THE VLB ENGINE'S ECU

Many of John Allen's inventions and designs rely upon a microprocessor as the basic control system. These designs span a wide range of disciplines and diverse applications, but unlike most processor controlled systems, they all share the same basic structure. That is, an operating system called Macro-D.

Basically Macro-D is a bit like DOS, or WINDOWS, or UNIX, in that its purpose is to impose a discipline and structure upon a system, such that it can be expanded or changed without too much fear of disruption. John originally produced it as a desktop computer system at around the same time that Microsoft's Bill Gates and my namesake Paul Allen were working on the first DOS release. The main difference was that John was applying his system to the Xerox computer whilst the other guys were attacking the IBM. You may think (as John is my father) that I am automatically biased, but on the other hand, I am one of the few programmers who have worked with both systems. The differences between Macro-D and all of the other systems that I have seen and worked with are extensive. I can tell you, it was a sad day when Xerox pulled out of PC development in exchange for IBM ceasing production of photocopiers. I won't labour the point, but I will just say that I once saw Macro-D, running on an 8 bit 4MHz computer, directly competing with DOS running on a 16 bit 12MHz machine, both computers (effectively) running the same highly complex payroll program. The Macro-D machine was almost twice as fast!

John didn't mind too much when Xerox pulled out, him not being a computer buff as such, and having many "more interesting" things to do. I have told you all this because I want you to understand that the VLB ECU has as good a pedigree as any other.

The ECU is entirely integrated with the VLB engine, in that it responds to what the engine is doing, and acts accordingly, in a way that no other system even begins to approach. Just recently, I happened to watch the start of a F1 Grand Prix and saw an eminent car fail to get off the grid. I later learned that there was 'a bit of a cock-up' with the electronic system's "launch control". Just how this can happen at such a high level is quite a mystery to me. The VLB launch control just couldn't fail to give best results every time, unless the engine failed mechanically. Clearly the F1 guys are still playing with 'programming - in' the parameters. The only 'programming' the VLB engine needs is the position of the throttle pedal – floor it and the vehicle leaps away like a race car; just press it and the vehicle moves off as any 'normal' person would want it to. The whole system works in that way.

Suppose, for example, the car was set up to use 'high octane' fuel, but someone has filled the tank with a lower grade fuel. The ECU will quickly detect the 'problem' and adjust the engine's parameters to suit the different fuel. Or, if the tank has been filled with a fuel which is not able to effect the full potential of the engine (but is 'useable') it will issue a warning and automatically reset the engine's top speed, etc., to give the best results. I'm not sure how much I should say about the tests which were carried out, but this particular aspect of the control system allowed the engine to run on paraffin (kerosene) having been set up for acetylene enhanced petrol (gasoline), and run perfectly well, at that.

As well as supplying the arcs, the correct amount of fuel, any required fuel treatment, and controlling the exhaust valves, etc., the ECU also resolves the true engine loading. This aspect is particularly significant (or so I'm told) when it comes to the gearing. I'm not a mechanically inclined person, but I do understand that the 'near infinite ratio' gearing system planned for the VLB vehicle will benefit enormously from this.

That 'servo' (feed-back) control is the only serious way to deal with engine (and vehicle) management, should be obvious to anyone.

Of course, there are those who will tell you that their ECU also detects load, and uses feedback from the engine. And, no doubt, they are telling the truth. But one might as well say that the very first vehicle engine received feed-back control from the road wheels - of course it did. The significance of feed-back control lies in the degree and effect, and in the extent to which it can resolve complex and interactive issues. That (pinnacle of engineering?) F1 car should not have stalled, and would not have done so if the system had been designed properly. Whatever the control system did, it was clearly too 'stupid' to realise that the mechanical system was not able to respond. Given the reaction speed of an ECU, that sort of failure is just plain carelessness. Or was it simply just the wrong ECU for the job?

Paul Allen