Hi guys.

There is an interesting thread developing on a UK Forum, regarding a mass air flow meter capture.  Here is the link…..  http://www.ilexa.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20116.0.html  (hope that’s OK Tom)

I have made the following comment………..

This is an odd capture & on the face of it I would say that the sample rate is set too low. However if you look at the other example shown (Supplied by Kurt) he has a lower sample rate set & twice as much time set on screen. The statistics on the right hand side of each capture tell a different tale though!  :-\  I am confused about this one! Maybe it would be worth putting this on the Pico Forum or even Autonerdz.

http://www.londonroadgarage.com/images/question_maf.gif

http://www.londonroadgarage.com/images/question_maf2.gif

Reading between the lines errr samples  ::) I can see that the peak voltages are good, but the apparent gaps suggest a problem. Are these gaps for real, or due to an issue with the scope or maybe even a bottleneck elsewhere in your system? Are you using USB II ?

Curious one!

What do the Autonerdz guys make of it?

Regards

Dave

Dave,

This is the kind of thing we discuss in the Picogroup areas.  

Impossible to see all the settings used from an image, so I can't say what all the factors are, but the settings I can see are not the ones I would use for this test.  Also how the leads are deployed can also affect the results.  And how the test is performed for a MAF is also important.

I tried to duplicate the two settings (just from the image) and the properties were identical as far as sample rate goes.  So I don't know why the properties show different values in your images.