Lasers to replace spark plugs

unkel

Interesting development, could be a biggy in terms of increased engine performance / efficiency and also increasing reliability and lowering maintenance cost

BBC Article

Owen

I think this guy might find items pertinent to his interest in this thread :



Seriously though, this is a good thing. Spark Plugs are old technology, Nikola Tesla stuff. You look at the improvements in fuel injection, atomisation in the chamers, and we're still using electricity arcing between two electrodes to ignite the stuff. The only developments of the spark plug have been to change the tips to iridium/platinum, and add additional electrodes, or in some vehicles, additional spark plugs.

ShadowHearth

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I think this guy might find items pertinent to his interest in this thread :



Seriously though, this is a good thing. Spark Plugs are old technology, Nikola Tesla stuff. You look at the improvements in fuel injection, atomisation in the chamers, and we're still using electricity arcing between two electrodes to ignite the stuff. The only developments of the spark plug have been to change the tips to iridium/platinum, and add additional electrodes, or in some vehicles, additional spark plugs.

So true. So many years engine did not changed much, latest fashion is to add forced induction to old technology. No ones is looking for a way to improve the old fashion engine model.

No need for drastic stuff like Mazda rotar, which is lively, but not efficient.

lomb

Very interesting stuff. Unlikely to reduce maintainance costs though. Plugs are cheap and the new platinums last 50k miles. Cost difference between lasers and a 6 euro plug will offset any saving on replacement.
Fuel economy and power will likely be improved.

Sandwlch

ShadowHearth wrote: »

No ones is looking for a way to improve the old fashion engine model.

They sure are. Billions have been spent since the birth of the internal combustion engine. But no one has succeeded in more than small incremental change.

CarMuppet

....and good to read the petrol engine has not been banished to the history books just yet.


On a similar note I like what FIAT are doing with their new petrol units. Thumbs up to them.

zilog_jones

I heard about these cool engines that can create ignition from compression alone, think they were invented by this "Diesel" guy. I wonder if they'll ever take off?

Joe 90

zilog_jones wrote: »

I heard about these cool engines that can create ignition from compression alone, think they were invented by this "Diesel" guy. I wonder if they'll ever take off?

Funny thing is that that guy "Diesel" wasn't really that concerned about ignition in the first place, he just wanted lots of compression, in fact lots of expansion.:)

beachlife

Sandwlch wrote: »

They sure are. Billions have been spent since the birth of the internal combustion engine. But no one has succeeded in more than small incremental change.

huge changes have been made since the first engines,from metallurgy to understanding function etc.....

Even in the last 20 years the leaps have been huge,from new metals and plastics to complete new sensor and monitoring devices,stratified ignition,
lean burn and variable valve technology,to dual temp coolant zone(block and head) the list is endless.... a 1.4 petrol engine is now putting out the same power of a 2.0 engine of 20 years ago with maybe a 50% improvement in economy and a 300% improvement in emissions {probably more just have to look up the euro v table}

Sandwlch

beachlife wrote: »

huge changes have been made since the first engines,from metallurgy to understanding function etc.....

Even in the last 20 years the leaps have been huge,from new metals and plastics to complete new sensor and monitoring devices,stratified ignition,
lean burn and variable valve technology,to dual temp coolant zone(block and head) the list is endless.... a 1.4 petrol engine is now putting out the same power of a 2.0 engine of 20 years ago with maybe a 50% improvement in economy and a 300% improvement in emissions {probably more just have to look up the euro v table}

Incremental evolution - but still no revolution.

beachlife

Thats just wordplay,What about the electronic revolution we are always hearing about? just look at the ad for the new focus, it will brake by itself park it self etc....
The engines have under gone the same type of change,

20 years ago I had a multi meter and strobe light,and would always "listen" to an engine to get a "feel" for what was wrong. Now i have computer diagnostics
and oscilloscopes and coding etc,its been a complete revolution in the workshop with electronics at the forefront...

Squall19

beachlife wrote: »

huge changes have been made since the first engines,from metallurgy to understanding function etc.....

Even in the last 20 years the leaps have been huge,from new metals and plastics to complete new sensor and monitoring devices,stratified ignition,
lean burn and variable valve technology,to dual temp coolant zone(block and head) the list is endless.... a 1.4 petrol engine is now putting out the same power of a 2.0 engine of 20 years ago with maybe a 50% improvement in economy and a 300% improvement in emissions {probably more just have to look up the euro v table}

Not really.

Those 1.4's that are putting out 180bhp like the 2.0l engines and doing 40 mpg, need turbo's, superchargers, dmf and loads of other expensive parts that cost a fortune to fix should something go wrong.They like all modern things, lcd televisions, ipods, etc are designed to break at a certain time.

Honda ( B16A1 1.6 liter engine 1992), Mitsubishi, Toyota and so on were producing the same power figures from much simpler engines without fancy superchargers 20 years ago and doing almost 40 mpg too and had lowish emissions too and they were reliable.

beachlife

Okay. So no much has changed your right.

but on the emissions side its a different world

zilog_jones

beachlife wrote: »

Even in the last 20 years the leaps have been huge,from new metals and plastics to complete new sensor and monitoring devices,stratified ignition,
lean burn and variable valve technology,to dual temp coolant zone(block and head) the list is endless.... a 1.4 petrol engine is now putting out the same power of a 2.0 engine of 20 years ago with maybe a 50% improvement in economy and a 300% improvement in emissions {probably more just have to look up the euro v table}

Learn burn, VVT and stratified ignition are well over 30 years old at this stage. It think the biggest mechanical changes in recent years have been Multiair (maybe in a few years time we'll have completely camless engines?), and common rail direct injection (for petrol and diesel engines).

Honda ( B16A1 1.6 liter engine 1992), Mitsubishi, Toyota and so on were producing the same power figures from much simpler engines without fancy superchargers 20 years ago and doing almost 40 mpg too and had lowish emissions too and they were reliable.

They were doing 40 MPG because the cars were so much lighter, for example the EG Civic is waffer-thin and probably would have struggled to get one star in the 1997 Euro NCAP tests - there's some ADAC(?) crash tests on YouTube from around 1992, it is shocking how badly it performed even compared to the competition back then. E100 Corolla was a bit better. Emissions are so much stricter now; the Toyota A series engine might still be OK for emissions regulations in China but not here!

challengemaster

Nissan SR16VE n1 1.6l neo-vvl engine producing 197bhp standard.... 15 years ago. Will still pass an NCT today.

Problem?

Beachlife: that's more electronics, computers etc advances rather than the engine. It's not the engine that's doing calculations on when to brake, park, etc etc... It's what some engineering team in japan have decided on and programmed into the ECU. Engine is still basically the same. There's tech advancements but no mechanical ones.

beachlife

okay. my mistake. cheers.

Owen

Some of the advantages with the laser based setup, is that this guy's research using ceramic lasers seems to eliminate the problem of carbon build up in the cumbustion chamber also coating the laser's optics which previously stopped laser ignition tests in the past.

They also mention that the laser will not be a single laser, but multiple ones converging on a focal point, which means that they can choose the optimal ignition point for lean burn - which is something the manufacturers have been trying to do properly for a long time (And not Toyota's Lean Burn Carina E).

zilog_jones

challengemaster wrote: »

Nissan SR16VE n1 1.6l neo-vvl engine producing 197bhp standard.... 15 years ago. Will still pass an NCT today.

Problem?

A 15 year old car only needs to pass the Euro 2 emission tests for the NCT, not the Euro 5 tests that current cars (from 2009) have to pass. In the NCT, cars are only tested for emissions relevant to the regulations that existed when the car was manufactured. The NCT manual is right there on the website

Mr Benevolent

An interesting laser ignition test from 2002:

Laser Ignition for a One Cylinder Natural Gas Engine

Lasers are pretty funky in fairness to them, light absorption by stimulated emission of radiation :pac:

Vicxas

This might just be me, but shouldnt they really be focusing on replacing petrol engines considering the rising petrol prices etc....





Or am i just mad?

So every petrol engine project should be ditched and all R&D goes to working on replacing it?

Just you I reckon.

Owen

Vicxas wrote: »

This might just be me, but shouldnt they really be focusing on replacing petrol engines considering the rising petrol prices etc....

Considering a new method of storing and delivering Hydrogen has been developed, which allows it to be pumped like petrol, and used in normal petrol engines - no.

Vicxas

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Considering a new method of storing and delivering Hydrogen has been developed, which allows it to be pumped like petrol, and used in normal petrol engines - no.

Now this i did not know, any links?

kona

RoverJames wrote: »

Lasers are pretty funky in fairness to them, light absorption by stimulated emission of radiation :pac:

Light amplification

kona

Vicxas wrote: »

This might just be me, but shouldnt they really be focusing on replacing petrol engines considering the rising petrol prices etc....





Or am i just mad?

Should focus on telling the governmant to **** off. Petrol is dirt cheap, the tax, isnt.

kona

Em where is the laser focused on? Id imagine this is along way away, and will cost a fortune at the start, R&D and the materials required isnt cheap!

Seweryn

zilog_jones wrote: »

In the NCT, cars are only tested for emissions relevant to the regulations that existed when the car was manufactured.

Not true. Cars are tested for emissions relevant to the regulations related with the first registration date (unfortunately).

Owen

Vicxas wrote: »

Now this i did not know, any links?

Just google 'hydrogen beads' - there's dozens of sites all parroting the same info. It's a while off, but it's the best solution IMHO rather than getting everyone to buy new cars, which will be charged using electricity produced from fossil fuels anyway.

Joe 90

Seweryn wrote: »

Not true. Cars are tested for emissions relevant to the regulations related with the first registration date (unfortunately).

Why the (unfortunately)?

Seweryn

Joe 90 wrote: »

Why the (unfortunately)?

Because if you own a car that was designed and manufactured long before the date of the first registration, the car will have to pass the emission tests that were current at the time of the registration of the vehicle.

Won't effect most cars though.

Joe 90

Seweryn wrote: »

Because if you own a car that was designed and manufactured long before the date of the first registration, the car will have to pass the emission tests that were current at the time of the registration of the vehicle.

So as my car was manufactured in 2000 if I were to come home to Ireland and re register it there, to keep the customs happy, it would have to meet the current emission regs? Not much chance of that, it almost always requires a bit of fiddling around at MOT time.

zilog_jones

Seweryn wrote: »

Not true. Cars are tested for emissions relevant to the regulations related with the first registration date (unfortunately).

Ah I knew it was one of the two. But in 99.9% of cases the date of first registration is within one year of manufacture so it's usually not an issue.

Joe 90 wrote: »

So as my car was manufactured in 2000 if I were to come home to Ireland and re register it there, to keep the customs happy, it would have to meet the current emission regs? Not much chance of that, it almost always requires a bit of fiddling around at MOT time.

No, I believe if it would be based on the date of first registration anywhere - if imported here now it would still get a 00 plate (assuming it's a V/W/X reg now).

Seweryn

Joe 90 wrote: »

So as my car was manufactured in 2000 if I were to come home to Ireland and re register it there, to keep the customs happy, it would have to meet the current emission regs?.

No, it will have to meet the regulations of its first registration date.

slimjimmc

Seweryn wrote: »

No, it will have to meet the regulations of its first registration date.

Yep
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0567.html

“first registration” means the date on which a vehicle was first registered, irrespective of country of registration, or where only the year of first registration is known, that year, in combination with the day and month of first registration in the State and “first registered” is to be read accordingly;

Bruthal

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Spark Plugs are old technology, Nikola Tesla stuff. You look at the improvements in fuel injection, atomisation in the chamers, and we're still using electricity arcing between two electrodes to ignite the stuff. The only developments of the spark plug have been to change the tips to iridium/platinum, and add additional electrodes, or in some vehicles, additional spark plugs.

Well they seem to work very well at what they are meant to do. Reliable and simple.

opinion guy

CarMuppet wrote: »

....and good to read the petrol engine has not been banished to the history books just yet.


On a similar note I like what FIAT are doing with their new petrol units. Thumbs up to them.

?What are they doing ?

PaintDoctor wrote: »

They also mention that the laser will not be a single laser, but multiple ones converging on a focal point, which means that they can choose the optimal ignition point for lean burn - which is something the manufacturers have been trying to do properly for a long time (And not Toyota's Lean Burn Carina E).

kona wrote: »

Em where is the laser focused on? Id imagine this is along way away, and will cost a fortune at the start, R&D and the materials required isnt cheap!

My understanding from the article I read on this was that there would be three different lasers in the laser "spark plug" with threee different focal lengths - in other words with the laser set up there would be 3 ignition points in the chamber - this is what give you the increased efficiency and more completely burning - presumably thats a timing thing - if you have 3 different ignition points you will have quicker expansion in the chamber. Presumably also you will have to put less energy into the reaction itself and more energy to convert into kinetic energy

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Just google 'hydrogen beads' - there's dozens of sites all parroting the same info. It's a while off, but it's the best solution IMHO rather than getting everyone to buy new cars, which will be charged using electricity produced from fossil fuels anyway.

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Considering a new method of storing and delivering Hydrogen has been developed, which allows it to be pumped like petrol, and used in normal petrol engines - no.

I happen to know someone who is active in research in this area and he tells me it is donkeys years until this tech becomes applicable. In fact from talking to him I gain the impression morale is very low in this field with many questioning if it is achievable on a useful timescale.

challengemaster

Vicxas wrote: »

This might just be me, but shouldnt they really be focusing on replacing petrol engines considering the rising petrol prices etc....





Or am i just mad?

Rising petrol prices are all to do with the greedy government and nothing to do with the actual price of oil. Funny thing is, they're only doing themselves more damage by continually increasing the tax on it...

opinion guy

challengemaster wrote: »

Rising petrol prices are all to do with the greedy government and nothing to do with the actual price of oil. Funny thing is, they're only doing themselves more damage by continually increasing the tax on it...

Nothing to do with Libya then?

L1011

opinion guy wrote: »

?What are they doing ?

hydraulic rather than camshaft actuated valves, albeit there is still a camshaft... next generation is likely not to have one, and hence have simpler timing and less weight.

opinion guy

RoverJames wrote: »

Won't effect most cars though.

They are designing the lasers to fit spark plug holes so no reason why not!

MYOB wrote: »

hydraulic rather than camshaft actuated valves, albeit there is still a camshaft... next generation is likely not to have one, and hence have simpler timing and less weight.

Oh getting beyond me there. I don't understand such things!

keithclancy

Sandwlch wrote: »

Incremental evolution - but still no revolution.

http://www.eco-engine.eu/EN/infos.html
6-Stroke Engine is fairly new.

I think an engine that uses are readily available and environmentally friendly fuel would be a 'revolution'. Something that continues to use a finite resource is not.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

They are designing the lasers to fit spark plug holes so no reason why not!

I was on about the date of first reg and date of manufacture thing for the NCT emissions

BlackWizard

opinion guy wrote: »

Nothing to do with Libya then?

Not really. It's speculators+monopolies who drive the prices. Libya is just an excuse.

kippy

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Just google 'hydrogen beads' - there's dozens of sites all parroting the same info. It's a while off, but it's the best solution IMHO rather than getting everyone to buy new cars, which will be charged using electricity produced from fossil fuels anyway.

No one would be asked to buy brand new cars straight off - just replace theirs as they would on a phased basis.
I have to agree with the poster who asked why there was so much emphasis on "improving" the petrol engine when the majority of emphasis should be on replacing it altogether (I am aware lots of R and D is done on this as well.)
Fossil fuels are a finite resource with the prices over the longer term only going to increase and the cost of owning one will increase over the years. The "savings" that come from making them more efficient are lost completely on servicing/repair costs and it would be far better to spend the time and money on getting the technology more clean and green.
Making the argument that our "electric cars" will be charged from electricity produced from fossil fuels is also a very lazy argument to make. As a country we are moving, albeit slowly, to renewable energies - yes we have some way to go and battery technology also has some way to go, however in a few years more electricity will be produced from renewables.
Even this "hydrogen" car that is being discussed has a majory bearing on electricity production - the technology could be transferred to power plants should it be efficient and cheap enough thus reducing further our reliance on fossil fuel.
We are a relatively small country - electric cars should become the norm in the years ahead - we are almost at the stage now whereby its not economicilly viable for a family to own a petrol/diesel car anymore.

keithclancy

BlackWizard wrote: »

Not really. It's speculators+monopolies who drive the prices. Libya is just an excuse.

Even if Libya is just an excuse then it is a reason.

opinion guy

kippy wrote: »

No one would be asked to buy brand new cars straight off - just replace theirs as they would on a phased basis.
I have to agree with the poster who asked why there was so much emphasis on "improving" the petrol engine when the majority of emphasis should be on replacing it altogether (I am aware lots of R and D is done on this as well.)
Fossil fuels are a finite resource with the prices over the longer term only going to increase and the cost of owning one will increase over the years. The "savings" that come from making them more efficient are lost completely on servicing/repair costs and it would be far better to spend the time and money on getting the technology more clean and green.
Making the argument that our "electric cars" will be charged from electricity produced from fossil fuels is also a very lazy argument to make. As a country we are moving, albeit slowly, to renewable energies - yes we have some way to go and battery technology also has some way to go, however in a few years more electricity will be produced from renewables.
Even this "hydrogen" car that is being discussed has a majory bearing on electricity production - the technology could be transferred to power plants should it be efficient and cheap enough thus reducing further our reliance on fossil fuel.
We are a relatively small country - electric cars should become the norm in the years ahead - we are almost at the stage now whereby its not economicilly viable for a family to own a petrol/diesel car anymore.

As I said earlier I know someone active int his kind of research. The facts are that even if you developed a brilliantly working hydrogen car overnight, it simply would not be practical to implement for many years. and as I said early it is years away from being brilliantly working. Our entire economy is built around petrochemical energy provision. There is decades and decades of infrastructure and systems put into it. So any new solution will take decades and decades of similar investment to fully replace petrochemical energy. Therefore, improvement of the efficiency of the existing petrochemical infrastructure, is not only NOT a waste of time, it is in fact ESSENTIAL to improve our efficiency and reduce our consumption of petrochemicals in the mean time during the interveneing period of decades until a replacement infrastructure is in place.

kippy

opinion guy wrote: »

As I said earlier I know someone active int his kind of research. The facts are that even if you developed a brilliantly working hydrogen car overnight, it simply would not be practical to implement for many years. and as I said early it is years away from being brilliantly working. Our entire economy is built around petrochemical energy provision. There is decades and decades of infrastructure and systems put into it. So any new solution will take decades and decades of similar investment to fully replace petrochemical energy. Therefore, improvement of the efficiency of the existing petrochemical infrastructure, is not only NOT a waste of time, it is in fact ESSENTIAL to improve our efficiency and reduce our consumption of petrochemicals in the mean time during the interveneing period of decades until a replacement infrastructure is in place.

What infrastructure are you talking about and what is wrong with changing cars over time (as has happened with leaded petrol car) people werent forced or expected to change cars over night.......

Joe 90

kippy wrote: »

What infrastructure are you talking about and what is wrong with changing cars over time (as has happened with leaded petrol car) people werent forced or expected to change cars over night.......

In fact you have hit the nail on the head. The car did not repalce the horse and buggy because someone or some group legislated to make it happen. The car replace the horse and buggy because it was better.

There was no infrastructure at first, you bout petrol at a chemists (I think). Petrol was largely a dangerous waste product at the refinery, in fact But the infrastructure grew because the demand grew because the car was better than what it replace.

Despite one helluva lot of taxation being heaped on the car, petrol or diesel, its is still the best way to get around in a lot of places.

When the electric car is better than the petrol/diesel car it will replace it because it is better. As it becomes more popular the infrastructure to support it will spread.

It will have to improve a lot to become better because as soon as it gains any sort of popularity it will be hit by as much in the way of taxes as our existing oil burners. Forget about electricity a night rates being much cheaper than petrol. If lots of people are using it to drive their cars the revenue will be extracted from the somehow to make up the loss of taxes on petrol or diesel.

Forget about subsidies to buy a Leaf and look forward to road pricing. Does anybody wonder if the postulated increase in the number of toll roads is to sofetn people up for road pricing?.

opinion guy

kippy wrote: »

What infrastructure are you talking about and what is wrong with changing cars over time (as has happened with leaded petrol car) people werent forced or expected to change cars over night.......

Infrastructure - pipelines, refineries, tankers, gas stations, distribution network. Phasing out leaded petrol was simply be comparison. All you had to do was stop putting lead in the petrol and make sure then engines could cope with that. At the end of the day it was still just tanking around an almost identical liquid as before. Replacing petrol with fuel cells, hydrogen, electric cars whatever whatever requires massive changes to the whole architechture.

Its not hard to see this is a massive undertaking