backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on Apr 30 at 10:00 PM

Doctor Evil approves this development

The spark plug is one of the key components of an internal combustion engine and for the history of the internal combustion engine. The lowly spark plug is the key component that allows the fuel and air mixture to ignite giving us power to burn rubber, mow lawns, blast through the water at high rates of speed.

The spark plug's days are numbered though thanks to a new breakthrough from some scientists that have found a way to replace the spark with a laser inside the internal combustion engine. According to researchers, the move to lasers from spark plugs will allow cleaner and more efficient vehicles and with the looming increases in mandated fuel economy, the auto industry will need all the help it can get.

Lasers have historically been too large to fit under the hood of a car to be used as ignition sources. Japanese researchers have developed a small multi-beam laser that would be small enough to screw into a cars cylinder head. Just as important as the size being small enough to fit under the hood is the fact that the laser system developed is made from ceramics and can be produced cheaply enough that it can be sold in volume for vehicle use.

The way a laser ignition source would be able to make engines more efficient is by allowing the engines to run leaner, thereby requiring less fuel and producing fewer harmful emissions. The leaner and engine is able the run, the more power it is able to produce as well. That would mean that a laser ignition source could be a great thing for automotive enthusiasts.

Takunori Taira from the Japan National Institutes of Natural Sciences says that the laser beam can also be made to focus into the exact center of the air/fuel mixture. That would allow the explosion inside the combustion chamber to spread the resulting flame in a more efficient manner since it would not be quenched by the surrounding cold metal of the cylinder walls just as it explodes.

He said, "Timing -- quick combustion -- is very important. The more precise the timing, the more efficient the combustion and the better the fuel economy."

The researchers say that to ignite the fuel mixture the laser has to focus 100 gigawatts per square centimeter square with short pulses of more than 10 millijoules each measures in Hz. "In the past, lasers that could meet those requirements were limited to basic research because they were big, inefficient, and unstable." The researchers have created a laser that can meet the requirements using ceramics.

A commercial automotive engine will require pulses of 60Hz to ignite the fuel and the team is testing lasers at 100Hz.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lens..
By Ghost42 on 4/22/2011 12:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
How do they get around issues where the carbon etc created in the combustion process can cover the lenses of the laser?

I'd hate to see what and engine with a bad set of rings, or a valve seal would do to a laser "sparkplug".




RE: Lens..
By SilthDraeth on 4/22/2011 12:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, if this goes into affect, it will boil down to one less thing the average person can replace on their car.


RE: Lens..
By StevoLincolnite on 4/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Lens..
By OoklaTheMok on 4/22/2011 1:26:07 PM , Rating: 3
I believe he was referring to the fact that this would be one more engine component that would be unserviceable by the "average" home mechanic and would require a visit to the shop in order to fix, rather than being able to simply run out and get a new set of plugs, gap them and install them yourself.


RE: Lens..
By StevoLincolnite on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Lens..
By JediJeb on 4/22/2011 5:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Japanese researchers have developed a small multi-beam laser that would be small enough to screw into a cars cylinder head


If you can screw it in, then you should be able to replace it on your own.


RE: Lens..
By Thalyn on 4/22/2011 7:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
That also begs the question.... if it screws in, does that mean it can be retrofit to existing engines? There are already aftermarket electronic ignition modules for older cars, so the precedence is certainly there for external controller modules.

Plus I like how a laser-powered Slant 6 sounds (even if it's not technically powered by laser).


RE: Lens..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2011 8:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus I like how a laser-powered Slant 6 sounds (even if it's not technically powered by laser).


I don't like the idea of a $300 tune up for a marginable gain.


RE: Lens..
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/23/2011 7:24:33 PM , Rating: 3
Marginal, you mean.

Tune ups these days mean replacing parts like plugs, wires, etc, not actually "tuning" anything. So if these require a replacement, then cost MAY be an issue. If there were billions of these made and they last as long as the typical plug, I don't think the cost will be significant. More than likely the power source will be separate, like a coil is now. Just replace the screw-in lens part?


RE: Lens..
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/23/2011 7:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Begging the question is a logical fallacy that is not present in this article. You mean, if it screws in, then the next question is....


RE: Lens..
By callmeroy on 4/25/2011 12:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Heck....good spark plugs can definitely last 100k miles as is...and I know MANY people that only hold on to cars for 3-4 years (well before hitting 100k).....

I for instance have NEVER changed a set of spark plugs on any of my cars...EXCEPT my first car from 20 years ago..which I bought used for under $2500.


RE: Lens..
By Lerianis on 4/26/2011 8:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
Good point. Good iridium spark plugs can last the life of the car.... even if the life of the car is 20 years.


RE: Lens..
By rburnham on 4/28/2011 5:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the laser is part of something that you can just screw in, much like a sparkplug.


RE: Lens..
By DanNeely on 4/22/2011 1:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
Would depend on the power level vs carbon accumulation rate. Potentially it could burn off any carbon as it accumulated in normal operation, or switch to a higher power mode to do so if the on board computer says the lens is dirty.


RE: Lens..
By JediJeb on 4/22/2011 5:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ah but if it burns off the carbon on the lens, wouldn't that lead to a uneven ignition front in the combustion chamber, unless it was done when the engine was turned off?

Though if it is of sufficient power it should be burning off any carbon with each pulse.


RE: Lens..
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/22/2011 2:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
It would probably have to be a infrared laser, but I can see deposits still being a problem. I don't think this will ever become commercially viable however, due to the fact that compression-ignition gasoline engines seem to be the future development path of many automakers.


RE: Lens..
By bildan on 4/22/2011 3:08:47 PM , Rating: 5
Laser ignition was developed at Los Alamos Lab 20 years ago. The powerful laser just blasts any carbon deposits off the quartz window. It's a non-issue.

There is nothing in the announcement to suggest a home mechanic couldn't replace the laser igniters since they are about the same size as a spark plug. In fact, it's likely they will never need replacing in the life of the car.

I don't know where the "home mechanics can't work on cars anymore" thing comes from. I've been maintaining my cars for 50 years now and today's cars are FAR easier for the owner to maintain. Laptop vehicle scanning software is available for a pittance which identifies the offending component. That component can usually be replaced with a screwdriver.


RE: Lens..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2011 7:00:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't know where the "home mechanics can't work on cars anymore" thing comes from. I've been maintaining my cars for 50 years now and today's cars are FAR easier for the owner to maintain.


I think this stems from the fact that unless you have computer diagnosing equipment or a damn good error code reader, you can't diagnose the problem in the first place to know WHAT to replace. And even if you could, engine bays are so cramped today just getting to the component can be a major ordeal if not impossible for the average person. For example I have a boxer engine in my car, and the right bank of spark plugs can't even be seen, much less easily replaced from up above. Not to mention that sometimes you NEED a lift to work on a car, and who has those?

Not saying I don't agree with you, just saying most people, forget about it.


RE: Lens..
By tng on 4/25/2011 9:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't anybody get the maintenance manuals for their vehicle anymore?

Believe it or not there are books (many now on CD) that are written for each car that cover all this. Although the dealership may not want to give them to you, if you insist they will sell you a copy. That has normally covered all of the issues that I have seen.


RE: Lens..
By darkpuppet on 4/25/2011 12:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that engine bays are rather cramped, I would say that things have gotten easier to work with overall.

Back in the day, you needed a well-trained mechanic, a half dozen attentive ears, and a witchdoctor to diagnose what was going on inside your engine.

And then you still needed specialized tools such as timing guns, carburetter rebuild kits (along with your low and high-rpm jets), vacuum testers/adjusters, etc to get it all to work properly. It was truly more an art than a science.

Now, you can just plug in a computer, and get the low-down on exactly what your timing is, how much vacuum the car is seeing, and what your a/f ratio is at any given point (well, at a minimum if you're hanging around stochiometric anyways).. And if someone gave me their e-test numbers, I can tell you exactly which parts need attention to address those numbers.

And I'm just a shady tree mechanic. It took a bit of reading, but once you know the numbers, today's cars are a lot easier to work on than in the old days.

Well, except for some of those tight spaces. But it was true back in the 60's, and it's true now -- the right tool for the right job makes all the difference.


RE: Lens..
By Alexvrb on 4/23/2011 6:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Less maintenence? Definitely. Stuff doesn't go bad as often, there's often nothing to adjust, etc. But when it does go break, sometimes its not as easy to fix it right the first time. There's less room to work with, for starters. But that usually only makes certain things more time consuming.

Regardless, we're talking about Harry Homeowner, a shadetree mechanic, a parts replacer. Just about anyone with a wrench could fix a old vehicle when everything was mechanical. A modern computer controlled vehicle, loaded with modules, solid state ignition systems, high pressure fuel injection, just for starters? Not quite as easy. When you have to break out a scan tool, scope (with multiple channels, perhaps), wiring diagram, and flow chart you start knocking Harry out of the equation. That doesn't mean it can't be done at home, but you need some expertise and more tools now (unless you're just gonna throw parts at it).

In particular, I'd like to point out that a code reader that spits out a code is NOT a diagnosis of "what is wrong" with a vehicle. It's just what the computer is seeing (and publically broadcasting) as something out of spec. For example, if the computer tells you that cylinder 3 has an unacceptable misfire rate, that doesn't narrow down the problem instantly to a single component.

Even having access to a good quality scan tool (or software equivalent, the really advanced ones tend to be expensive) doesn't guarantee perfect information. What you get out of those is what the computer is outputting (after processing), which isn't *necessarily* the same as what it gets as input from sensors. So sometimes to really get at the true "live data" you still need a scope - though many scan tools have competent scopes too, even if mechanics often don't know how to use them. Flashers are becoming increasingly important, too.


RE: Lens..
By Skywalker123 on 4/23/2011 7:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that car parts are much more expensive for newer cars and often more labor intensive to replace.


RE: Lens..
By Lerianis on 4/26/2011 8:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
No, they aren't. I know some people with hybrids who have replaced the battery packs in the things themselves and then just taken the old battery back to the dealer for disposal.

It's a misnomer that car parts are more expensive today (adjusting for inflation, they are actually cheaper today).


RE: Lens..
By Alexvrb on 4/30/2011 10:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are actually a lot of parts that are more expensive today. The hybrid battery packs are fairly expensive still, and those are the old NiMH types. Even counting chinese materials and labor there are a lot of parts that are more expensive.

They tend to last longer though, so it's a bit of a wash. But to simply say "they aren't more expensive", that isn't strictly true. They're not more necessarily expensive per mile, but they can be a lot more expensive per part. Also it varies greatly by manufacturer.


RE: Lens..
By callmeroy on 4/25/2011 12:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by your "50 years" comment you are probably close to my dad's age...he also has always fixed not only his cars but the family's (he has 7 kids plus 15 grand kids)...he buys the books....or did..until about 5 years ago...

Today he just says its a "PITA" anymore to work on them with all the computer stuff in them (his words). BUT I think that's more his being almost 70 and not wanting to work on cars anymore mixed in with him being slightly 'sad' at the good ol gear head days when he worked on everything by hand w/o any computer diagnostics needed...

(he was a drag racer back in the 60's him and his friends build cars and raced them...so yeah...major gear head)...


RE: Lens..
By MartyLK on 4/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Lens..
By JediJeb on 4/22/2011 5:34:30 PM , Rating: 3
There are a number of optically transparent materials that would stand up to the temperatures in a typical engine without much trouble. Even quartz lowest melting point is 1,670C(3,038F)which should work ok. We use quartz torches in our plasma spectrometer which creates an Argon plasma that is over 5,000C(9,032F) and it is only cooled by a flow of Argon to keep it from melting.

For better infrared transmission we use Potassium Bromide compressed into a glass window for the infrared spectrometer and it has a melting point of 734C(1,353F) but that might be a little low for that purpose, though it would be a very cheap material to use.

Yttria, Y2O3, based ceramic glass can be used as a window or as the laser medium itself if doped correctly and can withstand temperature of around 2000C(3,632F). If this is used as the lasing medium it can also serve as the window into the combustion chamber.

If they use these things to ignite Fusion reactions they should easily be able to make something to stand up to igniting gasoline in a combustion engine.


RE: Lens..
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2011 7:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
My question is exactly what percentage more efficient than spark plugs are these lasers?

You are bringing up some pretty exotic materials here. I'm just wondering how much this new laser ignition system would cost, and is it REALLY worth it over current spark plugs?


RE: Lens..
By Alexvrb on 4/24/2011 11:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
Temperature was never a concern. How well will quartz stand up to contant explosions over a long period of time? In particular the constant change in pressure, and the vibrations that travel throughout the engine. What about heating and cooling... at what rate does it expand and contract relative to these aluminum alloys?

What is the cost to produce Yttria-based ceramic glass, instead?


RE: Lens..
By GTVic on 4/22/2011 9:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'd hate to see what and engine with a bad set of rings, or a valve seal would do to a laser "sparkplug".

I don't think this was meant for your 1980 Chevrolet Caprice Classic. Or any 2012 or older Dodge Caravan.


RE: Lens..
By Alexvrb on 4/24/2011 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
Most Caprices used pretty reliable engines. A few used the ill-designed Oldsmobile 307 or maybe the converted diesel. But you wouldn't be using laser or spark ignition in a diesel. Even though I have no love for Dodge, at the very least the 3.3 and 3.8 in the Caravans are fairly reliable, and cheap to work on. I can't vouch for the electrical systems surrounding them.

Regardless, all engines can break. The machine shop regularly gets in Subaru, VW, Honda, etc heads that have problems too. It happens, things break. I think his point was that spark plugs hold up very well to regular abuse, and if they are worn out or damaged due to engine problems, they're generally very cheap and easy to replace. Unless it's a 3-valve Triton. Then half of them will probably break off in the cylinder head.

If a laser-ignited engine has mechanical problems, that damage the laser or screen, it may be quite costly. It happens, and it is just another feature that will jack up engine repair costs. Depending on the benefit, it may or may not be worth it. I'd rather have an HCCI engine with cheap spark ignition as a fallback (when operating outside of the HCCI mode). As long as you stay in HCCI mode while cruising, you'll be rockin some good gas mileage, and lasers need not apply.


RE: Lens..
By FredEx on 4/23/2011 5:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
How about the laser intensity being such that it is self cleaning. I'm sure these things are all worked out.


Article needs more details
By Spookster on 4/22/2011 12:56:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The way a laser ignition source would be able to make engines more efficient is by allowing the engines to run leaner, thereby requiring less fuel and producing fewer harmful emissions.


You've told us that lasers will replace spark plugs because it allows for more efficiency. Ok how?




RE: Article needs more details
By Spookster on 4/22/2011 12:58:05 PM , Rating: 1
Oh sure as soon as I post, you update the article with the rest of the information.


RE: Article needs more details
By ClownPuncher on 4/22/2011 12:58:57 PM , Rating: 5
It needs a 120hz pulse to do 3D.


RE: Article needs more details
By ChugokuOtaku on 4/22/2011 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Takunori Taira from the Japan National Institutes of Natural Sciences says that the laser beam can also be made to focus into the exact center of the air/fuel mixture. That would allow the explosion inside the combustion chamber to spread the resulting flame in a more efficient manner since it would not be quenched by the surrounding cold metal of the cylinder walls just as it explodes.


that's how


RE: Article needs more details
By DXRick on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Article needs more details
By EricMartello on 4/22/2011 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
If the plugs were longer they'd interfere with the piston's range of travel.

I don't think that using lasers is going to provide any major improvement in efficiency or combustion, nor would it offset the cost or complexity of using laser diodes in place of spark plugs.


RE: Article needs more details
By mmatis on 4/22/2011 6:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Especially if it improves efficiency by burning leaner. Our Environmental "friends" do not like lean burn because that generates NOx.


RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/2011 7:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
???

I think you're backwards. The leaner the engine burn, the less NOx emissions.


RE: Article needs more details
By makken on 4/22/2011 7:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, he's right; the leaner the burn, the more NOx emissions. This is mainly due to the catalytic converter's inability to convert NOx because of a lack of carbon monoxide.

See my post below for the explanation.


RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: Article needs more details
By makken on 4/22/2011 8:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are right about the cat's, but they found a "nice" work around. Engines simply operate at higher temps now to reach the "stoichiometric point"


Its been a while since I've looked at TWCs, so I don't doubt that there have been improvements; however, I'm not aware of any new process that greatly alters its behavior. If you know of such, please link me to them.

Simply operating at a higher engine temp would seem counter productive as higher temps would FAVOR the production of NOx. Also, unless you take changes in density into effect, temperature has no bearing on the stoichiometric point.


RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Article needs more details
By makken on 4/22/2011 8:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
from your link:
[quote]The main drawback of lean burning is that a complex catalytic converter system is required to reduce NOx emissions. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3-way catalytic converter—which require a pollutant balance at the exhaust port so they can carry out oxidation and reduction reactions—so most modern engines run at or near the stoichiometric point. [/quote]

There's no mention of the 'nice workaround' of running at a higher engine temp to reduce NOx emissions, which by itself makes no sense.


RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/22/11, Rating: -1
RE: Article needs more details
By makken on 4/22/2011 10:17:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Look this discussion is over. I have proved without a shadow of a doubt that cars DO run leaner intentionally to produce lower emissions.


No, you have not. In fact, the lean burn wiki article that you link contradicts that:

quote:
The main drawback of lean burning is that a complex catalytic converter system is required to reduce NOx emissions. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3-way catalytic converter—which require a pollutant balance at the exhaust port so they can carry out oxidation and reduction reactions—so most modern engines run at or near the stoichiometric point.


and

quote:
a new linear air-fuel sensor (LAF type O2 sensor) and a lean-burn NOx catalyst to further reduce the resulting NOx emissions that increase under "lean-burn" conditions and meet NOx emissions requirements.


The only mention of a lean burn engine that can reduce NOx emissions is one where it runs ultra-lean such that so little fuel is burned that the engine runs cooler:

quote:
The extremely weak air-fuel mixtures lead to lower combustion temperatures and therefore lower NOx formation.


which again, contradicts your "workaround by running the engine hotter"

Also, if you want to increase the temperature of the cats, you'll want to run RICH. why? because excess hydrocarbon oxidation is an exothermic process and leads to a far greater delta T in the cat than the increased temperature exhaust from running lean.

And except for during cold start ups, you generally do not want the cats running too hot as you run the risk of overheating and melting the substrate.

There are advantages to running lean, but a reduction in emissions, especially NOx emissions, is not one of them.


RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Article needs more details
By makken on 4/23/2011 7:19:01 PM , Rating: 3
At this point, you're just trolling.

Your original statement:
quote:
I think you're backwards. The leaner the engine burn, the less NOx emissions.


I have shown both the reason and chemistry behind why that is false; you have yet to address those points.

Instead, what you have done is thrown out irrelevant or nonsensical statements and sources that contradict what you're trying to prove in the first place.

You have not shown, either logically or through chemistry, how a lean burning engine reduces NOx emissions. Until you do, the only thing proven beyond a shadow of doubt by this discussion is that you have no idea wtf you're talking about.


RE: Article needs more details
By YashBudini on 4/29/2011 6:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the only thing proven beyond a shadow of doubt by this discussion is that you have no idea wtf you're talking about.

It just seemed worth repeating.


RE: Article needs more details
By dubyadubya on 4/22/2011 11:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
First off 99% of all cars and light trucks produced since 1981 run at or near 14.7 to 1 A/F ratio not lean burn. Some rare cases have existed and do exist today but very few. The mileage we get today is through drive train efficiency, aerodynamics, engine design and precise fuel and spark control not lean burn. If lean burn was the answer every one would be using it and they are not.

Lean means high exhaust temps as you say and converters need to be above a certain temp to light off. But increasing the temp does not make the cat converter work better. It will though cause shortened converter life. In most cases shortened engine life also.

Oh and as far as I know you have never proved anything to anybody as far I know. I have always wondered how you pull this stuff out of your ass.


RE: Article needs more details
By Spuke on 4/22/2011 11:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Article needs more details
By Reclaimer77 on 4/23/11, Rating: -1
RE: Article needs more details
By dubyadubya on 4/23/2011 11:37:32 PM , Rating: 3
No I pulled it from my own experience working 30+ years as a master tech.


RE: Article needs more details
By EricMartello on 4/23/2011 12:06:12 AM , Rating: 1
Catalytic converters require a certain temperature to run optimally, but higher EGTs do not translate into improved catalyst function once you exceed the optimal operating temp.

NOx emissions are increased substantially when combustion temps are increased (i.e. lean engines), and these emissions are not something that current catalysts can filter.


RE: Article needs more details
By darkpuppet on 4/25/2011 12:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
there seems to be a lot of facts missing context or completeness in some of the arguments I'm seeing here.

When it comes to improving economy, the leaner the better, and it's at this point where the NOx emissions actually become most relevant -- running lean to this extent isn't usually beneficial to maximum horsepower.

Higher combustion temps DO lead to higher NOx emissions (basic chemistry), however, that is countered in most modern cars via the EGR which injects an inert gas (CO2) into the combustion chamber.

Because modern cylinder designs and injection techniques are pretty efficient, most things tuners do to improve horsepower is to run as close to stochiometric as possible under Wide Open Throttle (WOT, or Open loop) without introducing pre-ignition (pinging or knocking). You do this by reducing concentrated points of heat via cooler plugs, pistons with rounder profiles, or reducing the flamibility of the mixture by boosting the octane (ie higher octane gas, water/meth injection), by cooling the charge through direct injection, intercoolers, water-meth injection, or fuel richening.

Laser plugs could assist by providing zero heat retention, and a more even flame front... which allows you to run leaner for more horsepower, but you only really get more HP up to the point where the combustion is able to burn all of the fuel.... ideally this would be at the stochiometric point.

The other benefit of running a cooler engine profile is that it also allows you to do other things, like increasing compression ratios, or adding turbos.

Any little thing manufacturers can do to get the most work out of each drop of fuel is good for the consumer.


What?
By MrTeal on 4/22/2011 1:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The researchers say that to ignite the fuel mixture the laser has to focus 100 gigawatts per square centimeter square with short pulses of more than 10 millijoules each measures in Hz.


The laser has to have an intensity of 100GW/cm^2 and a pulse energy of at least 10mJ? The last part doesn't make much sense.




RE: What?
By rvd2008 on 4/22/2011 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
if pulse is shorter than 0.1 picoseconds - no problem
also, if you do not need 1 cm^2 area, e.g. 1 mm^2, you could further improve by a factor of 100.


RE: What?
By MrTeal on 4/22/2011 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 3
It's the not scientific points that are confusing, it's how it's written.
quote:
short pulses of more than 10 millijoules each measures in Hz.


Short pulses of 10mJ each makes sense. The measures in Hz at the end doesn't. Either it shouldn't be on there, or the author meant to discuss something else and it isn't clear.


RE: What?
By drycrust3 on 4/22/2011 3:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is confusing.
quote:
A commercial automotive engine will require pulses of 60Hz to ignite the fuel and the team is testing lasers at 100Hz.

An engine running at 3000 RPM = 50 engine rotations per second, but since the engine fires every second cycle then the spark plug (or whatever) could be said to operate at 25 Hz. Thus a laser (assuming one per cylinder) operating at 60 Hz would equate to 120 engine rotations per second = 7200 RPM which is ample for a commercial vehicle.

As an aside, I thought the reason petrol engines currently don't run much more lean than they currently do was because the heat produced would damage the valves.


RE: What?
By sorry dog on 4/23/2011 11:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
damage exhaust valves and raise cylinder temps to where you start getting pre-ignition pinging or worse, straight up detonation...which is why most forced induction engines will run rich on purpose when on boost...but I can see where lasers would benefit a turbo design since the ignition is more precisely controlled so more ignition advance could be used which = more power under boost.

However, I would hope the lasers could do more than 7200 rpm...quite a few widely produced motors can do well over that...or if used on direct injection 2 stroke it would have to fire twice as often. What I'm really waiting for is for electronic valves to become mainstream...that will have significantly more benefits. I don't see the lasers adding more than a few percent to efficiency or power...but it will make for cool car ads...the chevy laser volt eco edition...with detachable steering wheel. :)

As for emissions most automakers are just adding more converters, more O2 sensors, and placing them closer to the engine to make them more effective on cold starts. The duratec V6 in my Mazda has 4 O2 sensors and 4 converters with 2 of those being integrated into the headers. Of course the downside of this is that the converter are only rated for 100,000 miles and warrantied for 80,000...and if either header/converter takes a crap it will likely take a healthy motor out with it. Thank the EPA for taking an otherwise well designed motor and making the designer put on a timebomb converter contraption just so that it will pollute less for the first 10 minute of the day.

Mine almost has 100,000 on it, so aftermarket headers with no cat whatsoever will be going on mine in the near future and the EPA can kiss my ass since there is no inspection in my state.


RE: What?
By drycrust3 on 4/23/2011 1:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
damage exhaust valves and raise cylinder temps to where you start getting pre-ignition pinging or worse, straight up detonation

The biggest benefit of a new technology is something you hadn't thought of.


Lean Burn?
By DerekZ06 on 4/22/2011 2:59:23 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see this taking off. In addition to the carbon deposits the lean burn that they mentioned actually increases emissions. Have you ever wondered why some older vehicles get better fuel economy than newer vehicles? That's because they used lean burn then with spark plugs but with a lean burn the vehicle produces more NOx emissions. It's basically unavailable today due to emission standards.

Basically the article used the logic that since it's less fuel there must be less emissions. Which according to our government is not true.

Also a lean burn does not mean more power just more efficient power. Learn burn when employed was limited to low rpm and light throttle usage.

Upcoming engines for 2013 using spark plugs will have multiple fuel injectors that pinpoint the fuel charge at the most efficient spot. Thereby eliminating the need for a laser to pinpoint the spot. The particular engine is a 3.2L N/A Pentastar with a projected output just below 300hp and a 90% peak torque output from 1800-6350 rpm. I'd be very impressed if by the time lasers arrive if they would be able to provide any upgrade that would be cost effective.




RE: Lean Burn?
By makken on 4/22/2011 5:10:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
That's because they used lean burn then with spark plugs but with a lean burn the vehicle produces more NOx emissions. It's basically unavailable today due to emission standards.


Its not that a lean burn produces more NOx per se, but that the catalytic converter's ability to convert NOx is greatly reduced.

Ironically, this is because carbon monoxide (CO) is a necessary intermediate in the conversion of NOx, and at lean mixtures, the CO necessary is consumed rapidly by the excess oxygen to form CO2.

If I remember my chemistry correctly, the steps for NO conversion were:
CO(g) <--> CO(a)
NO(g) <--> NO(a)
NO(a) --> N(a) + O(a)
CO(a) + O(a) --> CO2(g)
NO(a) + N(a) --> 2N(a) + O(a)
2N(a) --> N2(g)

where (g) is in gas form, and (a) is an absorbed form on the catalyst surface.


RE: Lean Burn?
By dubyadubya on 4/22/2011 10:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most cars 1981 and newer run at or close to 14.7 to 1 A/F ratio not lean burn. The big mileage numbers came from large amounts of ignition timing and tall grearing. To a point the more you advance the ignition timing the less throttle opening you will need at a given rpm and load. This in turn means less fuel is needed to balance the mixture giving better fuel economy. The more ignition advance you run the more emissions you get. The reason cars today do not get the mileage many older cars got is because engines will not meet emissions standards running large amounts of ignition timing. Oxygenated fuel also kills mileage though I can still get 25 MPG in my 1991 Ford CV at 70 mph running the AC on a good day, straight flat road, no wind, no traffic etc. BTW a 1991 CV is about as aerodynamic as a barn door. Its all in the gearing and lots of ignition advance.


RE: Lean Burn?
By darkpuppet on 4/25/2011 12:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
ignition timing is done to improve the efficiency of the combustion process.

At low RPM's, you need less timing because the piston is moving slowly, and you don't want the brunt of the combustion to hit before the piston hits top dead center.

At higher RPM's, you want more timing so that the combustion is hitting hardest just after TDC.

The problem with that, is that more advanced timing increases the heat over the course of the combustion cycle, and heat retention in the engine, coupled with too much advanced timing leads you to knocking (pre-ignition) conditions.

the reason people don't run as much timing today (if that's truly the case) would be because the octane of today's gas is lower, and, in the case of ethanol blends, burns leaner (and hotter) than in the past. So timing would be reduced to manage the heat, and avoid pre-ignition conditions.

But cars are smart these days. they usually have a table in their programming for the timing at a given RPM (and load) that produces the greatest amount of torque (max spark advance) and a table for the maximum you can run with the desired fuel you'll be running (borderline knock table).

Cars will try to hit the borderline knock values as closely as possible without surpassing the max torque values, and use the knock sensor to delay the spark until no knock is detected.

ignition timing doesn't have much to do with emissions standards per se, but is one small part of the overall balancing act between air, fuel, and heat.


lol
By Argon18 on 4/22/2011 5:17:14 PM , Rating: 1
or just use a modern high performance diesel, and then you don't need some wonky electronic ignition system like the lowly gassers.




RE: lol
By BZDTemp on 4/22/2011 5:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's certainly not all combustion engines that needs spark plugs.


RE: lol
By dubyadubya on 4/22/2011 10:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nice idea but you only get so many gallons of diesel fuel from a barrel of crude oil. The US is already running about as many diesel engines it can without upping the amount of crude oil we buy. The amount of crude oil we buy is loosely related to the amount of gasoline we consume. So if we introduce more diesels in the US we will need to buy more crude oil. Not something we want to do. We could sell the extra gasoline and other products left over on the open market I suppose.

The real way around the problem is to get diesel engines to market that run on gasoline. Several manufactures are working on it and I would guess we will see them on the road in the next year or so.


RE: lol
By corduroygt on 4/23/2011 1:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
You know the whole point of diesel fuel was so that it can be planted right? Getting diesel from rapeseed is a lot more efficient than getting ethanol from corn.


RE: lol
By dubyadubya on 4/23/2011 11:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point but your talking low volume production plant based diesel. It would take years to get production up high enough to put a dent in the ratio of gas to diesel fueled cars in the US. Gasoline powered diesels would increase efficiency greatly today and allow time for alternate fuel sources to become reality.


More importantly
By cknobman on 4/22/2011 12:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
when can we start outfitting sharks with these lasers?




RE: More importantly
By SublimeSimplicity on 4/22/2011 1:35:27 PM , Rating: 4
Since they'd have to live in the engine cylinders they'd have to be small, capable of flight, and resistant to heat.

Flying, miniature, Kevlar-protected sharks... WITH lasers?!?

I just blew my own mind!


Multi-ignition points
By Souka on 4/22/2011 2:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
perhaps as another 'boost' the point of ignition will be dynamic and possibly multiple spots.

May reduce the sudden-strain on the engine, while allowing for good combustion.

Result will be a dynamic and more precise detonation... just a thought.




RE: Multi-ignition points
By shin0bi272 on 4/22/2011 10:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
Or just simply having more ignition points (think of a spider web effect maybe) you can have a more complete combustion and thus get more power out of each one. multi-point explosions > single point explosions


Nonsense article
By GatoRat on 4/24/2011 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Internal combustion engines are already extremely efficient for the burn cycle. There is very little headroom to make them more efficient so this article is largely scientists lining up to get money.




Leaner mixtures
By wallijonn on 4/28/2011 1:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The way a laser ignition source would be able to make engines more efficient is by allowing the engines to run leaner, thereby requiring less fuel and producing fewer harmful emissions. The leaner an engine is able the run, the more power it is able to produce as well.


Getting a leaner mixture is easy enough to do on NA engines. The problems seem to be the valves and piston rings lasting long enough. I doubt that just running a leaner mixture will give more power, though. Everything has to be engineered correctly, power band, torque band, shift points, timing advance, gear ratios, vehicle weight, tyre type, etc. A much leaner mixture should give better gas mileage, though.




“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki