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 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~

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

[self-deleted]

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

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



-mitch

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

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

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

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~

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.

shut up with your chemistry s**t already.

The proof is in the pudding.

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.

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

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.

Spot on!!!

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.