[kubark42]

Originally Posted by jfitzpat

It is a valid point, but largely driven by experience and working environment. In my world, technology is separate from personal. If the post cat emissions read lean, and the instrumentation is working, then that is reality, and we work back from there.

Clearly, the culture here is somewhat reversed. When personal testimonial is that lead free solder is problematic, and that lead free solder has not presented a major health risk for 100 years, then pointing out that a) lead free solder has been the non-problematic norm for the 40M people in California for years and b) lead poisoning used to be named for professions that worked extensively with leaded solder is being "antogonistic".

Similarly, I cannot help that gasoline is too suceptible to temperature to represent .1% accuracy from injector pulse width. I do not control the physics involved, nor did I author the dozens of SAE papers on the subject.

I do have a very low threshold for tolerance of arm waving and BS. So my responses will tend to get less patient when someone cites, incorrectly, mil spec issues regarding solder or starts talking about non existant weather phenomena ("radiated..."). Again, to me it all starts with objective reality. If the military and JPL do tests on reliability, then those results have to be factored into a hypothesis. Similarly, if the FAA doesn't recognize a phenomena, nor can we find it in the NTSB database, then there is no reason to presume it exists.

Obviously, crushing spirits is not productive. But it is hard for me to envision how ignoring conflict with objective reality is helpful either. So better to revert to lurking mode and let the culture here proceed as it is.

Regards,
-jjf

I'm not going to deconstruct your position here, there are better things to be done with time. As you say, crushing spirits is counterproductive, so I see no reason to continue. Being a scientifically pedantic person myself, who is inclined to have little tolerance for inaccuracies in others' statements, I can relate to where you're coming from. I'll hopefully close this parenthesis by encouraging you to read, instead of scan, the posts. You might find that you've been jousting with windmills.

Originally Posted by jfitzpat

If you trace back from your references, you should find a paper on this specific problem - basically separating operational vibration out of a 3 axis accel measurment.

Interesting idea. I can definitely see how that could work, but I'd appreciate a direct citation. I have nothing in my references that would link to this sort of approach.

However, it is a difficult path. You might do better to look at the more recent work out of UC Riverside. One of the research projects there on emissions uses a very clever way of directly measuring torque in real time.
-jjf

I can't not finding it. I did find MERL, but there are several key differences between MERL and my project:

1) They're looking at semi-trucks
2) They did all their testing on flat, straight roads at sea-level.
3) They have giant trailer full of measuring equipment. Clearly not the kind of equipment we already have built into vehicles, or can add for $50 worth of parts.