Msd l20b

[plasma]

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"

Good for you on your real estate ventures and your Herbal Life products -  I have a degree in natural health and used to own a health food/supplement store so I'm all good on the nutrition side of things thank you. I have no interest in trying to get you or anyone else to "buy into" my plasma ignition system when I'm not selling anything. I already gave it all away for free in my video - take it or leave it. The science of the plasma ignition has been documented for 40 years and stands for itself and I extended all of that in the last 8 years and made it attainable for the average person. Anyone with a real scientific background in these topics will recognize that what I have been stating is indisputable. 

 

I didn't even come to this forum for this, I came to find some emergency brake parts that I need like the toggle levers, etc... and saw this MSD L20B thread and thought I'd throw this out to see if anyone is open enough to learn about something that is out of the box.

 

Anyone that wants to do it can replicate it from the video I showed and I explained the science behind it, why it works and how as well as explaining the true function of hho as an ignitor and not a fuel source. There is a reason NASA engineers, professors from very prestigious universities, etc... come to my annual conference because my associates and I are able to present factual data on different kinds of technologies that are not very well understood by academia AND demonstrating things that most other conference only talk about - we show it.

 

If anyone wants to learn more because the plasma ignition is the tip of the iceberg, they can find me on facebook - my name is in my videos and youtube account, etc... just look me up.

 

I am however interested in hearing Datzenmike's response to this paragraph: "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."

 

Other than that, I've said more than necessary to put people on the right path.

[racerx]

my datsun starts right up every morning, idles and drives good. besides a brighter spark, what are the benefits of your system. for example, will i gain hp?, someone asked about mpg improvement and your answer was not clear. Pls keep ur answer short.

[datzenmike]

You have convinced me of nothing.... and I know Smokey didn't run an engine on 100 to one a/f ratio for just the same reason that you said he did. There's no believable proof either way so you can say what ever you like. U tube videos are bullshit and to easily faked. When I was a kid there was the 200 MPG carburetor that the oil companies bought from the inventor and suppressed scam. People believed it because they wanted to believe it. They believe in junk science and they still do today. You said the car companies know about this but don't use it because they are waiting for the time emissions ratings are higher and it's needed. See the parallel? People will believe it because they want to believe it. Oh those pesky auto makers keeping this marvelous technology suppressed. They don't use it because the ignition systems of yesterday and today are good enough. A spark.... is a spark.

 

. 

[plasma]

my datsun starts right up every morning, idles and drives good. besides a brighter spark, what are the benefits of your system. for example, will i gain hp?, someone asked about mpg improvement and your answer was not clear. Pls keep ur answer short.

 

Increase in horsepower, increase in mileage and decrease in emissions.

 

Here is one of Arvind's vids for Aquapulser - in the description, he is mentioning the hostile takeover that I mentioned in another post.

 

The dyno test is shown about 3/4 of the way thru that video and on that engine, there is a 7HP gain at 35000rpm and 18HP gain at 4550rpm.

 

That was also an increase of 8 and 20 ft/lbs of torque respectively.

 

These are serious numbers for just an ignition modification. The other benefit I forgot to mention with my method if you use a MSD is that you get multiple plasma discharges per trigger so more plasma for more degrees of the combustion cycle and with the old method, it is a simple one discharge per trigger but even with one per trigger, those 7 to 18hp gains were achieved.

 

[plasma]

You have convinced me of nothing.... and I know Smokey didn't run an engine on 100 to one a/f ratio for just the same reason that you said he did. There's no believable proof either way so you can say what ever you like. U tube videos are bullshit and to easily faked. When I was a kid there was the 200 MPG carburetor that the oil companies bought from the inventor and suppressed scam. People believed it because they wanted to believe it. They believe in junk science and they still do today. You said the car companies know about this but don't use it because they are waiting for the time emissions ratings are higher and it's needed. See the parallel? People will believe it because they want to believe it. Oh those pesky auto makers keeping this marvelous technology suppressed. They don't use it because the ignition systems of yesterday and today are good enough. A spark.... is a spark.

 

. 

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.

[datzenmike]

I said they (U-tube) can be faked easily. You can say anything you like on the internet and not prove it, can't prove it, maybe Smokey told you something you wanted to believe.

 

That Opal wasn't a car, it was highly modified for that 'test'. Speed limited to 30 blah blah blah. It proves that if you cut the roof down and reduce the weight, run a 3/4" carb and limit to a steady speed on a flat airfield course you will get a mileage increase. Duh!

 

Wow again, how tin foil hat. Now it's a government conspiracy to suppress technology? Please..... there is always enough crap out there to keep those desperate to believe going forever. 

 

Hot vapor engine.... how well does it start on a December morning? If this was do able and a viable trade for what's out there now, people would be making their own and driving around. No, don't bother posting a U tube about it.

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

This reminds me of a snake-oil sales-pitch I saw once as a kid.

[datzenmike]

No shit.

 

 

 

 

....couldn't resist.

[plasma]

I said they (U-tube) can be faked easily. You can say anything you like on the internet and not prove it, can't prove it, maybe Smokey told you something you wanted to believe.

 

That Opal wasn't a car, it was highly modified for that 'test'. Speed limited to 30 blah blah blah. It proves that if you cut the roof down and reduce the weight, run a 3/4" carb and limit to a steady speed on a flat airfield course you will get a mileage increase. Duh!

 

Wow again, how tin foil hat. Now it's a government conspiracy to suppress technology? Please..... there is always enough crap out there to keep those desperate to believe going forever. 

 

Hot vapor engine.... how well does it start on a December morning? If this was do able and a viable trade for what's out there now, people would be making their own and driving around. No, don't bother posting a U tube about it.

 

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...

[plasma]

This reminds me of a snake-oil sales-pitch I saw once as a kid.

 

 

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

[datzenmike]

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! :)

Are you serious????  It will get much lower mileage at 100 MPH than 30MPH even on this rigged 'test'. In the real world, a heavier car ALWAYS gets poorer mileage than a lighter one. You are right about the physics but wrong about your outcome. Think about it for a while and you'll see why.

 

Read again, I admit nothing about the Opal only that it isn't a car in the sense it was modified for the test and the test parameters were not in any way real world conditions.

 

 

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...

 

You're damn right starting a car on a December morning or any morning for that matter is important. If this thing can't equal a gas carburetor's performance which included reliable starting at cold temperatures with the turn of a key no one will want it.

 

 

Again read what I posted. I admit nothing about the Opal getting 350 MPG, only that the test was rigged in the Opal's favor to increase the mileage. The text of that study says "carburetor and ignition adjustments only"

 

I said they (U-tube) can be faked easily. You can say anything you like on the internet and not prove it, can't prove it, maybe Smokey told you something you wanted to believe.

 

That Opal wasn't a car, it was highly modified for that 'test'. Speed limited to 30 blah blah blah. It proves that if you cut the roof down and reduce the weight, run a 3/4" carb and limit to a steady speed on a flat airfield course you will get a mileage increase. Duh!

 

Wow again, how tin foil hat. Now it's a government conspiracy to suppress technology? Please..... there is always enough crap out there to keep those desperate to believe going forever. 

 

Hot vapor engine.... how well does it start on a December morning? If this was do able and a viable trade for what's out there now, people would be making their own and driving around. No, don't bother posting a U tube about it.

 

 

...... and how has this got anything to do with your spark plugs anyway? Citing some gas mileage experiment, U-tube, government suppression of technology, or Smokey or JPL. NASA, SAE,  etc. does not validate your spark maker. If you stand beside the President, it makes you 'look' important.  It's just name dropping. 

 

[Z-train]

Yep had msd, lasted two yrs and failed completely. Matchbox way more reliable. Upgrade to matchbox and higher output coil.

Been using MSD products for 30 years. one failure and was fixed by MSD. Their customer service should be the standard for all customer service in any industry on the entire planet.

[datzenmike]

When was the last time? I heard they are getting crappier quality so either made in China or counterfeit

[Z-train]

Three years ago. I sent an older box in to make sure it worked and they up-graded it with a laundry list of parts.

[plasma]

Are you serious????  It will get much lower mileage at 100 MPH than 30MPH even on this rigged 'test'. In the real world, a heavier car ALWAYS gets poorer mileage than a lighter one. You are right about the physics but wrong about your outcome. Think about it for a while and you'll see why.

 

Read again, I admit nothing about the Opal only that it isn't a car in the sense it was modified for the test and the test parameters were not in any way real world conditions.

 

 

 

You're damn right starting a car on a December morning or any morning for that matter is important. If this thing can't equal a gas carburetor's performance which included reliable starting at cold temperatures with the turn of a key no one will want it.

 

 

Again read what I posted. I admit nothing about the Opal getting 350 MPG, only that the test was rigged in the Opal's favor to increase the mileage. The text of that study says "carburetor and ignition adjustments only"

 

 

 

...... and how has this got anything to do with your spark plugs anyway? Citing some gas mileage experiment, U-tube, government suppression of technology, or Smokey or JPL. NASA, SAE,  etc. does not validate your spark maker. If you stand beside the President, it makes you 'look' important.  It's just name dropping. 

 

 

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.

[plasma]

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

[plasma]

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.

[datzenmike]

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Again I did not agree it performed as you say. This was in the 50s? Has anyone verified this claim? Were people more gullible back then, they still are today. Not very scientific and by a gas company? What I read, said it had a carburetor, it wasn't implied. The roof was cut down to lower wind resistance. I said anyone can skew the results by biasing the rules in favor of a particular outcome. In this case good mileage. Hell there could easily have been cheating. Level airfield course, 30 MPH speed limit, specially modified 'car' in good weather. No one drives in those conditions. You said speed and weight do not matter on a vehicle seeking good mileage. Well they most certainly do.

 

 

2/ lean mixture has less fuel. Less fuel = less energy = less heat. This cooling is not proof that efficiency has changed. Engines still absorb heat and exhaust is hot what's left moves the vehicle... about 30% on a really good day.

 

3/ HHO can't pull more energy out of a system than is in it. We're back to claiming the engine runs on water???

 

 

Name drop and claim all you want. Go to NASA, UL or JPL with a car that does what you claim and have it tested under real world conditions. P L E A S E..... no U tube videos.

[Stoffregen Motorsports]

You are using your own personally desired situation as the benchmark compared to an experiment that demonstrates pushing the envelope on combustion physics.

Theory, meet reality.

 

I'm not against the MSD, I just think 99% of the installations are unwarranted. Cars run just fine without them.

 

I can think of a few other snake-oil type gimmicks that I've seen over the years. The Fuel Cat and Rad Cap to name a couple.

[datzenmike]

Magnets on the fuel line and the classic... Turbonator. Multi ground electrode spark plugs. The list is truly as long as there are people wanting to believe in something.   

[racerx]

Don't forget the flux capacitor.

[distributorguy]

Spark plug wires with capacitors in them...

Pertronix...

60V coils...

Lots of snake oil sold to people who don't need it.  "Race parts" are usually not better than OEM when used on the street, or even on the race track most of the time.

 

If it seems too good to be true, it usually is.  Nothing is free, especially energy.     

[plasma]

You said speed and weight do not matter on a vehicle seeking good mileage. Well they most certainly do.

 

 

2/ lean mixture has less fuel. Less fuel = less energy = less heat. This cooling is not proof that efficiency has changed. Engines still absorb heat and exhaust is hot what's left moves the vehicle... about 30% on a really good day.

 

3/ HHO can't pull more energy out of a system than is in it. We're back to claiming the engine runs on water???

 

 

Name drop and claim all you want. Go to NASA, UL or JPL with a car that does what you claim and have it tested under real world conditions. P L E A S E..... no U tube videos.

 

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.

[plasma]

Theory, meet reality.

 

I'm not against the MSD, I just think 99% of the installations are unwarranted. Cars run just fine without them.

 

I can think of a few other snake-oil type gimmicks that I've seen over the years. The Fuel Cat and Rad Cap to name a couple.

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?

[plasma]

Spark plug wires with capacitors in them...

Pertronix...

60V coils...

Lots of snake oil sold to people who don't need it.  "Race parts" are usually not better than OEM when used on the street, or even on the race track most of the time.

 

If it seems too good to be true, it usually is.  Nothing is free, especially energy.     

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.