....and with some more effort building prototypes, testing relevance of key ideas, marketing, it probably could be nearly as effective as unicorns, perhaps even just as effective as unicorns could be at addressing those same tasks.
.
But unicorns are lazy and selfish.
So, I say F#*% unicorns!
Bring on the Laser Cars!
__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
$16,000 / year for conventional spark plug cost replacement? My Rx-8 uses F1 style plugs @ $40/ea. 80K miles changed once because I wanted to. Its a '04. $15,860 still in my spark plug fund...
Yeah you did read that correctly. I suspect that both amounts must be either a typographic error or not in US dollars. This is why I dismiss the criticism of this being a design too expensive for production.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
As the work is being done "at the US Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Morgantown, W.Va." why wouldn't the amounts be in US dollars? You can come to any conclusion if you make assumptions to suit.
__________________
Give masochists a fair crack of the whip
Because $16,000 in the US is a nominal price for many economy vehicles where the spark plugs are a tiny fraction of the cost of the whole vehicle. So the original author's conclusion that a $10,000 laser ignition system is a bargain compared to the $16,000 cost for spark plugs is patently wrong somewhere. I agree that making an assumption to suit will lead one to any conclusion they wish. I am just trying to point out that dismissing this work for data that is obviously flawed is equally wrong.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Wow! What a bunch egotistic Luddites we've gathered here at CR4.
I, for one, think that this technology shows great promise but I'm not sure if this will be for research progress alone or if wide spread use in many ICE applications. On the research front, the very fast pulse widths of 2~3 ns and presumably frequency selection of the light pulse the selection of which type of bonds of the fuel or oxidizer should be severed first to initiate a burn. This may bring new vistas in the understanding of flash combustion. In the mass market possibilities, poor ignition from wet wires will never happen again. An ICE may never require a tune up for the life of operation. Efficiency will not degrade.
Then again in both of these arenas the unforeseen complications from doing things differently may make this just another noble attempt. I wonder if carbon deposits on the optics/chamber boundary narrowed this research to just methane burning. Possibly light pulse ablation will limit the carbon build up to just one combustion cycle so other fuels maybe on the horizon. Even if this research does "fail" by not producing a product to market, we will learn many things along the way.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Given the state of development of IC engines today, adding a complicated, high maintenance item for little or no actual pay-back seems like a gimmick, not a technical advancment.
Your attitude on this research development has everything to do with your ego. I do not have to present a fracking thing to you or anyone else to show if this uncompleted research will go anywhere. Even if I did provide more plausible reasons that this technology may be useful one day I see that my ideas will not be considered as providing anything to the debate.
No. The Luddites of CR4 have deemed this a worthless endeavor that is only worthy of ridicule.
Ronwagon: at one time CR4 was a place where novel technology and ideas were openly and fairly discussed. I'm sorry to say, it seems that those days are gone. I still think that this research will lead to valuable knowledge on ICE combustion. I'm not sure if this will become preferred to a spark plug, an exotic alternative to a spark plug or only a research platform on combustion. You brought a good question to the wrong forum.
__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
To Redfred: I have developed a thick skin here on CR4. I have learned a lot, and don't think that I will be deterred from continuing to pick the brains here. I always appreciate remarks that encourage further exploration however. Thanks for your comment.
Ronwagon asked for our opinion on whether laser ignition was vaporware or the real deal...
To me that is a straight forward legitimate question.
The first 3 responses indicate opinions that fall in the 'vaporware' category. No slight to Ronwagon was intended and there isn't really any ambiguity....and you weren't in the discussion yet so no insult was headed your direction either...
.
SO far, just a question opening a topic of discussion, followed by 3 opinions related to the question. Nothing personal other than opinions.
But somehow you must have seen it differently...
Perhaps you viewed the original question as something less than straight forward?...perhaps a trick question with only one correct answer??
Or perhaps you think we are lying about our true opinions and you here to set the record straight? Perhaps those opinions are incorrect....anyone who isn't a supporter of laser plugs is against all progress!
Quick! Time for you to jump in with ad hominem attacks!.... And thanks to your quick action, another peevish dispute has been saved from the jaws of a enjoyable discussion!
__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
Agree. There have been many developments on ignition systems over the last 40 years or so, but I don't think they've improved efficiency so's you'd notice. I'd have thought the fuel either ignites or it doesn't and as long as the ignition does its job, that's it. Stronger spark might make starting easier, but that's about all.
I'm not convinced by the website. With conventional systems, spark energy has increased hugely over the old coil/contact breaker system, so it's now dangerous to get a shock from it. I imagine more than enough to cope with extra demand due to higher compression ratios. It also says laser ignition allows leaner mixture, giving "less fuel in the cylinder unless you increase the compression ratio". How does increasing the compression ratio get more fuel in? If he means increasing the actual pressure by adding a turbocharger he should say that.
__________________
Give masochists a fair crack of the whip
'.... poor ignition from wet wires will never happen again. An ICE may never
require a tune up for the life of operation. Efficiency will not
degrade....'
Seriously?
No problems similar to wet wires?? These pulses of light are generated with what? Electricity right?
Never require a tune up?? So these new light plugs will be perfect when rolled out, never in need of adjustment?
Efficiency will not degrade?!!! There are some many ways that efficiency absolutely WILL degrade, but I don't need to mention any, you already called yourself out... you do realize the lens will become dirty? Planning having little in-cylinder mini windshield wipers for each lens?
The name calling isn't so shocking though, it would have been unpollyanna-ish to fail to shriek 'Luddite!' at any sign of pragmatism.
__________________
Eternal vigilance is the price of knowledge. - George Santayana
the problem with 100+ year old engine designs is that they're incapable of drawing enough oxygen into the cylinders requardless of what type of ignition is used . to efficentlly burn all the hydrocarbons in the air/ fuel mixture, a secondary source of oxygen needs to be added, such as nitrous-oxide, but it's cost prohibitive.
a total redesign of the hydrocarbon driven engines is needed if we want a cleaner more effient source of power.
"Almost" Good Answers: