Exiting new spark plug concept
Discussion
Not sure where to post this, mods, please post where this should go, I'm new here so not sure of protocol.
I came across this
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130818/NEWS...
This looks like a very effective advancement in spark plug technology.
Is it really or just more snake oil?
I came across this
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130818/NEWS...
This looks like a very effective advancement in spark plug technology.
Is it really or just more snake oil?
Increased efficiency. They are not talking about a few percent - they are talking about 10% from a spark plug!!
This isn't some back street fake additive manufacturer. It's Federal Mogul!! These are big boys in automotive making a huge claim.
I'm really excited by this and wonder if it will get to market. I never thought I'd say this about a spark plug but it sounds too good to be true.
This isn't some back street fake additive manufacturer. It's Federal Mogul!! These are big boys in automotive making a huge claim.
I'm really excited by this and wonder if it will get to market. I never thought I'd say this about a spark plug but it sounds too good to be true.
Now that IS interesting, thanks for posting.
As the article says - so much internal combustion engine technology has evolved and moved on - from CANBUS to electronic control systems, variable valve timing etc. etc. But spark plugs are still spark plugs - yes, the timing of the spark is computer controlled, but that's about it. The basic design and use of the plug hasn't changed much at all!
I do remember a 'snake oil' idea about spark plugs that I saw at a few motor shows back in the late 90's, where some company was selling a device that plugged into the main coil lead to the distributor. It amplified the spark and increased the duration of it - they cited better combustion, and hence increased performance and MPG and that - but it seemed to just disappear as quickly as it appeared, like most of these cottage-industry 'improvements...'
Be interesting to see if this does amount to anything!
As the article says - so much internal combustion engine technology has evolved and moved on - from CANBUS to electronic control systems, variable valve timing etc. etc. But spark plugs are still spark plugs - yes, the timing of the spark is computer controlled, but that's about it. The basic design and use of the plug hasn't changed much at all!
I do remember a 'snake oil' idea about spark plugs that I saw at a few motor shows back in the late 90's, where some company was selling a device that plugged into the main coil lead to the distributor. It amplified the spark and increased the duration of it - they cited better combustion, and hence increased performance and MPG and that - but it seemed to just disappear as quickly as it appeared, like most of these cottage-industry 'improvements...'
Be interesting to see if this does amount to anything!
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
Now that IS interesting, thanks for posting.
I do remember a 'snake oil' idea about spark plugs that I saw at a few motor shows back in the late 90's, where some company was selling a device that plugged into the main coil lead to the distributor. It amplified the spark and increased the duration of it - they cited better combustion, and hence increased performance and MPG and that - but it seemed to just disappear as quickly as it appeared, like most of these cottage-industry 'improvements...'
I think it was marketed by 'Splitfire' I've got one in a box somewhere in the garageI do remember a 'snake oil' idea about spark plugs that I saw at a few motor shows back in the late 90's, where some company was selling a device that plugged into the main coil lead to the distributor. It amplified the spark and increased the duration of it - they cited better combustion, and hence increased performance and MPG and that - but it seemed to just disappear as quickly as it appeared, like most of these cottage-industry 'improvements...'
Initiating combustion is all you need, on time, and that's a solved problem for 100yrs+. Adding more energy - at best few joules - here does not make one damn bit of difference. And there's 50+ yrs of similar 'new inventions' and thousands of hours of manufacturers dyno time to disprove this one. If more-energetic ignition helped efficiency/emissions we'd know about it from the majors upfront - not the funding-seekers in the background.
How the heck do Jap bike engines that make power way past 15K rpm manage without this new invention? Oh let me think; now didn't Honda race that 22Krpm 125cc wonder 45yrs ago off old points, coils and plugs, or am I imagining it?
And basic physics says Splitfire and the like are utter BS. One potential, one spark, one time - splitting one terminal doesn't help where the spark lands, or encourage two in the place of one, or add any energy to teh process. Studying basic corona formation is only a century+ yr-old science...
tl;dr: It's abject shilling and nonsense. Any spark is enough providing it gets combustion going. Not a problem, and certainly not an efficacy bottleneck.
How the heck do Jap bike engines that make power way past 15K rpm manage without this new invention? Oh let me think; now didn't Honda race that 22Krpm 125cc wonder 45yrs ago off old points, coils and plugs, or am I imagining it?
And basic physics says Splitfire and the like are utter BS. One potential, one spark, one time - splitting one terminal doesn't help where the spark lands, or encourage two in the place of one, or add any energy to teh process. Studying basic corona formation is only a century+ yr-old science...
tl;dr: It's abject shilling and nonsense. Any spark is enough providing it gets combustion going. Not a problem, and certainly not an efficacy bottleneck.
Edited by Huff on Saturday 15th March 00:20
littleredrooster said:
Yup, I spotted it.
Whoosh parrot for those who didn't.
PH is a cruel place. But I love it. Is there an accepted PH excuse for typos such as blame my iPhone even though I haven't got one?Whoosh parrot for those who didn't.
It would be nice if a mod could correct but probably not serious enough to distract from what I'm trying to highlight here.
Back to the subject of the thread.
Alfa (and maybe others) have tried twin spark systems, but they've not really caught on - no benefit or does it compromise the cylinder head design? If the latter, maybe this will get round the problem and provide similar benefits.
I don't believe 10% from this difference though, maybe 10% as a best case scenario for any single given cylinder combustion event, not over the course of normal driving for a year.
I don't believe 10% from this difference though, maybe 10% as a best case scenario for any single given cylinder combustion event, not over the course of normal driving for a year.
See link.
http://www.federalmogul.com/en-US/Media/Documents/... for a fuller explanation of what this does.
So the argument against this being of any use is that all that matters is that combustion is started?
This ACIS commences combustion in multiple places in the cylinder at the same time.
As I see it, a conventional spark, wastes energy in compressing unburnt fuel as ignition spreads through the cylinder. This system causes ignition to commence in multiple locations simultaneously.
It doesn't look easy to retrofit although it is possible. It's not just a case of changing plugs but for new applications, if the claims are true, this sound ground breaking to me. As big as moving from drums to disks, from carbs to FI, from points to electronic ignition.
http://www.federalmogul.com/en-US/Media/Documents/... for a fuller explanation of what this does.
So the argument against this being of any use is that all that matters is that combustion is started?
This ACIS commences combustion in multiple places in the cylinder at the same time.
As I see it, a conventional spark, wastes energy in compressing unburnt fuel as ignition spreads through the cylinder. This system causes ignition to commence in multiple locations simultaneously.
It doesn't look easy to retrofit although it is possible. It's not just a case of changing plugs but for new applications, if the claims are true, this sound ground breaking to me. As big as moving from drums to disks, from carbs to FI, from points to electronic ignition.
Neilperryman said:
As I see it, a conventional spark, wastes energy in compressing unburnt fuel as ignition spreads through the cylinder. This system causes ignition to commence in multiple locations simultaneously.
Seems to me that if you have combustion starting in a single place, then all the energy is outwards from that single point. Whereas multiple points of combustion would mean some of the energies from those points will be equal and opposite to each other, thereby reducing efficiency... or am I being too simplistic?calibrax said:
Neilperryman said:
As I see it, a conventional spark, wastes energy in compressing unburnt fuel as ignition spreads through the cylinder. This system causes ignition to commence in multiple locations simultaneously.
Seems to me that if you have combustion starting in a single place, then all the energy is outwards from that single point. Whereas multiple points of combustion would mean some of the energies from those points will be equal and opposite to each other, thereby reducing efficiency... or am I being too simplistic?xRIEx said:
I think it's the total energy release (and gas pressure) within the cylinder that matters, the individual combustion points won't 'act against' each other.
Exactly - and if none of that energy is wasted compressing the unburned mixture, then there is more energy going into moving the piston. Surely the most efficient expansion is where expansion occurs in a uniform manner as all the particles are pushing against each other.
Furthermore, combustion is occurring at a lower temperature as the mixture hasn't been pre-heated by the parts of the mixture that have started to burn. Another point is that the expansion must happen more quickly as it is starting at the same time in multiple locations in the cylinder and there is less distance for the "flame" to travel as there will in effect be multiple burn points which in themselves are only a fraction of the size of the entire cylinder charge.
The question is - can the corona spread faster than the speed at which a single source ignites, is it even instantaneous?. If yes - this is the single most significant advancement in ignition since the invention of the match. If not - it's snake oil.
calibrax said:
Seems to me that if you have combustion starting in a single place, then all the energy is outwards from that single point. Whereas multiple points of combustion would mean some of the energies from those points will be equal and opposite to each other, thereby reducing efficiency... or am I being too simplistic?
Surely multiple points of ignition would be akin to detonation. You need to have a controlled burn with an advancing flame front.The dedicated ignition system for this type of plug is a limiting factor also
cptsideways said:
Don't forget combustion chambers are designed around flame fronts caused by one spark. So chamber redesign may have to happen.
You do not want instantaneous burns (that is det) but a progressive burn on petrol engines.
Why is that? I would have thought you want the most efficient expansion of the gasses?You do not want instantaneous burns (that is det) but a progressive burn on petrol engines.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff