plasma

Figbuck, I got it! Thank you so much! Actually my rockers and floorboards are really rusted. Engine is rebuilt when I recently bought it with hardly any miles. Cab doesn't leak though. Still have some maintenance to do, but so far, just having an emergency brake has been priority. lol Will check out the wipers as suggested. Will send payment by PayPal, let me know if it is enough. Can't thank you enough!

Great! Pm me your paypal email and I'll send you more than you're asking for. I appreciate the help.

I'll just respond to your post - Datzenmike has multiple false items in his post, he said energy, not power and he requoted himself with his own reference to energy and not power LOL "A car that doubles it's speed uses 8 times as much energy to do so." - Just like I said. Anyway, I'm actually not trying to change anyone's belief's here. When something I say is countered based on misinformation or simple lack of understanding of the subject, then I'm going to address that and will provide references. Everyone can believe what they want - but the facts stand for themselves and anyone can go see the references, which validate that what I have said is all true. If I was going to sell something, I'd simply have some adapters manufactured that fits on top of the plug with an outlet to hook the wire to that comes from the HV diodes and on the top of that adapter is a male spark plug terminal to stick the plug cable on to. And it may come with diodes and wires. With that, anyone can have a plasma ignition that has any msd/cdi type system on an engine. I understand your beliefs are based on your experience. However, if someone doesn't have experience with the plasma ignition, there is nothing of substance to base their opinions on since they have no experience with it. They can only speak to conventional spark ignitions and that is it. Anyway, thanks for the positive message and I'll share results later on.

A car that doubles its speed takes 8 times as much ENERGY? A Datsun 620 with a L20B can easily get 30-35 mpg on the hwy and many get about 25 in the city - these numbers I'm getting from the posts of members right here in this forum by a simple search. According to you, if a Datsun 620 can get 25 mpg in the city and lets say that is 30mph for example, then it will take 8 times as much gasoline to go 60 mph on the highway since that is double the speed. You have already equated gasoline to energy in your posts so I'm not misquoting you. In other words, it will get 1/8 the gas mileage at double the speed so a Datsun 620 at 60mph would get a little over 3 mpg since it has to use 8 times as much fuel (energy) to go the same distance at double the speed. This is the case if what you claim is true. That is your claim, but here are the facts... If you double the speed, the POWER increases by 8 times. POWER does not equal ENERGY - they are not the same thing. I already broke it down for you in my post showing that the faster a cap discharges, the power increases but the energy is the same. Here is a simple example so you can understand the difference. If you go to a window and knock on it with your knuckles with 1 unit of energy and you do that 10 times, you will have dissipated 10 units of energy and you didn't do anything to the window. But if you take all 10 units of energy in those 10 knocks and dissipate it into 1 knock, you will shatter the window to pieces. You used the SAME amount of energy, but when you shattered the window, you did it at 10 TIMES the POWER - but still the same amount of energy. Energy is the amount of work expended and Power is the RATE at which the energy was expended. Confusing energy and power is a very common mistake and I don't hold that against you, but I did explain it in the post about the speed of the capacitor discharging and how that changes the power - not energy. I understand evaporative cooling very well, but you have been claiming that a leaner mixture will result in lower temperatures because there is less energy and therefore lower temperatures. That is 100% false and not one single academic or expert in the field will agree with you - and the members of this forum disagree with you as I have posted. I have mentioned disassociating hydrogen from oxygen from moisture in the air and disassociating hydrogen from the heptane molecule. Show me one time where I have posted about starting with water and creating a fuel. You can't because your example has nothing to do with anything I've said. I said you cannot make enough hydrogen to FULLY run an engine on electrolyzed water (100% water fuel car by electrolysis) by the alternator and expect it to keep running, which is a 100% water fuel claim and there is not one single post here where I said that is what I'm doing or that it is what I believe. I DID say the electricity can produce enough hydrogen to create an ignitor from the hydrogen, which will in turn allow you to burn more of the normally unburned gasoline that will give you a gain that exceeds the electricity needed to produce the hho ignitor. And, I said the plasma ignition can do the same thing. Your posts do not show what you know, they show what you do not. ANY hydrogen that is dissociated from moisture or the gasoline will detonate and will TRAVEL throughout the combustion chamber igniting more of the fuel. What is relevant is that the plasma ignition WILL free up and ignite hydrogen that will in turn burn more normally unburned fuel, period. At what level? It doesn't matter, because the fact that it does so any any level proves the point, which discounts 100% of every one of your objections. Yes, every engine will have it's own restraints in terms of efficiency as the common internal combustion engine with a rotating crankshaft, rods and pistons is nothing more than a modified steam engine from 200 years ago and is poor technology that very few people have ever improved upon during that time. I don't debate that and I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is crappy technology, but it is what we have so how do we make the best of it? By simply increasing the thermal efficiency of the air/fuel mixture and that DOES allow more mechanical work at the wheels. Your 1000 btu / 750 - example is false because you are simply making up numbers and even for example sake, they're still wrong in principle because the premise of your example is based on normal combustion expectations where most of the energy is thrown out in waste heat, etc... By changing the method of ignition, you DO increase the efficiency of the engine WITHOUT changing the engine. This is an indisputable fact of science and not you nor anyone else on this planet can change this fact. The dyno tests for the plasma ignition show this indisputably. Any gains in HP at any speed using the same engine and same fuel, but with a different ignition shows you point blank that the efficiency of the engine has increased due to the increase in thermal efficiency made possible by the plasma ignition. It's not even debatable. Yes, you can change efficiency by running a different fuel. The efficiency starts with the FUEL - NOT the mechanical work at the wheels. You're putting the horse before the cart. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is so to speak? I already have an escrow.com account and you can get one too for free. We can each deposit $x thousands into it and you can pick any 3 experts that you want that are willing to witness and validate some tests and I'll do the same. If in the end, if there is a 50/50 split in the results as stated by these 6 witnesses, then you get your money back and so do I. If at least 4 of the 6 side with you, then you get to keep my money and visa versa. Documentation beats conversation any day of the week. My ignition will: A - For performance will give more HP for the same fuel meaning the efficiency increased AND B - For economy, will run an engine leaner and cooler also meaning the efficiency increased. In both examples, it will be the same type of fuel and it will all be on the same engine. If I win this challenge, and it is 100% guaranteed that I will, you have to put a link in your signature to this thread as well as a post that publicly states that you have been wrong in your beliefs and analysis of said ignition system with an apology for your libelous remarks against me. Claiming that I'm pitching snake oil, etc... is defamation of character and is unnecessary and is no way to treat new members of a forum that are simply freely sharing their knowledge without asking for anything else in return. It's really a fair and honest test and you don't have anything to lose but your money :) It will give this forum a lot of recognition that it deserves - I have gained a lot of value from many of the threads here and I have a certain connection to Nissan/Datsun that I'm not at liberty to share at this point, but with almost 150,000 of my own forum members and over 97,000 subscribers to my newsletters, etc... I will have more to lose than you will by putting my name to this challenge, IF I lose, but I'm willing to take the chance. ;) If you're not confident enough with your counter-claims, go ahead and pick one single member that you have enough trust in that you feel will put me to shame. I'll be looking forward to this widely publicized challenge that will be a win-win for us both! :thumbup: What say you Mr. Rodgers?

Read the sequence of the posts again... I already gave it all away for free on my forum then someone lied and claimed they came up with it and they filed a patent. I'm now on that patent, but what am I doing here? Do you know what the definition of peddle is? It is to SELL something and how many times have I said I'm not here to sell anything? Read my posts. I have patent rights, but am giving permission for people to use it for personal non-commercial use without paying me a single flipping dime. I have very little interest in putting anything of this value into a rich company's hands - I'd rather empower the average "cheap ass hobbyist" with something so simple and powerful that on top of a MSD setup, it's $10 worth of diodes. People that aren't interested? I could care less who is or is not interested. I simply made a post about this system and then Datzenmike and a few others started to counter what I was saying with libelous attacks based on not even knowing what it is about. That doesn't show non-interest - they are posts that are eliciting a response. I could also care less if you or Datzenmike ever uses it, but if I post something and someone counters with some bogus answer that shows they really have no idea what they're talking about, I'm going to defend what I said. Amazing you would have an issue with that and perceive it 180 degrees opposite from what it is as evidenced by your response. I posted in simple English - and posted simple facts - it was Datzenmike who spearheaded the libelous accusations about fraud, pseudo science, etc... because it didn't fit into his belief system. What did I do? Simply substantiate my claims with facts, links to peer-reviewed science and so on... and he had a really hard time with that. So you support the attack of someone openly sharing something like this but it is completely ok with you for someone that doesn't know what they're talking about to initiate and continue the assault unjustifiably (Datzenmike)... well, ok. :thumbup:

I'll take it! :) Here is a pic with the part circled that I need: Both toggle levers, extension links and the retaining pins for the toggle levers. I believe I have everything else, but if you only want to get rid of the whole set, let me know what you want. I'll PM you contact info and you can let me know where to send a check or money order.

Capacitors in the wires are glorified peaking capacitors. That is a capacitor in parallel with the plug - normal spark tries to jump the gap but can't until it fills up that little capacitor and then when it is full, it jumps the gap together with the cap discharging and it gives a bigger spark that ignites more of the fuel. That is not a scam and does work, but it is still a normal spark and the difference is so small most people will never see a benefit. The 2nd demo in this short vid is a peaking cap and the results are far superior to the normal spark. But the CDI is even stronger than a peaking cap, but there is nothing that touches my plasma ignition. And by the way, I don't see anyone making free energy claims so you must have misunderstood something or are mislead by Datzenmike's posts, which claim that I'm saying something that I'm not.

Yes, cars do run fine without MSD, but that is a completely separate issue compared to what my plasma ignition method does. Unwarranted - I agree that most people will never see a difference because the gain from a conventional msd spark is less than the variability in people's driving habits so they won't get a benefit. But keep in mind, that is with an unmodified normal capacitive discharge spark and my plasma ignition method is many quantum leaps beyond that. We're not talking about having an engine run fine. If you want performance, my ignition will release more energy from the fuel than any other aftermarket performance ignition method available. If we're taking efficiency, there is no other ignition method that will allow you to lean out the mixture and simultaneously drop the engine temp allowing more mileage and less emissions. Do you debate my claims that the plasma ignition can produce more horsepower and mileage for the same amount of fuel compared to a normal spark or that it can run a leaner mixture without overheating?

I said it takes the same amount of energy to go from point A to point B and it doesn't matter how fast or slow it gets there. Force x distance is physics 101. You have already blown all your credibility about knowing anything about combustion science by claiming that a lean mixture has less gas so less heat. RacerX agrees with me multiple times on this issue, which is the indisputable fact that less fuel can cause MORE heat due to improper combustion. He can pop up with his cute little flux capacitor quotes, but the fact is that other long time members here know that you are posting things that are not true. There is even a post by you admitting that overheating can be caused by the carb running lean. :) So, either you know that you are unable to argue against the facts I am presenting and are intentionally posting false rebuttles against my claims or there is something else going on... Leaner mixtures cause overheating, PERIOD. With HHO, you are intentionally manipulating and distorting what I said and everyone here knows it that has actually read what I posted. You know very well that I have repeatedly said that the HHO is nothing more than an ignitor, which in turn ignites much of the GASOLINE, which normally doesn't ignite. Runs on water? Why the games Mike? You know I didn't say that. Of course HHO doesn't "pull more energy out of a system than is in it." It takes x amount of watt seconds to electrolyze a certain amount of gas and then when that gas is ignited and detonates, the hydrogen flame penetrates the rest of the combustion chamber that the spark doesn't get to and it helps to burn and release more energy from the GASOLINE (NOT more energy from the water or the electricity from the alternator). The gain doesn't magically appear from thin air, it comes from some of the gas that normally doesn't ignite. Your post is completely disengenous because there is no way you could honestly believe what you're saying. And to contort what I said about HHO by your misleading post making it look like I'm claiming the engine is running on water is beyond ludicrous. It is dishonest. Below are posts from members of this forum clearly stating that lean mixtures cause overheating, INCLUDING YOU! LOL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACERX disagrees with you Datzenmike...in multiple posts he/she has posted that a lean mixture will cause overheating. racerx Senior Member Senior Member 2,329 posts Location:NorCal Cars:71 Datsun 510 and 65 Mustang Fastback Posted 24 July 2016 - 08:59 PM Never had elect. Fan on my ol skool.cars and never overheat. I sometimes get stuck in traffic in hot days and never over heat (Down town sj) except when my tstat went out on 65 mustang and datsun 510. Also had 75 celica w stock rad and overheated cuz fuel was too lean. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- racerx Senior Member Senior Member 2,329 posts Location:NorCal Cars:71 Datsun 510 and 65 Mustang Fastback Posted 13 June 2016 - 07:48 PM Did u mess w timing, retard timing can cause it to overheat, running lean also or lose belt. The reason i say to boil ur stat cuz the stant one i bought recently was defective. 2X now, with datsun and 65 mustang. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While addressing an OVERHEATING issue... captaingamez Datsun Mechanic Senior Member 2,243 posts Location:Phoenix, Arizona. Cars:2002 civic si, 1984 Nissan Maxima 910. Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:48 AM first put your thermostat back in then replace your radiator. think about this, the thermostat when fully open does not make your engine overheat, theres not alot of space for water to flow when it is fully open, so for your engine to be getting hot, there is even less flow in your radiator than in a stock working thermostat, therefore, my theory is that your radiator is too clogged to be efficient anymore, if you have a known good radiator, it could be running rich or lean. check your coolant hoses but thats probably not it.,what does it do when its idling for a long period of time? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stating that the overheating can be caused by being too lean... 72240z Datsun Mechanic Senior Member 5,353 posts Location:Wow, New Jersey huh, I'd love to go there but I've got lots of shit going on in the states right now Cars:73 240z - 01 xterra Posted 02 July 2013 - 09:59 AM usually running hot at speed means cooling system inefficiency. I agree with capt, put the thermostat back, a lower temp one, and get a new rad. Prior to doing all that though flush the whole system. You can go even further and install a rad with more rows and use water wetter. It could be rich or lean contributing but a proper cooling system should keep that condition under 200 degrees imho. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact Datzenmike, you even agree with me... LOL datzenmike KING RAT User Administrator 61,788 posts Location:Vancouver Island Cars:'74 710 sedan, '76 710. goon have owned '77 710 goon, '78 620, '71 521, '68 510 and new '76 B-210 Posted 11 June 2013 - 08:00 PM The symptoms are overheating and lack of power. Possibly the carb has suddenly gone lean? If under load possibly the secondary? Blockage? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This clearly shows you are changing your story here in this thread simply in an attempt to debunk me, which you cannot and will not ever do because I'm stating facts. This shows you admit that lean mixtures cause overheating, but are willing to tell the completely opposite story in order to try to force your point, which is false.

For anyone who is interested, this is a demo vid showing these MSD Street Fire modules in normal and plasma mode out in the open so you can see the simple setup. It's an open air "bench" test - this unit is for a Bourke Engine that normally runs at 25:1 compression (this is a gasoline engine) and the air fuel ratio is 50:1 - it is a vapor engine that has a unique combustion cycle because it is actually a detonation (not combustion) engine with a Scotch Yoke / Free Piston design. The engine has a refrigeration cycle. :) Vapor goes in, gets compressed, at that compression for gas vapor and moisture in the air, it hits a temperature that actually dissociates the hydrogen from oxygen and hydrogen from the gas vapor - it is ignited right before TDC, it doesn't combust, it detonates, piston hits top and whips 180 degrees in the opposite direction (Scotch Yoke is the most efficienct way to translate reciprocating to rotating motion) and as the piston moves in the other direction, those gases are no longer burning and are EXPANDING so they're actually cooling down (the refrigeration cycle!!!) Anyway, the Bourke was patented back in the 20's and today, still nothing can touch it. Anyway, the exhaust on these engines are so cool that you can place your hands over the exhaust ports right over the engine. It's hot, but won't burn you at a few inches away, which basically tells the whole story of the thermal efficiency of the engine. One person I know has multiple Bourke engines and one of his engines is tested at 85% efficiency, which is the highest in the world. There is a Russian engine around 75%, which is the 2nd highest. Both of these violate the conventionally believed Carnot limit but they don't operate on the Otto cycle so the conventional model doesn't even apply. This vid is in HD so you can watch it full screen and it should be pretty sharp. Anyway, the little pink wheel spinning is simulating a magnet on a shaft - in a Datsun L20B, it would simulate a magnetic pickup electronic distributor where there is a long vertical skinny magnet every 90 degrees and as the rotor turns, the magnet turns on a reed type switch that triggers the ignition - in my own truck, that triggers the magnetic pickup on the Street Fire ignition module. I think this video will make it clear what the whole setup is - but of course will only need one of the modules but the concept is the same. I'll show some vids later of demos with the cap discharge into a coil with my diode method and you can see what it does to tap water or distilled water. It breaks the hydrogen from the water and then instantly ignites it so the hydrogen detonates and flashes into the combustion chamber and that is what is able to ignite a very lean mixture. Or, if you're looking for more power, use the same fuel and you get a much stronger bang out of your fuel as you can see in those dyno tests I posted. By the way, one thing I didn't mention about the HHO is that because it is a whole soup of atomic and molecular species that are both reduced species (negatively charged) and reactive oxygen species (positively charged) - the positively charged atoms and molecules will try to balance themselves out by stripping electrons from the heptane molecules (gasoline) in the combustion chamber and what that does is break that gasoline down into much smaller particles increasing the volume of the fuel and btu availability.

This comes directly from Russell Stephens, President of MSD: "Racers, we would like to set the record straight on a few of these ‘built off-shore’ claims. This is one of those subjects that could go on and on, but we’ll try to keep it short and sweet and to the point. MSD was developed and born in El Paso 40 years ago. We have grown to encompass over 150,000 square feet of space to design, test, manufacture, and support our components. We have engine dynos, chassis dynos, CNC equipment, an EDM machine to cut molds, wave solder machines, surface mount pick and place equipment, and more tools and capabilities to aid us in MANUFACTURING the best ignition components available. We are comprised of just under 300 employees – with the average seniority of 12 years! No other manufacturer can even come close to that kind of commitment from its employees. Every 7-Series, 8-Series, Pro Mag and most 6-Series Ignitions are designed, built, tested, and supported in the USA. We say ‘most’ on our 6-Series because there are two models that do incorporate a half populated PCB from overseas. In El Paso, we populate the rest of the raw and power components, assemble it, test, burn it in and package it. Yes, some coils, such as the Blaster 2, are made overseas. One reason is there are no oil filled canister style coil manufacturers in the United States. All MSD coils are made to our specifications and thoroughly tested. Also, the coils for the Pro Mag 12s and 44s, the HVC line of coils and our multiple spark LS coils are all made in the United States. One area that we offer caution, especially when purchasing used or through the internet, is with Distributors. MSD designed the Pro-Billet distributor and now you are seeing complete copies of our distributors coming from overseas. Even name-brand competitors are selling distributors that are copied from the original MSD design – some even with our part numbers! The distributor issue has become a predicament for MSD as we still get the tech calls, the upset customers, and even some returns of these off-shore duplicate distributors. We could go on with other products in our line such as the 8.5mm Super Conductor, APS Starters, Crank Triggers (all made in the USA), but want to keep it short. It is important to mention our budget based line, Street Fire. This is line offers several distributors, easily identified with cast housings, as a budget based brand. The distributors are produced in China, however it took over a year to get a product that we were confident in. We put them under a different brand to clearly set the two designs apart. For the record, there is also a Street Fire CD ignition and spark plug wires as well – both made in the USA. Face it, anything having to do with electronics is a tough business to be in with hundreds of raw material components, and it’s nearly impossible to build a product out of 100% USA components. You can be assured that if you do have an MSD coil that is made in China or in the United States, we will stand by its performance and provide you with the same support as any other MSD products. We’ll see you at the races -" Russell Stephens President MSD Ignition El Paso, TX

You are using your own personally desired situation as the benchmark compared to an experiment that demonstrates pushing the envelope on combustion physics. What the Opal demonstrated is the real world. It was not a simulation - nor what it a theory on the blackboard - it was a real car with a real ICE that went from point A to point B at over 350mpg. The point that you are missing is that you have maintained that you can't run engines on ultra lean mixtures and multiple examples of very famous demonstrates have been given to you to show you that your objections are based on a faulty foundation. This Opal probably would get less mileage at 100mph than 30mph - IF it can even go that fast, which it probably can't, but that still doesn't counter the point that it ran on a lean mixture that is 80 times leaner than Yunick's 100:1 experiment that you claimed could not have happened, but it did. Your response implied that you admit the Opal did indeed get over 350mpg and so does this post - your response was that it "wasn't a real car" - that doesn't say the Opal didn't do it, that says it did it, but that you don't consider it to be a real car. Again, it shows that you admit the car did it but you didn't realize it was at 8000:1 air fuel ratio, yet you discount a 100:1 experiment. That is contradictory logic on your part. And yes, the conditions are real world conditions - what you are trying to say is that it was not a demonstration of something practical that a family can acquire from a dealership and get over 350mpg. I agree. But again, practicality isn't the point - the point is what kind of lean mixtures will nature allow us to run in an engine and this demonstration completely dismantles your objection that Yunick couldn't have run an engine at 100:1, which you claimed is impossible for him to accomplish. Starting the Opal on a December morning is a matter that is only important to you - meaning it is a luxury that you want (and I want too), but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a mixture so lean that you claim is impossible is actually possible and a company like Shell is even admitting it. It would be important to me too if that was my daily driver, but once again, it's irrelevant because it demonstrates crazy lean running capabilities that overwhelming mass majority of mechanics all around the world will claim is impossible because they don't understand what it means to extend the lean burn limit in an ICE. For your information, and as the documentation shows, engines are actually designed to be the most efficient with ultra lean mixtures that normally will cause detonation, overheating, etc... IF it is understood how to handle the lean mixtures. Ultra lean combustion in an ICE is an entire other branch of combustion physics that is a dark art that very few understand. I can start an ultra lean mixture with my plasma ignition in below freezing temperatures easier than you car start your car in the middle of summer with a regular ignition. If my ignition was in the Opal, it would start just fine in the middle of winter in Antarctica. Another cold test already mentioned is that I posted one document showing the Govt's test on starting E85 in sub freezing temps with the plasma ignition - that isn't a lean mixture, but igniting alcohol is more of a challenge in cold temps than it is to start a lean gasoline mixture in the middle of winter. That is why they normally have to be started on gasoline and after they're warmed up, then they switch over to the E85 - that is how difficult it is. It's irrelevant how the Opal was lightened or modified in other ways - the point again is that it demonstrates an ultra lean mixture, which you said was impossible - that is the point. Providing mainstream, peer-reviewed science from NASA, SAE, etc... is not what name dropping means. What it does mean is that what I have been saying is 100% correct and highly credible governmental and other organizations all agree with me. Since they figured it all out first, I'd say that actually, I agree with them and my hands on experience shows me with empirical evidence that they are correct. What it has to do with my plasma ignition is that it is the same plasma that Smokey Yunick used for the 100:1 that you claimed was impossible. So what does someone do when they make a claim that is disputed and they know how to provide references? They post them and that is exactly what I did, which proves my claims have been substantiated not by woo woo pseudo science, but mainstream governmental and academically accepted science and you don't need a YouTube video for that - the science speaks for itself. 1. The plasma ignition extends the lean burn limit to levels that are normally thought to be impossible. 2. Properly igniting lean mixtures will result in temperature drops due to the increase in the thermal efficiency of an engine. 3. Hydrogen supplementation (aka hho cells or hho supplementation) gives horsepower and mileage gains that exceed the electrical equivelant needed to produce the hho because the hho is not a fuel source, it is an ignitor. 4. This is a long list so I'll leave it there... my plasma ignition extends the lean burn limit and so does hho. MSD with the diodes are the simplest way to accomplish this and is part of the reason I shared all of this right here in the MSD L20B thread.

Please tell me what the snake-oil part is. :)

The weight of the car does not change the physics involved and it is irrelevant whether the Opal was driving at 100mph or 30mph. Work is work and force x distance to get the required work to move a mass from point a to point b remains the same physics. You're obviously admitting the Opal did it because it is obvious it is a historical fact that you can't deny, but you claim that Yunick didn't run an engine at 100:1. What you are unaware of is that while you admit the Opal did it, you are not admitting the rest of the information about that test, which is the fact that it did so with a vapor system at an air fuel ration of 8000:1! :) Patented Gasoline Economization A 1988 patent application by Paul M. Brown[1] both cites and explains one theory behind the Opel’s record-setting performance: “The chemically correct air/fuel mixture for total burning of gasoline has been determined to be 15 parts air to one part gasoline or 15/1 by weight. Changing this to a volume ratio yields 8000 parts air to one part gasoline or 8,000/1 by volume. The system of the present invention vaporizes liquid fuel before the fuel enters the engine. Theoretically, a homogenous mixture can yield gas mileage in excess of 300 miles per gallon. [1] Source: Free Patents Online: Application No. 07/216960 (Filed: 07/11/1988 by Paul M. Brown; Boise, Idaho) Yes, the law grants the govt permission to suppress technology and I already gave you the indisputable facts based on their own documentation, while you are just talking about your beliefs. Read the it here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg3.pdf Here is the first part of the law, which spells out their legal right to suppress technology: "Whenever publication or disclosure by the publication of an application or by the grant of a patent on an invention in which the Government has a property interest might, in the opinion of the head of the interested Government agency, be detrimental to the national security, the Commissioner of Patents upon being so notified shall order that the invention be kept secret and shall withhold the publication of the application or the grant of a patent therefor under the conditions set forth hereinafter." It is irrelevant how a vapor engine starts in the winter, it either runs or it does not and you claimed Yunick couldn't have run an engine at 100:1, while you admit the Opal did get over 350mpg but it "wasn't a car" and it did so at 8000:1! LOL - again, the laws of physics don't change because a car is lighter or the car is "experimental", etc...

He did and I know the inside scoop and people involved. I also know the man who made the plasma spark amplifier for the plasma ignition that Krupa used with Smokey Yunick. There is no youtube video of Smokey running an engine of 100:1 that I know of so not sure why you keep dismissing youtube videos. You're arguing about some video that I did not even mention. The Pogue carburetor was real and early in the 1900's, the oil companies started to mix additives to the fuel - not for cleaning purposes like they claimed, but was to prevent the fuel from vaporizing as effectively. This is one of the primary purposes of those additives still today. If you flash steam the gasoline on a hot plate that is at a temperature that is above the flash point of gasoline, the gasoline will actually not ignite when it is supposed to, it creates the white vapor and what is left behind? 1/2 to 2/3 of it in waste product that does not vaporize showing you exactly what the function of those additives are. In 1973, Shell (the oil company) was behind the project to have a 1959 Opel getting 376 miles per gallon. This was a very famous demonstration for a very big competition. Image reprinted from Shell Oil Co Engineers book “Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine,” page 223, ISBN 0-470-99132-1 In 1947, a Studebaker got 150 mpg and that was back in 1949. In 1959, a Fiat got 244 mpg back in 1968. In 1976, B. W. Beattie got 1141 mpg. See pages 222 & 223 in this engineering publication produced by the Shell oil company: http://www.rexresearch.com/auto2/blackmoreconomy.pdf General Motors is the owner of more 3rd party developed patents than any other company in the world and these patents are shelved because they're too disruptive to the industry. Here is an example of the US Federal Govt suppressing patents that are too disruptive: http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf Page 14 Item #8, solar panels over 20% efficient are to be classified for national security purposes and Item #9 are energy conversion systems that are over 70-80% efficient. The process is to place a gag order on the inventor and unlist the patent applications and they then become the property of the the US Govt/military/NASA, etc... under the guise of National Security - it is really financial security for the corporations who can take a loss if those come out to the public, but there it is right there in that document that used to be classified. Those items are guildelines that patent examiners are to watch for when inventors submit patent applications since the Patent Secrecy Act of 1951. That document is the older guidelines and the one currently being used is classified and they will not release it under the FOIA but an appeal is pending to bring it public. You can read the 1951 patent secrecy act yourself right here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/part-II/chapter-17 So, I have given you Shell Oil Company's own manual showing these high mileage demonstrations - even one exceeding 1000 mpg and the Fed Govt's own document that was declassified showing that some energy technologies are to be classified and secured for national security purposes if they're too efficient. So far, you only sharing your beliefs with me, but I'm actually showing you facts backed by real documentation. You evidently are not qualified to understand the difference between a spark and a high speed disruptive discharge that creates a high power plasma impulse and a spark is not a spark and the plasma ignition does not create a spark. The car companies don't use them because they're old technology and today's ignitions are just fine? lol These are a small sampling of HUNDREDS of recent patent and applications by major companies you will recognize that are for the plasma jet ignition or control systems for the plasma jet ignition. US2016153420 (A1) ― 2016-06-02 CONTROLLING COMBUSTION IN PLASMA IGNITION ENGINE Applicant: Caterpillar, Inc. JP2015015239 (A) ― 2015-01-22 PLASMA JET IGNITION PLUG Applicant: NGK Spark Plug Co JP2014164806 (A) ― 2014-09-08 PLASMA JET IGNITION PLUG AND IGNITION SYSTEM Applicant: NGK Spark Plug Co JP2012251513 (A) ― 2012-12-20 PLASMA JET IGNITION DEVICE Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp US2011265463 (A1) ― 2011-11-03 AMMONIA BURNING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE "An internal combustion engine in which ammonia which is fed into a combustion chamber is ignited by an ignition device which is arranged in the combustion chamber. As this ignition device, at least one plasma jet ignition plug which emits a plasma jet or a plurality of spark plugs which generate sparks are used." - is why my jet engine does what I said it does. Applicant: Toyota Motor Co Ltd JP2010156291 (A) ― 2010-07-15 METHOD FOR IGNITING ROTARY PISTON ENGINE, AND DEVICE THEREFOR Applicant: Mazda Motor They are investing many millions of dollars into this plasma system - the systems they use are the old method, but it creates the exact same plasma discharge phenomena, but not as efficiently or effectively as mine. They are continuing to protect their financial interests in having some IP in this field because they will be using this to take them to the next level when they are forced to. There are many patents owned by US auto makers, etc... that are still in good standing. What this shows is your belief that they are not suppressing this technology from the public is false and your belief that today's ignition systems are just fine is also false and the fact that they are spending a fortune to continue to develop control systems for it, etc... speaks for itself.