RE: New spark plug to revolutionise engines?
Friday 18th March 2005
New spark plug to revolutionise engines?
Plug's inventor claims more efficiency and power
A revolutionary spark plug has been developed by engineer and inventor Robert Krupa that he claims makes petrol engines up to 44 per cent more fuel-efficient and/or more powerful, because it allows them to run at compression ratios as high as 24:1; most engines run at ratios of between 9:1 and 11:1. Higher ratios cause the fuel to pre-detonate, also known as pinking -- a bad thing.
Dubbed the Firestorm, the plug uses differently-shaped electrodes, it's unlikely to make the shops anytime soon, as established plug makers have refused to build it. As a result, Krupa's company, CDI Limited, has decided it will manufacture the FireStorm plugs on its own, and appears to be looking for funding.
New technologies such as this crop up from time to time but, even if they work, rarely do they pass the tests of being able to be produced economically, given the enormous inertia involved in shifting the 100+ year-old internal combustion engine business.
Even assuming it's not total snake oil, the Firestorm has more than technological barriers to climb.
Discussion
I don't see what's so special about it either. I guess the electrode design allows more area for the spark, a bit like the splitfire system, but the benefits seems to be mainly improved durability rather than power. I suspect the reason existing manufacturers have 'refused to make it' is it is more complicated to make (more welding required) for no particular benefit.
Spark plugs retain heat from the combustion cycle. That's why you have hotter and colder grades of plugs. If you have a colder set of plugs, the heat is taken away from the end of the spark plug quicker, hence it runs cooler.
Pre-ignition and detonation are different things. They are not the same. Pre-ignition is when a hot spot within the combustion chamber ignites the fuel mixture before the spark plug has fired. This can have several consequences. The spark plug, if it's the wrong type for the engine can be this hot spot. Moving to a colder plug can solve this 'problem'. The higher the compression ratio ( dynamic or static ) the higher the temperature rise from the compression of the fuel mixture, and so the colder you must make the plugs to ensure no pre-ignition. Because pre-ignition is caused by a single hot spot, you still get a fairly controlled burn, but the ignition advance will be too much, and peak cylinder pressure can occur before TDC, which is not good.
Detonation is when the fuel mixture as a whole reaches the flash point of ignition for the fuel being used. Here, the fuel mixture detonates instead of burning in a controlled manor. This is very bad, and is the type of failure that destory's engines very quickly. Peak cylinder pressures escalate because of the instant explosion.
So, in reality, a plug can be said to enable you to run higher compression ratios. However, these plugs already exist in standard ranges, you just move one or two grades colder. The thing is, combustion chamber design, piston crown, and valve design all work together to give you a maximum useable compression ratio with a given RON fuel.
24:1 compression ratio would act as a diesel, although probably not one that would last very long! lol. So it could be argued that no spark plugs are the way forward to a higher compression engine that is more efficient. Oh, wait there, yes, that's a diesel... lol
These are another crud marketing gimic. Firestorm indeed!
Pre-ignition and detonation are different things. They are not the same. Pre-ignition is when a hot spot within the combustion chamber ignites the fuel mixture before the spark plug has fired. This can have several consequences. The spark plug, if it's the wrong type for the engine can be this hot spot. Moving to a colder plug can solve this 'problem'. The higher the compression ratio ( dynamic or static ) the higher the temperature rise from the compression of the fuel mixture, and so the colder you must make the plugs to ensure no pre-ignition. Because pre-ignition is caused by a single hot spot, you still get a fairly controlled burn, but the ignition advance will be too much, and peak cylinder pressure can occur before TDC, which is not good.
Detonation is when the fuel mixture as a whole reaches the flash point of ignition for the fuel being used. Here, the fuel mixture detonates instead of burning in a controlled manor. This is very bad, and is the type of failure that destory's engines very quickly. Peak cylinder pressures escalate because of the instant explosion.
So, in reality, a plug can be said to enable you to run higher compression ratios. However, these plugs already exist in standard ranges, you just move one or two grades colder. The thing is, combustion chamber design, piston crown, and valve design all work together to give you a maximum useable compression ratio with a given RON fuel.
24:1 compression ratio would act as a diesel, although probably not one that would last very long! lol. So it could be argued that no spark plugs are the way forward to a higher compression engine that is more efficient. Oh, wait there, yes, that's a diesel... lol
These are another crud marketing gimic. Firestorm indeed!
Reading the article from Nexxus Magazine, it looks like they're referring to the *air-fuel* mixture ratio, not the compression ratio. Now it makes more sense. Because the plug produces a dramatically more efficient spark, it can burn a leaner air-fuel mixture. Instead of the typical 14:1 (or thereabouts) air-fuel ratio, Krupa is claiming to be able to derive similar level of performance from a 24:1 ratio.
If his claims are true, that’s an efficiency increase of nearly 200 per cent! And that’s rom plugs that may never need adjusting or changing. And because the burn is more efficient, and there’s less petrol in the mixture, we would pay much less at the pumps (until the oil producers “adjust” for market conditions).
It’s anteresting concept, and if it’s even half as good as claimed, then lucky are the investors who get in on this at the early stages.
If his claims are true, that’s an efficiency increase of nearly 200 per cent! And that’s rom plugs that may never need adjusting or changing. And because the burn is more efficient, and there’s less petrol in the mixture, we would pay much less at the pumps (until the oil producers “adjust” for market conditions).
It’s anteresting concept, and if it’s even half as good as claimed, then lucky are the investors who get in on this at the early stages.
phase90 said:
At what point does the mixture become so lean that the useable energy is no longer there? It may run, but don't try to get any power out of it....
There is an awful lot of energy stored up in petrol fuel. Your average petrol engine does a pretty poor job of getting that energy out. Much of the waste goes into heat which you then have to dispose of.
Alcohol by comparison is much more efficient but the energy/fuel density is low so you need twice as much of it in the air-fuel mixture to burn properly. What it doesnt do though is generate heat. The combustion happens at a very low (comparitively) temperature. The biggest problem with alcohol is actually getting the engine warm so it works at its most efficient.
Traditionally the more lean you make the engine mixture the more heat it generates but the combustion is more complete (less wasted fuel). In order to reduce the thermal waste at such a low air-fuel ratio these new plugs would have to somehow alter the reaction and that is the bit I don't get. I've read through the article and while I agree the inventor did the basic common sense things and came out with a no-nonsense plug I don't see how he has rewritten the books to change the very nature of the combustion reaction.
jimbro1000 said:
Alcohol by comparison is much more efficient ... The combustion happens at a very low (comparitively) temperature.
This is something I've never quite understood. I can see how it might be easier to light / willing to burn at a lower temperature, conceptually like having a lower octane rating (although of course there isn't actually any octane in it). But isn't the 'flame temperature' just a function of the amount of energy produced and the thermal mass of the result? For a given power output, how does it end up cooler?
Not doubting that it does, just trying to understand how.
GreenV8S said:
Alcohol by comparison is much more efficient ... The combustion happens at a very low (comparitively) temperature.
This is something I've never quite understood. I can see how it might be easier to light / willing to burn at a lower temperature, conceptually like having a lower octane rating (although of course there isn't actually any octane in it). But isn't the 'flame temperature' just a function of the amount of energy produced and the thermal mass of the result? For a given power output, how does it end up cooler?
Not doubting that it does, just trying to understand how.
This is what is normally referred to as thermal efficiency, specifically how much useful energy can be extracted from the combustion relative to the waste heat generated. I can't give specifics as I am no chemist but the basics are that the reaction of alcohol in oxygen generates more gas and less heat relative to the reaction of petrol in oxygen.
There are however three problems with alcohol - if it doesn't burn properly the exhaust gas is extremely nasty (carcinogenic) and given how hard it is to warm the engine up with alcohol this is a big issue. The second problem is that you need roughly twice the volume of alcohol compared with petrol to achieve the same effect. The third problem of course is people trying to drink the stuff, it opens up a whole can of worms with taxation too...
jimbro1000 said:
There are however three problems with alcohol - if it doesn't burn properly the exhaust gas is extremely nasty (carcinogenic) and given how hard it is to warm the engine up with alcohol this is a big issue.
Eh?
Are you sure you're referring to alcohol. Not methanol by any chance.
As far as I'm aware burning an alcohol engine rich doesn't give you any harmfull emissions.
An methanol engine is a different story, and I'm sure you're getting your wires crossed.
After all the yanks sell fuel which is 80% ethanol by volume and its plenty environmentally friendly.
Andy
>> Edited by andytk on Saturday 26th March 20:07
andytk said:
There are however three problems with alcohol - if it doesn't burn properly the exhaust gas is extremely nasty (carcinogenic) and given how hard it is to warm the engine up with alcohol this is a big issue.
Eh?
Are you sure you're referring to alcohol. Not Ethanol by any chance.
As far as I'm aware burning an alcohol engine rich doesn't give you any harmfull emissions.
An ethanol engine is a different story, and I'm sure you're getting your wires crossed.
After all the yanks sell fuel which is 80% ethanol by volume and its plenty environmentally friendly.
Andy
err.... ethanol is a type of alcohol, so an alcohol engine would be an ethanol engine. Unless you're being sarcastic.....
ben
benojir said:
jimbro1000 said:
There are however three problems with alcohol - if it doesn't burn properly the exhaust gas is extremely nasty (carcinogenic) and given how hard it is to warm the engine up with alcohol this is a big issue.
Eh?
Are you sure you're referring to alcohol. Not Ethanol by any chance.
As far as I'm aware burning an alcohol engine rich doesn't give you any harmfull emissions.
An ethanol engine is a different story, and I'm sure you're getting your wires crossed.
After all the yanks sell fuel which is 80% ethanol by volume and its plenty environmentally friendly.
Andy
err.... ethanol is a type of alcohol, so an alcohol engine would be an ethanol engine. Unless you're being sarcastic.....
ben
DOH.
I meant METHANOL, the highly toxic half brother of ethanol.
Sorry, my mistake
Andy
You guys should take a look at the videos of this thing firing before you pass judgment.
www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm.htm
"Flame kernel" doesn't EVEN COME CLOSE.
Dave
(best picture is on www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm2.htm , scroll about half way down, there's a comparison with a normal plug)
www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm.htm
"Flame kernel" doesn't EVEN COME CLOSE.
Dave
(best picture is on www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm2.htm , scroll about half way down, there's a comparison with a normal plug)
Hi,
I own a Brazilian 1981 Ford Landau, with an original 302 V8 Windsor engine, which uses alcohol (methanol) as fuel. It has a compression ratio of 11:1. These engines were produced in Brazil until mid-80's, when production was discontinued, and probably less than 2,000 have been actually manufactured. NGK produces(produced?) a special spark plug, B7FS, which I can no longer find. So I wonder what else could I use. Any help is appreciated.
I own a Brazilian 1981 Ford Landau, with an original 302 V8 Windsor engine, which uses alcohol (methanol) as fuel. It has a compression ratio of 11:1. These engines were produced in Brazil until mid-80's, when production was discontinued, and probably less than 2,000 have been actually manufactured. NGK produces(produced?) a special spark plug, B7FS, which I can no longer find. So I wonder what else could I use. Any help is appreciated.
Hi,
I own a Brazilian 1981 Ford Landau, with an original 302 V8 Windsor engine, which uses alcohol (methanol) as fuel. It has a compression ratio of 11:1. These engines were produced in Brazil until mid-80's, when production was discontinued, and probably less than 2,000 have been actually manufactured. NGK produces(produced?) a special spark plug, B7FS, which I can no longer find. So I wonder what else could I use. Any help is appreciated.
I own a Brazilian 1981 Ford Landau, with an original 302 V8 Windsor engine, which uses alcohol (methanol) as fuel. It has a compression ratio of 11:1. These engines were produced in Brazil until mid-80's, when production was discontinued, and probably less than 2,000 have been actually manufactured. NGK produces(produced?) a special spark plug, B7FS, which I can no longer find. So I wonder what else could I use. Any help is appreciated.
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff