[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by hightower99

Because apparently if i ask I shall recieve... and actually I didn't ask for anything that would be sensitive. I asked what his definition is of the general terms he used.

Your words ..."Any chance I could read the full report?" From that I thought you meant all th details, all the facts, nothing sanitised.

Relax matra it is still just a piston moving up and down inside a cylinder. And usually when you find disparity between theory and a single practice you normally look for flaws or faults in the practice before you throw the theory out. So far revetec are the only people who don't think something is wrong when there lambda readings don't match what they are feeding the engine with.

erm, Brad pointed out Toyota have been seeing somthing similar ?
The theories built up over the years are based on "normal" piston movement.
THis has differences.
Even small ones can make a difference in our theories -- butterfly effect.
Nobody suggested THROING THE THEORY out, very seldom does a theorem get discarded, usually it is enhanced as chamber compbustion HAS done for decades. Small changes, especially in the area of flame-front burn.

Lambda sensors measure the oxygen content in the exhaust

That's OK, that's a classic measurement mistake
WHat Lambda sensors ACTUALLY measure is the voltage at the platiunum electrodes with zirconium to react with the exhaust gas.
THe output is a voltage. How a voltage is decided to be a certain O2 content is based on PRACTICAL measurements of the design during the development process. The o2 is not actually being measured. A chemical reaction involving oxygen is. There can be a difference
How often that voltage is sampled to determine current value can give significantly different answers. How it's "smoothed" in the closed loop control system can then be "confused".
Lambda sensors are also sensitive to temperature and so if the discharged exhaust differs in temperature, swirl, density or a hundred other things it can lead to the sensor getting a "different answer".
In producing more torque at lower revs and lower gas flow then it's entirely feasible that the Lmbda rule for which violtage equates to how much oxygen is incalid in those cases.
There are many areas where the model in the monitoring system has multipolle variables any one of which may be the significant difference causing the difference in readings.
Brad continuing his tests and confirming results longer term and on multiple test benches is much more useful than assuming it's wrong and digging too deep AND assuming the theory is "wrong" and not jsut operating in an area it's not developed for.
Measurement systems often encounter issues like this - trust me I've patented and delivered enough

Since we know exactly how much oxygen it takes to burn any given amount of fuel completely and since we can measure pretty accurately how much oxygen enters the engine and because we control how much fuel goes in then the Lambda readings can not be fooled. The only way the revetec engine could fool the lambda sensor

What Brad said was the Lambda sensor was giving amounts not consistent with normal practise and THEN the "fooled" the ECU maps. Where did he say HE was fooling the sensor ?

those are the only ways that you can get a lambda 1.00 reading even though you are feeding the engine at lambda 2.00 (without overly obvious things like faulty sensors ect.)

or the monitor/control loop the Lambda sensor is in doesn't fit the burn model of the engine.(sic)