Darin Morgan wrote:There is thinking out side the box, then there is thinking of ignorant inventions because you have no real world experience or knowledge. This is one of those cases. What he is doing is ignorance plain and simple and it does not work.
Rather than just bashing, why not first analyze it and then credit it (or bash it) on the merits, rather than on the advertising?
The notion of a squish pad wasn't ignorant when it was invented, it was just a new concept that might have appeared outlandish to those that didn't first think about "what it was?", and "why it was there?" Ricardo wasn't ignorant by trying a new idea, although you could argue that his critics were certainly ignorant.
If I THINK about what a channel cut into the cylinder head, pointed twds the spark plug, should do, empirically:
A. it seems would have no real effect as the piston climbs from BDC because the column of mixture is tall compared to the tiny channel; the squish region, btw, also has no effect during the climb from BDC for exactly the same reason;
B. when the piston slows, as it approaches TDC, the squish region begins to have an effect -- pushing the mixture out into the chamber (by squishing it). We assume some level of turbulent eddies. The channel, meanwhile, provides a low-resistance path in which the mixture might follow (Why? To seek the path of least flow resistance);
C. so some portion of the mixture that would be squished out is now guided by the channel, and jetted to the plug region. Presumeably the plug has already ignited (some 28 to 40 deg before TDC) so this has the effect of increasing the percentage of mixture burned early
in the combustion cycle (making delayed spark a good idea) BUT it also increases the amount of possibly unburned hydrocarbons (in the channel) late
in the combustion cycle.
Think of this as increasing the crevice volume (which is bad) in order to speed combustion (and reduce the so-called "negative torque" of pressure rise before TDC, which is good). If the "jet" (my term btw) were aimed properly, it might also enhance dual swirl if the chamber had a heart-shape... and that might
help combustion along the cylinder crevice.
There may be more to this than I can think of, but the simple logic in A-B-C above is reasonable so there may be merit in his idea. THAT'S why I am also an advocate of thinking outside the box, rather than just casting it aside.
FWIW I don't work for any firm that markets or sells the idea btw, so I'm not shilling the product. The idea may
have actual merit but more controlled tests would have to be done to convince people (including me).
The idea might also be old.... and abandoned... so just because it got a patent doesn't mean it's a useful idea or a new idea. Multiple elctrode spark plugs are older than dirt, yet people manage to get new patents on them. This idea might
not be much different, but it was worth reading about and thinking about, IMO.
Just because some new Widget gets some press does not lend to its validity! The journalists are often totally ignorant about the topics they cover!
True and true.
AND it also means you shouldn't just outright trash a new idea just for being new. It might
just be another overly-hyped idea (like the Tornado!), or it might be a useful evolution of the squish region.
I'm reminded that the world used to be flat... My $0.02, FWIW.