Veni_Vidi_Vici wrote:

Does it count if I feel smoother and more responsive now that I have recovered?
_________________

1/4 Mile Database

 

No doubt your stumbling and cough has been fixed too.

Spare me (and everyone) the butt test details tho.

_________________
-goin440 IB/IB MC

 

Greetings....

Spoke to Ulf this morning and he told me that he will post later this evening after business hours.
Thank you for your patience.

peter horvath

562-712-3270

 

>>Greetings....
>>
>>Spoke to Ulf this morning and he told me that he will post later this evening after business hours.
>>Thank you for your patience.
>>
>>peter horvath
>>
>>562-712-3270

It's 2:00 AM Central time after business hours: My eyes and ears are wide open!
Charles

 

>>It's 2:00 AM Central time after business hours: My eyes and ears are wide open!


There are a HELL of a lot of questions about this product, and
I think Ulf knows he is going to have a difficult time answering
many of them, so I'm willing to wait for a clear and complete set
of answers.

 

Am I the only one who has been checking this thread 5 times a day for the last 9 days now?

I hope Ulf is getting his thinking cap on.

B

 

I am here now, feel great and the stupid Flu is almost gone. I must apologize for not answering earlier in this forum. From now on, I will try to be here at least once a day to answer your questions.

It is too bad that we are not together in one big room with a big whiteboard and a few instruments. It would be so much easier to explain the technology, the background and how it all works. Sometimes I do teaching at college level and if any of you are in southern California and any one of you are interested, I can put you on the mailing list for the next seminars to come. These seminars are usually paid for by the government to qualified technicians.

I see how much discussion has been going on around the Plasma Booster here at this forum and people are skeptical. I understand and I hope my answers will be good enough to convince all of you that this product is genuine and not a member of the “snake oil family”.

Today we mark the 100th birthday of the Wright Brothers flying for the first time. I learned something new this morning from the radio that I did not know about this subject: The Wright Brothers applied 25 times for a patent for their invention, the airplane and each one of their application was DENIED by the US and international patent offices. The explanation of the patent office was that NOTHING heavier than air will ever fly.

Now, it is a fact of life that there is snake oil out in the market place and some very clever marketing groups have ways of selling these devices. And again, even in the ignition market we find snake oil products, like the “Split Fire Spark Plugs”

Every single product I have been involved with was based on scientific evidence.

So, having said this, lets get in to some of your questions and my answers. If something is not clear, just ask me again.

I am amazed about the many good questions you have asked and it will probably take me a few days to answer all of them.

I started last night to capture some graphs of the Secondary Current (Spark Current)

It is my opinion (based on hundreds of scientific labtests) that the most important part of the spark is the CURRENT. The voltage is only necessary to create an initial ionization spark. After the spark plug gap has been ionized, it is the CURRENT that will initiate the combustion. If the secondary current is increased so can the combustion itself be accelerated.

In a simple sentence:

What does the Plasma Booster do?
Our Plasma Booster amplifies the secondary spark current by about 100%. (usually between 90% to 110% increase) This additional spark current is capable of producing a hotter, more powerful spark. This hotter spark will then ignite the air fuel mixture faster and causes a faster combustion (Faster Flame Front Speed)

How does the Plasma Booster do that ?
The ignition coil is being charged the same way through the power transistor of the cars computer. The charge time of the stock system is about 4 ms. During this time, the coil will build a current from 0 to 6 AMPERE. When the current has reached 6 A, the power transistor is turning OFF and the coil will produce a spark. Now, right at the moment when the current is turned OFF, the Plasma Booster kicks in a reverses the polarity at the coil for a very short time. This causes the primary peak to peak current to grow by about 100%.
In other words: When the cars computer ignition system is ON, the Plasma Booster is turned OFF. When the cars computer ignition system is OFF, the Plasma Booster is ON.

Here are some pictures of the primary and secondary current in comparison to stock system and Plasma Booster system.

These scope pattern have been taken from an ORIGINAL new Mini Stock Ignition Coil with original stock spark plug wires and Denso Iridium spark plugs.




Primary Current, Stock


Primary Current, Plasma Booster


Secondary Current, Stock


Secondary Current, Plasma Booster


Primary current is measured in Amperes (A)
Secondary current is measured in milli Amperes (mA)

All patterns are captured with a Fluke Laboratory Oscilloscope

I will answer more of your questions tomorrow.
I know there are a lot of questions and I will answer all of them.

If anyone of you want to talk to me over the phone, here is my Phone number:
858-586-0080. Make sure to aks for me, if you have any technical questions.

Regards

Ulf

 

Ulf:

Thanks for the explanaition, and glad that you are well. That clears up for me how the PB works. I guess my question is still does it work? In other words does it actually increase power?

 

Greetings Sir, and I am glad to hear that you are feeling better.

Question:

Would not reducing the octane in use produce the same result of quickening the flame front?

Are we not using higher octane in our modified cars to avoid too fast of a flame front and detonation?

If your product safely avoids this problem, are there revised octain requirements to avoid detonation?

Thank you for your attention, in advance.

 

blackdogmini:

I am happy that the explanation was good for you.
In regards to your follow up question: "I guess my question is still does it work?"

The answer is simple: YES, it does
The explanation to this answer is more complicated.
There are 3 different benefits for the consumer
1. More engine horsepower and torque
2. Better mileage
3. Less emissions

All three of these benefits have been proven on chassis dyno, engine dyno, Official smog laboratories and many many customer feedbacks

From car to car and engine to engine the results might be different.
There is NOT one single claim that we can make that will apply to all engines and all make and models. That is just simply NOT possible.

The largest gain in Horsepower and Torque we have seen are made with the Plasma Booster on the 4.6 l FORD V8 engine. Especially on the supercharged version were we have seen torque gains of over 20 FT-LBS

I have scanned a dyno sheet from a CUSTOMER, which I received on Dec. 9th 2003. This customer is a REPEAT customer and he has installed the Plasma Booster on 4 different cars. He was so happy with the results, he called and just wanted to talk about the product and his success with it.

As you can see on this Dyno Sheet, the PEAK torque went from 398 to 410 ft-LBS

Ford Mustang GT 2000, Dyno Test by Customer

I am not making the claim the we see these HUGE power and torque increases on every car that we install the Plasma Booster on.
Obviously the Plasma Booster has a much better influence on the combustion on this Ford engine than it has on the Mini engine. I think the Mini engine is a much better built engine concept and the efficiency is much higher so to gain any HP or TRQ from an ignition system is much more difficult.

But what we have seen on every engine that we have installed the Plasma Booster on, is a much smoother running engine and smoother acceleration throughout the RPM bandwidth.

In regards to the gas mileage, So far every customer that I have talked to had better gas mileage. I received a phone call from a Customer yesterday. He is driving a Dodge Durango 4.7 l engine. He was so happy to report that after 4 month of testing, his gas mileage had increased by a little over 2 miles to the gallon. Again, we see these huge numbers only on large inefficient engines.

We also get good feedback from customers with very small engines, like 2-stroke dirt bikes. Some of them can not believe how much more torque the engines are producing. These people usually know their engine very well, because they are racing their bike on the same track all the time.

I hope this helps you understand the Plasma Booster influence a little better

Regards

Ulf

 

WOW!!! That's one HELL of a big engine!!!

Now, picking one value that benefits your product while
ignoring another in the same chart that detracts from it
isn't a way to do science.

I copied some numbers from it;

------Temperature---HP---Torque
Stock--105.7--------407.4---398.2
PB----104.9--------397.0---410.4

So, it looks from that independant dyno chart that
the PB cost about 10 horsepower even with a reduction
in temperature of almost 1 degree.

QUESTION: What in the PB would cause an engine to produce
less power?



So, maybe people should be made aware that the PB might
reduce the peak horsepower of the engine.

Please correct me if I am interpreting this chart incorrectly.

 

How many Joules of energy are being transferred from the spark plug to the fuel mixture with the Plasma Booster compared to without the Plasma Booster. How fast is the flame propogating with the Plasma Booster compared to without the Plasma Booster. Are there any differences between the ignition systems in MINI compared to Dodge Neon? What is your patent number? Who is the patent applicant? Do you have any testing data to back up the emissions claim? Here are my emissions testing results:

CO % x liters
Limit = 1.10
Test value = 0.00
PASS

HC ppm x liters
Limit = 275
Test value = 8
PASS

NO ppm x liters
Limit = 3600
Test value = 28
PASS

RPM Reading = 2578
Dilution Reading = 15.4%

What change, if any, would you expect to see in which of these values if I were to install the Plasma Booster?

P.S. Glad you are feeling better after the flu, it was particularly miserable this year.
_________________

1/4 Mile Database

 

SteelKite:

This is a very good question you raised and there is a lot of confusion out on this. May be this will help to understand the subject of octane.

Octane is essentially a number (a unit) that measures SECONDS in a test engine until the combustion starts to KNOCK.

It is a very complicated process to measure the octane rating. And two different methods are being used. That is why you see on the Gas dispensing equipment in the USA, a formula like this: Octane = (MOZ+ROZ)/2

It is the average octane rating of the fuel, measured by the ROZ method (ROZ = Research Octane Rating) and measured by the MOZ (MOZ= Motor Octane Rating)

That is also the reason why we have different octane ratings in Europe compared to the USA. Essentially the fuel is the same, although in Europe we find octane ratings of 98 compared to the USA rating of 92. It is just a different method of measurement. In this case I prefer the US measurement of averaging the two known methods.

The more interesting question is KNOCK
What is Knock and how does it happen and how can it be prevented.

There are actually four different terms around this subject and they usually get mixed up a lot. Those terms are: KNOCKING, RINGING, PRE-IGNITION and DETONATION

All of these terms are DIFFERENT !!!

PRE-IGNITION
Pre-Ignition happens when the air fuel mixture ignites BEFORE the spark happens. This usually happens when the engine runs too hot or when carbon particles on the piston or valves start to glow. The fuel ignites on these particles before the spark plug makes a spark.
This is really bad and results in engine damage if this is going on for a longer period of time.

RINGING
This is something we all have HEARD from the engine when we run bad fuel and go up the hill in a high gear with slow engine speed.
Ringing is NOT dangerous to the engine.
It is caused by a second flame front that starts somewhere else in the combustion chamber and when these two flame fronts hit, it makes this annoying noise. A better fuel or a little retarded ignition timing usually helps this problem.

Knocking
This is BAD ! When a engine knocks, it will destroy itself in a very short time.
Knocking happens at the END of the combustion cycle. When the controlled combustion is almost over, when 98% of the air – fuel has been burned already and the “Rest Gas” EXPLODES suddenly and creates flame front speeds of 10 times higher than normal than we talk about KNOCKING.
Bad fuel can be the reason for Knocking as well as too much ADVANCED ignition timing or a hot running engine, just to name a few. That is why modern engines have a knock-control system built in.

Detonation
Detonation is a sudden EXPLOSION of the unburned gas at any stage of the combustion. This is really bad and kills engines within seconds. Bad fuel is usually the reason for this.

The flame front speed is NOT affected by the different octane rating of the fuels that we can buy at any gas station. In other words the fuel properties that influence the flame front speed do not change from a low octane fuel to a high octane fuel.

When the Plasma Booster is installed, it will accelerate the flame front speed, no matter if we are using “regular” or “premium” fuel.

Depending on the Combustion Chamber shape, it is possible for the Plasma Booster to have a POSITIVE impact on the knocking of a engine.
As I have explained before in this article, the Knocking happens when the combustion is 98% completed. The Plasma Booster accelerates the combustion and I have seen many cases were this resulted in LESS knocking. In other words: Because of the faster combustion the air fuel burns and there is not any fuel left to burn when the engine would start to knock.

I have NO data to back this up on the Mini engine, but I would expect the Mini engine to react the same way. I have seen this many times especially on BMW engines, that the Plasma Booster was able to reduce the Knocking.

Regards

Ulf

 

Trippy

Well, this is the problem when people look ONLY at peak torque and peak power numbers. You are correct, this engine shows LESS horsepower with the plasma booster at high peak RPM. And I am not sure why that is. May be the driver did not keep a full open throttle and may be he did. The reason why I published this dyno sheet here is because it is taken out of REAL LIFE.

A real totally happy customer faxed these dyno results to our office on December 9th 2003. He also explained what he gained on the quarter mile and 0 to 60 MPH but I forgot the details. But he was totally happy with all the results. Important is that the Plasma Booster did for this customer much more than he had expected.

I have seen dyno sheets with Plasma Booster comparison that showed only gain at the top peak horsepower and others that showed gain throughout the RPM range. Some engines gain more torque than others and some gain more horse power than others.

Engines are dynamic. Everyone is different. In order to gain maximum torque and horsepower, the plasma booster technology must be a part of the engine design. Then and only then is it possible to receive maximum gain, because the cam timing, ignition timing and so on can become a part of the engine design.

I agree, that the Plasma Booster as an aftermarket part is NOT optimized for each engine, simply because we do not change Camshafts and ignition timing. In other words, the Plasma Booster is a compromise. But it is a GOOD compromise that works. The Plasma Booster is safe to use and definitely has a positive impact on the combustion

Here is one more dyno sheet from a different customer.

Ford Mustang GT with Plasma Booster

This customer took his Mustang GT to Brothers Performance in Los Angeles.

Now specifically to your question Trippy:
QUESTION: What in the PB would cause an engine to produce less power?

We have some feedback from customers who have actually LOST Horsepower and Torque. In every single case, I was able to isolate the problem and give an explanation. In each of the cases, the customer had an optimized timing burned in to his computer chip. What does this mean? Lets say we ignite 30 degree before to dead center and lets say further that this will cause the engine to produce a PEAK pressure at about 12 degree after top dead center. Now when we install the Plasma Booster it causes a faster combustion. This faster combustion results in faster pressure build up BEFORE TOP DEAD CENTER . This is also known as NEGATIVE Horsepower. Yes, the pressure after top dead center is also higher but in some cases the balance sheet shows more negative pressure and therefore a loss in Power.

It is possible that this is the case for this customers engine. I am not sure if he had his ignition timing optimized for performance.

I hope this answers your question.

Again, I am showing the dyno results as they are
Nothing added
Nothing taking away
Pure naked

Some are good some are not so good, some are perfect, some are not.

Again, I claim that the ignition spark current is doubled with the Plasma Booster
This is a matter scientific fact.

This higher current has different influence on different engines

On most engines we see a very positive influence on Torque and Horsepower
On some engines we gain nothing !!!

One example of an engine with no gain is the new Corvette.
In this case the reason is the BAD ignition system of the Corvette.
Of all ignition systems I have taken measurements of in the last 10 years, I would give the Corvette ignition the LOWEST rating. It is a total failure of engineering and a grade level of F (minus) It is essentially amazing that this car is even running. The Plasma Booster has NO good influence on this ignition and that is why we are NOT offering the Plasma Booster for this car.

We are very carefully with our research and development

Regards

Ulf

 

>>Octane is essentially a number (a unit) that measures SECONDS in a test engine until the combustion starts to KNOCK.

Wow, I dont want to send this thread on a tangent but this isnt what Octane is. Pure Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) has an octane rating of 100. The values of other fuels are determined by comparing their knock points to that of known percentages of Isooctane/heptane.


From the automotive gasoline FAQ:

"6.9 How is the Octane rating determined?
To rate a fuel, the engine is set to an appropriate compression ratio that will produce a knock of about 50 on the knockmeter for the sample when the air/fuel ratio is adjusted on the carburettor bowl to obtain maximum knock. Normal heptane and iso-octane are known as primary reference fuels. Two blends of these are made, one that is one octane number above the expected rating, and another that is one octane number below the expected rating. These are placed in different bowls, and are also rated with each air/fuel ratio being adjusted for maximum knock. The higher octane reference fuel should produce a reading around 30-40, and the lower reference fuel should produce a reading of 60-70. The sample is again tested, and if it does not fit between the reference fuels, further reference fuels are prepared, and the engine readjusted to obtain the required knock. The actual fuel rating is interpolated from the knockmeter readings [66,67]."

 

andy@ross-tech.com


To answer your questions to the emission

It is really difficult to measure the emission changes of the Plasma Booster with regular testing equipment that is being used by a smog check station.

When we applied for CARB approval for all our products, the engineer at CARB did not believe that we could build a product that would work on new cars and would not change the emissions. That is why CARB requested from us to have our product tested INDEPENDENTLY by a CARB certified laboratory. All we did, is dropping off the car at the Laboratory with the Plasma Booster NOT installed.

The test takes almost a week time.
Testcar: New Crown Victoria with about 2800 miles

As you can see on the Results, we reduced CO, THC, NMHC and CO2, The NOx was increased by the Plasma Booster technology.

Although the NOx was increased, we stayed far below the regulations.
After these successful test’s, the CARB engineers approved our application and we received our CARB exemption number and certificate.


Baseline Emission Test

Plasma Booster Emission Test

Remark:
These are Official Federal FTP test
This is NOT a normal Smog test

In regards to the Joules and discharge Energy, I need to look up my original calculations for the mini system or do the measurement again

Regards

Ulf

 

>>This additional spark current is capable of producing a hotter, more powerful spark. This hotter spark will then ignite the air fuel mixture faster and causes a faster combustion (Faster Flame Front Speed)
>>

in a post about another ignition product,

https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...mp;topic=20179

i mentioned this paper, which matches what i was taught in a graduate engineering laboratory course on internal combustion.

http://www.directhits.com/AdvAutoIgnSys.asp

the sandia paper is clear about the limited improvement to be had with a new, modern ignition system running stoichemetric or rich mixtures. the big gains were with older engines, e.g. 1987, and with lean burn designs:

quoting the sandia paper: "Since most automotive engines operate with resistor spark plugs, acceptable ignition of stoichemetric or richer air/fuel mixtures is typically achieved with very low spark energies. So long as the circuit resistance does not increase appreciably, the engines maintain high performance levels."

"Three vehicles less than one year old were tested by SWRI in accordance with EPA 505 test procedures11. Results showed minimal change in emissions with the peaking capacitors."


i questioned the mileage improvement gains claimed by direct hits in my post:

the new mexico fleet fuel mileage test has this caveat:
'The installation of these devices was accomplished on all vehicles in "as is" condition...'

i replied: 'if the plugs in the cars were old, just putting in new standard plugs would give improvements. without a better control test, these mileage claims are suspect.'

please address the different conclusions between you and the paper, including the crucial question: exactly how does a hotter spark make for faster combustion, since all the other data i've seen indicates that a hotter than adequate spark makes no difference?

flyboy2160

 

macncheese

You are 100% correct !

And still I am correct too.

I worked for EXON in europe (Germany and England) as a test engineer and later in schooling and teaching. So, I have my own long term experience with octane measurements and the test engines. Essentially there are two different engines used to make this octane determination. Both of these engines have a variable compression ratio. And you are correct, these engines compare a "test fuel" to a mixture of Normal Heptane and ISO Octane. Normal Heptane has a Octane rating of 0 and ISO octane has an octane rating of 100.

But if you go back far enough to the time when this was created ( I do not remember when ) The ISO octane with a rating of 100 was a result of the test engine running for 100 seconds before it started to knock. So, the original unit for octance is based on a TIME.

In todays testengines there is nobody sitting with a timer. These test egines have a KNOCK METER with a scale of 0 to 100 and it is measured differently than in the olden times.

All I wanted to say is that the octane rating is based on how long it will take until an engine starts to knock. And this is true even today. If you push an engine to higher and higher horsepower, eventually it will start to knock, no matter what fuel you are using. It is just a matter of TIME.

I hope this makes it clear.

Regards

Ulf

 

flyboy2160

This is a complicated subject.
But I do have the proof
I will dig out some papers of my own research and also some research that was done in Germany.

But right now I need to get some work done.
I will either get the papers tonight or tomorrow and will scan them for you.

Regards

Ulf

 

Ulf, you've posted a lot. Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading more soon.

Dave

 

>>macncheese
>>
>>You are 100% correct !
>>
>>And still I am correct too.
>>
>>I worked for EXON in europe (Germany and England) as a test engineer and later in schooling and teaching. So, I have my own long term experience with octane measurements and the test engines. Essentially there are two different engines used to make this octane determination. Both of these engines have a variable compression ratio. And you are correct, these engines compare a "test fuel" to a mixture of Normal Heptane and ISO Octane. Normal Heptane has a Octane rating of 0 and ISO octane has an octane rating of 100.
>>
>>But if you go back far enough to the time when this was created ( I do not remember when ) The ISO octane with a rating of 100 was a result of the test engine running for 100 seconds before it started to knock. So, the original unit for octance is based on a TIME.
>>
>>In todays testengines there is nobody sitting with a timer. These test egines have a KNOCK METER with a scale of 0 to 100 and it is measured differently than in the olden times.
>>
>>All I wanted to say is that the octane rating is based on how long it will take until an engine starts to knock. And this is true even today. If you push an engine to higher and higher horsepower, eventually it will start to knock, no matter what fuel you are using. It is just a matter of TIME.
>>
>>I hope this makes it clear.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Ulf

Ulf,
Thanks for your reply althought I still dont understand how time is a variable. By your logic, holding all else constant, any fuel will knock given time. This doesnt make any sense. Also by your logic, heptane would spontaneously combust (Octane rating of zero). Again, quoting from the FAQ:


In 1927 Graham Edgar suggested using two hydrocarbons that could be produced
in sufficient purity and quantity [11]. These were "normal heptane", that
was already obtainable in sufficient purity from the distillation of Jeffrey
pine oil, and " an octane, named 2,4,4-trimethyl pentane " that he first
synthesized. Today we call it " iso-octane " or 2,2,4-trimethyl pentane. The
octane had a high antiknock value, and he suggested using the ratio of the
two as a reference fuel number. He demonstrated that all the commercially-
available gasolines could be bracketed between 60:40 and 40:60 parts by
volume heptane:iso-octane.

The reason for using normal heptane and iso-octane was because they both
have similar volatility properties, specifically boiling point, thus the
varying ratios 0:100 to 100:0 should not exhibit large differences in
volatility that could affect the rating test.
Heat of
Melting Point Boiling Point Density Vaporisation
C C g/ml MJ/kg
normal heptane -90.7 98.4 0.684 0.365 @ 25C
iso octane -107.45 99.3 0.6919 0.308 @ 25C

Having decided on standard reference fuels, a whole range of engines and
test conditions appeared, but today the most common are the Research Octane
Number ( RON ), and the Motor Octane Number ( MON ).


In summary, Octane Rating is a matter of the chemical composition of gasoline and it's resistance to preignition,it is NOT a matter of time.

 

Nice to see the reasons behind what I have felt from the first moment I installed it. I didn't really care how it did what it does but was just glad that it did :smile: RandyPage Title maxmini home site

 

I'm confused about knocking:

" If you push an engine to higher and higher horsepower, eventually it will start to knock,"
"Knocking happens at the END of the combustion cycle. When the controlled combustion is almost over, when 98% of the air – fuel has been burned already and the “Rest Gas” EXPLODES suddenly "
"Bad fuel can be the reason for Knocking as well as too much ADVANCED ignition timing or a hot running engine, "
"Octane is essentially a number (a unit) that measures SECONDS in a test engine until the combustion starts to KNOCK. " and
"The flame front speed is NOT affected by the different octane rating of the fuels that we can buy at any gas station. In other words the fuel properties that influence the flame front speed do not change from a low octane fuel to a high octane fuel.

When the Plasma Booster is installed, it will accelerate the flame front speed, no matter if we are using “regular” or “premium” fuel.

Depending on the Combustion Chamber shape, it is possible for the Plasma Booster to have a POSITIVE impact on the knocking of a engine.
As I have explained before in this article, the Knocking happens when the combustion is 98% completed. The Plasma Booster accelerates the combustion and I have seen many cases were this resulted in LESS knocking. In other words: Because of the faster combustion the air fuel burns and there is not any fuel left to burn when the engine would start to knock"

how does the production of more hp cause knocking? I can understand damage, but why knocking, precisely?
so if you were to reduce knocking with the PB, and were you to measure octane rating, it would be higher? (very subjunctive, eh?) and effectively, you have converted regular into ethyl?
how does overly advanced ignition timing enhance the late explosion of leftover fuel?
Same thing about bad gas?

if the engine is running too hot (from a variety of reaons), I would expect detonation, but not knocking?

 

Ulf,

The more times I read your explanation about the PB, the more
suspicious I get that something is not right. The explanation about
what the PB does has changed significantly since the last time you
discussed it in this forum.

I will ask specific questions a few at a time so everyone can follow the reasoning.

This graph looks VERY suspicious.



Questions:

1) Was this graph captured on a running internal combustion engine?

2) What was the method for determining the signal that was captured.
(Oscilloscopes don't measure current, so you were probably measuring
either the voltage drop across a resistor, or using a transformer.)

3) Why is the initial current -8.7 milliAmps?

Thank you for your participation in this discussion.

 

>>In summary, Octane Rating is a matter of the chemical composition of gasoline >>and it's resistance to preignition,it is NOT a matter of time.

Not quite:

A Little Octane Engine History:

The Cooperative Fuel Research ( CFR ) Committee which formed to respond to the need of refiners and engine builders to develop a means of measuring and defining gasoline combustion characteristics. In 1928 the committee had reached the decision that a standardized single cylinder test engine was needed as a first step in developing a gasoline knock-test method. In December 1928 the decision was made to proceed with a design, and the Fuel Research Engine was designed and built in 45 days to be ready for the January 1928 SAE meeting! This engine is still preserved at Waukesha Engine today. This engine gave the engine and fuel industries the first universally accepted standard test engine which could be produced in sufficient quantity to meet industry needs. There were other knock test engines in the running but each of these had drawbacks which prevented universal acceptance, so by the early 1930's most of these had gone out of use in favor of the new Waukesha CFR engine. This design has survived and flourished through two upgrades of the crankcase to the present time without any change in combustion chamber shape, compression arrangement, so that a rating made on the earliest engine will still match the octane made on today's engine nearly 70 years later. The means for quickly and accurately varying the compression ratio without affecting valve clearances or basic combustion chamber configuration was probably what caused this design to prevail over all other rivals. Moving the entire cylinder up and down with respect to the piston was far better than changing shims, moving a plug in the combustion chamber, or running with fixed compression. These engines were produced on a three-shifts-per-day basis during World War II, making principally the supercharged aviation gasoline test unit which helped in the development of 100 octane and eventually the 115/145 grade fuel which gave the allied air forces an edge over the axis nations which did not have such fuel at the time, thus contributing to the fall of the totalitarian powers.

Waukesha manufactured the original design from 1930 to 1948 as the low-speed crankcase design. The high-speed crankcase was made from 1936 to 1953,
and the 48 crankcase design from 1952 to the present time.

Octane

The octane quality of a gasoline is its ability to resist detonation, a form of abnormal combustion. Detonation occurs when the air-fuel mixture reaches a temperature and/or pressure at which it can no longer keep from self igniting. Two types of abnormal combustion are common: the first is detonation as previously mentioned and the other is preignition.

Detonation occurs after the spark plug has ignited the air-fuel mixture and the flame front is moving smoothly across the combustion chamber. If, during this burning process, the unburned air-fuel mixture reaches a temperature and/or pressure at which it is no longer stable, it burns very rapidly causing a new flame front to collide with the one that originated at the spark plug. Maximum pressure in the cylinder occurs before the piston reaches top dead center (TDC) and that pressure try's to push the piston down before it is ready to go down. Piston burning and rod bearing damage are the result.

Preignition is the other bad actor and is usually started by a hot spot in the combustion chamber which causes the mixture to ignite before the plug fires. Under wide open throttle conditions, preignition will destroy pistons in seconds.


Research Octane Number (RON)

RON is determined in a single cylinder variable compression ratio engine that operates at 600 rpm with a 125 degree inlet air temperature at standard barometric pressure. Spark advance is fixed at 13 degrees btdc. In a real world engine, RON is necessary to satisfy part throttle knock problems.

A good quality racing gasoline has a RON in the range of 110 to 115. The difference in the spread of RON is not very important to racing engines.

The test and hardware were originally developed in 1931. The hardware was revised in 1946 with procedural changes made until the late 1960's.



Motor Octane Number (MON)

MON is determined in a single cylinder engine similar to the RON engine with a few changes that make operating conditions more severe and therefore the octane numbers are lower. The MON engine runs at 900 rpm with a 300 degree mixture temperature. Spark advance varies with compression ratio. In a real world engine, MON is necessary to satisfy octane demands at wide open throttle. This is a very important number for racing engines since they spend a high percentage of their lives under high speed and high load conditions. Racing engines cannot afford to be short on octane quality, since detonation or preignition will quickly reduce a racing engine to junk.

The motor octane appetite of an engine with 13:1 compression ratio and a four inch bore varies with operating conditions but is normally around 101. Good quality racing gasolines have MON in the range of 100 to 115. If your engine requires a 101 MON, it is of no value to use a gasoline that has a 115 MON. To cover yourself for extreme conditions, it is wise to have an octane cushion but there is no advantage to using a very high octane quality product if you do not need it.

The MON test was originally developed in 1932. Major hardware changes were made in 1948 with procedural changes made until the late 1960's.


(R+M)/2

This is the average of RON and MON. It is sometimes referred to as the aki or anti-knock index. By law this number must be posted on the dispensing pump at retail outlets in most states. It is the most commonly used octane reference today. It was developed about 20 years ago as a compromise between RON and MON for advertising purposes and also to keep from confusing the consumer with too many different terms. It has erroneously been referred to as road octane number.


Observed Road Octane Number (RdON)

This is derived from testing gasolines in real world multi-cylinder engines, normally at wide open throttle. It was developed about 70 years ago but is still reliable today because engines are the test tools so we are able to take immediate advantage of current technology. The original testing was done in cars on the road but as technology developed the testing was moved to chassis dynamometers. this eliminated a lot of variables and some people have since built very elaborate chassis dynamometers with environmental controls to improve consistency.

"76" has modified this test additionally to use it with racing engines on engine dynamometers. This has given us the opportunity to evaluate gasoline blends during our racing gasoline development that had good RON and MON but that did not respond well in the racing engine under a full throttle excursion through the entire rpm range. We felt these conditions were the true indication of how the fuel could be best developed. In our program we found that the blending components and their ratios are far more important to the racing engine response than high RON and MON numbers found from testing the gasolines in 40 year old single cylinder laboratory engines with antiquated combustion chamber designs. RON and MON can only be used as a guide, the final word must come from the road octane number.

As an example, 76's current 108 octane leaded racing gasoline blend is the result of testing over 100 experimental blends. The final blend has a road octane number (RdON) of 110, the same RdON as one of our competitors gasoline that has advertised 116 RON and 116 MON. Using only RON and MON can lure a person into a false sense of security. If you want to be certain that your racing gasoline has been thoroughly tested in real world racing engines with the horsepower and road octane number maximized, choose "76" for your engine. If you want high RON and MON without knowing how it will work in your racing engine, buy from the other guys.

Time IS important...