QUOTE(BeatNavy @ Oct 31 2016, 03:33 PM)
QUOTE(pbanders @ Oct 31 2016, 12:41 PM)
I've never been really satisfied with using an LCR meter for calibrations, for a number of reasons.
Brad, can you elaborate on why you don't like this method? I've tried it several times to get a couple of MPS's close to your documented readings, and it's been harder than one would think. Are the readings not accurate, or is there a better way?
The "better way" is what I do with my EFI Analyzer. With it, using the same ECU for all calibrations, I can take a NOS pressure sensor and at a specific simulated engine speed, say 2500 rpm, I can make a table of the injection pulse width vs. vacuum level, from idle (15 inHg) down to full-load (0 inHg). Using that table, I can then calibrate any MPS to that exact curve.
The problem with the LCR method is that it assumes that the mutual inductance characteristics of the primary and secondary coils and slug of a particular MPS part number are all exactly the same as the reference unit where I did the original profiling. There's enough variation that it probably introduces some error into the calibration. How much? Hard to say. I view the LCR procedure as a first-order approximation, and that you have to use an AFM to do the final tuning.
It would be better if we could have a simulation circuit of the pressure-sensing loop circuit of the ECU to use instead, and to use either a pulse width meter or an oscilloscope to measure the pulse width instead of using inductance. It shouldn't be that hard to do, someone (maybe even me) could look at the pressure-sensing loop circuit on the ECU schematic (it's on my web page) and create a standalone circuit that would simulate it at a set engine speed (or you could make it variable if you wanted to). I may/may not ever get around to it, as I've got too many hobbies and projects as it is, but there are plenty of other people on this forum who could do it, and probably do it better than me.