Msd l20b

[plasma]

A match will start a forest fire just as well as a flare. If your jet engine runs on water convert an L series over too. 

You have a misunderstanding of elementary physics. It is a fact that a higher power ignition will show you more power on a dyno. No matter how small the difference, there is a difference. If what you claim is true, there would be no difference. Why? Because more energy in the ignition delivered to the air/fuel mixture will allow more btu's from that fuel to be released. Furthermore, a spark is not the same as my plasma. A spark is a small and weak ionization trail that barely does anything - do you realize it is only igniting the available vapor and does not burn anything else?

 

My ultra fast plasma impulse is a beast of a disruptive discharge that yanks on anything in it's presence like tug of war instantly dissociating - it rips the hydrogen right off of moisture or the hydrocarbon fuel on contact meaning it is causing more vapor so to speak to be able to get burned. You are comparing apples and oranges talking about a forest fire because you are not dealing with critical timing on a per cycle basis like in an engine so the forest fire analogy is false - your analogy might hold up if we're talking about Bunsen Burners but we're talking about an ICE - huge difference.

[plasma]

What's your patent number? I would be very interested to read up on your design and specs of your ignition unit.

 

The specs aren't crucial as long as you have the right components and the sequence. It can be scaled as well.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US8555867

 

I'm the sole inventor of my plasma method with the high voltage diode placement. There are 2 other inventions grouped in that patent, which I did not have anything to do with but the other 3 inventors and assignees did. The ionization detection circuit and the coil on plug claims are not mine but the high efficient plasma generation method is. It obsoleted all of NASA's, Princeton's, etc... patents on the old antiquated method of producing this plasma effect since they needed a separate power supply with a cap in parallel with a plug - my method allowed anyone to take virtually any off the shelf cap discharge unit and just add the hv diodes and turn it into a plasma ignition. My method uses the cap in those units simultaneously as the power source to dump into the primary of an ignition coil AND also act as the low voltage high current source that jumps over the gap when it is pre-ionized by the hv. That was always thought to be impossible in the eyes of conventional physics and electrical engineering, but there it is right there been demonstrating and teaching it for almost 10 years and thousands of people around the world have already replicated it. There are hundreds of videos online of people replicating this method.

 

Here is a video from almost 10 years ago:

 

 

That shows my plasma effect much larger than what you would want in an engine. You can also see what it does to tap water misted on the plasma, it completely dissociates it and ignites it like little nuclear mushroom clouds. Despite some people being skeptical of my jet engine, 100% of everything I have said is true and it nothing magical and later they'll be seeing the new tv series that documents it.

 

While normal sparks can get snuffed out under compression, mine actually GROWS. The reason is that the more air and fuel you compress onto the plasma, it feeds it. It is that much more hydrogen getting dissociated from moisture in the air and the gas so the plasma of course gets bigger. That means you have to start with a fairly small plasma in the engine so that when it grows, it won't get too big. The street fire modules have 98 mj (milijoules) of potential energy so not too much so when it goes off in the engine, it is manageable.

 

Read this old Smokey Yunick article in Popular Mechanics: https://books.google.com/books?id=bfLnBTJ2nkYC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=smokey+yunick+plasma+jet+ignition&source=bl&ots=NleknUqwD1&sig=65pjmB8iN_KkYwq08vaeJyoEh-0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilg6uK39nPAhUEcD4KHYZlDSwQ6AEIMTAH#v=onepage&q=smokey%20yunick%20plasma%20jet%20ignition&f=false

 

He's using the ancient way of doing it, but shows he is running 25:1 air/fuel ration when normal is 14.7:1 - do the numbers and you can see the huge % increase in thermal efficiency. AND, he is running gasoline, diesel and methanol on the same engine and as he changes fuel, the engine keeps running the same with the plasma ignition. I've taught thousands of people this all over the world and with my method, there are dozens of people running gasoline generator sets on diesel with my plasma ignition - that pretty much speaks for itself in terms of the power of this ignition to be able to efficiently and effectively ignite (not detonate) diesel fuel in a gasoline engine.

 

By the way, don't hook the diode directly to the HV output on the coil like in my patent. That just shows the concept. Go from the diode to the top of each spark plug directly so the plasma impulse bypasses the distributor and cables and goes directly over the spark just like I showed in my video.

 

 

[plasma]

Horse shit to dropping the engine temp 100 degrees. Horse shit to running a jet engine on 99% water. If that bug got 42% better mileage then the choke was stuck on before. You are a snake oil salesman throwing around wild comments like "this is a scientific fact" to be taken as fact and it isn't. Seeing a brighter spark does not make it better, only brighter. It proves nothing.....  ANYONE can easily get more than 10% better mileage just by changing how they drive. Have fun with your sparkler.... my EI distributor works just fine.     

 

You have to actually understand combustion science to understand why an engine can drop 100F. It is relative to the thermal efficiency of an engine. I have a jet engine that runs on 99% water a small catalytic 1% amount of propane, period.

 

Jet Engine demo starts at 4:00 in the video:

 

 

That was a demo of the jet to a few people that invested money into some equipment that I needed to make it happen.

 

The bug got 42% better and NOT because of a choke issue it is because of increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine. Go read the article on Smokey Yunick's work running a v6 on 25:1 - what percentage is that over 14.7:1? I posted a link to that in another post asking about my patent #. According to you, that would be impossible, but we're talking Popular Mechanics and Smokey Yunick, one of the most recognized engine gods who ever lived - perhaps you're right and he is wrong, but I don't think so. :)

 

Everything I'm saying is scientific fact and not pre-conceived beliefs. I'd show you papers from JPL, etc... but you seem that you already have your mind made up and are not interested in the science or the documented facts about thermal efficiency.

 

It is NOT a brighter spark, it is a high speed disruptive capacitive discharge that creates a "plasmoid"  and yes, it does prove something if you understand plasma and energy science. What happens when you take x amount of energy and discharge it in a smaller unit of time? You get a massive power increase.

 

1 joule discharged over 10 seconds is 0.1 watts of power

1 joule discharged over 2 seconds is 0.5 watts of power

1 joule discharged over 1 second is 1 watt of power

1 joule discharged over 0.1 seconds is 10 watts of power

1 joule discharged over .001 seconds is 1,000 watts of power

1 joule discharged over .000001 seconds is 1,000,000 (1 millions watts of power or 1 megawatt)

 

To put that into perspective, if you have a 1 watt LED and light it up for 1 second, you can take the EXACT amount of energy to light that LED for 1 second and if you discharge it in 0.000001 seconds, you will have a MEGAWATT of power for that small period of time.

 

That means that for a short period of time, with a simple little MSD of 98 millijoules, I can create an event at that gap that is 10's to hundreds of thousands of watts of instantaneous peak power that is dissociating the fuel - so yes, what you see in my video and pictures DOES prove something. It is NOT a spark, it is a method that is superior to Tesla's own disruptive capacitive discharges.

 

I'm not interested in ecomodding or driving like a sunday driver. I'm talking about putting a quantum leap of thermal efficiency into the hands of the common person and I ALREADY showed you how to do it in the video.

[plasma]

If that bug got 42% better mileage then the choke was stuck on before.

It went from 30mpg to 42mpg, which is a 42.6% increase. Nothing to do with the choke because a choke stuck on won't give a bug 30mpg.

 

1. He had the plasma ignition.

2. He leaned out his engine.

3. He was dripping water on his exhaust manifold and ducting the flash steam with a cowling into his carburetor.

 

Temperature dropped by over 100F and he went from 30mpg to 42mpg.

 

There is nothing mystical about it and is 100% consistent with known combustion physics developed and understood over the decades at NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Princeton, Berkley, etc... and I can prove it.

[Lockleaf]

So your design differs from "aquapulser" or "blue phoenix" because they both use a secondary power source, designed to go in line between the spark source and the plug?

 

Whereas yours doesn't require the secondary power source? Thus making it more easily adaptable and "fittable" (more universal) than any previous designs?

 

Does it require additional power to generate the "plasmoid"? Or does it use the same joules in 1/1000 of the time a normal spark plug takes to arc?

[Lockleaf]

Also, what kind of temperatures are generated by this tech? What's wear and tear on a plug look like? Significantly increased? How does life and performance differ between copper, platinum, and iridium plugs?

 

Smokey was using silicon carbide even in his shop made spark plugs because of its resistance to heat and wear. Does that stand in the way of this tech being realistically used in a street driven vehicle?

[datzenmike]

Plasma at the spark, does ionize some molecules, it doesn't follow that all the ones in the combustion chamber do too. You would need a spark the size of the combustion chamber.

 

Further an engine's efficiency is not increased by how the fuel is burned but by how much energy is actually put to mechanical work. Far and away the largest loss is heat to the cylinder walls and combustion chamber. This is not changed by a spark.... and yes it's a spark. You can call it what you like but a spark is a spark. If that VW ran cooler it was because it was running less gas through it, like 25:1 ratio. My L20B runs cooler every time I slow down on the highway. Carb engines don't run much above 15 to 1 air fuel ratio. Newer engines are EFI and if they run leaner mixtures at part throttle it's because the compression is higher too.

 

Splitting hydrogen in water? Are you talking electrolysis? You can't make enough HHO to run an engine period.

[scooter]

That jet engine is just a jet engine running on propane with water injection. Turbines can inhale a fuck ton of water before they will flame out. I know first hand. You can nearly point a firehose at the compressor inlet without making one flameout. Along with cars, water injection is proven to be beneficial. In a jet engine you can increase the compression ratio when it takes in water, and it cools more, so you have a lower EGT and pour more fuel to it then it makes more power.

 

Same thing applies with cars.

 

As for your shock arguement, go hook your stock shit up and turn it over while holding onto the end of the coil wire, then do it with the msd.

 

Still not buying your ignition crap, but water injection is good. Sucking water vapours into the carb sounds like a good way to get carb ice in cooler places though. Just spray water into the intake.

[racerx]

Good to have an open mind but wiser to be a healthy skeptic.  With that, here's some questions for Plasma:  So how much does this system cost?  What modification is required?  What is the patent number?

[datzenmike]

 I don't see any argument for mileage, power.... anything but a brighter spark. We have carbs and don't run lean mixtures above 15 to 1. 

 

ALL electrical arcs are plasma. So a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

[Lockleaf]

8555867 is the patent number he listed. It's in the response to me asking the same question. There is a link there to the PTO website and the patent.

[racerx]

Thanks Lockleaf,  any takers or guinea pigs?

[TDCTDI]

Oohh, where do I get one? How much is it? What else do I need to install the system? What's the warranty? What's the guarantee should my truck not get 42% better fuel economy? What's the guarantee if my vehicle performance doesn't improve? Do you have this system for my diesel? If so, can I run my diesel on water?

[plasma]

So your design differs from "aquapulser" or "blue phoenix" because they both use a secondary power source, designed to go in line between the spark source and the plug?

 

Whereas yours doesn't require the secondary power source? Thus making it more easily adaptable and "fittable" (more universal) than any previous designs?

 

Does it require additional power to generate the "plasmoid"? Or does it use the same joules in 1/1000 of the time a normal spark plug takes to arc?

 

I'll give you the story first so you can see how this all fits together.

 

Arv. started aquapulser who is listed on the patent and Kart. is the undisclosed person behind blue p but you won't see his name on anything. The cap simply goes through a diode in parallel with the gap of the plug. They didn't come up with that - that is the same method used since the 1970's. Ecoignition was the company Arv. and Karth. started however many years ago. They saw my method online and approached Luc (on the patent) and Luc told them he invented my circuit. They applied for a patent with my circuit. Arv. got screwed by them because they went behind his back, took his schematics and closed the Ecoign. LLC down in Wyoming without Arv. even knowing about it. They turned around and started blue p. They went their separate ways Arv and Aquapulser and Kart and Blue P.

 

When I published my first book on the subject, I was going to give Luc credit for his own work in the ignition experiments, which were way different than mine - actually, all the posts are still online where I'm teaching Luc my method. I put his full name into google to make sure I spelt his last name right and the first thing that came up was a patent app with my circuit and their names on it. Long story short, after I ripped their attorney to shreds for not doing due diligence in seeing the public info on who was the first and original inventor and Luc lying, my name finally was added as inventor and one of the assignees.

 

Here is where I posted it public - http://www.energeticforum.com/water-fuel/2242-water-sparkplug.htmlYou'll recognize the genesis of my disclosure there as compared to what you see in the patent. I own that website and today it has over 110,000 members. When I said thousands of people from around the world have replicated this and at least hundreds have posted their work online, etc... I wasn't kidding. I started that thread back in July 2008 so you can see how far back my circuit goes.

 

The distinction is that with the old method, you have your normal 12v chopped to the ignition coil and then you need a secondary cap charging unit that puts the cap in parallel with the gap. With my method, I can take any MSD/CDI off the shelf, put it on an engine and add my diodes and automatically have a plasma ignition. The advantages to my method is starting with a cap discharge on the primary, I have a much higher initiating spark that ionizes the gap so it is more reliable under high compression situations, etc... Their units cost up to $600+ for the modules. I was actually selling Arv.'s units from EcoIgn/Aquap. one one of my sites here: http://plasmajetignition.com- not trying to sell anything by posting that site, I haven't taken an order in years and I keep it there for the record. You can see those are 100% identical to their units, including the Blue P. ones because they are from the exact manufacturer. Arv is the one the one who developed the charging circuits and all his IP  was taken from him.

 

With my method, I can take a $150 Street Fire module and put it on a Datsun and add $10 worth of diodes and I have it. That is 75% reduction in cost compared to a $600 module that doesn't even work as well and only uses a normal HV spark to initiate it - so my method is superior in every way including on the bottom line. One reason they never actually used my method is because they could never figure out how to make it work with off the shelf units while I've had a 100% success rate - I've never not been able to get it work and you can see in the video that it obviously works.

 

All that is necessary to create this plasma burst at the plug is any CDI/MSD unit and whatever watts it draws and the HV diodes, but nothing else is required. When you see my comparison between the MSD spark and my plasma method, they are drawing 100% the exact same amount of energy from the alternator. I would however make sure the cap in whatever cap unit you're using is at least 2mfd and around 400-450+ volts. Under that, it is a little too puny.

 

Virtually every major auto maker and some plug companies owns patents with different variations of the old method. They've been sitting on it because it's makes the engine too efficient and efficient engines don't get as dirty so out goes billions in constant oil changes, etc... they're only going to put them in cars when they have to in order to meet mandates for certain gas mileage goals in the future, but right now, they're all quietly sitting on the patents. My patent however did obsolete millions of dollars of all their patents because my method can use currently manufactured CDI/MSD units by any company and they're a dime a dozen and relatively inexpensive.

 

Examples of their patents:

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US4407259old 1983 patent owned by Nissan. The voltage booster is the cap charger charging cap in front of it and it discharges through the diode above it through the distributor and over the plug. That is the EXACT same method as Aqua and Blue.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US80332732011 patent owned by Denso. The dc/dc on the right side in the diagram is the cap charger charging cap to its left and that cap discharges through the diode over the plug. Also, EXACT same method as Aqua and Blue. They're all doing the same thing.

 

My method is the only novel innovation in plasma ignition systems in automotive history since I can use the same cap to dump into the primary of the ignition coil and simultaneously act as the low voltage high current cap that jumps over the gap once ionized. Nobody believed it would work, but I already understood it could because of a plasma discharge electric motor that I'm aware of that operates on a similar method.

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4487192A/en1984 patent owned by Ford. On the far right you can see a separate cap in parallel with each plug - exact same method as all the others.

 

There are many patents in recent years but those came up first in Google. You can see all these companies are all over it, but they never bothered to tell the public about what they're sitting on.

 

The reason for the Plasma Jet Reference is because originally, it was designed to be used with a special ignitor plug. Sort of looks like a surface gap plug with no ground J strap but the center electrode is in a recessed cavity. When the plasma goes off in that cavity, it shoots out like a jet shaped plume that penetrates deep into the combustion chamber. That Ford patent has an example of a plasma jet ignition plug.

 

 

 

 

 

[plasma]

Also, what kind of temperatures are generated by this tech? What's wear and tear on a plug look like? Significantly increased? How does life and performance differ between copper, platinum, and iridium plugs?

 

Smokey was using silicon carbide even in his shop made spark plugs because of its resistance to heat and wear. Does that stand in the way of this tech being realistically used in a street driven vehicle?

I've never been able to measure it accurately enough. Infrared thermometers are usually misleading for these kinds of things, plus the impulse generates a local EMP on the bench that screws with the electronics in the thermometers even from 10 feet away. I have a thermal imaging cam but the resolution is not high enough. It really needs a high end lab with some serious equipment.

 

The plugs do wear quicker and they do have to be non-resistor plugs. However, this is why I stick with MSD/CDI unites with small caps 98mj in the Street Fire so that the plasma isn't too monsterous and the plugs do last quicker. On the L20B, they're so easy to change I don't worry about it too much. I put this on a wasted spark ignition system on my 98 Subaru Legacy with a 2.5 liter boxer and that is a serious pain to change the plugs. I did it to prove you can do it with a wasted spark coil pack that has opposite polarities on each side of the engine so it does work, but those DIS-2 units for wasted spark are expensive.

 

I only recently found out that Weapon X has some non-resistor iridium plugs and I'm looking forward to trying them on the Datsun if they fit. http://www.weaponxperformance.com/main/spark_plugs.htm

 

In Energetic Forum, some of my members did custom make some plugs that were tungsten and they held up well and so did the copper beryllium plugs. For the copper ber. plugs, they were making replicas of Robert Krupa's Firestorm Plugs.

 

 

Robert Krupa is the inventor of the Split Fire plug and way back, he worked with Smokey Yunick with the plasma ignition. Unfortunately, Robert (I know him) has been trying to make it look like his plug geometry was making the big plasma when in reality, he was using a unit identical to Aqua P's to make the plasma but he never told anyone.

 

The one on the left is the Firestorm with the plasma ignition and the right is a common plug without the plasma. Robert is making it look like his plug is making all that plasma but it is a deception. However, the Firestorm plug geometry DOES give extremely long life to the plasma. Without plasma, the plug will probably last over a million miles with a normal ignition.

 

 

With the plasma igintion and his work with Smokey Yunick, Smokey had a V8 idling at 100:1 air fuel ratio. It didn't make enough power to pull a load but it proved the point to how high the thermal efficiency is with the plasma ignition. You can search the old articles online about this. Krupa worked with Yunick on Yunick's famous vapor engine and that is how Krupa was invited to work with Smokey on the plasma engines.

 

Anyway, here is a document a friend in Australia put together highlighting the custom fabricated Firestorm plugs - all of it developed out of my forum: http://www.hho4free.com/spark%20plug%20howtomakeplasmaplugs.pdfthat's about 9.2mb or so. Robert let all his Firestorm plug patents lapse, so it's all public domain. Anyone can do anything with those plugs that they want.

 

The plugs as you mention are a realistic barrier to it being used by the masses on cars that have difficult to change plugs, but my main interest is on Gas Generator sets with fixed rpm and less variables for efficient emergency backup power. My second interest is on these older cars and is exactly why I purchased this 1977 Datsun 620 so I can have an easy engine to experiment on. With these old cars, it's not an issue since they're so cheap and easy to change and of course performance applications are endless. I'll have to see what those Weapon X iridium non resistors plugs do - they're the most promising off the shelf plug that I've seen so need to get 4 for the L20B and see how they hold up.

[datzenmike]

The split fire spark plug? Wa ha ha ha ha pure snake oil just like the E₃. More electrode thingies so it has to be better. People are gullible.

 

Smokey did not run an engine at 100 to one air fuel. Smokey is like Tesla. They both were geniuses, but both are mostly known for their unsubstantiated experiments with hints of unbelievable results. (We all want to believe, we all have faith in abundance. Faith and wanting to believe allows us to ignore facts and science to the point of stupidity. Some believe in UFOs, HHO generators, split fire plugs... some in ghosts others in religion). Death rays, hot vapor engines. One hundred to one a/f ratio... unsubstantiated crap and now totally not provable.... but I want to believe!!!!

 

Plasma is the stripping of electrons from their atoms usually by heat. ANY spark will do this.... an electric arc is a conductive plasma. When the heat is removed and the energy released from the electrons they simply re-connect with their atoms.  Can't create energy, just move it around. You might be able to split some hydrogen from some water vapor but it would be barely possible to measure and the amount produced would require more energy to make than released turning it back to water. This is why HHO generators are such a dismal failure. But people who have them think every one else is nuts?

 

Congratulations, by moving a few words around on a patent you've invented the 'capacitive discharge ignition system' that's been around longer than you have. I had a Mark Ten back in '68. Noticed no difference even on my 70 Dart. Name dropping SAE, NASA, JPL does not impress me. Smokey least of all. 

 

U-tube videos are not proof of anything to anyone with half a brain.

[racerx]

ah, i remember now...not too long ago, some guy was demonstrating the plasma ignition system at the county fairgrounds. Next to the guy was the jackalope and the capybara, trying to pass it off as a giant rat he found at a sewer in New York. Most people were intrigue and not realizing that they are native to South America, yes its in the rodent family but not from New York. Tell u what though, attend one of my workshops on how to buy a house w no downpayment, here in silicon valley, and buy some of my Herbal Life and I will buy into ur "Plasma Ignition System"

[plasma]

Plasma at the spark, does ionize some molecules, it doesn't follow that all the ones in the combustion chamber do too. You would need a spark the size of the combustion chamber.

 

Further an engine's efficiency is not increased by how the fuel is burned but by how much energy is actually put to mechanical work. Far and away the largest loss is heat to the cylinder walls and combustion chamber. This is not changed by a spark.... and yes it's a spark. You can call it what you like but a spark is a spark. If that VW ran cooler it was because it was running less gas through it, like 25:1 ratio. My L20B runs cooler every time I slow down on the highway. Carb engines don't run much above 15 to 1 air fuel ratio. Newer engines are EFI and if they run leaner mixtures at part throttle it's because the compression is higher too.

 

Splitting hydrogen in water? Are you talking electrolysis? You can't make enough HHO to run an engine period.

 

You almost got it with the spark needing to be the size of the combustion chamber. But first...

 

Plasma at the spark plug has a wide range of ionization capabilities and one of the most important is the impulse speed. The faster the impulse, the more effectively the molecules are dissociated, especially when dealing with quick cyclic times. With a normal spark, that does not dissociate the molecules, it is working by simply igniting the vapor in the combustion chamber while the rest of the fuel is in liquid unburnable state. With my plasma, it is not simply igniting vapor, it is literally ripping apart anything that it touches and remember, in the combustion chamber, it gets BIGGER as more air/fuel is crammed onto it. So the plasma impulse both ignites vapor but also frees up more atomic and molecular hydrogen from moisture and the gasoline creating more combustible fuel.

 

Double the thermal efficiency of how well the engine burns fuel and you double the mileage, which is the mechanical work at the wheels, which is miles per gallon. In other words, it is the opposite of what you have said because the definition of thermal efficiency is: "the heat of combustion of the fuel / work produced." So the mechanical work is 100% directly tied to how well the engine burns fuel. This is internal combustion engine science 101.

 

Yes, EFI have run just slightly leaner because the thermal efficiency of the engine is higher - that is the primary reason. Not all of the compression ratios are higher with fuel injection, but thermal efficiency does go up with compression and is why diesels should get twice the mileage per gallon of fuel compared to gasoline cars.

 

You keep saying spark, but the plasma ignition is not a spark. A spark is an ionization trail caused by the positive emf (electromotive force) moving from the positive electrode to the negative and when it reaches the dielectric breakdown voltage of the gap and penetrates that resistance, that is when electron current can flow from the ground towards the positive electrode. When that happens with a simple spark - all you are seeing are a couple of fine hair like streamers and there is a incredibly small amount of ionization happening there - the volume of the space that is getting ionized is like a few pieces of hair and that is what you see when you see a spark.

 

The plasma can instantly dissociate a lot of the fuel increasing the burnable fuel available (vapor in both atomic and molecular species) meaning more of it will be burned so yes, my plasma ignition can and does burn more of the fuel and makes more of it do mechanical work meaning the engine is running more efficient so there is less wasted heat. You either create waste heat or you create mechanical work - all engines do both in different proportions to each other. With the plasma ignition, you create more mechanical work for the same amount of fuel meaning there is less waste heat and the engine runs cooler. A spark cannot increase the burnable amount of fuel so you would be correct that a spark cannot do that, but no, my plasma ignition is not a spark. The volume of the plasma is multiple orders of magnitude larger than the volume of space being ionized by a spark.

 

I'm not sure you realize what it means to run a typical engine with a normal ignition on a 25:1  air:fuel ratio - you're saying that is why the VW must have run cooler, but with a normal ignition, this will push the temperature of the engine through the roof, cause a lot of pinging and detonation and when you turn the engine off, you have to put it in gear to stall it because it will continue to diesel for a while due to the overheating. Running on 25:1, which is a lot less fuel makes the engine hotter with a normal ignition and is very bad for it - it does not make it cooler as you mention. The only reason it got cooler is for the exact reason I already said, the plasma ignition increases the thermal efficiency of the engine and is capable of igniting more of the small quantity of fuel there so you don't get the normal lean running damage and the temperature will drop. This is not possible with a "spark", but it is possible with the plasma ignition. This is called "extending the lean burn limit", which is what my plasma ignition does and is what hydrogen supplementation does as well, which I will go into in a bit.

When I'm talking about splitting hydrogen from water or hydrogen from gasoline - you have to remember 100% of every gasoline engine is hydrogen powered already. With a gasoline engine, the heptane contributes the hydrogen and with water fuel experiments, the hydrogen is from water.

 

I'm not talking about electrolysis but it is similar in concept. The gasoline and water moisture in the air that is in the combustion chamber is mixed and is available to be touched by the plasma. The plasma is created at two electrodes - positive and negative. Instead of running current through water and stripping the electrons from the covalent bonds of a water molecule and separating the hydrogen and oxygen, the plasma pulls them apart in open air, in a combustion chamber under pressure, etc... but the efficiency of being able to separate the molecules by this method are light years ahead of separating hydrogen with electrolysis in a water fuel cell or common electrolysis chamber.

 

You can make enough HHO to run an engine. The real question is, can the alternator being run by an engine electrolyze enough hydrogen from water to keep the engine running to produce enough electricity to create enough hydrogen to keep itself running. The simple answer is no. Could I create enough with a separate power supply, store it in a balloon and have at tube going from that to a carburetor to run the engine? Yes, of course anyone can but you are winding up with a huge energy loss because you have to use way more energy to create that hydrogen than you will get from the work the engine produces. In both cases, I'm not doing either one.

 

First, you have to break down the HHO (not a real molecule but a random mix of about a dozen atomic and molecular species that include o3, h2o2, o2, o+, h-, 2h, etc...) and they are all very reactive species so are unstable and if left together for a period of time, they will all react with each other and will sum out to nothing more than water when they neutralize each other so they have to be used on demand right away or they just revert back to water.

 

HHO is used as a fuel supplement by using a commonly ducted electrolyzer meaning the h and o are not separated like a high school science experiment. They are all created in one common area and stay together as a gas that exits one common duct to the intake of the engine. The gains in horsepower and mileage are greater than the energy requirement used to create that HHO. In electronic cars, you have to defeat the o2 sensor, the map or maf sensors, etc... in order for the engine to not sabotage your gains and richen it back up but it can be done. It's way easier for carburetor cars. I'm talking about the common HHO water fuel cells people are putting on cars run by their alternator (hooked to the battery) and the output goes to the air intake.

 

The gains in hp and mileage are NOT coming from the hydrogen exploding and pushing down the piston. What I'm going to tell you is the secret that none of the phony hydrogen/hho experts out there can tell you because they don't even understand what the HHO water fuel supplement is even doing.

 

When you add this water fuel supplementation (HHO) to the combustion chamber, a regular spark can indeed ignite that hydrogen from the water fuel cell really easy. What happens next? That hydrogen has a very fast flame propagation speed and high temperature and it detonates and fills a good portion of the combustion chamber (going back to you mentioning the "spark" has to be the size of the combustion chamber) and it in turn is what is igniting more of the fuel that a spark cannot normally ignite. That HHO supplementation is an ignitor and not a fuel source and is why the gains are real and there is more hp and mileage by using these water fuel cells. If an engine is 20% or even 30%, there is 70-80% room for improvement conceptually - so by using just a few hundred watts of electricity from the alternator to create this hydrogen ignitor, you release more of the btu's stored in that fuel that the normal spark cannot light thereby increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine in an amount that is beyond what it took to create that ignitor. No magic and no laws of physics are violated.

 

With my plasma ignition, it is dissociating more hydrogen from the fuel, which increases the burnable amount so some of that is also ignited by the plasma to act as a detonator and penetrates the rest of the mixture igniting even more of it. So the plasma ignition does both - 1) increase the amount of burnable fuel and 2) create a hydrogen detonator all on the fly to burn more of the fuel and is why it is superior to hho supplementation but there actually is a synergy between using my plasma and hho and/or water vapor injection. That is why my friend's bug had those results because of leaning out his engine, with the plasma and the steam additive.

[plasma]

That jet engine is just a jet engine running on propane with water injection. Turbines can inhale a fuck ton of water before they will flame out. I know first hand. You can nearly point a firehose at the compressor inlet without making one flameout. Along with cars, water injection is proven to be beneficial. In a jet engine you can increase the compression ratio when it takes in water, and it cools more, so you have a lower EGT and pour more fuel to it then it makes more power.

 

Same thing applies with cars.

 

As for your shock arguement, go hook your stock shit up and turn it over while holding onto the end of the coil wire, then do it with the msd.

 

Still not buying your ignition crap, but water injection is good. Sucking water vapours into the carb sounds like a good way to get carb ice in cooler places though. Just spray water into the intake.

No, you do not understand the chemistry involved in what I'm actually doing. Turbines can inhale water ONLY IF there is a very rich amount of fuel to sustain it. With my jet, I turn down the propane so much the needle is sitting on 0 psi because it is using so little it can't be measured with that gauge. I went from 8 psi running it conventionally down to that with my mods. Sorry, but it is not a propane running jet with water injection, it is the opposite. I'm recycling the exhaust and ionizing it with my plasma creating atomic nitrogen with a N+3 charge so it is a hard core attractor. When the hydrogen ignites in the combustion chamber, it does NOT combine with oxygen, shrink in volume and turn back into a water molecule, it binds with the N to create traces of NH3, which is a high efficient method of creating a synthetic ammonia fuel on the fly. When doing this, the hydrogen fuel does not detonate like normal, it combusts and burns slow like gasoline giving up thermal combustive energy. The secret to doing that is slowing down the burn of the hydrogen by PREVENTING the formation of the water molecule. The NH3 cycles through the exhaust back to the front and the plasma cracks the H from the NH3 and the cycle repeats and while it keeps recycling, it condenses so the amount of the NH3 increases bit by bit by bit.

 

You can buy what you want - I'm not hear to convince anyone that already has their minds made up - just presenting the facts. I'm sharing my experience with the plasma ignition without asking for anything in return and those who do have a solid understanding of combustion science and plasma physics will understand that what I'm saying is irrefutable and is the truth backed by over 40 years of govt/nasa/university/automaker/etc... research to the tune of countless millions of dollars and I boiled it down to $10 worth of diodes and a cheap MSD. 

[plasma]

Good to have an open mind but wiser to be a healthy skeptic.  With that, here's some questions for Plasma:  So how much does this system cost?  What modification is required?  What is the patent number?

Lockleaf already answered you on the patent.

 

Cost? I don't know because I'm not selling anything but the least expensive that I've done it is with $150 Street Fire module you see in the video, $50 for the Pertronix coil, $70 for the non-resistor wires delivered, about $10 for 4 non resistor plugs, $10 for 4 diodes from Ebay and about $15 for misc wire, mounting hardware, etc... $305 total is what my personal expenses were.

 

You don't need the non resistor wires, just some that are suitable for cap discharge, but you do need non-resistor plugs. You don't need the $50 Pertronix coil, but with a 0.3 ohm primary and 7.5k ohm secondary, that has a fast rise time for the cap discharge and works very well. If you already have some MSD setup on your car, then you only need to add the diodes and connect them to the tops of the plugs under the boots - so for about $15 or so for anyone that already has a MSD setup.

 

 

[plasma]

 I don't see any argument for mileage, power.... anything but a brighter spark. We have carbs and don't run lean mixtures above 15 to 1. 

 

ALL electrical arcs are plasma. So a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

 

I'm personally going for efficiency and plan to get over 50mpg on the hwy with the l20b at minimum. That is with multiple mods - some I am not discussing at this time, but it all starts with the plasma.

 

It does increase power, you can go see some dyno tests from one of two companies selling the expensive cap modules based on the antiquated way of doing it.

 

You can't run a leaner mixture safely with the carbs above 15:1 without hydrogen supplementation or the plasma ignition or it will overheat, detonate, etc...

 

All electrical arcs are a form of plasma. A normal spark is not an arc but is still technically a plasma. Fire from a match is a plasma. A plasma is simply an ionized gas either positive or negative. However, a spark is not even the same electrical phenomena as my plasma ignition.

[plasma]

Oohh, where do I get one? How much is it? What else do I need to install the system? What's the warranty? What's the guarantee should my truck not get 42% better fuel economy? What's the guarantee if my vehicle performance doesn't improve? Do you have this system for my diesel? If so, can I run my diesel on water?

I posted about pricing, but I'm not selling anything. I'm just sharing the knowlege. I charge $37 or $47 for my book and video that teaches the science, but in the video I posted about my Datsun, I gave you everything you need to know right there and explained everything. It is a DIY project and there is no warranty. This thread is on MSD and the L20B so if anyone already has the MSD hooked up, for about $15, you can have a plasma ignition and try it out.

 

I don't have a system for a diesel although this ignition can run a gasoline engine on a diesel. For a diesel engine, if you have the skills, you can port another hole and put in a plug and utilize the plasma ignition to augment the normal dieseling cycle. This is exactly what a independent power company in Canada that has large diesel generators are considering doing after they came to the energy conference that I organize every year.

 

You won't be able to run a diesel like that on water but you can run it on less diesel to give the same amount of power.

 

Here is how powerful this plasma ignition is and running a gas engine on diesel speaks for itself. US Fed Govt tested the old version of the plasma jet ignition on E85 fuel on a gas engine and the plasma ignition allowed them to start the engine in sub freezing temperatures. That is also something that basically speaks for itself for anyone that understands that it would normally be impossible to start E85 in cold temps like that.

 

E85 plasma jet ignition results are incredible: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/22967.pdfyou can read the whole report for some serious education on the matter or just jump to the conclusion to see the end result.

[plasma]

Oohh, where do I get one? How much is it? What else do I need to install the system? What's the warranty? What's the guarantee should my truck not get 42% better fuel economy? What's the guarantee if my vehicle performance doesn't improve? Do you have this system for my diesel? If so, can I run my diesel on water?

p.s. Also, I have no idea what your mileage would be. Everyone drives different and all engine setups and conditions are not the same. That is why my main interest is the plasma ignition on gas generator sets - like in this video - this is a work in progress and I need to get an adjustable carb since a fixed jet sabotages any gains:

 

I discuss the plasma and show how I put it on the generator for the first 7 min of the vid - can stop watching after that because there is nothing else on the plasma ignition after that:

 

 

The plasma ignition was 100% effective in preventing the generator from stalling out when big loads kicked on, which is a typical problem most people have with these kind of generators.

 

On a lawnmower, a partner and I put on the plasma ignition and we could turn the jet in all the way, which would normally stall the engine, but with the plasma we did that and was able to wrap the engine out to full rpm with no problem and the only fuel source was the idle jet.

 

We've done so many experiments over the last 8 years, hard to keep track of them all, but many others have done it.

[plasma]

The split fire spark plug? Wa ha ha ha ha pure snake oil just like the E₃. More electrode thingies so it has to be better. People are gullible.

 

Smokey did not run an engine at 100 to one air fuel. Smokey is like Tesla. They both were geniuses, but both are mostly known for their unsubstantiated experiments with hints of unbelievable results. (We all want to believe, we all have faith in abundance. Faith and wanting to believe allows us to ignore facts and science to the point of stupidity. Some believe in UFOs, HHO generators, split fire plugs... some in ghosts others in religion). Death rays, hot vapor engines. One hundred to one a/f ratio... unsubstantiated crap and now totally not provable.... but I want to believe!!!!

 

Plasma is the stripping of electrons from their atoms usually by heat. ANY spark will do this.... an electric arc is a conductive plasma. When the heat is removed and the energy released from the electrons they simply re-connect with their atoms.  Can't create energy, just move it around. You might be able to split some hydrogen from some water vapor but it would be barely possible to measure and the amount produced would require more energy to make than released turning it back to water. This is why HHO generators are such a dismal failure. But people who have them think every one else is nuts?

 

Congratulations, by moving a few words around on a patent you've invented the 'capacitive discharge ignition system' that's been around longer than you have. I had a Mark Ten back in '68. Noticed no difference even on my 70 Dart. Name dropping SAE, NASA, JPL does not impress me. Smokey least of all. 

 

U-tube videos are not proof of anything to anyone with half a brain.

Split fire plug isn't that great, but it isn't snake oil. You have to understand the purpose in order to know why it is better than a plug with a normal ground strap. It isn't supposed to give you some big magical spark. It has 2 prongs on the ground strap so that it can fire more reliably. If you get residual ionization at the gap, it can cause misfiring so if the emf has a 2nd place to go that is less resistance, it will jump there and will prevent misfiring. This plug works well for that. The same applies to the E3, which is an over-engineered plug that has a similar idea, but most of the big mileage gain claims for both plugs are phony. Will they make a difference? Yes, but the difference is so small that it's a waste of money.

 

Yes, Smokey Yunick did run an engine on 100:1 and like I said, it proved the point, but was not practical. You are saying he didn't as if you actually know it, but I personally know the people and science involved and have taken all the plasma ignition methods that were used to unheard of simplicity. My experience, connections, etc... are quite a different from beliefs. Nice that you mention Tesla, I'm the exclusive publisher of all the work from the only man alive who has successfully replicated Tesla's wireless ground transmission system that was used in Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe. I know what all the inside story is to the Yunick tests and what Tesla was doing and 99% of what is online regarding Tesla is all BS.

 

I already posted about the purpose of HHO generators and why the claims that the power comes from the hydrogen and that is supposed to contribute to pushing on the piston is also all BS. For the first time in your life, apparently from your beliefs you are stating, you have now been given the real answer as to the the real function of HHO as an ignitor and not a fuel source.

 

Plasma is not usually created by heat but most plasma is created by high voltage discharges and the EMF moving to the ground causes the electrons to move from ground to the positive. That causes a Townsend Avalance or electron cascade effect, where each electron frees up two electrons and so forth so you deplete the material (gas or whatever) between the gap of electrons and it remains high positive charged and very reactive. That is a typical plasma and that is how it is usually caused. The difference is that I have found the simplest and most effective method and the reason why it is quite possibly the FASTEST form of plasma discharge in these applications that has ever been utilized. The operating mechanism as to why it it is so fast I won't go into, but the point is that plasma is not plasma is not plasma just like a spark is not a spark is not a spark. My plasma discharge is an accelerated high speed discharge where I'm able to make almost all resistance and impedance that the capacitor normally sees completely disappear and the cap discharges in an abnormally short period of time. Negative resistances are what happens at the gap, but I'm able to cause an apparent negative resistance over the wires between the capacitor and the gap and this has never been shown until I did it. I'll leave it at that for now.

 

You state: "You might be able to split some hydrogen from some water vapor but it would be barely possible to measure and the amount produced would require more energy to make than released turning it back to water." What your argument is based on only applies if the hho is supposed to act as a FUEL source, which means it is supposed to explode and help push the piston down. But, that is not what hho does at all, it is an ignitor like I explained and is why 100% of every argument against it has always been false and based on a misunderstanding of it's purpose. The gain does not come from the hydrogen, it comes from more of the gasoline being ignited by the hydrogen detonation and there is way more than enough unburned gasoline in a common engine that can contribute to the gains claimed from hho if more of the gas is able to burn and that is exactly what it does and how.

 

These are guildelines for hydrogen use on govt vehicles by the DOT and has been around for almost 10 years: https://web.archive.org/web/20080924131555/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Guidelines-H2-Fuel-in-CMVs-Nov2007.pdf

 

On page 11, it says:

 

"1.2.3 Hydrogen Injection Systems

A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen on demand by electrolyzing water carried onboard the vehicle. The electricity required is supplied by the engine’s alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system (see Section 1.5 for a description of electrolysis). The hydrogen and oxygen are injected into the engine’s air intake manifold, where they mix with the intake air. In theory, the combustion properties of the hydrogen result in more complete combustion of diesel fuel in the engine, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving fuel economy (CHEC, n.d.). Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use and a 7 percent reduction in particulate emissions with the system on (ETVC, 2005)."

 

Limited testing or not, 4% increase in govt lab tests defeats every argument against hho. If the results were 1% it still defeats the argument against hho and if the results were 0% that also defeats the argument because at 0% reduction shows that it made up all the losses associated with producing the hydrogen. Again, it is not a fuel source and they don't know why, they just say it theoretically results in a more complete combustion of diesel fuel. It only takes 1 white crow to prove all crows are not black and hho works, does not violate any laws of physics and can give gains that more than offsets the electricity required to produce it.

 

Also, based on your argument, you are claiming that it doesn't matter the source of hydrogen using an on board on demand system whether it is water, gasoline or diesel in the car, etc... that if electricity is used by the alternator to free up hydrogen from any source and that hydrogen is added to the intake that it must be impossible for all such systems to wind up with a loss. If I had some electrical process running off an alternator to crack some hydrogen from the gasoline coming from the fuel line to free up some hydrogen to feed it to the intake, that it would be impossible to achieve a gain according to you. Is that correct? I know it is correct, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You say you want to believe. 20, 30, or more % increase is quite a bit more than a 4 percent gain that the US Fed Govt got on the tests quoted above and 20+% must be completely impossible and ludicrous according to you. Do you still actually stand by that claim now that it has been explained to you that the hydrogen is an ignitor and not a fuel source? The difference between the two are like night and day and all arguments against hho working or any on board hydrogen production method have always been based on arguing against a function that the hho doesn't provide and never has. It's always been a false argument and that has been the primary barrier to the public benefiting from them in any widespread practical sense.

[plasma]

 

Congratulations, by moving a few words around on a patent you've invented the 'capacitive discharge ignition system' that's been around longer than you have. I had a Mark Ten back in '68. Noticed no difference even on my 70 Dart. Name dropping SAE, NASA, JPL does not impress me. Smokey least of all. 

 

 

 

Moving words around? I'm using a completely different method to create the plasma ignition than has ever been done in ignition history, period. Patent office doesn't give patents for moving words around.

 

You don't notice a difference with the Mark Ten (crappy old circuit but is a classic) because you are winding up with nothing more than a typical cap discharge spark - that is why you have no noticeable difference. You were not producing the plasma discharge like I do so you are comparing apples and oranges.

 

SAE, NASA, JPL gives credibility to the field because of the massive amount of work, testing, documentation, peer reviewed papers, etc... that has gone into the plasma jet ignition research.

 

What that means is that it has already been proven (not just evidence given but bottom line results) up one end and down the other and your belief of this has been scientifically proven to be incorrect for over 40 years.