MAT Correction - Page 4 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


MEGAsquirt A place to collectively sort out this megasquirt gizmo

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-31-2012, 09:43 AM   #61
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 178
Total Cats: 3
Default

False alarm!
gslender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 06:00 PM   #62
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,687
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronc7 View Post


You have MS1? If so then yeah, you should be able to do that so that table is being used all the time to get your AFRs where you want consistently in boost, at whatever temp.
Can anyone else second this motion before I start tinkering with my settings?
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 11:10 PM   #63
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 178
Total Cats: 3
Default

Thought I'd share what the values do so that you can see for youself how the code impacts fueling based on tempature and the various % in correction scaling.

The fueling is scaled by the % calculated in the last two columns (one is for 100% MAT scaling, the other is values used at 50% MAT scaling).

I'll admit I was quick to think a bug exists, but I still do feel the calculations are probably not ideal... note how the band of no correction (shown around 68-70F where it is at 100% correction) is only a small area whereby changing from 100% to 50% MAT scaling doesn't impact when a change is seen based on the rounding and resolution used in the maths in the code.

Interesting and I'll continue this in the MSExtra forum to see if I can get James or Ken to respond and reply.
Code:
F	C	100% 	50% 
		Corr	Corr

32	0	108	104
36	2	107	103
40	4	106	103
44	7	105	103
48	9	104	102
52	11	104	102
56	13	103	101
60	16	102	101
64	18	101	101
68	20	100	100
72	22	100	100
76	24	99	99
80	27	98	99
84	29	97	99
88	31	97	98
92	33	96	98
96	36	95	98
100	38	95	97
104	40	94	97
108	42	93	97
112	44	93	96
116	47	92	96
120	49	91	96
gslender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 11:29 PM   #64
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 178
Total Cats: 3
Default

Oh, and the calculations are the same in MS3 and MS2.

And the fueling is just multiplied by that %... so if the fueling says 4.40ms and the AirCorrection is 105% then the new fueling is 4.62ms.

G
gslender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2012, 11:43 PM   #65
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 1,127
Total Cats: 39
Default

Cool, the numbers look to be correct for the 100% values with respect to ideal gas law...i see no issues so far.
aaronc7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 12:45 AM   #66
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 178
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronc7 View Post
Cool, the numbers look to be correct for the 100% values with respect to ideal gas law...i see no issues so far.
Where are you sourcing this from - ie how do you know that 80F should have only 2% less fuel ???
gslender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 08:56 AM   #67
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,687
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

The fact that at 116F it is pulling 8% of fuel sounds great unless you are in boost on the track on a hot day in Miami and your AFR that should be ~12 and you are seeing a very dangerous 13.5.
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 09:01 AM   #68
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixshooter View Post
The fact that at 116F it is pulling 8% of fuel sounds great unless you are in boost on the track on a hot day in Miami and your AFR that should be ~12 and you are seeing a very dangerous 13.5.
exzactly.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:10 AM   #69
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 1,127
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gslender View Post
Where are you sourcing this from - ie how do you know that 80F should have only 2% less fuel ???
I haven't looked at the code or anything... but I'm guessing it does something along these lines.

Based on the that table let's saying the code is using 21C/70F as it's 100%...ok cool. To calculate percent difference from that assumed "standard value".... I'm going to use Rankine cuz i'm in 'merica....

New temp 120F

(delta T) / (Abs temp original) = ((70 - 120) / (70+460))*100+100 = 90.56, rounded up to 91

Now I'll admit I've messed around with 68-72 as the 'starting value', and none of them match up exactly with the table you posted up....every now and then one value will be mismatched by 1, might be due to how MS if it's rounding the numbers intermediately along the way or something, I'm not sure.

As far as the validity of this.. i may be off in my thinking, but I was using the P=rho*R*T equation.... P and R are constant for our purposes, which leaves rho (density) and T(absolute) to be inversely proportional... ie temp increases by 2 percent, 2 percent less air mass for a given pressure...needs 2 percent less fuel. BUT we're probably getting into the weeds here into theoretical stuff, that probably does not apply exactly for us. If any of my thinking or logic is off, let me know what you think, definitely open to discussion and learning.
aaronc7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:20 AM   #70
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

this is the formula:


n = PV/RT
=> M = n x MM = PV/RT x MM
= (VE * MAP * CYL_DISP) / (R * (IAT-32) * 5/9 + 273)) x MMair


P = VE * MAP (i.e. the pressure in the cylinder in kPa),
V = CYL_DISP = the displacement of one cylinder (in liters),
R = 8.3143510 J/mol K,
and T = (IAT-32)* 5/9 + 273 to convert IAT from °Fahrenheit to Kelvin.





Then to calculate fueling:


Req_Fuel is calculated from the equation:

REQ_FUEL*10 = 36,000,000 * CID * AIRDEN(100kPA, 70°F)/(NCYL*AFR*INJFLOW ) * 1/DIVIDE_PULSE

Where:

36,000,000 is the number of tenths of a millisecond in an hour, used to get the pounds per 1/10 milllisecond from the pounds/hours rating of the injectors.
REQ_FUEL = Computed injector open time in tenths of millisecond.
CID = Cubic Inch Displacement.
AIRDEN = Air density (pounds per cubic inch) at MAP pressure of 100 Kpa, Air Temperature of 70 Degrees F, and Barometric Pressure of 30.00 In HG
NCYL = Number of Cylinders
INJFLOW = Injector Flow Rate in pounds per hour.
DIVIDE_PULSE = injection divide number for number of injections per engine cycle.



The AIRDEN function (used above) is defined by:

AIRDEN(MAP, temp) = 0.0391568* (MAP*10-31.0)/((temp+459.7) * 1728)

Or, in metric units (kg/m3, °C, kPa):

AIRDEN(MAP, temp) = 1.2929 * 273.13/(T+273.13) * MAP/101.325
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:32 AM   #71
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 1,127
Total Cats: 39
Default

Would it be hard/possible to change Gair resolution to 0.1%? I don't think that's gonna solve anything like guys have talked about in here, but seems like a good idea overall for more accuracy. I've really liked the other recent changes in finer resolution... EGO, etc.
aaronc7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:39 AM   #72
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

I dunno I dont really have a problem with the resolution of the table. I'm able to completely negate the density correction... It was as simple as putting the MS on a stim, turning the AIT input pot, and watching how the Gair reacted. I tuned it out completely within 0.5% (in some spots Gair stays at 100.5%--not going to make or break me).

When I always brought up the issue, it's been assumed that my AIT is reporting false temps, therefore that's scewing up the code. and to use the Mat corrections table in the fashion I do is only solving the flawed data from my sensor.

but i have proven that my sensor reports back readings that are very close to readings under the hood as seen by a second identical AIT sensor.

So while the gas density law is law. what the fueling code doesn't take into effect is how the temperature of say the block of even the fuel relate to the air density.

As far as driving, if I need different fueling requirements base on temp, my EGO takes care of it and in boost my AFRs are very consistent and flat regardless of the ambient temp...so I dunno what to say.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:54 AM   #73
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Navarre, FL
Posts: 1,127
Total Cats: 39
Default

If it ain't broke (for you), don't fix it
aaronc7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 10:56 AM   #74
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

yeha pretty much. if I was road racing it, I'd wanna test the effects more...but just doing boosted pulls on the hwy or something, I have no issues. I've barely touched the tune on this thing in over a year and the thing I've tuned were random odds and ends, like new idle code and the new accel-pump and stuff.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 11:28 AM   #75
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Warrington/Birmingham
Posts: 2,658
Total Cats: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
I dunno I dont really have a problem with the resolution of the table.
MS3 is 0.1% increments.

MS1/2 is 1.0% increments.
richyvrlimited is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 11:35 AM   #76
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,687
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

So is there consensus that on my MS1 I should set the CLT related air density correction to taper off at 7200 and tune it from there?
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 11:54 AM   #77
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixshooter View Post
So is there consensus that on my MS1 I should set the CLT related air density correction to taper off at 7200 and tune it from there?

unsure, can you confirm the leaness is actually the gammae going below 100%?

i dont ever remember having this issue on MSI I always had it decay starting at 2500 and finishing around 5000 IIRC.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 02:35 PM   #78
Moderator
iTrader: (11)
 
sixshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 15,687
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
unsure, can you confirm the leaness is actually the gammae going below 100%?
I will put the gammae gauge on the dash and try to simulate the track environment and find out.
sixshooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 06:08 PM   #79
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 178
Total Cats: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
yeha pretty much. if I was road racing it, I'd wanna test the effects more...but just doing boosted pulls on the hwy or something, I have no issues. I've barely touched the tune on this thing in over a year and the thing I've tuned were random odds and ends, like new idle code and the new accel-pump and stuff.
So you see major swings in air temps, but claim it makes zero difference to AFR and a simple way to turn it off completely would suit you.

There is an easy ini change that can be made to allow 1% scaling which would Pretty much turn it off.

G
gslender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2012, 06:27 PM   #80
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,900
Total Cats: 1,792
Default

Pretty much. I mean I guess i need to start looking at my EGO logs...doing what I did pretty much did "turn it off"
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raleigh: Fiberglass headlight scope, 1.6L ECU, AFM, Hardtop latches, more bigmackloud Miata parts for sale/trade 13 09-22-2017 01:34 PM
Need help - Stock Balancer and Fastforward overlay pulleys Frank_and_Beans Supercharger Discussion 13 09-12-2016 09:17 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
1995 Miata parts, coilover springs, PatCleary Miata parts for sale/trade 9 09-11-2015 08:53 PM
2009 Subaru WRX Hatchback - Pearl White - 83k miles - $16999 Braineack Cars for sale/trade 3 09-04-2015 03:12 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:54 PM.