Return-Path: Received: from out005.verizon.net ([206.46.170.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 380955 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:23:16 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.143; envelope-from=finn.lassen@verizon.net Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out005.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040827152247.QJBJ8887.out005.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:22:47 -0500 Message-ID: <412F51BF.2020606@verizon.net> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 11:22:39 -0400 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine run References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080902010900090403020805" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out005.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:22:47 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080902010900090403020805 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doesn't sound right. I thought 0.7 volts were best (sto...metric) mixture. 0.8V volts more like best power and 0.6 and below getting lean. Finn Russell Duffy wrote: > This is something that I've bugged Tracy about pretty extensively. > Mine does the same thing yours does, and Tracy says his doesn't. I > used to use the old gauge that Tracy sold, and I've done some testing > with it, and the EM-2 both connected (verified not to interfere with > each other). When the old gauge reads mid scale, the EM-2 is about > 7-8 bars. Since O2 sensors are supposed to put out 0-1V, mid scale > should be .5V, so I made a variable voltage source, and used it to > simulate the O2 sensor. At .5V, the EM-2 read mid scale like it's > supposed to, and the other gauge read below mid scale. From that, I > concluded that the EM-2 was doing what it was designed to do, but I > can't explain why my "mid scale" mixture is well above mid scale on > the EM-2. I tried using a new sensor, of the same type others are > using, and it made no difference. Now that you have me thinking about > this again, I just made a note to "fix" this in the calibration mode. > > Good luck. Don't get discouraged. > > Rusty (caught up) > --------------080902010900090403020805 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doesn't sound right. I thought 0.7 volts were best (sto...metric) mixture.
0.8V volts more like best power and 0.6 and below getting lean.

Finn

Russell Duffy wrote:

Message
This is something that I've bugged Tracy about pretty extensively. Mine does the same thing yours does, and Tracy says his doesn't. I used to use the old gauge that Tracy sold, and I've done some testing with it, and the EM-2 both connected (verified not to interfere with each other). When the old gauge reads mid scale, the EM-2 is about 7-8 bars. Since O2 sensors are supposed to put out 0-1V, mid scale should be .5V, so I made a variable voltage source, and used it to simulate the O2 sensor. At .5V, the EM-2 read mid scale like it's supposed to, and the other gauge read below mid scale. From that, I concluded that the EM-2 was doing what it was designed to do, but I can't explain why my "mid scale" mixture is well above mid scale on the EM-2. I tried using a new sensor, of the same type others are using, and it made no difference. Now that you have me thinking about this again, I just made a note to "fix" this in the calibration mode.

Good luck. Don't get discouraged.

Rusty (caught up)

--------------080902010900090403020805--