hey folks, i'm one of the audience members for this thread.. i just gotta say, it's kick ***!

 

scobib: very interesting history, but leaves a few questions:

you have clarified the difference between detonation and knocking and indicate that octane rating is the resistance to detonation, not to some event that happens when, after 98% of the fuel is burned and the piston is down stroke, which seemed fishy.
I still dont' quite understand exactly what parameter is measured to test a fuel for octane rating. Presumably, one runs the test engine with the fuel and then varies the comprression ratio until detonation occurs. so is the measured parameter the compression ratio? is the result for different fuels then a list of max compression ratios, and does one then compare that the max C/R for iso-octane? how do you quantify other measured max C/R's? if iso-octane could take 12:1 C/R, for example, and fuel X only 11:1, how does taht translate toan actual octane number?

Your last comment "Time is important" doesn't seem well explained in this context. What seems to matter is the measured max C/R and that is deterined by the chemical blend of the fuel. Did you mean that time matters in explaining (correctly)the difference between detoantion (used to judge octane) and "knocking" as presented ny Ulf?
so your problem with this statement: "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." is that the term "detonation" should be used, not "preignition"?

also Ulf indicated that "The ISO octane with a rating of 100 was a result of the test engine running for 100 seconds before it started to knock." Seems like a different parameter than an adjustable C/R was being measured. (again the use of "knock&quot

I think it is valid to keep harping on the "knock" vs "detoantion" parlance, since Ulf has indidated that his PB product influences flame front propagation and complete burning, presumably changing the 98% burned fuel to a higher number so that late stroke explosion can be minimized. This is still a bit fuzzy.

 

Scobib,
I read it but I didnt see any reference to time?

jlm,
Measurements are made with the knockmeter and are compared to the reference samples that are of predertimined octane ratings. So if they think a fuel is going to be 90 Octane, it should have the same reading as a mix of 90% Isooctane/10% Pentane. Again from the FAQ, because Bruce Hamilton explains it so much nicer than I can:

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 [104,105].


Link To FAQ

Should we split this thread out seperately? I dont want this discussion to take away from Ulf.

--
Cheese

 

Perhaps this has already been answered but I want to know the results of adding the PB to a MINI. If you take an otherwise stock MC and an otherwise stock MCS and add the PB will this result in a horsepower and torque gain that will result in quicker 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. times. My MC runs plenty smooth now so buying something that only increases smoothness would not benefit me.


Thanks,

R.E.

 

>>Perhaps this has already been answered but I want to know the results of adding the PB to a MINI. If you take an otherwise stock MC and an otherwise stock MCS and add the PB will this result in a horsepower and torque gain that will result in quicker 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. times. My MC runs plenty smooth now so buying something that only increases smoothness would not benefit me.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>R.E.

I ran my stock MC (no mods) 8 runs down the 1/4 for a base. Then I ran my MC with PB for 8 runs down the 1/4. With PB, I saw consistant improvements of approx. 1.5-2.5 mph trap speeds and lowered ETs of approx. .1-.25. Best pre PB was a 16.894 @ 81.14mph, best post PB was a 16.651 @ 83.02mph.

In my case, the PB worked. Although I have since taken the PB off for a service (didn't want haggled). Those runs were both done with an unknown software prior to v36 (I'll guess about a v32). When it warms, I'll certainly run more 1/4s with the PB to see what happens with v36.


_________________
-goin440 IB/IB MC

 

>>Perhaps this has already been answered but I want to know the results of adding the PB to a MINI. If you take an otherwise stock MC and an otherwise stock MCS and add the PB will this result in a horsepower and torque gain that will result in quicker 0-60, 1/4 mile, etc. times. My MC runs plenty smooth now so buying something that only increases smoothness would not benefit me.


I added a PB to my stock 2002 MNI Cooper 5-speed and saw no
changes in torque, horsepower, smoothness or fuel economy.
The horsepower did not go down like the Mustang, so that's a great thing.

I keep a list of every tank of fuel I put in the car, and calculate
the fuel economy with a calculator, .

When I removed it, I also noticed no changes.
Maybe the MINI is just not a good application for this technology?

 

Ulf,

Are you a co-founder of Nology, as this site indicates?



How does the Plasma Booster compare to Nology wires?

Is there any patent application or patent approved for the Plasma Booster? A patent search for "Ulf" and "Arens" turned up the following items:

Patents:


D349,683
Spark plug extender
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ornamental design for a spark plug extender, as shown and described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Arens; Ulf (San Diego, CA)
Assignee: Viking Autotronic, Inc. (North Miami Beach, FL)
Appl. No.: 927359
Filed: August 10, 1992



D395,658
High performance IC engine ignition coil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ornamental design for a high performance IC-engine ignition coil, as shown and described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Arens; Ulf (7360 Trade St., San Diego, CA 92121)
Appl. No.: 064289
Filed: December 26, 1996



6,559,376
Combustion initiation device and method for tuning a combustion initiation device
Abstract
An ignition cable constructed according to a method for optimizing an ignition cable, the cable including at least a capacitor, where the ignition cable carries current from a power source to a spark plug located in a combustion chamber. The ignition cable includes a center element structured to communication electric current from the power source to the sparkplug and an insulator surrounding the center element. The conductor is removably coupled to a ground, and surrounds at least a portion of the insulator. The center element, insulator and conductor form a capacitor having an optimal capacitance value that is determined by finding a maximum capacitance value and subtracting a safety margin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Funk; Werner (Olivenhain, CA); Arens; Ulf (San Diego, CA)
Assignee: Nology Engineering, Inc. (San Marcos, CA)
Appl. No.: 535781
Filed: March 28, 2000



D463,364
IC-engine ignition coil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ornamental design for an IC-engine ignition coil, as shown and described.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Arens; Ulf (11305 Forestview La., San Diego, CA 92131)
Appl. No.: 133141
Filed: November 21, 2000



Patent Applications:
United States Patent Application 20020129950
Kind Code A1
Funk, Werner ; et al. September 19, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combustion initiation device and method for tuning a combustion initiation device
Abstract
An ignition cable constructed according to a method for optimizing an ignition cable, the cable comprising at least a capacitor, where the ignition cable carries current from a power source to a spark plug located in a combustion chamber. The ignition cable comprises a center element structured to communicate electric current from the power source to the spark plug and an insulator surrounding the center element. The conductor removeably coupled to a ground, and surrounds at least a portion of the insulator. The center element, insulator and conductor comprise a capacitor having an optimal capacitance value that is determined by finding a maximum capacitance value and subtracting a safety margin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Funk, Werner; (Olivenhain, CA) ; Arens, Ulf; (San Diego, CA)

 

Forget it! Time's not important, or so I have found...

RON is determined in a lab by chemists, usually. Although you can determine RON using a motor, most petrochem producers rely on tables and calculations for their blends now...

MON is still usually determined in a lab by people running an engine, fiddling with the Compression Ratio (CR method) until they get detonation. The other way to calculate MON is by using the Knock Intensity Method (KIM), but it still uses an ASTM certified motor. This method uses a standardized, single-cylinder, four-stroke-cycle, variable compression-ratio, carbureted engine to rate a fuel’s ability to resist autoignition. The engine is operated under specific conditions of speed, fuel-air
mixture temperature, and spark timing. The fuel-air ratio and compression
ratio of the engine are adjusted to produce a knock of standardized intensity
for the test fuel, as measured by an electronic knock meter. Reference fuels are
run to identify those with knock intensities that bracket the knock intensity
of the test fuel. The result for the test fuel is then determined by interpolating
between the octane numbers of the bracketing reference fuels and reported
as a Motor Octane Number.

I can't find the table, but you can be sure heptane is 0 and isooctane is 100. See discussion about that below...

>>so your problem with this statement: "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." is that the term "detonation" should be used, not "preignition"?

Right, the octane rating is about the chemical composition, but that's not the ONLY consideration when testing... if that were the case, all we'd have is RON. Certainly, the chemical composition will affect MON, but MON is calculated based on the fuel's behavior under controlled conditions.

>>
>>also Ulf indicated that "The ISO octane with a rating of 100 was a result of the test engine running for 100 seconds before it started to knock." Seems like a different parameter than an adjustable C/R was being measured. (again the use of "knock&quot
>>

Agreed. After a ton of research, I don't think the isooctane rating of 100 was derived from anything but assigning it an arbitrary value of '100'. Isooctane (C8C18) is the high value reference fuel with a knock resistance value of 100 RON. N-heptane (C7C16) is the low value reference fuel that is very prone to knock and has a value for 0 RON (zero/naught). What I did find is that these ratings were assigned somewhat arbitrarily way back in history... Notice that I mentioned RON, not MON here, which is interesting!

To measure the MON of isooctane, you'd have to have a test motor. What I don't understand is that the original mention of isooctane as being '100' 'octane' is that it was arbitrarily picked and that the original method for determining it's 'octane' was the MON method - but yet most people state the RON of isooctane as 100.

In the late 1910s and early 1920s, the initial systematic studies of the relationship
between engine knocking and fuel quality were conducted by A.H. Gibson and Harry
Ricardo in England and Thomas Midgely and Thomas Boyd in the United States. In 1927, Graham Edgar, following an extensive investigation of the detonation characteristics of pure hydrocarbons, proposed using normal heptane and isooctane to define a 100-point knock testing rating scale. At about the same time, the Cooperative Fuel Research Committee (CFR), sponsored jointly by automotive and oil organizations, specified a single-cylinder, variable-compression engine for knock testing. By 1929, oil companies were using the reference fuels and test engines to obtain octane ratings.

After looking into it, time itself is not important - Graham Edgar stated that the reason for using normal heptane and isooctane 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. So there!

FYI, for values above 100 RON, a mixture of isooctane and tetraethyl lead mixed is used (or other aromatics, etc.).

>>I think it is valid to keep harping on the "knock" vs "detoantion" parlance, since Ulf has indidated that his PB product influences flame front propagation and complete burning, presumably changing the 98% burned fuel to a higher number so that late stroke explosion can be minimized. This is still a bit fuzzy.
>>

Yes, it is.

 

scobib: good info, keep it coming

any links to pictures of those variable compression ratio engines? they must be wacky.


goin440:
hopefully, you can get that baby in the 15 sec range; a few stockers do that already, and the pullied cars are in the high 13's (mine is mid 14)

 

This is in response to Trippi's comments and questions:

“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. “

Trippi, I am just trying to use a different METHOD to explain the same thing, since a few members of this board have a difficult time to understand this. If I would be using the same words all over again, to explain the same thing, what would we gain?


“This graph looks VERY suspicious.”
Suspicious of what ?
As I said, this was a scope picture taken in my laboratory, Nothing added, Nothing taking away.

Now to your questions:
“1. Was this graph captured on a running internal combustion engine? “

NO, it was NOT!
Tthe graph was captured in my laboratory.
Although it is possible, it is very difficult to capture these graphs on a running engine. I have done this before on engines running on DYNO meters but it is not easy. A much better way is to capture these graphs in the lab. I am using a nitrogen loaded Pressure Chamber, that simulates the pressure in the combustion chamber.

“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.)”

You are correct, Oscilloscopes have only an INPUT for voltage. That is why it is usually very difficult to measure current with a scope. But in the last 15 years, the industry has produced current probes that convert a current signal to a voltage signal. Especially in the last 8 years, current probes have become very good in quality and accuracy. Luckily, we do not have to use a shunt resistor anymore. I did this 20 years ago, when I measured ignition systems in Germany.

Here are some details of my Test Setup:

This is the Oscilloscope I am using, it is made by Phillips / Fluke, model 3394B and it is a very expensive ANALOG / DIGITAL combiscope. This scope can measure down to 1 nano second signals.


The current Probe I am using is a high end probe with an output of 0.1 volt per Ampere. This is a very expensive ($1,900) probe and as far as I know the ONLY correct way to measure secondary current in ignition system.
This probe is directly connected to the scope with BNC connectors.






For Primary Current measurements, I am using this high quality probe which produces 10mV/Ampere :




This is the computer that I am using to capture the images from the scope, an older Laptop made by Compaq



And this is the Software made by Fluke for this specific scope, running on the Compaq Laptop.


To simulate the signal from the cars computer, I am using this Leader function generator. The nice thing about this item is a stable dwell time over the RPM range.



All static data measured on the coils are taken by these two high end measurement devices: A HP Multimeter and a Fluke LCR meter



This is the complete Test Setup


This is the test coil, an OEM Stock Mini Coil


And this is the Pressure Chamber I am using to simulate the engine pressure at the moment of spark




Last question:
“3) Why is the initial current -8.7 milliAmps? “
Because the Secondary Current probe is a AC Current probe and the 0- level can not be calibrated to the scope. It is important on these kind of probes to look at the signal relative to the produced ground line. In this case the -8.7 mA represents 0

I hope this clears up this step, so I will be looking forward to your next step of questions.

Thank you also, for coming up with these good questions.

Regards

Ulf

 

In regards to Andy:

“Are you a co-founder of Nology, as this site indicates?”

Yes, I am. I left Nology in 1998 and started Ignition Solutions in 1999.


“How does the Plasma Booster compare to Nology wires?”
The Nology Hotwires discharge a ULTRA FAST SPIKE in the nano second range in addition to the “normal” discharge of the ignition system. That is why you will most likely NOT see any difference on an oscilloscope with and without Hotwires, unless you are using a scope that is capable of measuring down to 1 nano second. Keep in mind that you also need all other probes and wires to be capable of measuring down to this ultra fast timeframe.

The Hotwires discharge is MUCH faster than the Plasma Booster discharge
Depending on the Hotwires and the ignition coils, the Hotwires discharge works in the nano second range. The Plasma Booster discharge works in the micro second range.

Hotwires REQUIRE 0-resistance spark plugs to work !!!
Plasma Booster work with any good quality spark plug, including resistor type spark plugs. In today’s spark plug market, it is very difficult to find spark plugs without resistance. That is why we sold the Silverstone Spark plug at Nology. The Hotwires will not work fully with any resistor type spark plugs.

In regards to the patent for the plasma booster, I am in the final stages of patent pending on national and international levels. I expect the patent to be issued within the next few month.

Patents to enhance the ignition systems of Spark ignited engines go back to 1902

 

Holy Cow, Ulf! :smile:

Here's some pics of a 'Modern' CFR Octane Test Engine:



and



And some old ones:

The very first one, made in 1929


One of the first production engines, made in 1930!


Made in 1938 - they don't look much different today?

 

>>goin440:
>>hopefully, you can get that baby in the 15 sec range; a few stockers do that already, and the pullied cars are in the high 13's (mine is mid 14)

jlm:
I imagine intake, header, exhaust would get me there (15s) pretty easily. I'm not all too worried about it tho.


Ulf:
What are your findings using upgraded coils (such has I.S. own aftermarket coil) with/without the PB? A graph would help.

 

Thank you Ulf for the excellent pictures and descriptions
of your test setup.

Since you are simulating the MINI ignition system, and then
using the title "Primary Current, Stock" and "Secondary Current, Stock "
on your graphs, I feel mislead, and I don't see how I can evaluate the effect
of the PB on anactual MINI ignition system in a real, functioning engine.

Seeing the PB description go from a multi-spark ignition system to
now being described as a higher-current spark ignition system seems
strange.

Last time we discussed this online, you were explaining that the
primary voltage and current were not increased by the PB, and now
you are showing graphs with the primary current higher than the stock
unit.

I'm sorry I can't quoteyou, but someone had the thread removed.
Maybe we can get it restored so we can compare the story.

I certainly haven't gotten acceptable answers in this thread, and I'm
really mad that you used a completely simulated testing setup and implied
that it was taken on an internal combustion engine by using the word "Stock".

Even YOU state that the particulars of the engine make a HUGE difference
in the performace of this product, and then you give us a simulation,
and don't even use the actual MINI ignition system and expect us
to be convinced?

I'll stay on and comment, but this is not the response I expected from you.

 

Anybody tried the "Tornado" stainless steel thingy that goes in the engine air intake?

R.E.

 

Trippy
That thread wasn't removed, just moved to under review. You can access it at the link below.
Charles

Under Review Page

_________________
When a clock is hungry, does it go back four seconds?

 

how come I get "X" ed out pics? is that my anit-virus software?

 

there are 2 separete technical issues here.

- the claimed PB improvements are all based on the claim of "faster combustion" from a "hotter" spark. this is independent of how such a hotter spark is obtained - by nuclear fusion driven flux capacitors, something other than the PB, or whatever.

- the means by which the PB generates the electricity needed for the hotter spark.

i understand trippy's comments to be directed toward the second issue.

my principal question is about the first one; i'm looking forward to scientific data about it, including a description of the test method.

i see this knock/octane/detonation issue as not necessarily directly related, unless the PB benefits are achieved by changing the engine timing because the combustion can be accomplished "faster."

flyboy2160

 

When people describe their car as being "smoother" after installing the Plasma Booster, what was the cause of the "unsmoothness" to be begin with? Is there a quanifiable measurement for smoothness?

I don't see scobib's pics either, but I'd sure like to.

_________________

1/4 Mile Database

 

Trippy, I am not sure what to say to you.
It seems like no matter what I do or say, you are NOT satisfied.
Now you are telling me that you are MAD.

I am not hiding anything.
I am showing you pictures as they are.
Nothing added nothing taken away.

Every ignition manufacturer in the world (BOSCH, DENSO, ACCEL PVL, just to name a few) is using a laboratory to build and test ignition systems. I am probably one of the few people who is testing more ON cars than most other ignition manufactures. I do not remember the details of my post from many month ago, but I believe I showed ORIGINAL captures from the MINI made in the CAR while driving under load. I can promise you that the pictures are showing the same RESULT. There is NO real difference between the laboratory simulated graph and the graphs taken from a running engine. It is just much more difficult to capture these picture from a running engine under load.

If you do not believe in simulated laboratory testing, you should also not believe in any kind of DYNO-Meter. Every dyno is a ROAD Simulator and it is a bad one to be honest. Then you should also not believe in a CFR or BASF octane testing motor, because it is only simulating.

Any how, I have hundreds of captures from actual engines running, they are just not from the MINI. All I wanted to show was some pictures from a MINI system. Because otherwise someone can say … oh this is a Ford or BMW … the Mini must be different.

NO! The MINI system is the same as most other systems.
It works based on the same principles. The principle of ignition used in cars today has essentially not changed in the last 80 years.

Until about 15 years ago, it was not even possible to measure secondary spark current in running engine environment at all. That is why it was always simulated in laboratories.

Essentially there is NO difference between the laboratory test and the engine test.

I will dig out some more pictures that I have taken in the past to show some REAL graphs taken from an engine.


From Trippi:
"I'll stay on and comment, but this is not the response I expected from you.”

Trippi:
What is it that you expect?
What more can I do to show you the electrical results of the Plasma Booster?

I understand that one would be skeptical of the results of a hotter spark and the influence on the engine.
But you honestly can not question the ability of the Plasma Booster to change the properties of the spark itself.

I believe I have given much evidence that shows that the Plasma Booster amplifies the Spark Current and also produces an Ultra – Fast multi spark.

The Plasma Booster is NOT changing the Primary Peak Voltage, although it has an influence on the voltage discharge shape

The Plasma Booster is NOT changing the Secondary Voltage discharge

The Plasma Booster amplifies the Primary Current (Primary Coil Current)

The Plasma Booster amplifies the Secondary Current (Spark Current)

Here are the pictures again:

This is the primary current of the stock MINI ignition system, simulated in my laboratory:




This next picture shows the primary current of the stock MINI ignition system, simulated in my laboratory, with the Plasma Booster ADDED to the circuit:




The following pictures shows the secondary spark current of the STOCK MINI OEM System



And the last picture shows the Spark Current of the same MINI ignition with the Plasma Booster installed.




As I said before, I will look for some more pictures.

Regards


Ulf

 

Ulf,

I finally see what is going on.

You can see the primary current goes positive, then to zero, then negative
in your scope trace.

That means that the secondary current also has to go positive, zero and negative.
Not much wiggle-room there is there?

Since you lack a proper zero-current reference, your secondary current trace
is incorrect.

You have two sparks one followed by another, and your trace makes it
look like a larger spark with oscillations.

You are not getting a larger current secondary spark. It's just your current
probe floating around.

Sorry for getting mad, but now you have shown me traces that match
with the last time Peter posted information.

So, the PB actually produces a lower spark current just as I thought.

Thanks for the new information. It cleared things up for me.

 

From Andy:

“When people describe their car as being "smoother" after installing the Plasma Booster, what was the cause of the "unsmoothness" to be begin with? Is there a quanifiable measurement for smoothness? “


Andy:
No matter what engine you are looking at, they are all “UN-SMOOTH “ if that is a word we can use. The reasons are the cycle to cycle variations. I have done some extensive dyno testing on ENGINE – DYNO meters, not chassis dyno. This engine dyno allowed us to measure the pressure inside the cylinder at a Crank shaft indicator resolution of 3600 positions or 0.1 degree crankshaft resolution.

Because of Trippy’s comment on simulation, I must remark: This is very accurate, but since it was done on a dyno, it is a SIMULATION. I have NOT heard this kind of test was ever done while the engine is in the car and driving on the road.

So what actually happens is the following:

The engine runs at a specific load and RPM
Then the computer system will capture the internal combustion pressure 3600 times per revolution. Then this pressure curve is analyzed and the thermodynamic results are printed.
In this case, the pressure was captured for 20 combustion cycles = 40 revolutions.

The enclosed pictures show the PEAK pressure measured from each of these 20 cycles. As you can see, the peak pressure varies from 801.8 PSI to 955.6 PSI This is actually a huge span and this is one part of the smoothness of the engine.

The goal of the engine manufacturer is to keep the pressure variations to a minimum. These pressure variations are also known as CYCLE to CYCLE variations.

Here is the first picture of the baseline for this test:



This is the baseline of the dyno test
As you can see, the peak pressure was 968.7 PSI and the Minimum Pressure was 739.3 PSI with an average of 859.4 PSI

Here is a picture of the same engine with an enhanced ignition system



In this comparison test, you see the peak max pressure was 955.6 PSI and the minimum of 801.8 PSI and the resulting MEAN of 902.6 PSI

In this case, the ignition system was able to reduce the cycle to cycle variations by 18%

Here is a complete compilation of the results from these two test:



Regards

Ulf

 

Trippy:

What is so hard to understand this?
How can you say that the PB is producing LESS current, when you have the pictures in front of you.
May be you need some new glasses.

I am not sure what your background is
I am not sure where you got your education

But I am sure I know what I am talking about.

But this has NOTHING to do with engineering or science!
This is like KINDERGARDEN STUFF with you.

There are two graphs next to each other
Simple question, which one has higher peak current?
Every first grader would answer this question correctly.

I am not sure what kind of game you are playing with me.

But I will make it even easier in a LAST attempt:

I have merged the two images of the secondary current in PHOTOSHOP (version 7.0 on a PC).
Then I have set the Transparency on both images (Now on two separate layers ) to 50%.
Then I have marked with my RED marker to make it very clear.

YES, the ZERO line is NOT AT ZERO. SO WHAT !
But it is at the SAME level for both pictures
So for the sake of comparison, it does NOT make any difference where the ZERO line actually is. It is just a reference point.

Trippy: If you are not changing your attitude toward this subject, this will be my last post on this forum.

I love to educate people and I believe I have a lot to bring to the table based on my education, skills and experience. I don’t think you will be able to find anyone with my knowledge on ignition systems that is willing to spend the time to educate.

Here is the picture for comparison
I think it is easy to see the difference
I think it does NOT need any further explanation


Have a great day

Ulf

 

Ulf,

The problem is that your current measurements are AC coupled
so the zero-current reference will change over the trace.

So what you are actually getting is a current oscillating above and
below zero. Multiple sparks will be formed just as Peter described
it in previous postings. I have no problems with that explanation.
It's the NEW explanation with a larger current instead of the way
you and Peter used to explain it as "Peak-to-peak" current.
When I pointed out that peak-to-peak current was just two sparks,
you changes the whole story, and here we are all over again.

You seem educated, I'm sure you know that when the primary
current goes negative, the secondary current will also go negative,
but in your secondary current graph, it stays positive. How do you
explain that?

That's not going to happen, so it is in indication of the nature of
your current probe being AC coupled.

It LOOKS like a larger current, but it isn't.

I'm sorry this seems to turn into a fight. I have nothing against
anything other than changing stories and explanations that don't
seem right.

The PB USED to be described as a milti-spark system on your own web site
"This clearly indicates the power of the added Plasma Booster. The result is a multi spark of about 10 sparks in oposite direction withing 500 micro seconds."
and now, it's a spark with varying current, but a single polaroty.

How do you explain the change?
_________________

 

>>
>>But I will make it even easier in a LAST attempt:
>>

>>
>>Trippy: If you are not changing your attitude toward this subject, this will be my last post on this forum.
>>
>>I love to educate people and I believe I have a lot to bring to the table based on my education, skills and experience. I don?t think you will be able to find anyone with my knowledge on ignition systems that is willing to spend the time to educate.
>>
Ulf,
I don't have the background to understand much of this, but the dialog is still helpful, even if I'm only absorbing a part of it. Don't let one member of a large forum stop you from contributing and enlightening the whole.
Thanks,
Mark