Plasma Ignition System Can Increase Engine Efficiency By 20% (arstechnica.com) 227
In 2019, Ars Technica reported on a new advanced ignition system from Transient Plasma Systems that replaces the conventional spark plugs in a vehicle's engine with an ignition module that uses very short duration pulses of plasma to ignite the fuel/air mixture within the cylinder. Now, about three years later, the system is "almost ready for production after validation testing has confirmed its potential to increase fuel efficiency by up to 20 percent when fitted to an existing engine." From the report: TPS's plasma ignition system is designed to drop into existing cars with very little modification. An ignition module replaces the regular spark plugs, and there's a power module to control it, but otherwise the only other modifications are in software, as the engine requires remapping to take advantage of the new technology. "A lot of the OEMs we've been working with are freezing their engine designs, they're saying, 'No more new engine block, we might change some parts out, but we're freezing the design.' So it has to basically just drop into the holes that already exist, which this technology does," [said Dan Singleton, founder and CEO of TPS]. [...]
The final stage of testing for TPS's system is to prove its durability, but Singleton expects this won't be a problem. "The technology uses all solid-state, high-voltage switches -- these are switches that are used in applications where they're run for millions and millions of shots. If you just did an analysis of the parts, you would say no problem, right? The testing that still needs to be done is, once you've put it into a package where it's going to go to altitude and extreme heat, extreme cold, you just have to do some design validation and tweaking," he said. [...]
As for when we might see the first cars fitted with plasma ignition on the road, Singleton was optimistic. "We are currently in discussions with a couple of Tier 1s and OEMs that are interested in acquiring the technology or working with us to take this to market. The most aggressive timeline that one of those companies has told us is that they could get it to market in 18 months from the start of a deal. That's aggressive. And typically it takes longer in automotive to do testing, but if they say they can do it, this is their world, not mine. So 18 months, I would say, from the start of a partnership," Singleton said. Why develop a new internal combustion engine technology when we're going all in on electric vehicles? Here's what Singleton told Ars: "[W]e do think that the future is going to be EVs. But the question is, what do we do while we're ramping up? And I think if you look at the data, it's pretty compelling that the best thing you can do is to start getting CO2 emissions down now. So that's really where we see this fitting in is if you put this technology to market immediately. That's what our data shows is that there's immediate, meaningful CO2 reductions."
Ars also notes that "it's going to be many years before countries like the US stop selling new internal combustion-powered vehicles and longer still until they're no longer allowed on our roads."
The final stage of testing for TPS's system is to prove its durability, but Singleton expects this won't be a problem. "The technology uses all solid-state, high-voltage switches -- these are switches that are used in applications where they're run for millions and millions of shots. If you just did an analysis of the parts, you would say no problem, right? The testing that still needs to be done is, once you've put it into a package where it's going to go to altitude and extreme heat, extreme cold, you just have to do some design validation and tweaking," he said. [...]
As for when we might see the first cars fitted with plasma ignition on the road, Singleton was optimistic. "We are currently in discussions with a couple of Tier 1s and OEMs that are interested in acquiring the technology or working with us to take this to market. The most aggressive timeline that one of those companies has told us is that they could get it to market in 18 months from the start of a deal. That's aggressive. And typically it takes longer in automotive to do testing, but if they say they can do it, this is their world, not mine. So 18 months, I would say, from the start of a partnership," Singleton said. Why develop a new internal combustion engine technology when we're going all in on electric vehicles? Here's what Singleton told Ars: "[W]e do think that the future is going to be EVs. But the question is, what do we do while we're ramping up? And I think if you look at the data, it's pretty compelling that the best thing you can do is to start getting CO2 emissions down now. So that's really where we see this fitting in is if you put this technology to market immediately. That's what our data shows is that there's immediate, meaningful CO2 reductions."
Ars also notes that "it's going to be many years before countries like the US stop selling new internal combustion-powered vehicles and longer still until they're no longer allowed on our roads."
Making coal more efficient (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
ICE is a doomed technology.
And spark plugs are already making a plasma anyway.
Fossil fuels doomed, not internal combustion (Score:5, Insightful)
ICE is a doomed technology.
FALSE. Fossil fuel based fuels are doomed. ICE can run on bio fuels. Bio fuels are carbon neutral and hence not a problem.
The US Navy ran an F/A-18 Hornet on biofuel.
And spark plugs are already making a plasma anyway.
Irrelevant. These folks seem to have a more efficient application of plasma that the 160 year old spark plug technology.
Need more efficient coal usage given EVs (Score:2)
Making coal more efficient
Well we need more efficient coal usage given our increased use of electricity. 20% of electrical power generation in the US is coal based, 24% in Germany. An electric vehicle, electric stove, etc are only as clean as your local power generation.
If there were some drop in tech to increase coal efficiency while we transition to renewables that would help. As much as you may want the transition to be immediate, science and engineering and construction will not move that fast. Improving the efficiency of leg
Re: (Score:2)
Or we will have a mandate like catalytic converters.
Yep. If this works as stated then some sort of mandate seems in order. Just like lead-free gasoline and catalytic converters.
(both of which increased cost, but hey... pollution isn't any sort of birthright).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's always two options in this debate: either you're a luddite, and demand ICE, and never want electric. Or you're a modern fellow who only wants electric and demands all ICE be done away with immediately. There's never any middle ground mentioned
Of course there is: plugin electric hybrids. And if the EV-only people were remotely reasonable, they'd be doing everything in their power to get people into them NOW while the charging infrastructure is built up and the poor performance of Lithium batteries in cold environments is properly addressed. Additionally, that "waste" heat generated by ICE engines is a huge asset in most of the world and heat generation from batteries is hugely inefficient. Not everyone lives in a Mediterranean, Californian coasta
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually most cars in USA won't be electric with the stupidity the Biden administration is pulling. No plan to build up alternative and infrastructure for an EV with green electricity and recycling of batteries, just destroying fossil fuel immediately to plunge nation into poverty, shortages, inflation, rolling blackouts.
Right now the USA doesn't have the generation capacity to mandate any sort of charging infrastructure. The petroleum lobbyists are making sure of that.
I could have sworn Biden ordered something or other to do with solar panels a couple of days ago though. Maybe he's planning on beefing up the generation capacity first. That would make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I could have sworn Biden ordered something or other to do with solar panels a couple of days ago though. Maybe he's planning on beefing up the generation capacity first. That would make sense.
Biden is planning on managing perception. It's what his career was based on, not accomplishments, not correct decisions, just the perception of being on the correct side of an issue. Problems to him are things that damage his perception. What we consider problems are not on his radar.
Re: (Score:3)
You're blaiming *petroleum lobbyists* on lack of charging infrastructure? My sides, they are not relevant. Nothing is stopping you from setting up a charging station, and a charging station doesn't care whether nuclear, coal or solar is supplying the electricity.
The problem is Democrats have full control of white house and houses, and yetr have no plan for any alternative energy system of scale, yet they are choking fossil fuel. Instead of getting cabinet and advisors with expertise on this *solved pro
Re: (Score:2)
The Doble was an awfully nice car with its main drawback being price.
Something like a 15 second warmup before you could drive away, though you had to use low gear at first. Much superiour to the internal combustion engines of the day. Easy to start, almost silent, a thousand pounds of torque at 0 rpm so no need for gears or a clutch, more horse power, which is why the speed records were held by steam. Very good range compared to internal combustion, where you had range anxiety hoping for a gas station, whic
Re: (Score:2)
Mixer? Nope. They need to be combined in a strictly controlled manner!
What about EMC? (Score:5, Interesting)
As an Amateur Radio operator, I am concerned not just with reception in the standard AM and FM broadcast bands, but with most of the HF and VHF spectrums, say 3-150 MHz.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about EMC? (Score:4, Interesting)
On farm machines, the second you turn on the Xenon HID lights AM/FM radio goes mostly to static. So yes, it does cause notable RFI. But I never cared because I never listen to the radio anymore. Do people still listen to radio in automobiles? Every time I flip it on it's either an advertisement or the same songs over and over again. I guess people listen to XM radio which baffles me because the audio quality makes my ears hurt. XM is not affected by the HID lights.
Re: (Score:2)
On the chance that that wasn't a misguided rhetorical question, I'll say that I listen to the radio in the car all the time. It's just about the only time I listen to the radio.
Re:What about EMC? (Score:4, Interesting)
On farm machines, the second you turn on the Xenon HID lights AM/FM radio goes mostly to static.
But this doesn't happen in automobiles. Lots of higher-end cars have HID lights, and they have radios too.
Do people still listen to radio in automobiles? Every time I flip it on it's either an advertisement or the same songs over and over again. I guess people listen to XM radio which baffles me because the audio quality makes my ears hurt.
What's funny is that Sirius/XM is just atrociously fucking bad. We used to listen to it at work. The songs they would choose to play were OK the first time you heard them, but you'd quickly realize that they'd literally play the same songs in a different order every day for a month. And then the next month it would still be almost all of the same songs. If you listen to the same station every day, you're going to hear the same songs every day. Plus, most of the DJs are dumber than dogshit and ramble senselessly, and you just wind up wishing they would shut the fuck up and play some music. And finally, they claim their service is ad-free, but then they have super long commercials for other channels, and shows on those channels, so their claim is a willful lie.
I don't understand anyone who still listens to streaming music or even worse, radio, in the car. Don't we all have massive music collections, isn't flash memory cheap AF? Don't we all carry jukeboxes in our pockets? I get tuning in the radio to get some traffic incident news, because you can't reasonably browse for that info while you're driving. Otherwise...?
Re: (Score:2)
But this doesn't happen in automobiles. Lots of higher-end cars have HID lights, and they have radios too.
Yeah, it really sounds like bad isolation, and dirty current is leaking right into the radio circuitry through the incoming 12v.
Re: What about EMC? (Score:3)
It actually do on some vehicles, especially on the shortwave band.
However an improved fuel economy often also results in higher NOx emissions. If we hadn't cated about NOx we would have had better fuel economy already as well as not needing the annoying EGR alve or DEF/AdBlue.
Re: (Score:3)
Greater fuel economy achieved through leaner fuel/air mixtures can result in higher NOx emissions. Greater fuel economy achieved by recovering more of the heat of combustion will not. If the AFR is the same between these new plugs and conventional spark plugs, then it's unlikely to produce more NOx.
Re:What about EMC? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another ham op here, and the other comments off this parent are correct:
HIDs are discharge lamps like fluorescent, neon, etc, and by definition create tons of RF--remember the original spark gap transmitters? Using them in your car will \wipe everything out because it's conducted. Outside of there (on a pole, etc) it depends how efficiently it radiates and if it has anything to stop it at the source (ferrite, etc).
If you listen to an AM radio you'll hear the pops of the spark plugs firing (and sometimes the injectors). The plasma discharge will probably sound like this but lasting a bit longer.
As for the super short-sighted comment about not listening to radio, I'm in the same boat BUT that doesn't apply to other people and that also doesn't apply to 2-way radio that could get jammed by this such as on an ambulance, police car, or ham radio op's car.
Finally, as a reminder to the increasing amount of non-nerds here, this is what's being talked about but inside each cylinder:
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The geometry is completely different from a lamp and the comparison point is also completely different.
In the case of the ignition system, the RF is emitted within a steel or aluminum cylinder and is immediately blocked by what is to a good approximation a Faraday Cage. This is why you can listen to AM radio in your car at all.
In the case of lighting, the RF is emitted within a glass tube, that has orders of magnitude less ability to block the RF noise.
The circumstances are completely different. What's more
Re: (Score:2)
I am fairly sure that aftermarket ignition systems that delivered a series of pulses were available in the late '70s.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that it isn't potentially a problem, but it is a fixable one. The RF stuff will be generated in an ignition module and conducted to the igniter. The ignition module will take the place of the 'coil packs' in modern engines, which are connected directly to the spark plugs instead of via 'spark plug leads' which could unavoidably leak RF, and the igniters will be inside the combustion chamber, where the walls of the engine will provide good shielding.
Needs to be designed right to prevent HF leakage onto t
Spark plugs are already making a plasma already. (Score:2)
ICE is a doomed technology.
And spark plugs are already making plasma anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, biofuel-rich markets (think: South America) will probably continue to use internal combustion engines for a long time. There may also be a fertile market for them in the United States.
There's nothing wrong with making old tech work better.
Re: (Score:2)
Biofuels are really bad for the environment. Potentially worse than fossil.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Electric cars are even WORSE for RFI.
Notice that Tesla doesn't put an AM radio in their cars. Why? They can't get rid of the RFI!
Good luck on your HF rig in your electric car in the future :(
Go read on QRZ about some of the issues folks have with electric cars and HF. It's going to suck for mobile operation in the future.
Not for diesels ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Marine diesels, long haul trucks, gensets, agricultural machinery, none of them are going to be able to use this.
When they say increase fuel efficiency by up to 20 percent when fitted to an existing engine they mean under the most favorable conditions at some specific load conditions they might get a 20% improvement in efficiency. Compare this to what the Toyota Prius did. All it did was to replace the first gear with electric motor, and the gas engine's torque requirement was dropped. That nearly doubled the efficiency of the engine. If they run the engine at one fixed rpm all the time, they can improve it even more.
Also remember this is a percentage of percentages. The engine will not go from 25% thermal efficiency to 45% efficiency. It would go from 25% to 20% of 25% improvement, that is to 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
It would go from 25% to 20% of 25% improvement, that is to 30%.
That would still be a huge improvement.
But if this was real, it wouldn't have sat in a lab for three years. The car manufacturers would have been all over it. They are desperate for efficiency improvements and emission reductions.
Re: Not for diesels ... (Score:2)
I suspect that it increases the NOx emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that it increases the NOx emissions.
Almost anything that improves combustion also increases NOx as ppm in the exhaust. But if you are burning 20% less fuel, you also have 20% less exhaust, so even if the ppm is higher the total NOx emissions could be lower.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately not the case for NOx since those components both comes from the air used during combustion.
The idea behind plasma ignition is to run leaner mixture and that in turn can also increase NOx. This is common in diesel engines and the reason why DEF/AdBlue is needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they could put a PSA filter [wikipedia.org] on the air intake to reduce the nitrogen. That could reduce NOx while making efficient combustion even easier with enriched O2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind plasma ignition is to run leaner mixture and that in turn can also increase NOx.
Running lean means more free O to make NOx with, and it also tends to mean higher temperatures (less fuel to take heat away) which also means more NOx formation. The solution is EGR, which unfortunately causes fouling of valves in direct injected engines, and as you say, DEF+SCR.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably needs a fair bit of work to be adopted into production vehicles. Lots of testing to prove long term reliability, EMI measurements and so forth.
All the R&D money is going into battery electric drivetrains now. Many major markets have announced the end of fossil fuel vehicle sales already, manufacturers aren't going to throw money at a dead technology.
Re:Not for diesels ... (Score:5, Informative)
Compare this to what the Toyota Prius did. All it did was to replace the first gear with electric motor, and the gas engine's torque requirement was dropped.
The Prius drivetrain is quite different from standard ICEs:
1) the entire transmission (not just first gear) is replaced with a planetary gearset combining the ICE and two electric motors to drive the wheels. The electric motors pass torque between each other to effectively implement a very simple, efficient CVT. This allows seamless electric-only, electric-assist, and variable gearing to keep the ICE operating optimally. They call it "Hybrid Synergy Drive".
2) the engine uses something similar to an Atkinson Cycle instead of the Otto Cycle of most ICEs. This allows a shorter compression stroke, combined with a longer power stroke, which increases the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine (the long power stroke extracts more heat out of the combustion gasses), at the expense of power and torque (the short compression stroke is equivalent to less displacement in an Otto Cycle engine). The electric assist makes up for the lost torque.
Both of those things are unconventional and required significant development, but resulted in excellent fuel economy.
Re:Not for diesels ... (Score:4, Informative)
Note that the engine they used as a test bed was also an engine that uses an Atkinson cycle - the 2.5 L Toyota Camry engine.
And they didn't do a lot to that engine - put their plasma generator on, and changed the mapping to open the exhaust gas re-circulation valve open for longer. It sounds like there's room for more gains with careful remapping.
Re: (Score:2)
By "replaced first gear with an electric motor" I meant they removed the torque requirement "engine should be able to pull the car from 0 mph in the first gear". You explained how it was done with good detail. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not for diesels ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cost per joule of natural gas is lower than coal and much much lower than diesel or gasoline. But solar and on shore wind have lower cost per joule than even natural gas combined cycle. We don't have debate it. You can see in the decisions made by utilities that are replacing the natural gas peaker plants with battery banks. You can see it in the bids for cost per kWh for new construction solar and wind farms.
Also you are taking the energy content of diesel delivered at the pump with the entire life cycle of energy from the power plant. Please compare apples to apples and include the energy used in extraction of crude, transporting the crude oil, refining it and then distributing to the pump.
Further energy efficiency is not the only thing important for EV. Consolidating millions of privately owned cars with varying degrees of pollution compliance into a few thousand powerplants with better compliance is one thing. Moving pollution from population centers to less populated powerplant locations is another thing. Geo political security of not allowing random dictators and monorchs to hold the world economy to ransom is another thing.
But most people don't care, cost per mile (including the cost of investment) is all they car about. And in that metric too EVs are winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Maximum possible efficiency under perfect conditions on a perfectly maintained engine should not be compared with EV efficiency at all speeds on motors with real world conditions.
Ironically, even when you do, the EV beats the ICE soundly...
Re:Not for diesels ... (Score:5, Informative)
Diesels are already more efficient than EVs in most of the world
Completely wrong.
(where electricity is predominantly generated from fossil fuels).
Do you have any idea how much energy goes into making fossil fuels for automobiles?
Electricity generated from fossil fuels is about 40% efficient (coal) to 60% (gas). Call it 50%.
It's 38-48% for coal and 50-56% for gas. But sure, we'll call it 50%.
Power lines have about 5% transmission loss, battery charging losses are about 15%, battery discharging losses about 15%, and electric motor efficiency about 90%.
In the US transmission losses are about 4%, battery charging losses [caranddriver.com] are 12-14%, and discharge losses are similar. EV motors are now around 94% efficient [x-engineer.org] (and that's just a typical, off-the-shelf Borg-Warner design.) So all of your numbers are wrong (and pessimistic) when it comes to EVs. Meanwhile, where ICEVs are concerned, you are wildly optimistic:
Diesel cars can already hit 40% efficiency, trucks 50%, and ships 60% efficiency
This is in fact all spectacularly misleading bullshit. Your numbers aren't wrong, your interpretation of them is, because those are peaks. They are only seen while running at a specific fixed load which lends itself to running at a specific fixed RPM, and the engine is only maximally efficient at that exact RPM/load combination. Most of the time, your automobile's diesel engine is going to actually be running at around 20% efficiency.
The truth is that this has already been studied ad infinitum, and we know conclusively that EVs are far more efficient than ICEVs [cleantechnica.com], to the point that they have lesser cradle to grave emissions even if you charge them from coal plants, and you are adding nothing to this conversation because there has already been ample bullshit and FUD spread about EV efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel cars can already hit 40% efficiency, trucks 50%, and ships 60% efficiency
This is in fact all spectacularly misleading bullshit. Your numbers aren't wrong, your interpretation of them is, because those are peaks. They are only seen while running at a specific fixed load which lends itself to running at a specific fixed RPM, and the engine is only maximally efficient at that exact RPM/load combination.
This has been previously discussed but hybrids with CVTs keep the ICE engine running close to optimal load and speed. Hybrids would be a good choice in many situations where a pure
Re: (Score:2)
This has been previously discussed but hybrids with CVTs keep the ICE engine running close to optimal load and speed.
CVTs have two big problems. One, they are terrible to drive. Two, they can't handle big power. That's why they only use them with small engines.
Hybrids would be a good choice in many situations where a pure battery vehicle isn't a viable choice.
That's true, all ICEVs should be mild hybrids. (Full hybrids shouldn't even exist, IMO; certainly only plug-in ones should.) But it's also irrelevant to the point being made. The ICEV makes the whole system less efficient, and it only makes sense to have one if you are going where there are no charging facilities.
Re: (Score:2)
CVTs have two big problems. One, they are terrible to drive. Two, they can't handle big power. That's why they only use them with small engines.
I have been driving a car with a CVT for the past 3 years. They are not "terrible to drive", just different. As for big power. Most of the HP numbers for new cars these days are just foolish. Most people absolutely do not need a 600 HP car to drive to work.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not "terrible to drive", just different
Sure, if you don't care about responsiveness, they're fine. Most people do notice that the car doesn't do what they're asking it to do in a timely fashion, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel engines are compression ignition engines, they don't have spark plugs. So whatever this thing does, it only affects gasoline engines.
Right, the plasma spark technology isn't applicable to gasoline engines, although it is claimed that plasma could replace the DPF [ccjdigital.com].
Re: (Score:2)
There's also probably some efficiency gained in the reduced electrical requirements for the plasma pulses vs the ignition spark. Any electricity has to be recovered via the alternator which puts more load on the engine. The thermal efficiency isn't the whole picture.
Plasma? What does a spark plug create? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't the spark produced by a spark plug actually a plasma?
This probably improves efficiency by 20% in some very limited conditions. The rest of the time: meh.
Re: (Score:2)
This probably improves efficiency by 20% in some very limited conditions. The rest of the time: meh.
Hard to say.
I couldn't find any good data on how efficient the combustion of fuel is in a gasoline engine, but it's conceivable that if it's not very good, a better ignition source could give you a very broad efficiency increase in all, or nearly all situations.
Re: (Score:2)
You think companies haven't been working on improving ignition efficiency for decades? This doesn't sound very different to what has been tried previously.
Another problem that this article doesn't mention is longevity. It might give 20% improvement for the equiv
Re: (Score:2)
You think companies haven't been working on improving ignition efficiency for decades?
What's your point?
Companies have been improving ignition for decades. Are you trying to imply that there's no possible paradigm shifting improvements left? Mankind has solved ignition in the reciprocating cylinder Otto cycle engine? Put a fork in that fucker, it's done-zo?
Forgive me if you don't get my vote for minister of technological development.
This doesn't sound very different to what has been tried previously.
They don't give details. All we know is that it's some kind of TPI, which is something that has bounced around universities and laboratories for a while. Nume
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am implying that it is very unlikely that a 20% improvement with no downsides can be developed. Not impossible, just unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies have been improving ignition for decades. Are you trying to imply that there's no possible paradigm shifting improvements left?
I'd say that that's true. The ICE is fundamentally an air pump, and you can't change that without throwing it away. It imposes certain physical and also practical limitations which restrict the maximum efficiency both that we can expect, and also that it's sensible to pursue. Putting a lot of effort into a dying technology is insensible. ICEs made sense once, now they make less and less of it, and they particularly no longer make sense in automobiles for the vast majority of use cases — they really on
Re: (Score:2)
No, the article explicitly mentions longevity. They say they're working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Contrast that with my EV - If ice forms on the motor in the winter it stays there until there's a warm enough day for it to melt.
Re:Plasma? What does a spark plug create? (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest issue is not efficiency in creating energy from the air/fuel mixture
True, but also not true.
I'll explain below.
It's the fact that a tremendous amount of waste heat is created that isn't used (unless you're in Fairbanks and it's -50). Elaborate cooling systems exist to deal with the excess heat a internal combustion engine creates and to just dump it into the air.
Yes, I've maintained and repaired my own vehicle since I was 17 ;)
.5x stoich, which do you run at?
Now, thermal efficiency (below the Carnot limit, of course) is a function of flame temperature.
Adiabatic flame temperature is a function of the combustion mix.
If you can provide the same flame temperature running at 2x stoich as you can at
Well, the consideration then is power. At 2x stoichiometric, you're obviously making far less power. But maybe you don't need that power. Maybe you're cruising.
Enter the lean-burn engine.
The trick with lean burn engines, is that spark plugs can't ignite ultra lean mixtures for shit. So the companies that sell lean-burn engines have a sizeable IP inventory of very fancy cylinder designs to concentrate the fuel in a lean mixture up by the spark plug, so you can maintain an overall AFR of ~22:1, but having it much closer to 14:1 at the actual plug.
This is a good trick, but it has a shitty downside- when you want the power, you've still got that jacked up cylinder design that concentrates fuel at the plug.
Plasma ignition purports to be able to ignite fuel at around 2.2x stoichiometric, but without bizarre cylinder designs.
Meaning it also works for the general case of "wanting to be able to press pedal and quickly go fast"
Re: (Score:2)
This probably improves efficiency by 20% in some very limited conditions. The rest of the time: meh.
The conditions are probably high RPMs with light load. That's a corner case where you want lots of timing advance, but small changes in the ignition delay create exponential changes in the combustion rate of the still-compressing charge. If you can stabilize the ignition, you can use more advance without risking detonation, which provides more power and efficiency.
But engines are basically never at high RPMs with light throttle. If you're accelerating hard, you floor it. If you're accelerating moderatel
Re: (Score:3)
The conditions are probably high RPMs with light load.
Unlikely.
The point of this is better ignition than a spark, where better means "able to cause the compressed charge to ignite".
Gasoline engine cruise efficiency is nearly directly a function of how lean you can run them.
They claim this will allow the engine to run as high as 2x stoichiometric, which would provide hugely tangible benefits at cruising, while probably giving little to no benefit when you're "getting on it", and the engine begins to run rich.
Skeptical old car guy view (Score:3)
Miraculous ignition systems, spark plugs, etc. have been being hawked for as long as I can remember. I think I can picture an advertisement for plasma ignition in the back of a magazine.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember seeing stuff like this [rexresearch.com] more than a decade ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Miraculous ignition systems, spark plugs, etc. have been being hawked for as long as I can remember. I think I can picture an advertisement for plasma ignition in the back of a magazine.
As an old car guy myself I used to have a carbureted cast iron V8 with a distributor. Now I have a twin scroll turbocharged, liquid to air intercooled, all alloy DOHC 4 valve engine with forged internals, direct injection, variable valve timing and lift.
So maybe my next car will have this. I'd also like to do away with the shaft driven valve train and replace it with independent computer controlled actuators for each valve, another thing that has been under development for ages. Given the improvements
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, you might be in the market for a Koenigsegg. https://www.freevalve.com
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't have any old cars anymore either. Nostalgia is about the most powerful thing they bring to the table.
One car we have has pretty much the same engine you describe, and it pulls like the 400+ cubic inch V8's I used to drive, but is actually smoother and faster.
The other is a plug-in hybrid that is just pure, uninterrupted torque at all the right times while on electric, and still faster than my old cars in any mode.
My son's car has a 3-cylinder(!) turbo that produces a ridiculous amount of torq
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
twin scroll turbocharged, liquid to air intercooled, all alloy DOHC 4 valve engine with forged internals, direct injection, variable valve timing and lift
Jesus simple electric motors can't go mainstream soon enough...
Re: (Score:2)
I knew people working on the plasma ignition idea 40 years ago; coincidentally they also claimed a 20% increase in efficiency. It was a tiny company that kept generating patents and getting coverage in places like the Wall Street Journal for decades. They kept at it until the founder died in 2010. After thirty years in which they had numerous successful tests of their technology by auto makers, they never got close to convincing any of them to put their system on a production vehicle.
That's normal in the c
Next Gen Snake Oil? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like vultures and snake oil. For one thing, if they as a company think that the ICE is a dead-end then why design anything for it? They're just picking at the carcass that is the gasoline engine.
The snake oil comes from the description. Modern spark ignition systems use coil packs with "solid state high voltage switches" that go "millions and millions of shots". Some even fire multiple times per "shot" to promote a cleaner burn. Some systems also use "ion sensing" (i.e. the Saab Trionic series) to detect conditions in the combustion chamber that is fed back to the ECU to feed timing and fueling tables. This technology has been around for 30+ years now. They throw around "plasma" like it is magic balm for all that ails you. I think the Trionic patents are expired so I wonder if there's any of that prior work in this offering?
It almost seems to me that someone figured out that a lot of experienced engine design-group managers are retiring and the the ones who are left are clueless about the history of spark ignition systems and will entertain this kind of sales pitch. ICE tech isn't going away for a long time and incremental improvements to efficiency and durability will be eating up engineering man-hours until there's no profit left in the labor. As Ars notes, the days of the ripping 6.0L "BelchFire V8, now with CrackleTune+(TM)" are coming to an end but there will still be a huge world market for sub-3L gas engines that get slotted into basic transportation chassis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spark plugs still have an ignition point that initiates fuel burn and it does not ignite all the fuel at the same time.
It's not supposed to ignite at the same time. That's engine knock. The flame front is supposed to travel at a certain speed, consuming the air-fuel mixture in a finite time. Lots of engineering and empirical work has gone into designing swirl chambers and hemispherical heads to tailor this rate of burn for optimal performance.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure it's only knock when flame starts too soon before TDC (peak compression pressure). With better ignition, like plasma, multiple plugs, etc., you have to back off on the ignition timing advance. They mention that in TFA- well, needing to change ignition advance curves.
Re: (Score:3)
Been done. (Score:3)
No need, Mazda has done it no plasma needed.
Skyactiv-X is the first commercial petrol engine to use homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), in which the fuel-air mixture ignites spontaneously when compressed by a smaller, separately ignited charge of fuel. This allows it to reach a compression ratio of 16:1 instead of 14.0:1 of previous generation and operate much leaner than a spark ignition engine, reducing fuel consumption and emissions.[27][28]
This engine targets 20-30% greater fuel efficiency b
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me a bit of the Honda CVCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVCC/ [wikipedia.org]
Doubling global electric production (Score:2)
I'm right there with you thinking their claims are probably greatly exaggerated. Having said that:
> if they as a company think that the ICE is a dead-end then why design anything for it?
Doubling the global electric production and distribution capacity in order to power all the vehicles electrically is going to take a WHILE. Even in a wealthy country like the US, with a GDP per capita of $63K, it'll take decades. Most people live in countries like Mexico or India where the annual GDP per person is $1,900
Re: (Score:2)
May be snake oil, but perhaps not. Keep in mind that other concepts which remove or reduce the impact of the spark plug have proven to lead to greater combustion efficiency, such as Turbulent Jet Injection in F1's hybrid PU's, with Mercedes AMG claiming to have cracked 50% thermal efficiency on the dyno.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ICEs aren't a total dead end. They will still be needed for ocean shipping for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:3)
ICEs aren't a total dead end. They will still be needed for ocean shipping for the foreseeable future.
Even taking that as a given, that's irrelevant to this technology, because ocean shipping is done with diesel cycle engines which don't have spark plugs.
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, it *might* improve things... but I can't see it in newer cars with computers controlling the fuel / air ration for combustion. I could see this being used in sports cars... older sp
Millions of shots? (Score:2)
>these are switches that are used in applications where they're run for millions and millions of shots
Surely a misquote? A 4-stroke engine runs at an average of 3000 rpm-> 1500 sparks per minute -> 25 sparks per second.
A million sparks would be 10^6 / 25 = 40000 sec = 11.1 hours. So the switch is rated for only 11.1 hours of usage?
Two things (Score:2)
1) How much does it cost? If it's more than the fuel you'd save then what is the point?
2) Can you install it on a regular vehicle
Millions? (Score:2)
When the engine runs at several thousand rpm, it would hit a million on a couple hour drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not really, Each cylinder fires once per two revolutions. So for 2500 RPM that's 1250 cycles per minute, so 800 minutes to do a million.
Ever Grab A Spark Plug Wire? (Score:2)
Have you ever grabbed a spark plug wire while the engine was running? Or being cranked?
Most people will only do it once.
Not because it's harmful, but because it grabs ahold of one entire side of your body and snaps you like a bullwhip. After you stop doing the tippy-taps dance, you take a breath and go grab the insulated pliers like you should have the first time.
Some people are slow learners, and they might even do it a second or third time, but almost never a fourth.
If you do that with plasma wires, t
Re: (Score:2)
Do they still make cars with spark plug leads? Most engines I have seen have the coil pack and controller on top of the plug.
Up to 20% (Score:2)
...by retuning the EGR and hence upsetting emissions. We know that today's cars are a compromise between emissions and efficiency. This is a bit like K&N air filters for motorbikes, which used to come with a bigger needle for the carbs, Sure, you'll (typically) get more power if you squirt more fuel in, whatever the air filter. https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
That is about as useful as (Score:2)
a buggy whip that can beat your horse 20% harder. It doesnt matter, youre still in the 19th century.
Almost ready for production (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m sure many software developers grinned when they read âoealmost ready for productionâ.
I picture this: âoeweâ(TM)ve tried it in two cars. The fist exploded and the second one doesnâ(TM)t really work yet, but in theory it should. âoe
Engine remapping (Score:2)
otherwise the only other modifications are in software, as the engine requires remapping to take advantage of the new technology.
This is almost certainly where the efficiency is coming from. They're tweaking the engine mapping to have different performance / efficiency curves, which is something that's been around for many decades (I had a programmer for my old 2001 Triton V8 engine that would allow me to program maps specific to what kind of driving I was doing - towing, tuning for specific fuel types, maximum economy, maximum acceleration, etc). This affects everything from engine ignition timing to transmission shift points.
It is
String of Pearls (Score:2)
I actually got a cell phone pic a decade ago of one of those string-of-pearls contrails that the research engines using this kind of tech use. It's real and has been difficult to commercialize. This all sounds good.
Remember, with Lithium Ion batteries, every mile driven consumes 5 lbs of Earth, in terms of ore. I would love for every single person to have their own vehicle (if they want) charged off of solar panels on their roofs, but I also won't let my wishful thinking get in the way of math.
ICE will b
Re: (Score:2)
Atomic Batteries To Power (Score:2)
Holy High Temperature Ignition, Batman!
You know what else works? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard you can buy this electric fan and put it in your air intake. It works like a turbocharger.
A spark IS plasma (Score:2)
Just sayin'. Also, this concept goes way back and was written about in Popular Science decades ago. The concept of a six-stroke engine was written about more recently (during the last time that gasoline prices spike above $4). The 5th and 6th strokes used water that turned excess combustion heat into steam.
Re: (Score:3)
The concept of a six-stroke engine was written about more recently (during the last time that gasoline prices spike above $4). The 5th and 6th strokes used water that turned excess combustion heat into steam.
You don't need additional strokes to make use of water. Just inject atomized water into the fuel-air mixture when conditions are right. This works best in a diesel engine, though, where cylinder temperatures are very high under high load. It not only produces additional power from the water flashing into steam, but that removes an enormous amount of heat from the cylinder, reducing EGTs. It's easy to tune a diesel to the point where it will melt holes in the pistons — all credible diesel engines use f
CDI, Multispark Ignitions (Score:2)
This has been around for years. The big issue is flame travel and combustion chamber design. Gasoline burning in an engine is a slow process and car manufacturers and the aftermarket have known that multiple spark events can increase efficiency. This is also part of the reason more and more cars with ICE are being fitted with multiple coils to maintain the spark energy necessary to drive the process of multiple discharges.