Firestorm spark plug -- 24:1 a/f ratio
12/27/05, 10:47 AM
#1
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gimmick, truth? Who knows, interesting concept.
http://www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm.htm
http://www.robertstanley.biz/firestorm.htm
KRUPA: I know it. Research companies looked at that and they were shaking their heads. I boggled a lot of people's minds with this new spark plug Especially when I told them I had the car running at 40 to 1 air-to-fuel ratio.
STANLEY: You seem to have come up against a political road block when it comes to manufacturing your plug. What I don't understand, if the Federal and State government are mandating that we have cleaner cars in the near future why wouldn't they make your spark plugs mandatory?
KRUPA: Because at a 24:1 ratio there are almost no emissions.
STANLEY: You seem to have come up against a political road block when it comes to manufacturing your plug. What I don't understand, if the Federal and State government are mandating that we have cleaner cars in the near future why wouldn't they make your spark plugs mandatory?
KRUPA: Because at a 24:1 ratio there are almost no emissions.
KRUPA: FireStorm spark plugs completely eliminate misfiring.
STANLEY: Is that the same thing as detonation?
KRUPA: Well, detonation would no longer exist because there is no detonation with this spark plug.
STANLEY: What do you mean?
KRUPA: I mean, how can it detonate when it literally burns everything in the combustion chamber?
STANLEY: Right. And you told me that the emissions go up for a while when you first put in a set of FireStorm plugs.
KRUPA: That only lasts for a few hours of running time max. It all depends how much carbon has built up in the combustion chamber. The more carbon, the worse the emissions will be until it's all burned clean.
STANLEY: Does it matter if you are running "regular" gasoline?
KRUPA: If there is a vehicle that requires "premium" fuel, and they install FireStorm plugs and perform the modifications I suggest... they could run "regular" fuel in the engine and it won't detonate.
STANLEY: Okay. You mean no hesitation, pinging or misfires?
KRUPA: Yeah. The only reason you need higher octane fuel is for higher compression engines. And if an engine is pulling a heavy load it has a tendency to go into detonation with a regular plug.
STANLEY: Is that the same thing as detonation?
KRUPA: Well, detonation would no longer exist because there is no detonation with this spark plug.
STANLEY: What do you mean?
KRUPA: I mean, how can it detonate when it literally burns everything in the combustion chamber?
STANLEY: Right. And you told me that the emissions go up for a while when you first put in a set of FireStorm plugs.
KRUPA: That only lasts for a few hours of running time max. It all depends how much carbon has built up in the combustion chamber. The more carbon, the worse the emissions will be until it's all burned clean.
STANLEY: Does it matter if you are running "regular" gasoline?
KRUPA: If there is a vehicle that requires "premium" fuel, and they install FireStorm plugs and perform the modifications I suggest... they could run "regular" fuel in the engine and it won't detonate.
STANLEY: Okay. You mean no hesitation, pinging or misfires?
KRUPA: Yeah. The only reason you need higher octane fuel is for higher compression engines. And if an engine is pulling a heavy load it has a tendency to go into detonation with a regular plug.
12/27/05, 12:12 PM
#3
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe so, have you tried these plugs out to prove or disprove his findings?
I guess I'm just not one to say something is not possible outright without actual evidence pointing to the contrary.
You have to figure, what people thought when microwaves first came out and you could heat up food, without heat.
I guess I'm just not one to say something is not possible outright without actual evidence pointing to the contrary.
You have to figure, what people thought when microwaves first came out and you could heat up food, without heat.
12/27/05, 01:39 PM
#6
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by HastaLaVista@December 27, 2005, 2:23 PM
I didn't write that without doing a little research. Feel free to do the same.
I didn't write that without doing a little research. Feel free to do the same.
Also, your notes on how carbon buildup from non-combustable events within the chambers cannot be eliminated by said higher temperature spark, thus reducing possible friction elements and residual heat buildup in said carbon elements.
I guess you typed in a white font, or it was in that link you posted that wasn't in your post.
Thanks for clarifying, without people like you I might have believed bunk like some trains don't have wheels!
On the same note, I looked up his patent and looks like it is clearly not going to work. The patent fell through.
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=...&entry=75504284
12/27/05, 03:57 PM
#7
Cobra Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TexaStang@December 27, 2005, 3:42 PM
You are right. I missed the technical information you posted...[clip]
You are right. I missed the technical information you posted...[clip]
I didn't elaborate because this sort of thing is not new, the outrageous claims in the link you posted should flag it right away as too good to be true.
12/27/05, 04:24 PM
#8
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't really go off into a snit, but okay?
Clearly conveys ideas and concepts must not be one of the checked boxes ony your job apps.
I have dealt with quite a few engineering concepts in my field that at first glance, were seemingly improbable at best, but now once I have been explained the ideas are easy enough work with.
I didn't say his ideas were correct, plausible, or even probable. I just said it was an interesting concept. Based on the patent rejection, it is apparently none of the above.
Clearly conveys ideas and concepts must not be one of the checked boxes ony your job apps.
I have dealt with quite a few engineering concepts in my field that at first glance, were seemingly improbable at best, but now once I have been explained the ideas are easy enough work with.
I didn't say his ideas were correct, plausible, or even probable. I just said it was an interesting concept. Based on the patent rejection, it is apparently none of the above.
12/27/05, 05:54 PM
#9
Cobra Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TexaStang@December 27, 2005, 6:27 PM
I didn't really go off into a snit, but okay?
Clearly conveys ideas and concepts must not be one of the checked boxes ony your job apps.
I didn't really go off into a snit, but okay?
Clearly conveys ideas and concepts must not be one of the checked boxes ony your job apps.
Going to Disneyland?
12/27/05, 06:05 PM
#10
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't a personal attack. Was just an observation based on your reply to my post.
You said you "researched it" -- I asked how, since you that one liner of a post wasn't very communicative of said "research" ( see: fails to convey ideas and concepts )
You accused me of going into a snit, and that the "outrageous claims in the link you posted should flag it right away as too good to be true" were belived by me.
I then responded in that maybe you should have read, I don't know, the first line of my post.
Sorry you are getting a bit confused with the difference between "witty" and "personal attacks", however. As much as to be expected from the "Hole Punch State" though.
You said you "researched it" -- I asked how, since you that one liner of a post wasn't very communicative of said "research" ( see: fails to convey ideas and concepts )
You accused me of going into a snit, and that the "outrageous claims in the link you posted should flag it right away as too good to be true" were belived by me.
I then responded in that maybe you should have read, I don't know, the first line of my post.
Sorry you are getting a bit confused with the difference between "witty" and "personal attacks", however. As much as to be expected from the "Hole Punch State" though.
12/28/05, 12:49 AM
#13
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KRUPA: I mean, how can it detonate when it literally burns everything in the combustion chamber?
12/28/05, 04:31 AM
#14
Cobra Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TexaStang@December 27, 2005, 8:08 PM
Wasn't a personal attack. Was just an observation based on your reply to my post.
You said you "researched it" -- I asked how, since you that one liner of a post wasn't very communicative of said "research" ( see: fails to convey ideas and concepts )
Wasn't a personal attack. Was just an observation based on your reply to my post.
You said you "researched it" -- I asked how, since you that one liner of a post wasn't very communicative of said "research" ( see: fails to convey ideas and concepts )
You accused me of going into a snit, and that the "outrageous claims in the link you posted should flag it right away as too good to be true" were belived by me.
I then responded in that maybe you should have read, I don't know, the first line of my post.
I then responded in that maybe you should have read, I don't know, the first line of my post.
Sorry you are getting a bit confused with the difference between "witty" and "personal attacks", however. As much as to be expected from the "Hole Punch State" though.
12/28/05, 07:43 AM
#15
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: March 30, 2005
Posts: 3,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know HastaLaVista, I really don't understand why you are making such an attempt to put down TexasStang. It was a simple article he found and posted, he missed some information, big deal. No need to be rude about it.
Maybe you should refrain from posting in certain topics if all you're going to do is be negative to other members.
I'm out.
Maybe you should refrain from posting in certain topics if all you're going to do is be negative to other members.
I'm out.
12/28/05, 02:25 PM
#16
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: October 20, 2005
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CiniZter
General Vehicle Discussion/News
25
4/28/16 05:41 PM
tj@steeda
'10-14 V6 Modifications
1
9/23/15 03:21 PM