Graphing RPM

 Newbie
 Posts: 3
 Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 4:05 am
Graphing RPM
I am wanting to graph engine rpm from a crank sensor either hall effect or inductive. The reason for this is to develop a test to ID which cylinder is misfiring. I have tried a math channel using freq(A)number of teeth*60 and this is what I got with a pressure transducer in cylinder 1, but it still does show cylinders 1 not contributing
 Attachments

 Nissan_Micra_2002_Petrol_201410050001.psdata
 (1.16 MiB) Downloaded 1080 times

 Pico Staff Member
 Posts: 764
 Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:22 am
Re: Graphing RPM
Hello Mike and thank you for the enquiry.
I have used a maths channel 60/32*freq(A2.5) for the digital crank signal on channel A.
I have then applied this maths channel and increased the scaling by a factor of 3 to reveal the drop in RPM for the cylinder containing the WPS (Cylinder 1)
Does this help with identification?
Take care......Steve
I have used a maths channel 60/32*freq(A2.5) for the digital crank signal on channel A.
I have then applied this maths channel and increased the scaling by a factor of 3 to reveal the drop in RPM for the cylinder containing the WPS (Cylinder 1)
Does this help with identification?
Take care......Steve
 Attachments

 Nissan_Micra_2002_Petrol_201410060001REVISED MATHS.psdata
 (1.17 MiB) Downloaded 754 times
 Fat Freddy
 TwoWaves
 Posts: 318
 Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:52 am
Re: Graphing RPM
Hi Steve
Just read a similar reply on iatn. When doing these calculations you have to allow for missing teeth. So on a 58 tooth crank it will actually be 602. So using your formula it becomes 60/60*freq(A2.5) = 1*freq(A2.5) = freq(A2.5).
Make sense?
This should be 60/34*freq(A2.5) (if I have counted correctly).
HTH
FF
Just read a similar reply on iatn. When doing these calculations you have to allow for missing teeth. So on a 58 tooth crank it will actually be 602. So using your formula it becomes 60/60*freq(A2.5) = 1*freq(A2.5) = freq(A2.5).
Make sense?
This should be 60/34*freq(A2.5) (if I have counted correctly).
HTH
FF

 Pico Staff Member
 Posts: 764
 Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:22 am
Re: Graphing RPM
Hello FF and thank you for pointing this out. You have most certainly counted correctly as I have not allowed for the missing teeth.
The frequency counter is looking at intervals and whilst there are 32 intervals, there are also 2 x missing teeth that need to be considered.
I have used FF's maths channel 60/34*freq(A2.5) as well as the one above to demonstrate the difference just 2 x teeth can make.
Thank you again, take care......Steve
The frequency counter is looking at intervals and whilst there are 32 intervals, there are also 2 x missing teeth that need to be considered.
I have used FF's maths channel 60/34*freq(A2.5) as well as the one above to demonstrate the difference just 2 x teeth can make.
Thank you again, take care......Steve
 Attachments

 Nissan_Micra_2002_Petrol_2014100700012 x maths channels.psdata
 (1.16 MiB) Downloaded 794 times
Re: Graphing RPM
May be stupid but why freq(A2.5) is better than freq(A)?
Re: Graphing RPM
Sampling at the 2.5V threshold.volrem wrote:May be stupid but why freq(A2.5) is better than freq(A)?
 Fat Freddy
 TwoWaves
 Posts: 318
 Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:52 am
Re: Graphing RPM
Hi Steve
Cheers
FF
I think I didn't. . My apologies. 2X 2 missing teeth. So 36 teeth. Which is a nicer number 10* eachYou have most certainly counted correctly as I have not allowed for the missing teeth.
Cheers
FF

 Pico Staff Member
 Posts: 764
 Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:22 am
Re: Graphing RPM
Thanks for the feedback on this one and there are no stupid questions Volrem, thank you for the post.
I have attached an application note regarding maths channels. Please take a read and feedback when you can.
Take care......Steve
I have attached an application note regarding maths channels. Please take a read and feedback when you can.
Take care......Steve
 Attachments

 MATHS CHANNEL ARTICLE.docx
 (2.42 MiB) Downloaded 777 times
Re: Graphing RPM
I'd reitterate what FF says here  you need to use 36 as the number of teeth per engine revolution for this example, not 34 or 32. Fundamental to what FF is saying is that when you make a maths channel calculation for speed from a tooth frequency, you must use the tooth count as if there are no missing teeth, e.g. in this case add the 4 missing teeth to the counted 32 for a revolution. Then just reject the data at the missing teeth (dropouts) in the speed calculation.Fat Freddy wrote:Hi Steve
I think I didn't. . My apologies. 2X 2 missing teeth. So 36 teeth. Which is a nicer number 10* eachYou have most certainly counted correctly as I have not allowed for the missing teeth.
Cheers
FF
Am I missing something in the start of the thread here  all four cylinders DO look as if they are contributing equally, not the statement that No.1 is NOT contributing equally?
Re: Graphing RPM
Thanks Steve. I did read this article again and got some more info regarding math channels and understand some things better now.
I also did some tests and found no difference between these two options. However i believe crossing point in middle may give better results in some situations.
Also I must say that these new math channel functions are just great and make things much simpler.
Most of these are still not undestandable for me so I hope there will be some "real life" examples shown in the future. Or maybe I just have not noticed?
I also did some tests and found no difference between these two options. However i believe crossing point in middle may give better results in some situations.
Also I must say that these new math channel functions are just great and make things much simpler.
Most of these are still not undestandable for me so I hope there will be some "real life" examples shown in the future. Or maybe I just have not noticed?