34:1 Afr?!

[LEAN BURN]

Cammer, will respond early next week. But for now, you should know that between 1985 and 1996 many tests were conducted on engine leanness, emissions and fuel economy at Lucas (Ford-of-Europe engine), GMR, Mazda at Yokohama, Diamond at Tottori, Japan (Mitsubishi engine) and Chrysler. Leanness improved by 2 AFR (low flow) to 6 AFRs (high flow). The 5+ AFR gain includes Lucas (the Economist article), GM, and Mitsubishi. The 34 to 1 test results were from GM tests in a flow-tunnel, as the April 28, 2008 DN article asserts. The test results of the above companies were engine test results.
Two year tests in 1990 to 1992 were conducted on a 1986 Ford Escort, retrofitted with our ignition. Some twenty FTP tests were conducted. In the end, we met the proposed 2004 standards (12 years earlier with a system that does not compare to today's). The results are in Poulton's book, Chapter 3, Lean-burn, Section 3.5.4, Ignition, page 42 to 44, "Alternative Engines for Road Vehicles", WIT Press.
Regards, Michael

[Cammer]

Thank you for your response.

I am looking forward to seeing the test results.

[LEAN BURN]

Originally Posted by Pinhead

Seems to me, that if it were indexed 90° clockwise, the blowing spark would hit the ground electrode and not stretch nearly as far. Either that, or the electrode would split it into two sparks/flames, like maxc said.

The halo-disc plug is circularly symmetric as well as having other advantages.
Michael

[LEAN BURN]

Originally Posted by maxc

Two spark kernals?

The photo is of a single spark discharge of energy about 150 mJ in a strong flow.
Michael

[MAP]

Greetings,

Speaking for myself - information overload! As a self-admitted simple hobbyist when it comes to cars, there's much I need to study here to come up to speed. And thank you, Dr. Ward, for sharing on this website.

Some interesting points:

1.) The general sense I get here is that as AFR increases, it becomes harder to ingite the mixture. I suppose the converse is true as well, perhaps up to, but not including, the point of literally "washing" the plug(s) with unatomized fuel.

2.) If spark energy goes as voltage squared, I could easily see where starting with 42vdc is better than 14vdc. Plus, since you don't need as high a turns ratio to reach a certain spark voltage threshold, the inductance of the secondary side of the coil needn't be as high, which may account for the shorter spark rise time you've achieved.

3.) If fuel is delivered to the cylinder by injection, then the AFR measured at the precise exit orifice of the injector, at the time of injection, is by definition, zero. Ultimately, the cylinder-averaged AFR may be as high as 34:1, which, as I understand what I've read here so far, is problematic to ignite.

I would infer from this scenario that if the mixture could be initiated at some intermediate point between these two extremes in time and/or space, where the AFR at the moment of ignition may be locally closer to a comfortable mid-teen-ish AFR, then subsequent combustion ought to be more supportable. This would seem to argue for putting the injector(s) and spark plug(s) directly in the chamber, and having the spark(s) initiate rather close to the injector(s).

So the problem seems to be two-fold: namely, first getting a fuel-delivery system that can run from the high teens AFR (or higher - or maybe even much, much higher) at cruise, to 13:1-ish at WOT, with good atomization and pump-shot action across the entire range (if the the fuel is delivered at the entry to a manifold,) to deal with any rate of transition between different throttle positions. Second, there's the ignition problem, where it seems that very high energy sparks are better predisposed to ignite an unusually lean mixture. Or, if the fuel could be introduced directly into the combustion chamber, then presumably both issues would become more tractable.

Is that a fair, if probably very simplistic, description of the problem?

Thank you,
Mark

[LEAN BURN]

Originally Posted by Cammer

The CEI website posts much dialog but no test results from the major OEM's CEI quotes as testing their technology.

I do not know of any emissions legal, street licensed passenger vehicle capable of posting a 34 to 1 AFR over a normal engine operating range. I stand ready to be corrected!

No disrespect intended.

See the SAE paper 2001-01-0548, given at the Advances in Combustion 2001, shows results of tests we carried out on a 2-valve, 2-plug, single cylinder engine witnessed by many people. This was the first time that a homogeneous charge engine was shown to operate at over 30 to 1, thus solving the lean burn problem.

[Cammer]

I am still waiting for independent testing results.

[LEAN BURN]

Originally Posted by Devious

I think it would be an understatement to say many here would like to know more about this technology, and see any test results you can provide - especially as it pertains to current engine designs.

I understand that CEI's work is still in its early stages, and that it may be a good while before the technology reaches production. But it is mentioned in one of the papers provided that the ignition technology is not much more expensive than current production ignition systems. Is this at current costs to build the units, or based on projected drops in cost as a result of larger scale production?

Is there a plan to work with any forms of racing or offer to this technology in an aftermarket form?

Thank you for your time,
-DVS

Yes, the system "is not much more expensive that current production ignition system" but is worlds apart in terms of energy density (at least five times greater, i.e. greater than 1 mJ/gm), one fifth the rise time and charge time of inductive systems, high output voltage (42 kilovolts) with only 50 turns ratio (instead of 100),
90% highly efficient DC-DC power converter, etc. The cost of the system will be surprisingly low given what it can do. The key parts of the system, i.e. power stage and controller, coil, and plug have many years of patented development behind them. We are in discussions with an aftermarket company at this time.
Michael

[automotivebreath]

Welcome to GoFastNews Michael, thanks for sharing your advanced technology. I'm
particularly interested in the combustion chamber design in use. Are you in a position
to share details?

[LEAN BURN]

Originally Posted by Cammer

I am still waiting for independent testing results.

I suggest you read our web-site CEI > Home
It is not up-to-date, but it will give you a start.