Mark (or Wayne?), Testing or experimenting; all semantics to me. That wording was not intended to be insulting, although having worked in nuclear for years, I know our bosses did not like it if anyone said 'experiment'. "We don't experiment with nuclear power!" I only had 3 corrections to what you wrote. They were factual regardless, and not simply my opinion. The physics are what they are and I thought worth mentioning lest others take it at face value. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. I always give latitude for differences attributable to other designs but some fundamentals remain. (such as a CDI consists of a capacitor discharging through a coil). I do think it's great that you have made breakthroughs with the technology. Lots of ways to skin cats, but some methods work better and by all accounts your products are excellent. And yes, I dislike it when folks assume that all CDI designs are exactly the same. This is one field where the variations are much wider than most people realize. Fred
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&W Ignitions
Fred
We are a small company specialising in high reliability and performance cdi systems from 115mJ up to 2,000mJ. Between us we have 80+ years experience with over 10,000 cdi systems sold and that quantity again of inductive modules although we no longer make these. Our early designs used a continuous mode flyback transformer and conventional scr technology however due to their limitations this was quickly changed to quasi resonant transformer drive and high side firing IGBT’s which, with their significantly improved electrical characteristics, allowed us to turn away from conventional cdi theory.
Our ‘experiments’ as you kindly put them consist of real world testing on AVL / Kistler instrumented Australian, European and US engines both single and multi cylinder. We do have spark gaps, pressure chambers, Zenner strings and a plethora of other ignition specific equipment however test bench experimentation often doesn’t equate to in cylinder results. Using new theories we were able to find noticeable improvements in engine power/torque and an increase in fuel mixture tolerance using a completely different ignition profile to your proposal. So far this has held true for all fuel types tested including gas (LPG), petrol, alcohol and nitromethane.
Yes you can reduce plug erosion by altering the discharge characteristics however we are a performance company therefore to do so is contra indicatory.
When you say ‘a few corrections’ and ‘indeed facts’ this assumes your point of view is the only valid one however perhaps it would be wise to consider nothing absolute as new discoveries are made every day on subjects once considered final. About the only similarity between our designs and those of you and your late father is that they both discharge a capacitor into a coil.
M&W stands for Mark & Wayne
|