engine oil temp sensor

[Skeeve]

. . .[sigh]. . . The classic lessons of antiquity repeat themselves here, as you've so aptly reminded us by resurrecting the metaphor again, G2G.

 

. . .The Philistine trots out a great walloping arsenal of technologically advanced iron and steel weapons of war of no possible use to him on the field (which easily trump the bronze technology of his adversary). True to his culture, he suffers the self-limiting deficiency of lack of wisdom, and therefore he also suffers the far more significant (and fatal) incompetence of inferior strategy and tactics.

 

The wiser and more experienced adversary again finds the best strategy is to turn the technology of the Philistine to his own advantage, exploiting his lack of wisdom by simply electing not to engage. He stands at relative ease whilst the Philistine runs madly in circles, flailing his weapons about wildly, tiring himself into fatigue, eventually tripping on his steel sword, and severing his own head. . .

 

The adversary collects his nice new weapons whilst the next Philistine wonders how it happened, and prepares to repeat his predecessor's performance. . .

 

. . . So has it ever been, and so shall it ever be. . .

 

I'm not so sure you should use this metaphor, Ratch': AFAIK, the Philistines were somewhat successful militarily...

[Guest ratchethack]

I'm not so sure you should use this metaphor, Ratch': AFAIK, the Philistines were somewhat successful militarily...

That's right, Skeeve. They possessed many advancements over contemporary cultures. That is, until they were multiply divided and absorbed (rendering them extinct as a people), as posted previously by Yours Truly, (see below).

 

Depending on source, the modern use of the words Philistine, and only in later centuries, Philistinism have changed from the time the word was first "re-introduced" in the 17th century, to the time it became established in the English vernacular somewhere in the mid 18th century and then was later picked up again in the 19th century (as posted above and still used today) and finally took on on a meaning that is partially (though by no means wholly) at odds with established historical fact.

 

 

Samson famously dispatches a Philistine,

statue by Giambologna, 1529-1608.

 

There are many interpretations of its use today in both noun and adjective forms.

 

Here's one:

 

It has never been good to be a Philistine. In the Bible Samson, Saul, and David helped bring the Philistines into prominence because they were such prominent opponents. Though the Philistines have long since disappeared, their name has lived on in the Hebrew Scriptures. The English name for them, Philistines, which goes back through Late Latin and Greek to Hebrew, is first found in Middle English, where Philistiens, the ancestor of our word, is recorded in a work composed before 1325. Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown [sic] quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text “Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!],” the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.

 

SOURCE: www.bartleby.com/61/66/P0246600.html

 

And another:

 

Philistinism is used in a derogatory manner to describe a type of attitude or value system. It is implied that a “philistine” is usually a person that despises undervalue art, beauty, intelligence and spirituality. The colloquial use of philistinism refers to persons who are materialistic, adhere to conventional social values without introspection and favor the cheapest and easiest categories of art.

 

Philistinism is often compared and contrasted to Bohemianism, which is identified by an artistic temperament and a broad culture open to the avant-garde. On the other hand, “philistines” are said to be a smug “bourgeois” social group lacking in soul—especially as regards soulfulness as defined by the Bohemianism. The definition of philistinism is further explained by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who stated that philistines not only seem oblivious to other lifestyles not his own, but also demands that others fashion their existence after his own.

 

SOURCE: www.philistinism.com/"]http://www.philistinism.com

 

. . .And FWIW, lifted from a semi-recent thread (since locked), here's my own take:

 

This is off the top of my head, so it's far from comprehensive. But I believe if you research properly, . . .you will find that the

Philistines

were not only advanced in language, general knowledge, warfare, and cultural achievements, but (and MOST SIGNIFICANTLY!) they infamously lacked

wisdom

, and were therefore notoriously given to self-indulgence, all manner of moral and ethical weaknesses, and decadence. Their culture was uniquely and inherently rudderless, lacking traditions based on core principles rooted in self-sustenance. As a result, the

Philistines

became scattered throughout other cultures of superior standards, and were driven into non-existence by many adversaries, including the armies of ancient Babylon and Israel. The remnants were absorbed, and the

Philistines

eventually became extinct as an independent culture.

 

The term,

Philistinism

was adopted into common vernacular in the 18th century, and has been recognized ever since as a pejorative for pretentious people everywhere of inferior culture, without principles, inclined toward foolish indulgences, without a future, without a country, and subject to folly, and every popular delusion

du jour

, which ultimately dooms them to prematurely assume room temperature, not always at a time and place of their own choosing. In modern times the

Philistines

have been resurrected in name only, as a reference to confused and aimless people everywhere who greedily gorge themselves on the ever-expanding buffet of follies, weaknesses, materialism, decadence, illiteracy, bad taste, idiocies, irresponsibilities, blatantly destructive and self-limiting behaviors, and all the rank stupidities of Popular Kulture.

 

Philistines

are the fools, idiots, and laughingstocks of today, and are found wherever fools, idiots, and laughingstocks tend to congregate to suck up the latest GROUPTHINK, where they meet to congratulate themselves on their superficial similarities to each other. Their populations have been expanding dramatically and more visibly, often spectacularly so in recent times within other cultures, upon whom they depend and feed, just as any parasite feeds upon its host.

 

References to the Palestinians as

Philistines

are commonly made due to the obvious similarities and similar geographies historically inhabited by both cultures (search on history of Philista and the modern-day Gaza Strip). There was almost certainly substantial overlap at some time (or times) in history, though historians today typically shy away from linking the two for many complex reasons, mostly political.

 

Of course. . . there ARE those who consider modern-day

Philistines

to be "enlightened", "progressive", "advanced", and "creative". Those who hold this view would for the most part be limited to none other than modern-day

Philistines

themselves. . .

_____________

 

For a quick study on this topic, Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, UK, has authored an interesting book on Instututionalized Philistinism, or as I have understood it for many decades, The Great Dumbing Down. This is the insidious and relentless process that has thrust massive segments of global Popular Kulture far down the slippery slope of ignorance and degeneracy on an accelerating basis in the last century, leaving Popular Kulture in the sorry state it is today, steeped as it is in a sorry miasma of propaganda. The Philistines unconsciously consume propaganda from their environment by osmosis, being unthinking, preconditioned Sheeple, ripe once again for another harvest cycle of tyranny and slavery, this time on a global scale. FWIW, Furedi's observations seem to fit mine fairly closely.

 

A short essay on his 2004 book on the subject of Institutional Philistinism may be found here:

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA6F5.htm

 

The author's bio, including a short video comment by the author himself, may be found here:

 

http://www.jla.co.uk/conference-speakers/frank-furedi

 

Here's a little Q&A that captures the thrust of his book:

 

Q&A

 

by Frank Furedi

 

JLA: How is the 'dumbing down' of education, culture, media and politics reflected in business?

 

Answer: The pursuit of ideas, experimentation and creativity in the arts is undermined by society's difficulty in affirming open-ended journeys of discovery. Instead it seeks predictability and a risk-free environment where the unexpected can be managed. Business seems far more interested in producing codes, guides, mission statements and rules in order to save individuals from the trouble of having to think and learn from their experience.

[Guzzi2Go]

No, you are again wrong. When individuals of integrity offer information it is hoped that it will be trusted. There is no attempt to mislead, only to share information. Many including myself have called what we offer theories. We've shared our experiences. Some report their own findings footnoted with YMMV. Some offer solid info on related topics with the mention of assumptions and calculations. You, by your own admission put out wrong information in order to bait others. There is quite a difference. Why anyone would ever again take your information at face value knowing this is beyond me.

Who are these individuals and what about their integrity? Why trusting them, even if what they write is in good faith? Could we have a discussion about dogma? Isn't that what certain "individuals of integrity" would call "groupthink" followed by despiseful spat?

 

I choose to trust depending of what I read not who it comes from, and if what is written makes sense I'll accept it regardless of who is it coming from. I guess this is where we differ.

 

Please understand "my attempt to mislead" as a simple experiment. Now I know that there is at least one person reading these posts with his brain switched on. And which of my posts he will believe and which not he can best judge himself.

[Greg Field]

I predict the Dow will bottom out at 4,000 about the time that this topic'll reach 40 pages. Coincidental? Only the philistines know for sure . . .

[Dan M]

I predict the Dow will bottom out at 4,000 about the time that this topic'll reach 40 pages. Coincidental? Only the philistines know for sure . . .

 

Good one Greg.

[dlaing]

What was incorrect? If the thermistor doesn't go open until below -40C and doesn't short until beyond 180C, is 90 not mid range? Are you just splitting hairs?

You'll have to trust me on this or perhaps get a hold of someone with a scanner hook it up to a vehicle and disconnect a TPS. Check temp with it open and jump the wires and check temp shorted. You'll see that unless the computer defaults to a mid value when it sees a signal out of range, you'll see (in Fahrenheit) at least -40F open and as much as 360F shorted. This is what the computer reports on the scanner. Some manufacturers show different limits so YMMV and all of that.

What was incorrect is your statement that the sensor "is ranged to be most sensitive in the 90C to 110C area."

The charts show the greatest difference between 30 and 40 which I believe indicates it is ranged to be most sensitive between 30C to 40C area. Unless I am missing something....

What is also is incorrect is that you shut up.

Thankfully you did not shut up as your comments are greatly appreciated and informative, although not always 100% correct, as none of our comments are always correct.

If I am incorrect, perhaps you could explain why the sensor is more sensitive in the 90C to 110C area, than the 30C to 40C area??????

Perhaps it has something to do with the pre-load resistor value that G2G posted about, but his chart does not seem to support greatest sensitivity in the 90-110 range.

Or is that part of his fish bait that I had missed?

BTW where is the original bait that G2G posted? I'll go back and look for when Raz corrected him....

G2G, please don't do that again!!!

 

Just another quick thought here and I'll shut up.

 

Looking at the spec'd sensor's values. It is ranged to be most sensitive in the 90C to 110C area. Interestingly, the exact operating temperature range of a modern liquid cooled motor. (thermostats typically open at 90 and cooling fans come on at about 110) The air cooled lump varies widely on either side of this range. Seems to lend some credit to someone's earlier theories on trying to mimic a coolant reading.

[dlaing]

I predict the Dow will bottom out at 4,000 about the time that this topic'll reach 40 pages. Coincidental? Only the philistines know for sure . . .

I predict the Dow will hit 4,444 within 4.444 days of Ratchethack's 4,444 post, and Nasdaq will hit 1,111 within 11.11 days of Dan's 1,111 post, but only if Bill Gates will buy his wife an iPhone

[Admin Jaap]

And another initially interesting technical thread gone down the drain... <_>

[dlaing]

This data set overthrows two statements made in this thread:

1) NTC is most sensitive in 90-110°C range, and this is why it is selected for the application. I am still missing definition of "sensitive". Is it dR/dT? Is it dT/dR? Or something else? If it is dR/dT then the NTC is "loosing on sensitivity" with increase of the temperature. What is maybe not so obvious from this calculation is that the sensitivity of the setup (if that is dU/dT) is actually dependent on the value of the preload resistor. I will post a calculation illustrating that in following post.

2) NTC (or better temperature sensing setup including ECU) does not have sufficient resolution to distinguish temperature changes above 90°C. This is the one I made and is so obviously wrong that I am surprised that it took so long for someone to counter it. I kind of hoped Dan would easily cover it, but he chose not to for whatever reason. Pity, since that would put the discussion quickly back on track. You could have also covered it, but I did not hold my breath. In terms of fishing, call it a "bait". Glad that raz took it, as it shows how a sensible discussion could look like. One makes an unsubstantiated claim, and bang, there is a quality argumentation to either corroborate or overthrow if. Of course, there is an alternative involving Philistines, but I just fail to see how they fit in the context.

 

 

What it tells me is that the temp sensing setup resolution at temperatures between 90-110°C is in average 1/36 or ~0.3°C. Sufficient for accurate measurement of temperature even in that area. Goes with countering the statement I made about inability of the setup to measure temperatures above 90°C. See #2 above.

 

 

First of all, it is not assumed it is specified. This is what a design or a model starts with. Measurement or experiment is 2nd step in the process executed to confirm the validity of design/model. Which brings me to the question: "Where is YOUR model/design for air-gap or heatsink dimensioning which you are trying to prove by experimentation?"

 

Second, what tells me what ECU does with that info is the OilT line. The RELEVANT line. Stock and MyECU lines have been posted here earlier. Stock OilT line tells me that WM adjusts mixture even in high temperature range, which I may choose to compensate for by adding a resistor (of certain value) in series to the sensor. MyECU OilT line tells me that myECU simply ignores what happens above 40°C ("choke open"), so no need to do anything there.

 

 

Well, I did that. Twice. I gave you a calculation on resistor in series to sensor, and the one on influence of a heatsink on measuring temperature. Both may be wrong, but you will just not know until you have put the some numbers in YOUR calculator. Only then you can claim that there is something wrong with MY calculator.

Where is your original "baiting" post? I read all your recent posts and could not find it.

[dlaing]

That said, I believe it acts more like an on/off switch than a fine regulator for fuel supply when the head temperature is between 90 and 91°C.

Is this the bait? From back in 2007!!!!

Clearly it is not an on/off switch.

The TuneBoy charts show that.

[raz]

What was incorrect is your statement that the sensor "is ranged to be most sensitive in the 90C to 110C area."

The charts show the greatest difference between 30 and 40 which I believe indicates it is ranged to be most sensitive between 30C to 40C area. Unless I am missing something....

What charts? As G2G demonstrated in his latest chart, you can choose a bridge resistor that maximizes the voltage resolution to whatever point in the range you like. If you like it to be at 0 degrees, chose the same value as the thermistor itself has at 0 degrees, namely 9.750 ohms. Now you have the greatest voltage slew at that range. But that does not mean you altered the sensor accuracy or sensitivity! Chosing the right resistor is important, but it doesn't negate the need to choose the right thermistor.

 

If magnifying a low resolution photo, you'll just get mosaic!

 

Oh, and G2G made a mistake (or baited) in post 303. We all make mistakes.

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

And another initially interesting technical thread gone down the drain... <_>

 

I'm still waiting to find out if the ECU will go to a limp home mode if the sensor fails/partially fails!!

[Guest ratchethack]

I'm still waiting to find out if the ECU will go to a limp home mode if the sensor fails/partially fails!!

Don't know if there's a limp home mode, but as posted above (post #352), if it goes open circuit, it simply runs rich, starts & runs fine, as I discovered by disconnecting it.

[dlaing]

What charts? As G2G demonstrated in his latest chart, you can choose a bridge resistor that maximizes the voltage resolution to whatever point in the range you like. If you like it to be at 0 degrees, chose the same value as the thermistor itself has at 0 degrees, namely 9.750 ohms. Now you have the greatest voltage slew at that range. But that does not mean you altered the sensor accuracy or sensitivity! Chosing the right resistor is important, but it doesn't negate the need to choose the right thermistor.

 

If magnifying a low resolution photo, you'll just get mosaic!

 

Oh, and G2G made a mistake (or baited) in post 303. We all make mistakes.

Seems like we are changing the topic from the sensor's spec'd sensitivity to the sensitivity interpreted by the ECU.

The only place Guzzi or Weber/Marrelli would have put this alleged resistor is in the ECU, right?

What Resistance maximizes the sensitivity so that 90-110C is the most the sensitive, and what proof do we have that that is resistance used by the ECU?

[Skeeve]

What was incorrect is your statement that the sensor "is ranged to be most sensitive in the 90C to 110C area."

The charts show the greatest difference between 30 and 40 which I believe indicates it is ranged to be most sensitive between 30C to 40C area. Unless I am missing something....

 

Looking at the chart of values, it appears to me that the sensor is essentially transitioning from "OFF" to "some value of ON" in the -40C to -30C range.

 

This makes lots of sense, since -40C = -40F, and -30C = -22F, which are temperature ranges all out of keeping with the concept of motorcycle riding: time to bunker up & wait out the winter, you know? Yes, if the Nazis reinvade the Soviet Union, there would be need for someone-who-is-not-me to ride his motorcycle in such temps, and hence, for a motorcycle to run in such temps. But how are you going to start it, when your battery is frozen solid & there's no kickstarter on these things?

 

So, the giant gap in values from -40C to -30C is just that: a transition from "frozen solid" to "someone's actually crazy enough to attempt this?!?" and can safely be ignored in further discussion...

 

Here's what what's been empirically determined so far:

 

The sensor reacts more quickly to the engine coming to temp when it has some sort of thermal conductor btw the nose of the sensor and the port into which the sensor screws into the head. [This is a good thing]

 

The sensor body tends to get heat soaked in warm weather & run too lean if the original brass sensor receptacle is used instead of the prone-to-failure plastic receptacle. [This is a bad thing]

 

The sensor functions better at high engine temps when an additional heat sink is interposed btw it and the receptacle. [A good thing, but starting to get crowded under the tank]

 

The plastic receptacle will always degrade from heat and fail if the sensor is removed, vs. the longevity of a metal holder. [a bad thing]

 

The sensor rarely, if ever, requires removal. [a good thing]

 

Stainless steel has roughly 1/4 the thermal conductivity of brass [a so-so thing, depending upon requirements]

 

Stainless steel reacts with aluminum, leading to galling & seizure of components when in close-fit physical proximity. [a bad thing]

 

Anti-seize compound alleviates the problems with using stainless bolts in aluminum threads, and makes a good thermal paste for connecting the sensor nose to the head. [a good thing]

 

Aluminum heat sinks are widely available at computer parts shops. [a thing of insignificance in most motorcycle discussions, but somewhat pertinent here]

 

I am of perhaps less-than-average mechanical ability, call it "cave man like" on a range where "utterly inept" equals "unable to run a pencil sharpener" and "godlike" equals my brother's ability to start & drive away a car by laying on of the hands when I'd charged the battery, checked the fuses, etc. etc. and not had any luck w/ getting so much as a click out of the solenoid. [A thing of no particular consequence.]

 

Installing a Ratchethack-like setup for the head temp sensor now that it has been done by someone else and seen to function falls into the "so easy a cave man could do it" category of life-experiences. [a good thing]

 

I'm still tempted to run up a sensor receptacle in stainless, slather the thing in anti-seize and call it a day [a bad thing; I really don't have time for swapping over the mini-lathe to cut metric threads, etc.]

 

Did I miss anything? Yes? Too bad, this post is too long by half...