electronic throttle

Many (most) do just that, (though they use multi-section
potentiometers to allow reduncancy). All one assembly, bolts to the
floor/firewall or a bracket under the dash.

 

Perhaps for fixed engines, but for vehicle engines, no... The only
thing the governor does in vehicle diesel engines si to limit the
maximum RPMs to a safe value to prevent engine self-destruction.

 

Aright!! I get it!! LOL!

 

Much, much too late.

 

----- Original Message -----

Isn't progress wonderful.

Done - called an electric starter,
http://shopping.yahoo.com/713009843-toro-recycler-electric-start-lawn-mower/;_ylt=A2KJ389K3J5L8TQARBgbFt0A

Done at least two ways - mechanically operated real bells and electrically
synthesized bells.
http://www.electrictime.com/controls_and_chimes/bell_hammer_actuator_50lbs_22_7kg
http://www.verdin.com/carillons/
http://www.schulmerich.com/products_towers_overview.php

Done. They call it a wall switch. I think Edison had them. But they also
have remotely operated light controls.
http://www.securitystoreusa.com/Safety+Technology+Inc.+HW2165D+Wireless+Light+Sock-p/491371.htm

Not my area of interest....

Are you old enough to remember the good old days? Spark ignition,
carburetors, etc....
I am . I'll stick with the current stuff. Hard for me to diagnosis, but then
I can't remember the last time I had a problem that needed diagnosing that
was related to a problem with the electronics other than failed mechanical
bits (like connectors). Consider this - if a mechanical throttle is jammed
open, the driver must intervene. A properly designed electronic system can
recognize a conflict and shut the engine down without driver intervention.
I've actually had a mechanical throttle fail. I've never had it happen with
an electrically controlled one. I know this doesn't prove anything, but I
see no reason to believe that an electronically controlled throttle can't be
much safer and more reliable than a mechanical system. And the electronic
systems do have advantages other than improved safety.

Ed

 

You are 100% sure of that????

I think on most (non Common rail) inline vehicle diesel pumps you
WILL find the governor controls the fuel rack. At least every one I've
ever seen.
On a Bosch distributor type pump the governor controls the spill port
timing, which limits the injection duration and volume. If you could
control the injection directly on a diesel you could easily damage the
engine by injecting too much fuel at low RPM. The "throttle" control
connects to the governor, and the governor does tne rest. That's the
mid-eighties VW type pump. (as well as a WHOLE LOT of others.

 

so it should process a wrong pedal application immediately? er, ok.

the scientific approach...

that's a side benefit. the biggest reason is control for the auto
transmission - it can be built cheaper if it doesn't need to take the
loads placed on it by full throttle shifting. oh, and it'll be smoother
too.

yes it is. two reasons -

1. it mitigates "dithering" wear on the actuator at the throttle body

2. it reduces gas consumption by throttle stabbers - those that
constantly speed up and slow down.

you don't understand. why do people that don't understand have opinions
but not ask questions?

well, you effectively did.

toyota's problem is political, not electrical.

1. "humble" is not as reliable.

2. "humble" offers no control advantages.

do you ever drive diesels? you've never had direct control on a diesel,
so what's your problem with gasoline control? [rhetorical]

your only "experience" is that of a failed education system.

ever driven a diesel? you should try it.

here's a "manual" you could try:
http://www.amazon.com/Control-Systems-Engineering-Norman-Nise/dp/0471794759/ref=sr_1_3/178-7851286-0899705?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268707535&sr=8-3

 

no i haven't lost my mind. and you obviously don't know about diesel
injection systems or you'd not make the above fundamentally incorrect
statement.

all diesels, from day one, have had a control system [otherwise known as
a governor] between the driver's foot and the injection stroke
commander. it limits revs and controls injector stroke depending on
load. [example - the driver can have their foot at 100%, but the
governor is only injecting 5%. or the driver can have the pedal at 30%
and the injector can be at 100%. the final say with the amount of fuel
injected rests with the control system, not with the driver.] these
controls, while simple, are successors to the early watts governors
found on steam engines.

http://oldenginehouse.users.btopenworld.com/watt.htm

not to the same extent as an electronic control it's not. as you'd know
if you had enough experience or grounding in electronics.

 

how is it possible to be so clueless? you don't even know what you
don't know!

yeah, the advice of the clueless is always helpful.

 

of course he's not - he doesn't even know how little he knows.

you are indeed correct.

 

yes, cruise would be the facer.

have to revert o idle air control valves.

i got that. the problem is the political dimension of how to implement it.

 

I've been in the computer business since I joined IBM in '65. Seen
untold 1,000's of references to a/the [system] bus, but have never seen
it spelled with 2 esses. To me a "buss" is a kiss. Now to the dictionary...

 

Sure, but IBM always makes up silly words for things that nobody else
uses, like IPL and DASD.... but yeah, it was official IBM policy to
spell it "bus" and to call an external I/O bus a "channel."
--scott

 

Not just IBM. I've worked in that business since nineteen <mumble>
canteen and "buss" was only ever used to refer to an electrical
(power) bus (hence buss fuses), which is quite a different animal. I
can't think of any computer maker who called his backplane a buss.

 

Try the original S-100 Buss:
http://www.pldos.pl/bogus/hardware/komputery/mits/pemag0175.htm
--scott

 

That's a Plopular Mecanicks article, and they can't even spell
"Altair." The 8080 was a decent chip in its day, but Intel didn't
call its communication system a buss, it was a bus. People who wrote
about it may have called it a buss, but Intel didn't. Sorry, try
again.

 

Not political, economic.

Doing all this stuff in software is cheap compared to even the simplest
mechanical implementation. Fine tuning and revising the system's
behavior is much easier if its all done in a chip as well.

 

Hm, you seem very thoughtful.

 

You're thinking of Rodin. Rodan was the pterodactyl-like creature who
was a foe of Godzilla.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen

 

The combination? Let's say we have air temperature, humidity, air
speed (all at some position in the inlet system), throttle position,
vehicle speed, gear selected, engine speed. Temperature, humidity and
speed all are used to calculate air mass. Okay, we have 7 inputs.
Small number. How many potential combinations of input numbers do we
have? Air temp = 0C. Humidity = 50%. Air speed = 100 m/s. Throttle
position = 35%. Gear = 4 (out of 5). Engine speed = 3500 rpm. That's
one. Air temp = 35C. Humidity = 75%. Air speed = 100 m/s. Throttle
position = 55%. Gear = 2. Engine speed = 4800 rpm. Two, shall we go
on?

Any selection of the above may result in an out of bounds situation
whcih the software may handle in any one of a variety of well defined
conditions. Or it may fail. I've been involved in the development of
a number of "fault tolerant" systems where we had an out that said
that the system might fail or behave erratically in the event of
"multiple simultaneous failures". In the one of these systems, the
number of inputs was only 12 and the number of permitted failures was
3 (more than 3 = MSF). Customer throw 800 different scenarios with
more than 3 failures. We found another 1500. Customer wanted to go
to 5 permitted failures. We told customer "write us a check for
another $175 million". Said system currently lives on 3 failures. Oh,
of the 2300 potentilal failures, none have occured. But the system
has collapesed three times due to other combinations of events that
none of us could have predicted.

Yes. But was that considered to be one of the testable parameters?
Here's the magical part of this. The software guys can only test for
situations that are in the realistic to marginally realistic range.
The hardware guys had a very, very high level of confidence that the
event that he demonstrated would not happen. And his effort required
significant work on his part to effect.

Have you ever been involved in complex systems development?--

- dillon I am not invalid

You know, I can't think of nothing finer than a fine
naked woman holding a gun. And you got all kinds of
fine going on.

Frankie Figs