Talk:Fuel injection/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

more gas molecules to generate more mechanical power

The recent changes by Cuddlyable3 emphasising the number of gas molecules seems misleading to me. I always thought that the piston was pushed down because of increased pressure in the cylinder, which was caused by increased kinetic energy, which was caused by chemical bonds being rearranged into a state requiring less energy to hold them together (ie some energy has been changed from chemical bonds to kinetic energy). While most times this results from a complex carbon based molecules breaking down into many more simpler molecules, it is also to take hydrogen and oxygen and combine them into a single water molecule - making kinetic energy by reducing the number of molecules. The emphasis should be on the release of kinetic energy, not on the number of molecules. Stepho-wrs (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the context in which increasing the number of gas molecules is mentioned and you will find that it is the result of increasing the inlet air flow. That is not attempting to explain the combustion reaction. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

SHED and the end of carburetors

S H E D SEALED HOUSING FOR EVAPORATIVE DETERMINATIONS. Basically an airtight room large enough to place a vehicle in. The air pressure is lowered slightly and the evaporative emissions measured. It's a test created by CARB, designed to fail every vehicle with a carburetor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 04:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a test created by the United States Environmental Protection Agency designed to measure evaporative emissions. There have been plenty of carbureted vehicles that have passed this test. It's much easier and less costly to pass the test with a fuel injection system than with a carburetor, but the latter is certainly not impossible. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There still are many vehicles that use carburetors. They are here to stay for a long time.--Timpicerilo (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

atomization

It would be helpful if there was information about various types of atomization (e.g., pressure-swirl, etc). DonPMitchell (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Check in gasoline engines: Ricardo head ,preheating air by exhaust,high pressure direct fule injection into cilinder. Check in diesel engines;Ricardo prechamber, Lanova airchambers, prechambers bare and scaled,directional air ports in two cycle to induce rotation, one sided screens on inlet valves,sqeezing of air chanels, high pressure fuel injection ,blow in diesel with high pressure air into cilinder. Hot bulb engines the red hot metal surface will tend to evaporate the fuel.wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

carburated gasoline distribution

"""" Aside from airflow considerations, fuel injection offers a more homogeneous air/fuel mixture due to better atomization of the fuel entering the cylinders.""""" Cilinders farther from the carburator tend to get a lower ratio gas/air than cilinders close to the carburator. This is due to gravity . wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This trade off does come at a cost, that was the fewer parts and simplicity of carbureted engines.--Timpicerilo (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance hazards

""Fuel injection introduces potential hazards in engine maintenance due to the high fuel pressures used. '"

This fact is generaly known by all diesel mechanics engineers i have known since 1946?It is the most important safety fact in this article and no refs or discussion should be needed!Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs are always needed. Remember, the standard for inclusion is not what we know (or think we know, or think we heard somebody say, or feel ought to be obvious to everyone), it's what we can prove. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree with the above.refs are there.common sense and general knowledge by people working with it everyday should count. gasoline hpinjection is new so saturday mechanics should be warned explicity. thanks for reading it.Wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Common sense and general knowledge are not considered reliable sources for citing assertions here on Wikipedia. And this is not the place to warn anyone about anything; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See the section Hypodermic injection accidents in the archive where this was discussed before, and I provided a Haynes manual as source.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"first spark ignition engine with direct injection of fuel into the cilinder." as vandalism

Jonas Hesselman, a Swedish engineer, build in 1925 the first spark ignition engine with direct injection of fuel into the cilinder.

Revision as of 03:54, 14 February 2009 (edit) (undo)Scheinwerfermann (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 1 edit by Wdl1961 identified

as vandalism to last revision by Scheinwerfermann. using TW)Next edit →

Scheinwerfermann

sehr geehrter Herr ??
how when where is this vandalism ??

pls replace bulb
Wdl1961 (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Placing that statement in the first paragraph of the fuel injection article is very misleading: it makes it appear that you are saying that fuel injection was invented in 1925. The lead of the article can describe the first fuel injection, not a later improvement. I'll move it to a place after the direct injection distinction has been made. 65.170.234.10 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Engine operation

I added a link with an article on crankshaft position sensor. I would also like to tie the cam sensor into the link article. Help or suggestions would be appreciated.--Timpicerilo (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the TPS sensor should be explained. However, it should be lower down in the article, not in the earlier sections where the reader is still trying to understand the basic idea of FI. This is the reason I undid some of your stuff a couple of days ago. Unfortunately someone didn't understand my reasoning and then undid my edits. Hopefully we will find a compromise where the basic ideas are explained and then lower down the TPS, MAP, AFM, O2 sensor, etc can be explained in detail. By the way, MAP is only one alternative - other sensor types can also be used to measure the air mass. I would also like to remove the word 'modern' because the the article also explains early FI that didn't use crank angle sensors. Again, this is a detail that can be added lower down once the basic ideas of FI are explained. I'm repeating myself but I really would like to introduce to the reader that the basic idea of FI is to measure the incoming air mass and to then positively inject an appropriate amount of fuel. Details of how the air mass is measured, how correction factors are allowed for (temperature, load, unburned O2, etc) are details that can be explained lower down. After all, the earliest mechanical fuel injection systems didn't use many of the systems you mention, so they are not strict requirements of FI. Cheers. Stepho-wrs (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're correct and I've worked on a few eariler units in some restoration projects.--Timpicerilo (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

History and Development

The History and Development section makes no mention of the Ford 302 CFI, introduced with the 1980 Lincoln Mark VI. (I own an '81 Mark VI) As it is Ford's first fuel injected engine, I think its notable. It also makes an unreferenced claim that 82 LH-Jetronic is the first fully digital system. I would consider the Ford CFI, which uses the EEC-III ECU, to be fully digital. If the '82 date is correct the Ford system pre-dates the Bosch. But what about Motronic? It all depends on what the heck "fully digital" means. Ultimately this needs to be decided by references... 66.216.235.185 (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And no mention is made of Toyota's first fuel injected engine, the 18R-E from 1974. Also, no mention is made of Holden's first fuel injected engine, nor of Nissan's, Honda's, Chrysler's, Tatra's, Rover's, Jaguar's and Rolls Royce's. Ford's first fuel injected engine will only be notable if it advanced the state of the art in some way. However, it would be worthy of putting this fact on the Windsor page. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1980 Ford EEC-III TBI setup is not especially noteworthy, except perhaps for its poor reliability in the first few years. (No, I'm not being entirely serious; it's probably not helpful to mention the undependability aspect here). It was nowhere near the first system on the road. Bosch's D-Jetronic came out in 1968 or so, and there were systems before that. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the first "fully digital" system that is at issue here. Yes, mechanical and analog electronic systems go back farther. At any rate, the EEC-III used an Intel 8048 which sounds "digital" to me, and was introduced in 1980, beating LH Jetronic to market by 2 years. Thus crediting the 1982 LH Jetronic as the first digital system seems inaccurate. If EEC-III is in fact the first digital system, it is certainly notable. Thing is, the Motronic page claims the Motronic ML1.X is "digital", but does not give an exact date of introduction. The BMW E23 was introduced in 1977, but *that* page says the "early" models used (analog) L-Jetronic and later ones use Motronic. Once again, more vague dates. So, Motronic may or may not predate EEC-III. If someone can nail down a more exact date for Motronic, please do. :)

An interesting mention of the EEC-III: (As with anything on the internets, may or may not be accurate)

http://www.langston.com/Fun_People/1996/1996ACW.html

http://jwharton.best.vwh.net/found_technology.html

66.216.235.185 (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2