|
| efmarek |
|
||
|
You guys have to check this out!!
These are "plasma" plugs......not "spark" plugs. The inventor was able to run air/fuel ratios of ***40 to 1***!!! http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Firestorm.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abwXApkLhbc
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| phongus |
|
|||
|
...old news...like 2 years old. I posted this up earlier but production was never there because it was supposedly so good, you didn't have to replace em so noone wanted to manufacture them...that's what they said anyway.
but yeah i'd love to get plasma plugs...would be awesome. phong =P~
_________________ phongus = Post whore 2006 |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| naughtyfalcon |
|
|||
|
man that would be great...
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| twr7cx |
|
|||
|
phongus wrote: ...old news...like 2 years old. I posted this up earlier but production was never there because it was supposedly so good, you didn't have to replace em so noone wanted to manufacture them...that's what they said anyway.
Sounds liek a s**t reason. Think about a car component such as a camshaft for example. Generally a normal person won't replace one during the life of a car - it's only the minority modifying cars that do (but remember this is just an exmaple). Yet they're still manufacturerd. If these plugs were so good, surely the manufacturers would be happy to make them? You'd just fit them to new cars. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
Why would u want to run AF's of 40:1? If a normal spark plug can ingnite a 14:1 ratio, whats the point of plasma plug?
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Andrew J |
|
|||
|
less fuel, better economy!
_________________ The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| mitchg911 |
|
|||
|
forgive me if im wrong but isnt the whole air fuel ratio thing more a matter of chemistry than peak combustibility? ie to burn 1 part fuel you require 14 parts oxygen, as in to provide sufficient oxygen atoms for the combustion process ? (for a complete combustion reaction)
therefor it doesnt much matter what you light it with? i could be wrong.. havent done chem in a while.,. -mitch
_________________ BF XR6T 6spd Auto. 60lb injectors, Hybrid Cooler, Custom Piping, Custom Surge Tank, Actuator. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| smiley235 |
|
|||
|
mitchg911 wrote: forgive me if im wrong but isnt the whole air fuel ratio thing more a matter of chemistry than peak combustibility? ie to burn 1 part fuel you require 14 parts oxygen, as in to provide sufficient oxygen atoms for the combustion process? therefor it doesnt much matter what you light it with? i could be wrong.. havent done chem in a while.,. -mitch exactly, once its lit, the rest burns like a chain reaction, Andrew J wrote: less fuel, better economy!
12-14 A/F will give you efficeint combustion Anything more or less will leave you with either an excess of oxygen or fuel. Same with any reaction we did in chemistry. With 40:1, you've got a damaging lean mixture.
_________________ 178.3 rwkw
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
I hope your enjoying yourselves........but none of u guys know what your talking bout.
 :
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
hmmmmm..........ye.....i cant think of a reason why you'd want leaner mixtures
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| Andrew J |
|
|||
|
smiley235 wrote: mitchg911 wrote: forgive me if im wrong but isnt the whole air fuel ratio thing more a matter of chemistry than peak combustibility? ie to burn 1 part fuel you require 14 parts oxygen, as in to provide sufficient oxygen atoms for the combustion process? therefor it doesnt much matter what you light it with? i could be wrong.. havent done chem in a while.,. -mitch exactly, once its lit, the rest burns like a chain reaction, Andrew J wrote: less fuel, better economy! 12-14 A/F will give you efficeint combustion Anything more or less will leave you with either an excess of oxygen or fuel. Same with any reaction we did in chemistry. With 40:1, you've got a damaging lean mixture. I guess youre right. You still need a certain amount of energy to propel the car. And that energy comes from efficient use of the fuel. no point having less fuel there, as you wont get the power. Its tired, forgive me, 
_________________ The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| joshannon.7 |
|
||
Age: 42 Posts: 296 Joined: 16th Oct 2006 Ride: 94 EF (OPT20), TF Cortina Ghia Location: Bendigo |
efmarek wrote: I hope your enjoying yourselves........but none of u guys know what your talking bout.
:Ok ill bite. Enlighten us then.
_________________ "Look I found tape, I'm a mechanic now!!!" Mike Teutul |
||
| Top | |
||
| blackjack_original |
|
||
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 | |
||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
im gonna point out a key aspect that u can think about.
There is no "flame front".
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| efmarek |
|
||
|
what makes u say they're s**t???
_________________ LUMPY-6 |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests |
