even more MPG. I think if ratchet shortens the airgap in his GM setup we'll see claims of 5MPG improvement over the "problem" free OEM sensor setup. FWIW, since I took the solder out, I think I lost about 1 or 2MPG, but the bike runs far better. I took the beautiful warm day off and averaged about 35MPG where I suspect I would have gotten 37MPG with conductive, but the bike is running much better. Sure I could go back to conductive if I remap, but I see the inertia/difusivity issue as the better starting point towards a more perfect system. I stopped by Sonny Angel's today. He is still looking great at 85 years of wising up, but still no sensor adapter to be found. Probably got filed under Norton, since the part wreaks of Lucas engineering. Maybe I'll search my garage for the slightly mangled OEM adapter and see if I can remold it out of JB weld, maybe even epoxying in the GM sensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry. I thought it was time for another nipple pic. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Field Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Show us a yak nipple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete roper Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 No easy pics on Google. Got some weird results from Yak Udders though!!! Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Is this any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Maybe we can fix this topic. This picture could end it all for sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helicopterjim R.I.P. Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Perhaps the problem is a misplaced nipple?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big J Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ah Jeezus,Jim.I was eatin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ratchethack Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivityAluminium 8.418 × 10-5 Copper 1.1234 × 10-4 Which makes Aluminum the more favorable for the material between head and sensor tip!!! Aluminum will heat up faster and cool faster, closely following the thermal inertia of the cylinder head. I don't know the Thermal Diffusivity for brass, but I'll bet it ain't what we want, excluding properties of weather resistance. Aluminum may have some other advantages, like no dissimilar metal issues of differing heat contraction or oxidation. Fascinating stuff! Fascinating, alright -- but wrong. I've been testing various metals in the conducting stud of the low mass GM sensor, including brass and copper so far, and just got a ROUND TUIT on this, as I was preparing to thread an aluminum stud for testing. Checking the numbers before I started making aluminum shavings, it turns out there's no need to test aluminum after all. Thanks again for bringing the concept of thermal diffusivity to my attention, Dave. However, as it turns out, it isn't a significant consideration here, because, contrary to your incorrect post above, the numbers follow the same trend from metal to metal as thermal conductivity (see below). As a rule, assuming CREDIBILITY is your objective -- may I (again) recommend that you NEVER, EVER, EVER trust Wikipedia as an orignial source -- in this case, there's no online link to the original source to be found there, but instead, a listing of a reference book with data evidently not accessible online. This doesn't make the original source INVALID, it just means it isn't accessible online for purposes of verification and validation. As another rule, assuming CREDIBILITY is your objective, which is NOT ALWAYS THE CASE (certainly hereabouts ), or necessarily anywhere else for that matter -- may I also recommend that you ALWAYS ALWAYS and ALWAYS pay attention to both UNITS OF MEASURE, and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, both of which you've ignored above, and which has resulted in the above ERROR of perception on your part. If we take a hypothetical and assume the above Wiki numbers are valid (I do not take that assumption as valid, nor should you, unless or until it can be properly verified): Copper has higher thermal diffusivity than aluminum, the reverse of your read above. From your Wikipedia number above for copper in m²/s: 1.1234 × 10^-4 = 11.234 × 10^-5 So WRT Thermal Diffusivity in m²/s (again, please always use correct units of measure), when properly matching up ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE, this is the CORRECT order (larger before smaller): Copper 11.234 × 10^-5 m²/s Aluminium 8.418 × 10^-5 m²/s By all means, if you believe it is moi who's got this wrong, please challenge this with your best understanding (and if need be, backup -- and please do not cite Wikipedia as an original source). I've found it very hard to find thermal diffusivity numbers of all 4 metals under my current consideration online for comparison purposes. If you find an orignial, verifiable source -- please advise. FWIW, here are the RELATED, BUT NOT EQUIVALENT thermal conductivity numbers I'm using, from an original source, verifiable online, which matches up with numbers on other original sources, also verifiable online: Thermal conductivity copper -- 231 BTU/(hr-ft-°F) aluminum -- 136 BTU/(hr-ft-°F) brass -- 69 BTU/(hr-ft-°F) mild steel – 26.0 – 37.5 BTU/(hr-ft-°F) SOURCE: http://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts