Who knows. I'll have to take a look and see what's going on. The PC was locked up the other night so I lost a bunch of work in the programs that were open.
Who knows. I'll have to take a look and see what's going on. The PC was locked up the other night so I lost a bunch of work in the programs that were open.
So it's good now?
1990 Chevy Suburban 5.7L Auto ECM 1227747 $42!
1998 Chevy Silverado 5.7L Vortec 0411 Swap to RoadRunner!
-= =-
Ok, then. See previous post. ;)
I think we are dealing with an 'order of operations', or something that TP doesn't like to handle. In the graph these all work out the same. If you follow this link and then click on the "trace" button on the graph you can click anywhere to see the (x,y).
(-.0315x+4.5)^3+(-.00045x^2)-.135x+73.
(-.0315x + 4.5)(-.0315x + 4.5)(-.0315x + 4.5)+(x*x*-1*.00045)-.135x+73.00000
(-.0315x+4.5)^3+(-.00045(x*x))-.135x+73.
http://fooplot.com/#W3sidHlwZSI6MCwi...IsIjIxMCJdfV0-
1978 Camaro Type LT, 383, Dual TBI, '7427, 4L80E
1981 Camaro Z-28 Clone, T-Tops, 350/TH350
1981 Camaro Berlinetta, V-6, 3spd
1974 Chevy/GMC Truck, '90 TBI 350, '7427, TH350, NP203, 6" lift, 35s
There are no implicit operators in TunerPro like there is in hand-written algebra. You're missing a few * operators. For instance, this:
(-.0315x + 4.5)(-.0315x + 4.5)(-.0315x + 4.5)+(x*x*-1*.00045)-.135x+73.00000
Needs to be
(-.0315 * x + 4.5) * (-.0315 * x + 4.5) * (-.0315 * x + 4.5)+(x*x*-1*.00045)-.135 * x+73.00000
Thanks Mark.
I put the new conversion in the footplot link and it too worked.
But when inserted to TunerPRo Parameter Conversion it changed calculated to 0.00 and hex to 80h. Restart TunerPRo and hex was 66, change to calculated and went back to 0.00, change to hex and again it was 80h. Before it was off, not it just freaks out?...
1990 Chevy Suburban 5.7L Auto ECM 1227747 $42!
1998 Chevy Silverado 5.7L Vortec 0411 Swap to RoadRunner!
-= =-
Most likely a result of this being a multi-root equation. I haven't plotted it to see what it looks like, though. TunerPro converts from the calculated value back to the raw value stored in the bin by doing a binary search. If there are multiple points in the graph where that binary search results in a correct answer, it may land on a different one each time. It could also be an error in the equation still. Is that last ")-.135*x+73" correct? Should there be another * there, or do you mean to subtract 0.135 * X from the result of the previous results? Order of operations in TunerPro are respected. (Edit: just looked at the graph, and it should work. I'll have to take a closer look, but also, don't forget about the number of decimal places. This is a cubed function from a low-resolution binary input - you might try increasing to 3 or 4 decimal places in TunerPro.)
Last edited by Mangus; 04-12-2013 at 03:13 AM.
Here's a link from above for the plot, it's a common AD count to celcius from many dissasemblies.
Tried increasing the decimal places in TP but same results, temp in calculated is 0.0000c and right click to show hex changes hex to 80h from 66h
Greg or Shannen will be around shortly to check the math you corrected for TP.
1990 Chevy Suburban 5.7L Auto ECM 1227747 $42!
1998 Chevy Silverado 5.7L Vortec 0411 Swap to RoadRunner!
-= =-
Could you explain this? Does this refer to the mechanics of committing a value calculated in the "Edit parameter" window to the .bin?TunerPro converts from the calculated value back to the raw value stored in the bin by doing a binary search. If there are multiple points in the graph where that binary search results in a correct answer, it may land on a different one each time.
True, but... All this work is really about trying to make a linear equation for an "Aggressively non-linear" sensor. The actual equation to calculate temp from resistance uses the natural log e raised to a third order polynomial. I honestly don't even know how to code that for an HC11. I can see where a lookup table is an acceptable solution.all of this work, just because GM chose to compare against an A/D count instead of a linearized variable....
I didn't check this thread before I worked out the formula. I noticed a couple of things that TP didn't like. Using a negative coefficient such as -.0315 caused problems. Breaking -1 out as a separate value caused TP to interpret coefficients less than one as zero. So .0315X became 0. TP didn't even recognize X as a variable in the "Variables" window. And as previously mentioned, the implied operators needed to be made explicit, .0315X needed to be .0315 * X. FWIW I did that with Greg's first formula but for some reason it seemed like it wasn't needed the second time. Silly me...Tried increasing the decimal places in TP but same results, temp in calculated is 0.0000c and right click to show hex changes hex to 80h from 66h
Anyway, this one's working on my pc. Lowest displayed temp should be -34.77 and highest should be 164.13 $DA = 8.92 deg C.
(-1*.0315*X + 4.5)*(-1*.0315*X + 4.5)*(-1*.0315*X + 4.5)+(X*X*-1*.00045)-(X*.135)+73.00000
If TP works with logarithms I might be able to get the actual Steinhart-Hart equation into play.
Last edited by 1project2many; 04-12-2013 at 06:56 AM.
I have zero idea what you guys are talking about.....
but this is why I love this forum. Keep it up! I'm sure I'll benefit in the end!
Bookmarks