[engideNedmupe]

Coming to an auto near you soon, plasma ignition. Why am I reminded of those little plasma balls.
Many where working on laser systems, but it seems a plasma ignition system is going to be the future.
This system is also backwards compatable with older vehicles

Federal-Mogul Corporation is introducing its Advanced Corona Ignition System (ACIS) at the Frankfurt Motor Show. Federal-Moguls ACIS is currently undergoing development with several customers and has enabled an up to 10% fuel efficiency improvement over standard spark ignition in development testing.

Corona ignition creates a significantly larger high-intensity plasma ignition source, spread throughout the combustion chamber, when compared to conventional spark ignition systems. The ACIS technology provides for more thorough combustion and enables advanced combustion strategies like lean burn, highly diluted mixtures and very high exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), further increasing fuel efficiency.

The company’s ACIS utilizes materials and design strategies to facilitate high-volume production implementation on current and new engine architectures.

ACIS uses a high-energy, high frequency electrical field to produce repeatable, controlled ionization, creating multiple streams of ions to ignite the fuel mixture throughout the combustion chamber, whereas conventional spark ignition creates only a small arc in the gap between the electrodes of a spark plug.




This ignition technology also allows for optimized timing of the start of combustion versus conventional ignition systems. ACIS generates rapid ignition and quick burning, ensuring greater conversion of the fuel energy to mechanical energy with the added potential for simultaneous reduction in engine cooling requirements.

We have already recorded fuel consumption improvements of up to 10 percent on a 1.6-liter turbocharged gasoline direct injection engine, and there is potential for further improvements. Our Advanced Corona Ignition System is a game-changing technology that also makes other combustion improvements possible.

—Kristapher Mixell, Federal-Mogul’s director, advanced corona ignition system development, Powertrain Energy

Corona ignition technology provides higher energy and greater opportunities for ignition than a spark-ignition system, readily accommodating different fuel characteristics.

The technology enables powertrain engineers to more efficiently develop combustion strategies, such as stratified charge, lean burn and high levels of EGR, to reduce fuel consumption exhaust emissions.

—Kristapher Mixell, Federal-Mogul’s director, advanced corona ignition system development, Powertrain Energy

Federal-Mogul has optimized its ACIS for ease of implementation in high-volume applications for both current and future powertrain architectures by designing it to package within the space of a spark-ignition system. The “two-piece” igniter architecture allows engine manufacturers the ability to replace traditional coil and plug systems with no adverse impact on engine design or assembly.

Eliminating the spark plug and its arc, ACIS eliminates the source of electrode erosion—the main cause of wear in a conventional spark-ignition system. This prolongs ignition system durability and extends service intervals. ACIS also uses materials that are already proven in automotive applications to ensure durability throughout the designed service life.

The company’s Advanced Corona Ignition System is being developed at its technical centers in the United States, Europe and Asia.

[Logaleta]

Nice, and it's about time.

[Pharmadryg]

10% is awesome! Sounds expensive. Though that is in a controlled and tuned environment. Just slapping those in current rigs, ECU ranges won't be enough to get anywhere near 10%.

Thanks for sharing!

[xqdrocherz]

Interesting technology, I just hope it doesn't cause any piston damage to engines designed for normal sparkplugs.

[Ad0i89Od]

Interesting technology, I just hope it doesn't cause any piston damage to engines designed for normal sparkplugs.

I'd think if the "spark" is more even across the combustion chamber there would be less overall possibility of damage.

[bingookenoo]

I'd think if the "spark" is more even across the combustion chamber there would be less overall possibility of damage.

He has a point. If the spark has enough energy to simultaneously ignite all of the fuel in the chamber, the instantaneous torque could be greater that the design point of the shaft.

[adultcheee]

He has a point. If the spark has enough energy to simultaneously ignite all of the fuel in the chamber, the instantaneous torque could be greater that the design point of the shaft.

This is rather unlikely though.

After a spark ignites the air/fuel mixture in an engine's combustion chamber, the flame front travels across the chamber at a rate of about 5000 feet per second. That's right, one mile per second.

I highly doubt it will change anything in the manner suggested.

[wCYvMKAc]

This is rather unlikely though.


[/COLOR]
I highly doubt it will change anything in the manner suggested.

I don't know about that.

Think about this, a V6 running at 5000rpm, the duration of a single burn cycle will be like 1/4 of a cycle, and at 5000 rpm, and you'll be doing 2 cycles at a time, so 1/5000*3*0.25 = 0.00015 (15x10^-5) seconds. If ignition occurs over 1/4 of a 20cm cylinder, that's 5cm. At 5000ft/s (1524 m/s), the combustion will traverse the 5cm in 3.2x10^-5 seconds, which is about 1/5th of the duration of the single cycle, and seems about right, but also much faster than the pistol travels. Therefore, if you decreased the duration of the burn even by 50%, but kept the energy output the same, the pressure on the piston would be much higher. However, as the mass of the pistol is very large in comparison to the energy of a single ignition cycle, you won't be gaining much torque on the crankshaft over time, just instantaneous torque, which will increase wear but won't increase the output. The only engine where this would produce a substantial increase in power output would be a pulse-type rocket motor. I can totally see this decreasing emissions though.

[ElcinBoris]

Ok, well, if the combustion head (the edge of the flame) is moving faster than there will be more torque. Even if it is only 25% faster, this is something that should be considered. Your quote kind of suggests that.

Let me just clarify that it is technically impossible for all of the fuel it ignite at once (speed of light, etc), I was suggesting: increased speed = increased instantaneous torque.

--- Post Update ---

Gnius,

One clarification:

The instantaneous torque is on the shaft local to the specific currently combusting chamber. The torque has to translate through the entire shaft... since the shaft is not technically rigid, the shaft will harmonically oscillate. The danger of the oscialliations is that at some point, the material comprising the shaft will not withstand the sheering forces. (Probably should get Ricanpimp in here before I embarrass myself).

Basically, per cycle, the torque on the shaft will be lowpassed (i.e. dampened) by the inertia of the shaft itself. The overall shaft torque on average will not change a bit. The real issue is the local torques considering a chamber cross-section.

[ValintinoV]

Let me just clarify that it is technically impossible for all of the fuel it ignite at once (speed of light, etc), I was suggesting: increased speed = increased instantaneous torque.

And I am suggesting that I don't think it will be any worse, and that you merely are arguing because you for some reason enjoy arguing with me.

[Sironimoll]

And I am suggesting that I don't think it will be any worse, and that you merely are arguing because you for some reason enjoy arguing with me.

I guess I should just submit to your thoughts.

My apologies.

[vesiasmepay]

One clarification:

The instantaneous torque is on the shaft local to the specific currently combusting chamber. The torque has to translate through the entire shaft... since the shaft is not technically rigid, the shaft will harmonically oscillate. The danger of the oscialliations is that at some point, the material comprising the shaft will not withstand the sheering forces. (Probably should get Ricanpimp in here before I embarrass myself).

That's what I was trying to say when I was saying there would be increased wear. Your description is much better and more technical.

Basically, per cycle, the torque on the shaft will be lowpassed (i.e. dampened) by the inertia of the shaft itself. The overall shaft torque on average will not change a bit. The real issue is the local torques considering a chamber cross-section.

Well, I would say that if you assume that you will increase fractional combustion, then you WILL increase average torque... but I imagine the % of combustible hydrocarbon actually fully oxidized is pretty high in modern engines, so I can't imagine you could get a LARGE increase.

[PRengin]

Well, I would say that if you assume that you will increase fractional combustion, then you WILL increase average torque... but I imagine the % of combustible hydrocarbon actually fully oxidized is pretty high in modern engines, so I can't imagine you could get a LARGE increase.

In both cases I assumed that the same amount of fuel was burned. I only compared the speed in which it burned.

I probably should have mentioned that.

[dafodilkemmy]

Ok, well, if the combustion head (the edge of the flame) is moving faster than there will be more torque. Even if it is only 25% faster, this is something that should be considered. Your quote kind of suggests that.

Let me just clarify that it is technically impossible for all of the fuel it ignite at once (speed of light, etc), I was suggesting: increased speed = increased instantaneous torque.

--- Post Update ---

Gnius,

One clarification:

The instantaneous torque is on the shaft local to the specific currently combusting chamber. The torque has to translate through the entire shaft... since the shaft is not technically rigid, the shaft will harmonically oscillate. The danger of the oscialliations is that at some point, the material comprising the shaft will not withstand the sheering forces. (Probably should get Ricanpimp in here before I embarrass myself).

Basically, per cycle, the torque on the shaft will be lowpassed (i.e. dampened) by the inertia of the shaft itself. The overall shaft torque on average will not change a bit. The real issue is the local torques considering a chamber cross-section.

obviously engine manufacturers have designed and introduced Harmonic dampeners to help alleviate this.

I think this is more commonly known as torsional Vibration which is caused by inertia torque from pistons and connecting rods as they stop start every time per firing of the respective cylinders, where a torque pulse makes the crankshaft reach its natural harmonic resonance which then leads to failure.

also the most prone part of the crankshaft to fail due to this is the front end because the flywheel helps to partly reduce the "inertia" hence why you typically see rubber cored damper pulleys on the front end of the engine, and advanced dual mass flywheels at the rear of the engine, there is also sometimes anti resonance devices built into the sump to reduce it further.

but as is the nature of the beast these devices are also prone to failure due to what they have to do, damper pulleys break apart throwing ancillary belts causing all manner of problems and dual mass flywheels can grenade,or more commonly suffer from flywheel chatter which causes damage to the transmission system

I'm talking from what I learned at college learning to be a land-based engineer which is heavily geared towards the agricultural field.

but yeah basically Ive reiterated what you wrote.

--- Post Update ---

In both cases I assumed that the same amount of fuel was burned. I only compared the speed in which it burned.

I probably should have mentioned that.

you're talking about flame travel, it also depends on the shape of the piston crown and cylinder head, also if its direct or indirectly fuel injected. some engines have dual spark that help flame travel.
in diesels they have swirl pits/pots pre ignition chambers that allow the fuel to burn better.

I really should proof read first...

[Redys]

I know Alfa Romeo make a big deal about their Twin Spark engines, which have 2 spark plugs per cylinder to improve power / efficiency. I'm not sure why all manufacturers don't use it if it does indeed improve power and efficiency? Also another point is that they don't actually fire both spark plugs at the same time to avoid the flame heads meeting in the middle of the cylinder.

Anyone know how much these corona spark plugs are gonna cost? They look super sweet but expensive

[eljugadordepoquer]

I know Alfa Romeo make a big deal about their Twin Spark engines, which have 2 spark plugs per cylinder to improve power / efficiency. I'm not sure why all manufacturers don't use it if it does indeed improve power and efficiency? Also another point is that they don't actually fire both spark plugs at the same time to avoid the flame heads meeting in the middle of the cylinder.

most likely cost is the reason why its not implemented in all engines and its probably a design patent too so you'd have to pay alpha for the rights.

[chinesemedicine]

most likely cost is the reason why its not implemented in all engines and its probably a design patent too so you'd have to pay alpha for the rights.

Some years of the Ford Ranger also had 2 plugs per cylinder on their V6 engines.


As for the ACIS system. The main advantage to it is a faster and more complete burn. This also has the net effect of allowing you to run less timing advance which reduces wear/tear on the engine.

I can't bring up the spark table right now as I don't have the Tuning Laptop with me, but my TransAm spark table ran about 10* base timing, and it ramped up to 44* maximum under lean cruise conditions. Max WOT advance was 42* in a few places but on average it was about 36* to 38* advance.

--- Post Update ---

EDIT: installed the tuning software in a VM and loaded up the Spark Tables.

And I was wrong, it goes as high as 46*. Thats the spark plug firing 46* before the piston reaches top dead center for that cylinder. Also, that is a factory spark table there. I haven't messed with it, I've only bothered to mess with the idle RPM vs Load and the 6spd manual flags to make the PCM ignore automatic transmission codes since I did a Auto to Manual swap.

[beethyday]

Originally Posted by tinomen I'd think if the "spark" is more even across the combustion chamber there would be less overall possibility of damage.

He has a point. If the spark has enough energy to simultaneously ignite all of the fuel in the chamber, the instantaneous torque could be greater that the design point of the shaft. I wasn't actually thinking of the pistons being damaged by the force of the fuel ignition, but rather what would happen if the plasma came in contact with the surface of the piston itself.

[Filling25]

How in the hell does this thing work? I see that it creates a field instead of an arc, but how?

[Clarissa]

How in the hell does this thing work? I see that it creates a field instead of an arc, but how?

by intense electromagnetic fields,heating the gas around it basically electrons get ripped from "air" particles to become Ionized. (that's my take on it im no physicist)