MPS- delving into it's secrets?, Update January 3, 2011 Options

[jk76.914]

I collected a number of MPS over a couple of years. Most held vacuum, some did not. I measured inductance vs. vacuum on those that I could, but then took all of them apart (except one brand new one).

The is a lot of variety in the diaphrams, probably because they get replaced when virtually every MPS is rebuilt. The photo below shows four diaphrams. I'll follow with descriptions and observations...



#1- copper, 2 pleats. This came from a rebuilt MPS that was in a pond or river for some time. There was actually sand in it, along with tiny aquatic snail shells of some sort, and the copper was pretty much green. This diaphram was ruptured. The workmanship is very good, and the alloy is idential to stock (see chart below). The threaded bushing looks like stock in design and attachment.

#2- copper, 3 pleats. This is a stock diaphram from a riveted MPS. It is ruptured.

#3- brass, 2 pleats. This is from a rebuilt MPS. I have three of these diaphrams, all similar. This MPS was freshly rebuilt in a rebuilder's box. Looked like new with fresh paint and plastic cap on vacuum port, but it leaked slightly. You can see why when you look at the ripples in that flange. The O.D. looks like it was cut out by hand with tin snips, and the threaded bushing was taken from a stock diaphram and soldered by hand into place. At the bottom in the picture, you can see that the flange is pretty smooth- that's where I tapped it out with a machinist's hammer on an anvil. I have no doubt that the leakage was from around the O.D. of the diaphram, and that tapping it out would probably fix it. This material (brass, see chart below) is stiffer and thicker than any of the rest. It would add quite a bit of spring tension to the mass-spring-damper system. In general, I rate the workmanship on this as "crappy", though maybe you could get a running car out of it.

#4- stainless steel, 3 pleats. This one is a bit of an enigma. It is identical to stock except that it is made from stainless (see chart below). The workmanship is perfect. It is from a rebuilt MPS. Interestingly, it is the MOST COMPLIANT of all of them, while most steel ones are reported to be stiffer. The other part of the enigma- the aneroid cells from this MPS are also stainless- same alloy. My suspicion is that this is a late Bosch rebuilt. Who else would make stainless cells, because the cells don't fail very often, so there are lots of spares available out there, and the cells are pretty complicated to make...


*** EDITED *** Materials. I measured alloy composition at work using an X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer. This machine is very precise, but it has limits to the range of elements that it can detect. Unfortunately, it cannot detect Beryllium (Be), and it is likely that the stock (at least) diaphram contains Be to harden and strengthen it. You can see a couple of things here though- the stainless diaphram and stainless cells are of exactly the same composition- nickel-chromium stainless steel. The nickel explains why they are slightly magnetic, as many stainless alloys are not. ***



Conclusions (really opinions) - The diaphram was put in there (early VW D-jets did not have one) to provide altitude compensation and to soften transition from leaner (high vacuum) to richer (low vacuum) regions. Early D-Jets had a separate unit with a diaphram and a switch to inform the ECU to richen the mixture at low vacuum. Cost reduction may have been a third reason- eliminating the separate unit, wiring, vacuum hose, etc. Anyway, this switch was either on or off, no soft transition. The MPS had only 2 aneroid cells and no diaphram, and its inductance curve was essentially a straight line from 0" to 25". There was no mixture compensation for altitude with this arrangement.

I'm thinking that the lower the stiffness of the diaphram, the more consistency in the setup and responsiveness, while both of these objectives are met. By maximizing compliance of the diaphram, the springs acting in the system are mainly the coil spring and the leaf springs that act to locate the armature.

My stainless diaphram is the most compliant, but there is another feature of steel (if I remember correctly) that adds to the argument that this is a late Bosch design- steel has a much higher Youngs modulus than copper. The higher the Youngs modulus, the greater the fatigue resistance, and the vastly most common failure mode of the MPS is fatigue failure. Could this have been a Bosch attempt to solve a reliability problem, even as the technology was being superceded by more modern ones? Since the cells are also subject to fatigue, would they have switched them over at the same time?

I am planning on assembling my own personal MPS using the stainless parts, and seeing how close I can tune it to my engine.

There are lots of other parts in the MPS that I've formed opinions about, but I'll hold off for now.

These are my own opinions, which may not be popular, so BLAST AWAY!!

(eye candy below)

[jk76.914]

I'm back. I looked in to this, and unfortunately, I was right (the second time). XRF cannot measure elements with atomic numbers lower than about 12, and Be is 4. XRF is steadily improving its detection technology, but given that Be is transparent to X-rays, it'll probably never be able to detect it.

How it works (roughly)- an X-ray is beamed onto the sample, which excites the electrons in the atoms, so they move to a higher energy level. When the X-ray is stopped, they move back to their original level, and emit photons (light), at a frequency that is characteristic of the element(s). So if a material is transparent to X-ray, it doesn't get excited.

So I poked around at alternatives. EDX (or EDS) analysis is similar but uses a beam of electrons from a scanning electron microscope to add the energy instead of X-rays. Measurement is then similar. Looks like they can read down to atomic number 5- still not low enough for Be, but still a pretty simple test....

It may be enough to just detect presence of Be, if not the actual amount. That may be enough, since many BeCu alloys I've investigated only have maybe 3% Be, so just knowing its there may be enough to know what we'd be in for trying to reproduce it. Still checking...

So anyway, I want to delete the table in my original post- anyone know how I can go in and edit that post? I'd probably replace it with one that at least still shows the stainless and brass composition...

Sorry about the red herring, guys.

[pbanders]

I used to do a lot of surface analysis when I worked in silicon microcontamination in the '80's and '90's. My guess is that there may be some simpler chemical tests you could use instead of surface analysis. I'll ask one of my old colleagues about this and see what he says.

[pbanders]

I used to do a lot of surface analysis when I worked in silicon microcontamination in the '80's and '90's. My guess is that there may be some simpler chemical tests you could use instead of surface analysis. I'll ask one of my old colleagues about this and see what he says.

I haven't heard back yet, but I did some poking around on the web. I had a dim memory of this earlier that I wasn't sure of, but it tuned out to be correct. If you're going to use surface analysis, you need an Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES - also known as as SAM scopes) tool, which is sensitive to light elements.

[pbanders]

Also seems like once we get a material and a design together, we could get a custom metal shop to pump out a run of them. Example:

http://www.peterforg.com/metal-stamping-services.html

Big issue I see with this diaphragm is getting the central threaded flange fabricated and pressed on. I assume this is a two-part assembly that's pressed into place.