|
savages4
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2013, 01:47:21 AM »
|
|
|
So it is as prj says? Determines how much duty cycle to make 1000 mbar? Or it is it boost error? Confused now...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2013, 03:19:54 AM »
|
|
|
So it is as prj says? Determines how much duty cycle to make 1000 mbar? Or it is it boost error? Confused now...
It's how I said. They are nearly identical.
CWPLGU is not considered.
Have not checked on 2.7TT, but good luck with that approach on 1.8T.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2013, 05:18:23 AM »
|
|
|
I don't get this. KFVPLGU seems to be all ones.
This would make plgrus_w basically the modeled pressure drop across the throttle plate (difference between plsol and pssol), not pu. (plsol = pssol / vpsspls)
What am i missing?
plgrus_w is plgta output from KFVPLGU multiplied by pu_w, then plsolr_w is plsol_w minus plgrus_w. This is all done in LDRPID.
Fixed. I wrote it wrong, pssol_w is the axis variable for KFVPLGU. The output is multied by pu_w. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2013, 06:12:15 AM »
|
|
|
It's how I said. Have not checked on 2.7TT, but good luck with that approach on 1.8T. Good luck with what approach? I'm just telling it like it is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2013, 06:38:47 AM »
|
|
|
Good luck with what approach?
I'm just telling it like it is. Look at page 865. Normally CWPLGU should be set to 1. If you set it to 0, plsolr_w will change a huge amount, at least on 1.8T. And some 1.8T variants have this not set, and KFLDIMX calibrated completely differently, and "grundladedruck" or "base pressure" has a completely different meaning there. It is definitely used, just not on 2.7TT it seems. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 06:43:53 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2013, 06:52:55 AM »
|
|
|
Look at page 865.
Normally CWPLGU should be set to 1.
If you set it to 0, plsolr_w will change a huge amount, at least on 1.8T.
And some 1.8T variants have this not set, and KFLDIMX calibrated completely differently, and "grundladedruck" or "base pressure" has a completely different meaning there.
It is definitely used, just not on 2.7TT it seems.
I don't need to look at any page, it's not used. My comments were not in general, they were straight from the M-box code. Edit: I guess I could have been more clear that I was speaking about a specific application. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 07:14:38 AM by phila_dot »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2013, 07:18:41 AM »
|
|
|
I don't need to look at any page, it's not used. My comments were not in general, they were straight from the M-box code. Edit: I guess I could have been more clear that I was speaking about a specific application. Yes, that is my point. This thread is pretty general, so it would be good to clarify that you are speaking specifically about the 2.7TT application where it is indeed not used. In fact the DAMOS does not even have this constant defined. I checked ME7.1.1 for 2.7TT too, and it's not in there either. Not in the DAMOS nor in the code. I was not trying to take a dig at you, sorry if it came out like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2013, 09:44:03 AM »
|
|
|
Fixed. I wrote it wrong, pssol_w is the axis variable for KFVPLGU. The output is multied by pu_w.
Which, if KFVPLGU is all ones, is functionally identical to CWPLGU=1 (plgrus = pu)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2013, 10:04:45 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, that is how it appears to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AARDQ
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2013, 11:59:36 AM »
|
|
|
Does information from the 2005 patent come into play, which if I'm reading correctly, and ignoring misc. corrections, says that plsolr is subtracted from plsol, making the pressure axis values for KFLDIMX relative to the charge available at 0 WG duty, i.e. WG cracking pressure?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2013, 12:21:11 PM »
|
|
|
Does information from the 2005 patent come into play, which if I'm reading correctly, and ignoring misc. corrections, says that plsolr is subtracted from plsol, making the pressure axis values for KFLDIMX relative to the charge available at 0 WG duty, i.e. WG cracking pressure?
That would make sense, but in the 2.7t, clearly not the case, where the pressure axis is plsol-pu (or relative requested pressure over ambient). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2013, 03:18:33 PM »
|
|
|
They are nearly identical.
I checked the log and plgrus_w == pu_w and manually confirmed that plsolr_w = plsol_w - plgrus_w. This obviously should be the case, but I just wanted to confirm it and correct my previous statement. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phila_dot
|
|
« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2013, 03:20:33 PM »
|
|
|
Yes, that is my point. This thread is pretty general, so it would be good to clarify that you are speaking specifically about the 2.7TT application where it is indeed not used.
In fact the DAMOS does not even have this constant defined. I checked ME7.1.1 for 2.7TT too, and it's not in there either. Not in the DAMOS nor in the code.
I was not trying to take a dig at you, sorry if it came out like that.
I agree...I was just being grumpy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2013, 05:22:49 PM »
|
|
|
Does information from the 2005 patent come into play, which if I'm reading correctly, and ignoring misc. corrections, says that plsolr is subtracted from plsol, making the pressure axis values for KFLDIMX relative to the charge available at 0 WG duty, i.e. WG cracking pressure?
Exactly. This is how it works in some other applications. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
