Fordmods Logo

MIRACLE SPARK PLUGS 

 

Page 2 of 8 [ 106 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:28 am 
Fordmods Junkie
Offline
User avatar

Posts: 11739

Joined: 17th May 2005

Gallery: 11 images

Ride: EL Fairmont, VFR400 racer

Power: 144 rwkw

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

well i haven't looked into the chemistry of it, but according to scientists, normal spark plugs only ignite a certain amount of fuel that goes in, that's why we can smell unburnt petrol coming out of the exhaust when too much is being put in.

In this case, according to the inventor, close to 100% of the fuel that goes in will be ignited. Fire requires oxygen to burn, therefore by introducing more air into chamber could in deed increase the amount of energy produced. So if close to 100% of the fuel is ignited, you are going to need more oxygen to keep it lit and also to get the extra energy. If you don't change the A/F ratio it will still run, you will have good fuel eco with more power. Reduce the amount of fuel going in will give more fuel economy but won't increase power since you are reducing the energy being put in, as Andrew J mentioned.

mitchg911 - not all the fuel going in is lit, therefore only 14 parts of oxygen is required, if you lit up the whole thing, more then 14 parts of oxygen is required.

twr7cx - why would you want to manufacture a spark plug that doesn't need replacing when you can produce spark plugs that can be replaced every 20000kms and leech money over time :P keeps the business running. It's like the electric car, why not make them and sell them? because oil works out cheaper and gets more money (I think)...and by increasing fuel economy, means petrol is less spent and therefore oil companies would get less money...they probably played a part in fighting against the production of those plugs...the same money leeching moles that killed the electric car.

If nothing made sense...sorry i've been drinking

phong =P~

 

_________________

phongus = Post whore 2006
EL XR6 motor, EL ECU + J3 chip, WADE 1673 Camshaft, 3" S/S intake, Pacy 4480, 2.5" Hi flow cat, 2.5" Lukey exhaust.
Max Power = 144.6 rwkw (03/05/2008)

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:49 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 1085

Joined: 6th Nov 2004

Ride: BF XR Turbo

Location: Castle Hill
NSW, Australia

im sorry, but the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is 14.7:1

that means that to completely burn 1 part of fuel you need 14.7 parts of are (by volume).
it has nothing to do with igniting all the fuel in the combustion chamber, nor anything to do with flame fronts.

therefor the ideal air fuel ratio for an internal combustion engine is 14.7:1 (given that the fuel is pure).
if this ratio is achieved all of the fuel will experience a combustion reaction, consuming all the oxygen. if you have a lean mixture oxygen will be left ver after the reaction and if you have a rich mixture there will be unburnt fuel remaining.


as far as spark plugs not ingniting all the fuel present, this does not change the fact that you need X amount of air to combust X amount of fuel. poor flame fronts and poor burn patterns are floors in cylinder head design, nothing more.


refer here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

and check out incomplete combustion reactions in a yr11/12 chem text book.



-mitch

 

_________________

BF XR6T 6spd Auto. 60lb injectors, Hybrid Cooler, Custom Piping, Custom Surge Tank, Actuator.

12.3 @ 114

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 5:57 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 3516

Joined: 8th Nov 2004

[self-deleted]

Last edited by blackjack_original on Fri Jun 06, 2014 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:06 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 1085

Joined: 6th Nov 2004

Ride: BF XR Turbo

Location: Castle Hill
NSW, Australia

yes the moles.. i used to hate those molar equation s**t things



-mitch

 

_________________

BF XR6T 6spd Auto. 60lb injectors, Hybrid Cooler, Custom Piping, Custom Surge Tank, Actuator.

12.3 @ 114

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:22 pm 
Stock as a Rock
Offline

Age: 63

Posts: 168

Joined: 31st Oct 2006

Ride: 4.0 EL/dads taxi

Location: Kingaroy
QLD, Australia

Why isn't it produced,

Because it's potential for fuel saving is zero, unless you take into account that they are harder to foul.

If this were true then why aren't Golden Lodge and Bosch Super 4's producing better fuel consumption?

The video you see shows the spark running around the Plasma plug , you are shielded from viewing the normal plugs spark by the side electrode and the fact that it fires from tip to centre not ball to ring like the Plasma plug.

Plasma is an ionised hot gas, like that in a MIG welder, or a normal plug.

There is no scientific documentation to support this and I seriously doubt that there will ever be anything to back up claims.

Why do spark plugs erode to a ball? Because the spark will find the path of least resistance, the shortest path and it will erode when it fires.

Ask racers and you will find that an old trick was to file the side electrode to a sharp 90 degree angle over the middle of the centre electrode to promote easier/better sparking.

As for the fuel ratios, look at the pollution figures for current cars and see the small amount (if any) of hydrocarbons that exit the motor.

The plain fact is that you get X amount of energy for a given mass of any fuel, reduce the mass, reduce the energy.

No flame front? You can have one, two or more flame fronts but no flame fronts means no combustion. The thing won't go.

Just my bit.

Grumbles

 

_________________

The thunder of .05 will echoe around Bathurst for ever.

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:51 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 4849

Joined: 19th Feb 2005

Gallery: 1 images

Ride: BA Falcon Suzy Across

Power: 178 rwkw

Location: melbourne
VIC, Australia

mitchg911 wrote:
yes the moles.. i used to hate those molar equation s**t things



-mitch


geez, moles bring back memories from 1st year uni and high school.

 

_________________

178.3 rwkw
15.1@96 mph
Now with 3.9 shrooms

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:02 pm 
Fordmods Junkie
Offline
User avatar

Posts: 11739

Joined: 17th May 2005

Gallery: 11 images

Ride: EL Fairmont, VFR400 racer

Power: 144 rwkw

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

blackjack_original wrote:
Ahh, ^^^ exactly what I was going to say. Points to you my friend.

C'mon phong, what happened. I thought you were the chemistry guy. Balance the equation and all that s**t. Fuel + oxygen = H20 + Co2 + energy + whatever else. Do the moles... and such and such.
Therefore, 40:1 = s**t!


I may do chemistry, but doesn't mean i know everything :P... like i said, i haven't looked into it for a while. like i look at my text books after i completed uni :P

i thought 14.7:1 was the AFR which accounted for the % of fuel being burnt. Another words only 60% or something of fuel burnt. didn't know it was ACTUAL ratios which works well in a perfect environment where 100% of the fuel is being ignited. So yes 40:1 would be out the window unless the energy output of the fuel is increased. Such as using ethanol in the fuel with something else that will increase the energy output requiring more oxygen.

*shrugs*

phong =P~

 

_________________

phongus = Post whore 2006
EL XR6 motor, EL ECU + J3 chip, WADE 1673 Camshaft, 3" S/S intake, Pacy 4480, 2.5" Hi flow cat, 2.5" Lukey exhaust.
Max Power = 144.6 rwkw (03/05/2008)

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:52 pm 
Stock as a Rock
Offline

Age: 31

Posts: 167

Joined: 13th Aug 2005

Ride: R34 GTR

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

U dont know what your talking bout! U dont need a flame front. The plasma fills the whole combustion chamber instantaniously.......which means it ignites the whole volume of fuel AT THE SAME TIME. Which obviously means there is no chance for PRE-IGNITION.

The beauty of it is that u can use s**t fuel for a hi-po engine.

 

_________________

LUMPY-6

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:59 pm 
Smokin em up
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 296

Joined: 16th Oct 2006

Ride: 94 EF (OPT20), TF Cortina Ghia

Location: Bendigo
VIC, Australia

efmarek wrote:
U dont know what your talking bout! U dont need a flame front. The plasma fills the whole combustion chamber instantaniously.......which means it ignites the whole volume of fuel AT THE SAME TIME. Which obviously means there is no chance for PRE-IGNITION.

The beauty of it is that u can use s**t fuel for a hi-po engine.


And you study chemistry???? or are u just stupid enough to believe everything you read.

 

_________________

"Look I found tape, I'm a mechanic now!!!" Mike Teutul

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:03 pm 
Stock as a Rock
Offline

Age: 31

Posts: 167

Joined: 13th Aug 2005

Ride: R34 GTR

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

shut up with your chemistry s**t already.

The proof is in the pudding.

 

_________________

LUMPY-6

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:08 pm 
Smokin em up
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 296

Joined: 16th Oct 2006

Ride: 94 EF (OPT20), TF Cortina Ghia

Location: Bendigo
VIC, Australia

so having never used or seen these yourself you are willing to believe what a website says. so if this guy said putting sugar in ur fuel tank did the same thing you would do it??????

and if the "plasma" fills the entire cylinder instantaneously then if you fired the plug in open air then it would fill the room with "plasma" Bottom line is that they are just more eficient "spark" plugs. and you can already buy plugs with almost that exact design.

So go find yourself a set of these miricale plugs. up ur fuel ratio to 40:1 then come back on here and cry to us all that your engine wont run.

And you cant say shut up about chem we dont know.

Science doesnt change just cos some guy invented a new plug.

it all goes completely against both chemistry and physics.

 

_________________

"Look I found tape, I'm a mechanic now!!!" Mike Teutul

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm 
Stock as a Rock
Offline

Age: 31

Posts: 167

Joined: 13th Aug 2005

Ride: R34 GTR

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

Iv spoken to him....not just read some article.

Ye your right......he's making up all these claims......just for the fun of it.

He's actually a compolsive liar.

In fact.....he has mental issues.

LOL

 

_________________

LUMPY-6

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:23 pm 
Smokin em up
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 296

Joined: 16th Oct 2006

Ride: 94 EF (OPT20), TF Cortina Ghia

Location: Bendigo
VIC, Australia

well then put ur money where your mouth is. speak to him again, get him to make you some plugs. then come prove us all wrong. Hey personaly i would love you to prove us all wrong. imagine the posibilities that would open up if you were found to be corect. but me and alot of others arent gona believe it just cos someone said it. like you said b4 the proof is in the pudding. so pal my challenge to you is

SHOW US THE BLOODY PUDDING.

 

_________________

"Look I found tape, I'm a mechanic now!!!" Mike Teutul

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:32 pm 
Oompa Loompa
Offline

Posts: 30

Joined: 23rd Oct 2006

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

mitchg911 wrote:
im sorry, but the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is 14.7:1

that means that to completely burn 1 part of fuel you need 14.7 parts of are (by volume).
it has nothing to do with igniting all the fuel in the combustion chamber, nor anything to do with flame fronts.

therefor the ideal air fuel ratio for an internal combustion engine is 14.7:1 (given that the fuel is pure).
if this ratio is achieved all of the fuel will experience a combustion reaction, consuming all the oxygen. if you have a lean mixture oxygen will be left ver after the reaction and if you have a rich mixture there will be unburnt fuel remaining.


as far as spark plugs not ingniting all the fuel present, this does not change the fact that you need X amount of air to combust X amount of fuel. poor flame fronts and poor burn patterns are floors in cylinder head design, nothing more.


refer here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

and check out incomplete combustion reactions in a yr11/12 chem text book.



-mitch


Spot on!!!
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:33 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 6449

Joined: 11th Nov 2004

efmarek wrote:
U dont know what your talking bout! U dont need a flame front. The plasma fills the whole combustion chamber instantaniously.......which means it ignites the whole volume of fuel AT THE SAME TIME. Which obviously means there is no chance for PRE-IGNITION.

The beauty of it is that u can use s**t fuel for a hi-po engine.




just thought i might add my liitle in here too.

even if for some reason you could instantly ignite %100 of the chamber at one time there is still the posibility for PRE IGNITION, simply because PRE IGNITION is when the feul starts burning 'BEFOR' the plug lights it.

DETONATION is when a second flame front starts after the plug has started the initial front. the noise you hear is result of the two fronts colliding.

so obviously you can still get PRE IGNITION.

the other problem are the temps you get when buring a lean mixture.
if you could burn such a lean mixture i realy couldn't see the valves or pistons lasting that long.

 

_________________

PERMANENTLY BANNED

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:
Sort by  
 Page 2 of 8  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

 

 

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:59 am All times are UTC + 11 hours

 

 

(c)2014 Total Web Solutions Australia - Australian Web Hosting and Domain Names