Something else we used to work on...

All the computing power in the world right now wouldn't make one of those idiotic engines work. The problem wasn't the implementation; it was the very premise that running a 1000lb engine dragging around a 4000lb (weight minus engine) car on 4 cylinders would give it the fuel economy of a 400lb 4 cylinder engine dragging around a 1500lb car. It didn't, can't, and never will. The problem was the weight of the car, not the # of cylinders.

Hamilton Standard may have dropped the ball when they got into automotive engineering, but they built one solid reliable environmental control system for the Lockheed L-1011. Worked with their tech. reps. for many years and there aerospace engineering takes a back seat to noone. Good reliable stuff, and it's a shame about their automotive endeavours.

supraman_88 wrote in news:hrqpl6$faa$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

I drove one of them several times (in a Seville) when they were brand-new. When the system was working properly, it was completely seamless to the driver, except for the little number that showed on the green LED dashboard readout. It was pretty impressive for the time, I can tell you.

Yep. I've read that in several places. Chrysler's early-'80s FI fell for the same reason.

Well, they at least tried something new. They deserve credit for that, at least. Probably the best place to try untested ideas like that is in the highest-end cars available. Imagine if GM had put that system in Chevs and Pontiacs, with their sales volume and intended market.

supraman_88 wrote in news:hrqpl6$faa$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

It wouldn't be a problem if they used analog computing. Only limited by the speed of light.

completely unsurprising. what is "surprising" is all the b.s. blaming the designer and not gm's cheapness and abysmal component quality - the real problem.

Funny thing was, we were making the advanced tech engine controls for Commercial and military aviation, and they worked great.

See my answer to Jim,. In the aerospace business they made some pretty fantastic stuff. Take the EEC-104, used in large engines for Boeing and Rolls-Royce. It was basically two 'controllers' ( a single purpose early computer) married together through a central connector. There were two boards for each half, with redundant circuts on both sides and a control circuit on the "A" channel.

Let's say the 'scratch pad' (otherwise known as RAM nowadays) went bad on channel A. Rather than transfer all operation to channel B, the only function transferred was the Scratch pad function. IIRC, it took three circuit failures for total operation to be transferred to the other channel.

In the event of a total, catastrophic failure of the entire unit, there was a dumb circuit that would open up a failsafe valve. All this did was dump fuel into the engine, mostly uncontrolled, so the plane could make a landing. Fuel economy sucked, but it got you back on the ground.

The spacesuits and the, er...toilet were pretty amazing too.

It only kicked in at highway speeds. At 65 MPH on level ground you only need about 40 HP to keep a car that size moving.

Sounds optimistic. Maybe with a 60 MPH tailwind.

newton's laws. a body continues in its state of motion. on level ground, the only thing the motor has to do is initially accelerate the mass and overcome wind resistance. the latter increases rapidly with speed, but at 65, it's not that big a deal.

inserts:

"for the former, once it's at speed, the motor's work is done. for

"work

Yes, but when you have something with the frontal area of a medium sized SUV in the shape of a brick, it is a big deal. Newton's law aren't the primary consideration. Air resistance, drag, and the power needed to move all the weight up the slightest incline or to change vectors in a turn are.

There is a guy who removed the engine and transmission and some other things to get the weight down on an old Oldsmobile.He rigged it up so he could pedal that car.

On the web, Pedal Car Gets Pulled Over By Toronto Cops cuhulin

further reading:

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

Oh, yes. I remember hearing about that. Goes in the same file as the "cyberman" who wore all those cameras IMHO. Was a professor at U of Toronto I think for a while and then later worked at MIT. The last I heard of him was a doc about him. He was going through an airport wearing these cameras, electronic boxes strapped to his waist and so on with heads up displays on one eye. The guy at the security counter asks him what the h he is. He says "I'm a cyberman" Needless to say he missed his flight.

That early 1990's picture is pretty much what would have confronted the airport security people.

You should know, though, that this was originally a Singer/Kearfott idea when it first came out! The whole I-tell-you-twice thing was first used on the Singer SKC-2000 airborne computer in 1970.

--scott

Actually, I take that back. While that might have been first airborne use, the Eckert-Mauchley BINAC did something similar although not with as sophisticated arbitration.

--scott

Nano technology.It rebuilds itself as it wears out.Maybe Stem Cells cars? That's the ticket! cuhulin

Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote in news:5bJEn.67$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe17.iad:

Mine too. Had it not been for the rust, I'd probably still have my '82 Corolla.

And for the last 19-years, I have been an infantryman in the bloody and vicious battle to keep the rust away from my '91 'Teg (I'm losing, by the way).