nzjrs wrote: ↑
Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:16 pm
Without wanting to go off topic, I have this strage bias/intuition from my electrical engineering education about what is more or less cheating... For example, consider three hypothesized tricks
1. Sampling alias tricks by controling the fuel pump to pulse the fuel synchronous with the fuel flow sensor strategy = less towards cheating
2. Introducing high freqency noise nearby the fuel flow sensor to disrupt the reading / raise the noise floor = more towards cheating
3. Porous/semi-porous/elastic metal fuel lines that accumulate fuel in some controlled pressure condition = more towards cheating
It's certainly not easy and I can't really explain why I feel differently about those strategies other than some immate feeling of 'cool' about them.
What do you suppose is the sampling frequncy of the sensor?
The injectors pulse width modulation could be around 200kHz or maybe more.
The mechanical pump is too slow compared so I am assuming the closing of the fuel injectors were used to synchronise the fuel flow in phase with the sampling rate.
This pathway is also brings many questions. Because there are six fuel injectors out of phase by whatever uneven firing phases comes with a 90 degree V6, all these pulses would superimpose as they reflect back to a single pipe to the fuel sensor. Not to mention the pulses have to survive going through the cam driven fuel HP pumps if the sensor is located before the fuel HP pumps which I doubt.
The only way I see using the injectors to do the trick is if the fuel sensor(s) was located after the HP fuel pump one on each engine bank. If it were before the fuel pump, it would be too much obstacles between injector and flow sensor.
.. OG.. OG.. OG.. OG..