Re: P&H Injector Interface

["Swayze" <kswayze@bellsouth.net>]

I checked one of my handbooks for some charts on heat transfer and..
surface area wise
in free air at 25degC an enclosure would dissipate about  3 W/cm**2 surface
area

the figures for dissipation using a metal plate kick up to almost 16W/cm**3
up to about 80W/cm**3

no real hard equations here, just rough graphs.

byE
Mike
Swayze
mswayze@truswood.com
kswayze@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garfield Willis" <garwillis@msn.com>
To: <gmecm@diy-efi.org>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 5:25 PM
Subject: P&H Injector Interface


> On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:39:24 -0400, Len sabatine <sabatine@epix.net>
> wrote:
>
> > This sounds like some very useful work ; cost effective and painless
> >  upgrading for retrofit projects. Add to that your not contemplating
> >  wearing a gun belt and mask for these relatively low cost items. Cool.
>
> Alright, thank you for the comment.
>
> Here's something more to contemplate on the topic. The "jumper" method
> is just one way to deal with getting the P&H drivers in-circuit. There
> be substantial tradeoffs.
>
> Injector drivers, even P&H ones, have to dissipate some modest amount of
> heat. The connectors for the Sat injectors usually are a pretty good run
> of harness out from the ECU box to the engine top. So the "jumper"
> method would want to have the modules near the injectors, so you didn't
> create a much longer run by connecting the original connectors to a box
> somewhere on the firewall, and then back up/out to the injectors again.
> That's gonna require that the interface module have some robust heat
> transfer capacity.
>
> BUT, let's face it, anyone doing this with an OEM controller (switching
> to P&H injectors, that is), is probly capable of putting a splice in the
> harness after the injector wires exit the ECU, going over to the
> injector interface module, and then hooking up the existing injector
> wires to the output of the module. Then, you don't need the "jumper" nor
> the special connectors, plus the interface now lives inside the cabin
> somewhere, and therefore needs somewhat less cooling wherewithal, and
> needn't be hermetic.
>
> If we took the "jumper" approach, and the modules would hafta have some
> clunky fins and live atop the engine, would that make you want to opt
> instead for the perhaps less convenient but cleaner method of splicing
> into the existing wire near the ECU instead? Makes the packaging/thermal
> design considerably easier/smaller, and avoids the special connectors,
> but isn't quite as slam-dunk convenient as plugNplay.
>
> What say ye, gentlemen? Which passes muster in the sanity check?
>
> Gar
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org