Any feedback would be welcome either about testing these sensors or other uses for graphing frequency.
One question is whether its OK to view the signal for different MAF sensors as frequency vs time or do we need to set up scaling / probes so you can see the actual airflow. This would require a different probe for each type of sensor.
If we can just have low-pass filtering work with the frequency graphing and be able to filter out the ignition "noise" that would be great.
To be honest, usually if I'm scoping a MAF it's to prove what I already suspect. So off-the-cuff I can't think of anything to add for testing of MAFs beyond what is stated in the pdf you've posted. I see no need to set up probes in an attempt to graph airflow.
Frequency, duty-cycle and pulse-width are all graphing strategies I think most of us would use if available, namely on pulse-trains as they are so difficult to monitor in their raw states...well at least I can't do it.
What I like about having the ability to do such tests is that it further expands the field my imagination can run around in.
This is an exciting development I think & one that I have asking about for a while now. Admittedly my motivation for "frequency graphing" was for digital MAF testing purposes. As Matt has pointed out though, this new avenue will open new opportunities for those who have the imagination to apply different test methods effectively.
I have had some results with the “multi winding” technique, around the current clamp too. The Chauvin-Arnoux ultra low amps clamp, is also very interesting & I hope that Pico add something equivalent to there product list soon.