engine oil temp sensor

[Guest ratchethack]

From what they say there, your assumption that the higher number is preferred is correct.

Silver 149 x 10 to the sixth

Gold 127 x 10 to the sixth

Copper 113 x 10 to the sixth

Aluminum 97.5 x 10 to the sixth

Iron 22.8 x 10 to the sixth

Thanks for the follow-up, but I'd made no assumptions about comparing thermal conductivity wotsoever, Dave. I was making valid comparisons using numbers with the correct ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (and correct UNIT OF MEASURE), both of which you had ignored earlier, (the latter which you continue to ignore above) resulting in your mistaken perception, as I had pointed out.

 

You've cited a Google book preview, which is not complete, but it's a second edition textbook with original sources properly cited in the appendix, though not given for the table. Good enough for practical purposes here, as far as I'm concerned.

 

However, you're STILL ignoring UNITS OF MEASURE for the numbers you've cited above (m^2/s @ room temperature).

 

One of my objectives here has been to test metals of varying thermal conductivity for heat flow between the head and the sensor tip via the mounting stud, where the heat flow is most important to monitor for FI control, and where the thermistor takes its readings, most ideally un-confused by latent heat flow due to the thermal inertia of the OE sensor body.

 

Somehow, you've missed a grasp of the significant principles at work here, and have become obsessed over the thermal conductivity of the sensor holder.

 

But today, at least you've got the ORDER OF MAGNITUDE the same for all thermal diffusivity numbers you've cited for comparison purposes. In case you missed this in the post where I brought this to your attention earlier, this is where your first attempt at a comparison went South and led you to make a false speculation about aluminum being "better" than brass for a mounting stud, but somehow also "better" than copper for a OE sensor holder (which you apparently cling to, for inexplicable reasons).

 

You've also continued to ignore the concept presented previously ad nauseum that any direct thermal connection between the OE sensor body and the head other than through the sensor probe itself (such as a sensor holder with relatively high thermal conductivity lke brass or aluminum) not only acts as a heat sink through its fins (assuming it has fins), but in any case, ALSO directly conducts heat flow directly between head and sensor body while bypassing the heat flow avenue through the OE sensor probe tip, where the thermistor takes its read -- thereby compounding the low RPM sensor body heat soak lean-burn feedback loop symptoms that I've exposed, posted about, and eliminated completely with the low-mass (also low thermal inertia) OE sensor, and which you're continuing to experience now with your brass holder, according to your posts, and would without question continue to experience to a significant degree with an aluminum holder.

I am surprised that a cc of air has far less diffusivity than a cc of metal!

And I am surprised that the much more dense Gold has better diffusivity.

You'll no doubt continue to be surprised here, Dave. You seem persistently confused about concepts of weight, mass, density, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity in your posts. Though all are related, none of these are equivalent concepts. Unless or until you understand the differences and are able to correctly relate and differentiate them, you will no doubt make incorrect choices WRT materials choices with your speculations.

 

Good luck with your aluminum sensor holder. Please post actual results on the road in MPG, or whatever valid comparison measurement scale you'd like to use when you're able to demonstrate it with actual results (such as I've been doing with MPG on the road, for example).

[Guest ratchethack]

. . . I think of the necessity of an air gap (as it serves the function of smoothing out the response of the thermistor as presented previously here multiple times by Dan M and Yours Truly) as a buffer -- a simple enough concept, but can you imagine attempting to sell this to all those who can't follow the most thuddingly simple and basic thermodynamics and heat flow concepts, as demonstrated hereabouts of late. . .??

 

How about selling the wisdom of using an air gap as a buffer, coupled with the use of the most highly conductive base possible for the sensor holder?? That should go over big around here, too.

Seek, and ye shall find. . .

But seriously, I am having trouble grasping the air gaps importance for anything other than getting the sensor output to match the engineers intentions, or to keep the plastic from heat damage in Ratchet's setup.

Using a copper stud, does having the low diffusivity of air combined with the low mass of air somehow give it BETTER properties that an alumimum stud and less or no air gap would not have(ASSUMING air gaps are set to same maximum temperature at the sensor)? That must be spitting hairs. Forget I asked...

Will do. . . (and gladly)

[dlaing]

Lets be sure and post our findings on all of the other brand's forums. Just to let them know all of their engineers have been incorrectly specing sensors also.

Who makes air cooled fuel injected bikes?

Harley, BMW, Ducati?

Do the others use a similar sensor, adapter, and air gap?

I googled a bit and could not find what I wanted, a better OEM setup than Guzzi's.

You think Harley would atleast be advertising chrome sensors!

Here is all I could find:

BMWs R1200 has a shorter probe. (found on ebay)

[emry]

Add Yamaha, Suzuki, and Victory to your list. Im sure there are others. These are just the few that have come to mind.

 

You missed my post back on page 11!!! Just like I missed yours!!! This thread has gotten silly.

[Dan M]

Who makes air cooled fuel injected bikes?

Harley, BMW, Ducati?

Do the others use a similar sensor, adapter, and air gap?

I googled a bit and could not find what I wanted, a better OEM setup than Guzzi's.

You think Harley would atleast be advertising chrome sensors!

Here is all I could find:

BMWs R1200 has a shorter probe. (found on ebay)

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. I don't think any of the three you listed use the antique M/M ecu the pre feedback V11 uses. Ducati uses Siemens, BMW actually senses oil temp. They are both feedback systems with map sensors. I gladly know nothing about Harleys.

That said, other bikes have fueling issues as well. Most early and some modern fuel injected bikes have issues out of the box. Mostly it is because of emission regulations and they are too lean.

 

Most every other system uses more sensor inputs. If you add an O2 and a MAF or a MAP into the mix the temp is not as important to the big picture. The Guzzi makes do (sort of) without that stuff.

 

As we've gone over 600 times, more heat sensed means leaner. Leaner generally means more fueling glitches.

 

again:

[Dan M]

Add Yamaha, Suzuki,

This thread has gotten silly.

 

What air cooled Yamaha and Suzukis are fuel injected?

 

Yes, quite silly.

[emry]

Yamaha V-star 950, 1700, and 1900's. Suzuki C90's for example.

 

MM1.5 is not a primitve ECU. It was used in a primitive manor with poorly developed mapping. It is more than capable of doing the required calculations. Ducati 900's have used the MM1.5 with fairly good success.

 

MAP sensors are used as a primary sensor to determine initial fuel injector duration along with rpm. MAP sensors are used to determine air flow into the engine while the ECU is operating in D-Jetronic mode. Temp sensors are used to modify the initial value for engine operating temp. During rapid throttle movements or above about 1/2 throttle angle opening all powersports manufactures ECU's will switch to a Alpha-n fueling mode, TP sensor & rpm based lookup with temp modification. Our ECU's are always in Alpha-N.

 

Temperature is always important to an engines fuel calculations because engine temperature is directly linked to combustion, intake and mechancial efficiency, this can be very important for emissions reasons, not to mention cold starts.

 

And yes more heat sensed means leaner because the map sucks. The sensor could work fine if the ECU was mapped correctly. But we could replace the sensor and leave the map alone. Ratchet's approach - (but he didn't have a problem)

 

As for apples to oranges. Engines are engines are engines. They all do the same thing. Burn something, heat some air to expand it, push something to make something else go round and round. Weeee we have an engine.

[dlaing]

But today, at least you've got the ORDER OF MAGNITUDE the same for all thermal diffusivity numbers you've cited for comparison purposes. In case you missed this in the post where I brought this to your attention earlier, this is where your first attempt at a comparison went South and led you to make a false speculation about aluminum being "better" than brass for a mounting stud, but somehow also "better" than copper for a OE sensor holder (which you apparently cling to, for inexplicable reasons).

I made a mistake based on the false assumption that a cc of air would change its temperature, faster than a cc of aluminum or copper.

But I stand by the FACT that in your design, Aluminum is better than brass for a mounting stud.

For the OE sensor holder I do not contend that aluminum would be better than copper.

I contend that aluminum would be better than brass for the brass adapter design, and I suspect aluminum would be better than copper, in that design, but I could be wrong about that.

I figure the lower mass trumps the higher conductivity, but as I said I could be wrong about that.

But I am not wrong about aluminum being a better stud than brass. You are wrong about brass being better than aluminum.

What is your proof or evidence, that brass would be better?

I have no proof but based on aluminum's superior conductivity and lower density, it seems pretty obvious that aluminum would be the better choice.

 

Aluminum has nearly twice the conductivity of Brass

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-...tals-d_858.html

 

The density of brass 8.4 to 8.73 grams per cubic centimeter.

The density of aluminum 2.70 grams per cubic centimeter--wikipedia

[dlaing]

You've also continued to ignore the concept presented previously ad nauseum that any direct thermal connection between the OE sensor body and the head other than through the sensor probe itself (such as a sensor holder with relatively high thermal conductivity lke brass, aluminum, or copper) not only acts as a heat sink through its fins (assuming it has fins), but ALSO directly conducts heat flow directly between head and sensor body while bypassing the heat flow avenue through the OE sensor probe tip, where the thermistor takes its read -- thereby compounding the low RPM sensor body heat soak lean-burn feedback loop symptoms that I've exposed, posted about, and eliminated completely with the low-mass (also low thermal inertia) OE sensor, and which you're continuing to experience now with your brass holder, according to your posts, and would without question continue to experience to a significant degree with an aluminum holder.

I ignore very little, and certainly not the heat sink or conductivity effect of the brass adapter/holder.

But I must admit, I have paid very little attention to the bypass effect of the brass adapter/holder, since the sensor probe is smack in the middle of both sides of the bypass action. How often do you really think the probe is hotter or colder than both the CH and Sensor body at the same time? If so, when? and how do you know where they placed the thermistor?

Wouldn't it be cheaper to put it in the upper part of the probe, considering we have the long probed model?

Don't forget, I paid enough attention to bypass to bother trying adding conductive, which was a failure, and have tried reducing the bypass with teflon tape. My experience has shown that keep the sensor from getting too hot has been more important than worrying about bypass.

Yes, direct path is better if the sensor and ECU dealt with it well, but they don't.

Your latest design seems to be ignoring conductivity(air gap) and mass (brass)

I see the reason for the air gap(cooler sensor reading), but not the brass stud.

You'll no doubt continue to be surprised here, Dave. You seem persistently confused about concepts of weight, mass, density, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity in your posts. Though all are related, none of these are equivalent concepts. Unless or until you understand the differences and are able to correctly relate and differentiate them, you will no doubt make incorrect choices WRT materials choices with your speculations.

Yes, surprise comes only with an open mind.

Confused, I am a little. Perhaps you could edumacate the philistine out of me!?!

If you boil three rods for 20 minutes at 100C, 1 cm by 10 cm, one of brass, one of aluminum and the other of copper and take them out of the water and place upright in a 20C atmosphere on top of 1 cm by 20cm by 20cm aluminum plate, how fast would each rod cool relative to one another, measured with low mass sensors imbedded in the rods, at the top of the rods? Which would cool faster measured imbedded at the bottom of the rods?

If the plate were made of copper, how would it change the result?

If the plate were made of ceramic, how would it change the result?

How about if we blew a fan with 100KPH wind speed across?

Would the cooling follow the nearly double conductivity of copper over aluminum and the nearly double conductivity of aluminum over brass?

Or would it follow the diffusivity numbers?

From what I understand the conductivity numbers would be followed more at the bottom of the rod reading, especially when on the copper plate, and the diffusivity numbers would be more closely followed at the upper rod reading, especially on the ceramic plate.

I think wind would push it to follow diffusivity.

But Heck I could be wrong backassward confused, etc.

I previously thought 10 cc tube of air would cool faster than one of these rods, but if diffusivity is what I NOW think it is, than the air would take longer to cool than any of the metal rods, right?

Doubt we'll get a consensus on this. <_>

 

Care to explain why the differentiation of weight and mass is important here?

[Dan M]

Yamaha V-star 950, 1700, and 1900's. Suzuki C90's for example.

 

MM1.5 is not a primitve ECU. It was used in a primitive manor with poorly developed mapping. It is more than capable of doing the required calculations. Ducati 900's have used the MM1.5 with fairly good success.

 

MAP sensors are used as a primary sensor to determine initial fuel injector duration along with rpm. MAP sensors are used to determine air flow into the engine while the ECU is operating in D-Jetronic mode. Temp sensors are used to modify the initial value for engine operating temp. During rapid throttle movements or above about 1/2 throttle angle opening all powersports manufactures ECU's will switch to a Alpha-n fueling mode, TP sensor & rpm based lookup with temp modification. Our ECU's are always in Alpha-N.

 

Temperature is always important to an engines fuel calculations because engine temperature is directly linked to combustion, intake and mechancial efficiency, this can be very important for emissions reasons, not to mention cold starts.

 

And yes more heat sensed means leaner because the map sucks. The sensor could work fine if the ECU was mapped correctly. But we could replace the sensor and leave the map alone. Ratchet's approach - (but he didn't have a problem)

 

As for apples to oranges. Engines are engines are engines. They all do the same thing. Burn something, heat some air to expand it, push something to make something else go round and round. Weeee we have an engine.

 

 

My point is, comparing a feedback system that uses multiple inputs to our non feedback system is like comparing apples & oranges. So far as engines are engines are engines. Comparing the MG 2 valve to say for example, Yamaha's new R1 motor is well, like comparing apples to um oranges.

 

I didn't realize Yamaha went to FI on their air cooled cruisers. I don't follow the cruisers much. Looks to be a feedback system with more modern injectors to boot. Again more sophisticated than what we have. Funny, the Japanese didn't even try to use a non feedback system.

 

Please realize when I refer to the MM unit on our machines as "antique" or "WW2 era" There is a bit of tongue in cheek there. (hint - there were no MM ecu's for M/C FI during WW2)

 

Ducati's 900s had their fueling issues, they surged as well.

 

We all know temp is important. There is about 50 pages here about it.

 

I fully agree that a proper map will solve running issues. However, with a system such as this you really will have a hard time having both good running and emission compliance. It is precisely what limits manufacturers maps. The reason everything is lean and runs poorly out of the box is emission compliance. More modern systems can deal with both. Hell, most carb'd bikes didn't run at their best as delivered because they were too lean.

 

I don't want to speak for Ratchet but I believe his exercise is aimed at getting better economy while retaining good running. While his bike ran good before he's taken the time to try to improve it. (more accurate fueling)

[Guest ratchethack]

Confused, I am a little. Perhaps you could edumacate the philistine out of me!?!

Dave, unless I mistake what I see here (and I’ve been mistaken in this direction so very many many times before ) I seem to detect a slight shadow of a hint of a memory of sincerity in your post above WRT wanting to understand that which you cannot comprehend without some kind of knowledge base in thermodynamics.

 

If the thirst for knowledge hasn’t yet motivated you beyond where you are today at any point in your life, Dave, nothing that happens here is likely to help. But let’s see if we might nudge you a skosh in a positive direction.

 

By my count you’ve asked 10 Q’s in your post above. While this Forum CAN BE a place for learning for those both sincerely interested and capable of learning (however rarely demonstrated lately ), it’s not a place for anyone to recover from previously lost opportunities to master proper courses in Physics – or even to bring anyone up to a level of failing them.

Doubt we'll get a consensus on this.

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

We’ve been over the core foundation and first principle of Science for years and countless times on this Forum, Dave -- and yet today, you still don’t get it: Science DOES NOT PROCEED BY CONSENSUS. Not today, not tomorrow, not at any point in history -- NOT EVER. Nor does ANY field of knowledge based on pursuit of truth proceed by CONSENSUS. CONSENSUS is a tool of politicians, Dave. Nothing more. If you can’t comprehend this, there’s no hope for any understanding of anything, Dave, and you might as well hang up any pretense of sincerity in pursuit of knowledge and understanding now.

 

Remember the example of Copernicus and Galileo, Dave? I repeated it many many times previously – just for your benefit. CONSENSUS had branded Copernicus a heretic and a deranged psychotic his entire life. CONSENSUS prevented him from publishing his life's masterwork for fear of his life until he lay dying. CONSENSUS put Galileo in front of the Inquisition for supporting Copernicus' view of the universe. CONSENSUS put Galileo in prison for the rest of his life for having said that the earth orbits the sun. CONSENSUS forced Galileo to publicly deny this belief on threat of being burned at the stake. I’d venture that a CONSENSUS on this thread hasn't the foggiest comprehension of the significance of this lesson to Science, nor would any CONSENSUS here be sincerely interested enough to read about it for as much as five minutes. You weren’t willing yourself multiple times earlier, so you probably aren’t now. But now I’m giving you yet another opportunity to begin educating yourself. You could do far worse than to start by reading this page:

 

http://webserver.sms.org/intranet/classes/...e_1/Ssolsys.htm

 

With more specific sincere interest in Thermodynamics, the following is no substitute for many semesters and countless hours of lecture, reading, studying, lab experiments, taking tests, etc. that a very few of us here have invested in our own knowledge base of Physics, but at least it’s SOMETHING – sort of a cheat sheet for the summary version of Cliff’s notes. Mastery of it probably wouldn’t allow you to pass a Junior High School Physics exam. But it’s a start, and properly and sincerely motivated (if you've finally decided to actually learn something) it would potentially encourage you to seek out more knowledge and at least start your own self-education process:

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i1f.htm

 

I bid you a MOST SINCERE good luck!

[dlaing]

My point is, comparing a feedback system that uses multiple inputs to our non feedback system is like comparing apples & oranges. So far as engines are engines are engines. Comparing the MG 2 valve to say for example, Yamaha's new R1 motor is well, like comparing apples to um oranges.

So, you are saying air cooled fuel injected engines from HD, Ducati, Buell, and BMW had multiple input feedback systems when Guzzi did not?

I thought they all had pretty similar designs.

You said BMW uses a true oil temp sensor. That could make a difference, but still it is more comparable than apples and oranges. What about HD, Ducati and Buell?

[dlaing]

Dave, unless I mistake what I see here (and I’ve been mistaken in this direction so very many many times before ) I seem to detect a slight shadow of a hint of a memory of sincerity in your post above WRT wanting to understand that which you cannot comprehend without a further base of knowledge of thermodynamics.

 

If the thirst for knowledge hasn’t yet motivated you beyond where you are today at any point in your life, Dave, nothing that happens here is likely to help. But let’s see if we might nudge you a skosh in a positive direction, shall we?

 

By my count you’ve asked 10 Q’s in your post above. While this Forum CAN BE a place for learning for those both sincerely interested and capable of learning (yet so seldom has been lately ), it’s not a place for anyone to recover from previously lost opportunities to master proper courses in Physics – or even to bring anyone up to a level of failing them.

 

. . .[sigh]. . .

 

We’ve been over the core foundation and first principle of Science for years and countless times on this Forum, Dave -- and yet today, you still don’t get it: Science DOES NOT PROCEED BY CONSENSUS. Not today, not tomorrow, not at any point in history -- NOT EVER. Nor does ANY field of knowledge based on pursuit of truth proceed by CONSENSUS. CONSENSUS is a tool of politicians, Dave. Nothing more. If you can’t comprehend this, there’s no hope for any understanding of anything, Dave, and you might as well hang up any trace of sincerity in pursuit of knowledge and understanding now.

 

Remember the example of Copernicus and Galileo, Dave? I repeated it many many times previously – just for your benefit. CONSENSUS had branded Copernicus a heretic and a deranged psychotic his entire life. CONSENSUS prevented him from publishing his life's masterwork for fear of his life until he lay dying. I’d venture that next to no one on this thread has ever understood his significance to Science, nor would they be sincerely interested enough to study him for five minutes. You weren’t yourself multiple times earlier, so you probably aren’t now. But now I’m giving you yet another opportunity to begin educating yourself. You could do far worse than to start by reading this page:

 

http://webserver.sms.org/intranet/classes/...e_1/Ssolsys.htm

 

With more specific sincere interest in Thermodynamics, the following is no substitute for many semesters and countless hours of lecture, reading, studying, lab experiments, taking tests, etc. that a very few of us here have invested in our knowledge base of Physics, but at least it’s SOMETHING – sort of a cheat sheet for the summary version of Cliff’s notes. Mastery of it probably wouldn’t allow you to pass a Junior High School Physics exam. But it’s a start, and it would potentially encourage you to seek out more knowledge and at least start your own self-education process:

 

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i1f.htm

 

I bid you a MOST SINCERE good luck!

 

Glad to see admit you don't know the difference between mass and weight, or diffusivity and conductance.

 

BTW, consensus is a very important part of science. Consensus validated Copernicus and Galileo.

If it did not, think where we would be today.

 

Continue on your merry way experimenting with no temperature or voltage readings, curing not problems, but symptoms that don't exist since you have had a perfect running engine, with plastic that may not be up to the duty cycle, and a brass rod selected over an aluminum rod to show just how excellent your understanding of thermal physics is.

Carry on.

[Dan M]

So, you are saying air cooled fuel injected engines from HD, Ducati, Buell, and BMW had multiple input feedback systems when Guzzi did not?

I thought they all had pretty similar designs.

You said BMW uses a true oil temp sensor. That could make a difference, but still it is more comparable than apples and oranges. What about HD, Ducati and Buell?

 

I was under the impression we were discussing non feed back Moto Guzzis here. Like yours, mine, and Ratchet's. I don't understand why you or I or Ratchet would argue about a system we are not using. (feedback)

 

My BMW uses a O2 sensor and a MAP. It is a feedback system as are newer MGs. My friends Ducati uses a O2 and a MAP. The newest Ducatis use 2 O2s.

BTW, BMWs especially R1100 and R1150 (pre twin spark) models have a lean surge. Go to any BMW forum and search "surge"

Ducati's air cooled feedback motor also is prone to surge. Enough so that Jason Borders of Boulevard Performance has developed a manipulator to fool the ECU into adding fuel by manipulating the O2 signal. His product is called "Fatduc" appropriately enough and is marketed to Ducati owners. He let me try one on my Aprilia (because guess what, it has a lean surge about 3000RPM and, it is liquid cooled) Unfortunately the Ape's ECU recognized that too much fuel trim correction was needed and it would trip a lean code illuminating the MIL. Ran great with it though.

 

BMW's air/oil cooled motors keep a very steady temp for a mostly air cooled motor. Mine comes up to mid gauge (oil temp) and stays there, pretty much no matter what the weather is.

 

I have no idea what HD or Buell does.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . .consensus is a very important part of science. Consensus validated Copernicus and Galileo.

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. . . It has put you back in the Dark Ages, and it'll keep you there as long as you remain as ignorant and closed-minded as you demonstrate here. . .

. . .If it did not, think where we would be today.

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]. . .