engine oil temp sensor

[dlaing]

I think it's just a continuation of the Global Warming thread, but in 'code'! "Temp Sensor" is really "Al Gore", "Thermal Diffusivity" is really "Rising Oceans".

Steve

Darn it! You ruined our secret!!!!

But since you started it, we might as well clue you all in:

GM Sensor is corporate shill skeptic scientists.

Brass is "the man"

Silver is the solution to AGW that will cost the economy too much.

Heat sink is the ocean

Temp Sensor and Al Gore are both too dense.

Thermal Inertia is Fubar the philistines living at sea level

Air gap is brain matter of those who disagree.

Infinitely adjustable resistor is a rhetorical argument for any conceivable Truth.

[Greg Field]

A fine start to the 51st page. Perhaps seawater in the gap will be more perfect than all the other perfects that came before?

[Skeeve]

You lost me back at the hole for a copper rod in the base, Skeeve.

 

 

The base of the OE holder IS copper.

 

Funny, the one I'd looked at I was pretty certain was brass. Maybe my memory is going... they say that's the 2nd thing to go when you get old.

 

I forget what the 1st thing is...

[dlaing]

Hm. You didn't get very far with much of any Science classes in school, did you Dave? I'm thinking maybe 8th grade, tops? Just a hunch, but I'll bet you didn't do very well with them, nor like them much, either. . .

 

The most important, Classic illustration of the foundation of the principles of modern science since the Dark Ages (a principle duplicated thousands of times for over 500 years and counting), which has since formed the very backbone of modern science, and has become a cornestone of Western Civilization itself -- and you've got one of the most profound lessons of the history of mankind exactly backwards. . .

 

No doubt about it. . . Revisionist history is indeed alive and well. . . <_>

 

I shudder to think where you are today, Dave -- but the entire field of LEGITIMATE SCIENCE worldwide soldiers on whilst politicians and their mindless pawns repeat the ignorant mistakes of history over and over. . .

 

. . .[sigh]. . .

So I have it backwards when I say consensus validated Galileo and Copernicus?

What is the forwards?

Skepticism validated Galileo and Copernicus!

Non, mon frere, YOU have it backwards!

Maybe you mean that consensus of The Church disagreed with Galileo and Copernicus????

Sorry but you obviously get your science schooling from 16th Century Bible school teachings

Consensus may have disagreed with them during their lifetimes, but not after.

After their deaths, consensus did validate their work, although they were wrong about somethings, so I guess you could say that consensus today invalidates aspects of their work, but it does not invalidate the heart of the work, quite the contrary, the heart of their work is Validated by Consensus!

 

PS did you get a chance to test ride now that the weather is finally ideal for testing for heat related problems?

[Guest ratchethack]

Non, mon frere, YOU have it backwards!

For proper backup to one of the most familiar Classic historic examples of one of the core principles of Western Civilization that's been well-established for half a millennium, Dave -- (again) ask any credentialed LEGITIMATE Scientist (not a government grant-chasing political hack professional parasite. There IS a considerable difference, Dave. ), or a medical doctor (not one with a sheepskin from a Banana Republic medical school from your HMO list) about the example of SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS as illustrated by Copernicus and Galileo. Chances are pretty good that they weren't born on the Purple Planet. In this case, you can get a consistent earthbound answer uncorrupted by history revisionism. According to actual history itself, as it turns out, you can't twist wot actually happened 180 degrees to fit the distorted nightmare your political Pied Pipers and Witch Doctors have prepared for you.

PS did you get a chance to test ride now that the weather is finally ideal for testing for heat related problems?

With the exception of using thermo-compound with the thermistor in close proximity to the conducting stud (TBA when I get a ROUND TUIT), my testing wrapped up a week ago. This past weekend, again with a copper conducting stud, 5 mm air gap, and the GM/NAPA Echlin low mass sensor in Delrin holder, I only got a chance for about 100 miles at near 90° - 100°F (32° - 38°C). Immediately after 20 miles at sustained 90 MPH (indicated), I was able to haul down to extended stops for traffic lights (twice), and both times experienced ZERO low RPM sensor body heat-soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms. Again, with the OE sensor in either plastic or brass holders, this was not possible to achieve regardless of thermo-compound or air gap, the only exception being the use of passive control (heat sink) and active control (variable resistor) with the OE plastic holder -- both no longer of any use now. I wasn't able to get a mileage reading this weekend, but expecting 43-45 MPG under more ideal conditions.

 

Hey Greg -- wot page are we on now?

[big J]

""Immediately after 20 miles at sustained 90 MPH (indicated), I was able to haul down to extended stops for traffic lights (twice), and both times experienced ZERO low RPM sensor body heat-soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms. Again, with the OE sensor in either plastic or brass holders, this was not possible to achieve regardless of thermo-compound or air gap, the only exception being the use of passive control (heat sink) and active control (variable resistor""

 

These were presumably the symptoms your bike wasnt experiencing when it was running perfectly?

 

Good work

[emry]

90mph, why would the OE sensor get hot during a 90mph run, there is plenty of air cooling going on. Once again some real data would be nice. Let the darn thing sit and idle for 30min like you are sitting in traffic, Then see what it does. Extended stop are not stop lights, unless you moved to the Atlanta, GA area, we have a few that last 3 minutes!!!

[Guest ratchethack]

""Immediately after 20 miles at sustained 90 MPH (indicated), I was able to haul down to extended stops for traffic lights (twice), and both times experienced ZERO low RPM sensor body heat-soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms. Again, with the OE sensor in either plastic or brass holders, this was not possible to achieve regardless of thermo-compound or air gap, the only exception being the use of passive control (heat sink) and active control (variable resistor""

 

These were presumably the symptoms your bike wasnt experiencing when it was running perfectly?

 

Good work

“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 popular delusions

 

. . .my experiments exposed the heretofore poorly understood shortcomings of the OE sensor. When I fully understood what those shortcomings were, I replaced it with something without ANY of those shortcomings -- as evidenced by the superior mileage it delivers, while eliminating a couple of "nits" (THAT FOR 6 YEARS, I NEVER CONSIDERED ANYTHING CLOSE TO "PROBLEMS") mentioned above -- as documented in detail in previous posts.

 

NO PROBLEMO.

 

Capice?

 

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

But now I tire of the 5th generation redundancy of repeating the repetition of the repetition. . .

[Guest ratchethack]

90mph, why would the OE sensor get hot during a 90mph run, there is plenty of air cooling going on.

Emry, as explained from my understanding multiple times previously and fully backed up by results on the road, the relatively large mass of the 1.4 oz OE sensor body retains the heat content it took on from the head AFTER the head cools down. When the motor suddenly goes from steady power at 5K RPM to idle, since there is no other avenue for that heat to flow other than minor leakage through air convection when stopped at a light, the bulk of that heat gradually flows back out the same way it came in -- through the probe end of the sensor, where the thermistor is picking up its heat read. Since the heat read is thereby held artificailly high, the ECU now sends LEAN pulsewidth signals to the FI, raising the running temp at idle, creating the hot lean-burn feedback loop I've been posting about. The low mass sensor I'm using now has negligible mass, negilgible thermal inertia, negligible heat content, -- and therefore, no false read, and no sensor body heat soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms.

Once again some real data would be nice.

No question about it. As mentioned numerous times previously, any "snapshot" temp reads would be entirely useless information here. (again) With a multi-channel data logger and a brake dyno in a wind tunnel, all data points could be measured and recorded together on a timeline for proper analysis. I don't happen to have any of that available to me, but I'm not letting it stop me from understanding wot's going on. I'll settle for exceptional running by every possible way to demonstrate exactly that on the road with no more sensor body heat soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms and better mileage -- the most significant data to moi -- but that's just me.

 

Let the darn thing sit and idle for 30min like you are sitting in traffic, Then see what it does.

Per many previous posts on this, I know how it behaves with both OE sensor/holder and low mass GM/NAPA Echlin sensor under such conditions in hot weather. Yes, (and again) it runs MORE THAN ACCEPTABLY either way, but without ANY TRACE of sensor body heat soak hot lean burn feedback loop symptoms ONLY with the latter, as previously noted here, when I posted the first results of testing the GM/NAPA Echlin low mass sensor:

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).

[Greg Field]

"

These were presumably the symptoms your bike wasnt experiencing when it was running perfectly?

 

Good work

 

 

Careful. Our "scientist" will burn you, you heretic.

[GuzziMoto]

Confucious says.....because you get the result you wanted does not mean you understand why.

If the o.e. sensor has such "shortcomings", why do most peoples bikes work fine with them?

And how is it the o.e. sensor can heat up quick enough but can't cool down fast enough? In fact, the notion that the sensor can not cool down as fast as the cylinder head (which has much more mass AND a source of heat) is laughable.

You replaced a water temp sensor, that was measuring the temp of a metal object with way more mass then the sensor, with an air temp sensor that has even less mass then the o.e. sensor but does not make ANY direct contact with the metal object. You got a signal sent to the ecu that corresponds to a lower temp (and therefore richer fuel mixture) and equate this to the difference in mass (but not the lack of contact or difference in sensor output?) And you think everybody else is in the dark?

[Greg Field]

Another heretic to toss on the bonfire.

[Guest ratchethack]

Confucious says.....because you get the result you wanted does not mean you understand why.

If the o.e. sensor has such "shortcomings", why do most peoples bikes work fine with them?

And how is it the o.e. sensor can heat up quick enough but can't cool down fast enough? In fact, the notion that the sensor can not cool down as fast as the cylinder head (which has much more mass AND a source of heat) is laughable.

You replaced a water temp sensor, that was measuring the temp of a metal object with way more mass then the sensor, with an air temp sensor that has even less mass then the o.e. sensor but does not make ANY direct contact with the metal object. You got a signal sent to the ecu that corresponds to a lower temp (and therefore richer fuel mixture) and equate this to the difference in mass (but not the lack of contact or difference in sensor output?) And you think everybody else is in the dark?

Is there an echo in here?

 

Ignorance is such a sad thing. But with sincere willingness and effort, just about everywhere in the Free World these days, at least it’s curable.

 

On the other hand, ignorance of one’s own ignorance is quite another thing. It’s what’s known as profound ignorance, as demonstrated in much of the Third World – and surprisingly enough, to an alarming degree, right here on this thread. Unfortunately, it's generally always accompanied by lack of sincere interest and effort, and therefore, this depth of the affliction is generally incurable.

 

Any o’ you geniuses who’ve brought nothing of any value to this topic ever crack a Physics book? Ever see a Physics book? Chances are pretty good, judging by the absolutely astounding lack of comprehension of the most simple concepts of thermodynamics that you’ve demonstrated here (as repeated above), that if you had ever opened a Physics book at any point in your life, it might as well have been written in Sanskrit. It's all gibberish to you, innit? Clearly BS, and clearly no value to anyone, eh?

 

So wot we have here is a fabulous running display of profound ignorance, combined with no sincere interest in the topic at hand, with a great big wallopping dose of no experience of any kind wotsoever with anything I’ve done or reported on here -- but no shortage of critical commentary, as if the profoundly ignorant somehow possess a superior grasp, based on . . . nothing a-tall.

 

Laughable? Well, what else would one expect from the profoundly ignorant? I’d say something more like "very sad" would be a much better fit here, not to mention boring. So you Gents won’t mind if I don’t respond to more empty posts full of thudding profound ignorance and nothing else of any value going forward, will you?

 

Catch y’all on the flip-flop. Or not.

 

PS Nice effort level on the bogus Confucius quote, GMoto. Here are a few quotes legitimately attributed to The Master:

 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

 

-- and another:

 

"Ignorance is the night of mind, a night without moon or star."

 

-- and here's one that perhaps more than the 2 above, most certainly applies here -- in spades :

 

"When you know a thing, hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge."

[Motomonster]

I had a great uncle who was suffering from dementia. At family functions he would frequently try to participate in the conversation. The things he said were often interesting and they seemed relevant; sometimes he appeared totally normal -- until he unzipped his slacks and began to masturbate.

 

You remind me of him.

[Dan M]

Is this the right place for an argument?

 

On this topic I agree with R. What he's done makes perfect sense and parallels what I've experienced on my own machine.

 

I don't see how someone can constantly argue the idea of the sensor's mass. Do you really think that a sensor that is made of plastic with the thermistor exposed to air does not have less thermo mass than one that has the thermistor encased in brass? Do you really think that the brass will change temp as fast as the surrounding air? Do you really think it is a good idea to use a coolant sensor on an air cooled head? I mean do you? Really? Or is it just an argument.

 

This thread reminds me of this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k...=PL&index=1