X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:02:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4584594 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:28:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.63; envelope-from=douglasbrunner@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=s+w+mfaPpkHrrmJkMm8qK+ESAj54yrOHjWvAwswhFwIkdL3b5w2zDZUlnj4Bj2W7; h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [209.86.224.47] (helo=elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1PJKRk-0001Ds-JQ for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:27:44 -0500 Received: from 74.93.196.177 by webmail.earthlink.net with HTTP; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:27:43 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <1821083.1290148064546.JavaMail.root@elwamui-rubis.atl.sa.earthlink.net> X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:27:43 -0500 (EST) From: Douglas Brunner Reply-To: Douglas Brunner X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Electronic Ignition Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: EarthLink Zoo Mail 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 X-ELNK-Trace: ad85a799c4f5de37c2eb1477c196d22294f5150ab1c16ac03a5752ea2d75874c7053c8fdf0d1245922bf2487b3a466a2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 209.86.224.47 Scott,

Y= ou said:
 
&nb= sp;
Finally, please stop using ROP = settings where the EGT is -50F from peak as that is outside the good operat= ing range of my engine (that's info from both Lyc and GAMI, worst peak pres= sures) - Of course, if you are running a Continental engine, well, uh, you = have to find your own info.
 
Scott Krueger
 
Scott,

As a graduate of the AP Seminars, I have drunk the GAMI Koo= laid.  What they said about Electronic Ignition makes sense to me - th= e advance curves are proprietary and do not take into account the effect of= mixture on timing.

Several quick comments:

  • Does your= abbreviation "CR" mean compression ratio?  My engine has a 10:1 compr= ession and the timing has been retarded to account for this.
  • "pleas= e stop using ROP settings where the EGT is -50F from peak"  I do not u= se this setting although I think it is acceptable to use this power setting= at low enough power settings - <70%.  If I am at a low power setti= ng I am typically LOP.
  • You say: "EIs don't provide much timing change from the= base timing (dependent on CR) for power settings over 75%" &nb= sp; What is the timing change that EI uses?  Do you have data on this = that you can share?

I think we would all like an electronic ig= nition system that provides a hot consistent spark, easy starting and does = not have the maintenance and arcing problems of magnetos.  We would al= so like one that kept the effective timing at 16 deg ATDC.  The proble= m with current electronic ignition systems is that since they don't take mi= xture into account, they can't maintain the same effective timing with diff= erent mixtures.

I would actually like to be able to advance my spark= during certain flight regimes (LOP at less than 70% power) in which I am f= airly certain nothing bad will happen and advanced timing will give better = power/economy.  It is the rest of the flight regime (like takeoff at 2= 700 RPM, 30" MAP and 10:1 compression) that I am worried about


<= blockquote style=3D"padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px; border-left: 2px s= olid rgb(0, 0, 255);">-----Original Message-----
From: Sky2high@aol.com
Sent: Nov 18, 2010 7:52 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Electronic Ignition

Doug,
 
You said:
=3D=3D=3DMy=20 point was that electronic ignition systems measure only 2 of the 3 factors = that=20 influence timing.  Mixture can have a significant effect on when Peak= =20 Intracylinder Pressure (=3D effective timing) occurs.  Hence the effec= tive=20 timing at a best power mixture (50 to 100 deg ROP) would be significantly= =20 advanced compared to the effective timing at best economy mixture (approx 5= 0=20 LOP).  This is not accounted for by electronic ignition systems and co= uld=20 lead to excessive spark advance.
=3D=3D=3D
 
Remember that magneto systems don't measure any factor yet the engine= =20 manufacturer has no problem with LOP or ROP operations with some=20 restrictions (see below).  Indeed, there are no timing adjustment= s for=20 CR while EIs provide fjor such.  As I have said, EIs don't provide muc= h=20 timing change from the base timing (dependent on CR) for power setting= s=20 over 75% as inferred by a combination of RPM and MAP - a typical way of=20 expressing power.  At lower power settings there is a benefit of advan= cing=20 the spark to get more work done by the combustion event occurring in the=20 cylinder.  At low power settings it is hard to get bad events to occur= ,=20 including damaging peak cylinder pressures.
 
Finally, please stop using ROP settings where the EGT is -50F fro= m=20 peak as that is outside the good operating range of my engine (that's info = from=20 both Lyc and GAMI, worst peak pressures) - Of course, if you are running a= =20 Continental engine, well, uh, you have to find your own info.
 
Scott Krueger
 
PS If you are talking about supercharged/turbocharged engines always= =20 running at high power then the benefits of EIs are simply a better, more=20 reliable spark without worrying about esoteric things such as that the= =20 magneto is properly pressurized so no sparking occurs in the mag. 
 
 
In a message dated 11/16/2010 6:11:46 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 douglasbrunner@earthlink.net writes:

Scott,

 

I=20 will concede your point about the hotter, longer and more consistent spar= k,=20 although in most flight regimes (no extreme of F/A mixture) it probably= =20 doesn=E2=80=99t make much difference.

 

With=20 respect to your comment:

 

=E2=80=9Cyour=20 argument of moving timing by messing with the mixture is, uh, not good=20 operational practice=E2=80=9D

 

I=20 think you misunderstood my point.  I certainly do not advocate =E2= =80=9Cmessing=20 with the mixture=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 especially at power levels above 70%.=  =20

 

My=20 point was that electronic ignition systems measure only 2 of the 3 factor= s=20 that influence timing.  Mixture can have a significant effect on whe= n=20 Peak Intracylinder Pressure (=3D effective timing) occurs.  Hence th= e=20 effective timing at a best power mixture (50 to 100 deg ROP) would be=20 significantly advanced compared to the effective timing at best economy= =20 mixture (approx 50 LOP).  This is not accounted for by electronic=20 ignition systems and could lead to excessive spark=20 advance.

 

D.=20 Brunner

 

 

From: Lancair Mailing=20 List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of=20 Sky2high@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:25=20 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Elect= ronic=20 Ignition

 

Doug,

 

I=20 have a problem with your argument.  It seems to be upside down. = ; In=20 reference I refer you to my 11/2/2010 email entitled "NA Injected Engine= =20 Performance LOP".  In any event, for any given proper fuel/air = ratio=20 (mixture), there is a narrow timing range that produces efficient=20 cylinder pressures at the correct crank angle range.  The Lycom= ing=20 engine manual (for my 320) displays the acceptable range for the E= GT=20 for best power as 100F to 180F ROP, and best economy as 0F to 80F=20 LOP.  Running 50F ROP is very bad for cylinder pressures as stated b= y=20 GAMI - thus your argument of moving timing by messing with the mixture is= , uh,=20 not good operational practice.

 

Secondly,=20 you imply that the only function of an electronic ignition is to advance = the=20 timing.  Au contraire mon ami!  An electronic ignition provides= for=20 a hotter, longer, more consistent spark over a greater plug gap that= =20 better insures the reliable and timely ignition of the combustible= =20 mixture even though the F/A may be at some extreme.  This results in= =20 greater efficiency/HP depending on the way one looks at it.  See the= =20 pamphlet on the benefits of the LASAR electronic ignition that shows spee= d=20 increases for the same fuel burn or reduced fuel burn at the same speed o= f a=20 magneto driven engine.

 

The=20 fixed timing of a magneto (i.e. 25 DBTDC) is a compromise. =20 Generally speaking, EIs advance the base spark timing minimally= =20 until the power, as measured by RPM and MAP, is reduced below= =20 75%.  Bad events, such as pre-ignition, detonation and incorrectly t= imed=20 cyl pressure, are less likely in this regime (that is why the GAMI lean t= est=20 is done at less than 75% power).  Furthermore, EGTs (representing F/= A=20 ratios) are still maintained in the engine=20 manufacturer's recommended ranges and the timing is a better match f= or=20 the combustion event pressures.

 

Note=20 that during my best power cruises at middle altitudes (2500 RPM, MAP= >=20 22", EGT > 120F ROP), the EI timing is about 25 DBTDC plus or min= us a=20 degree. 

 

Yes,=20 more HP.  Better speed for the same fuel burn holding other conditio= ns=20 equal.

Yes,=20 in all the modes you mentioned.

 

I=20 haven't reached TBO yet, I go too fast to accumulate that much=20 time.

 

Scott=20 Krueger

IO=20 320 Dual Lightspeed Plasma III EI

 

In a=20 message dated 11/15/2010 8:21:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 douglasbrunner@earthlink.net writes:

At=20 the risk of starting a =E2=80=9Ctheological=E2=80=9D controversy, I wou= ld like to raise some=20 reservations about electronic ignition systems (other than reliability = and=20 loss of electrical power)

 =

Peak=20 intracylinder pressure (the point in the combustion cycle at which pres= sure=20 in the cylinder is highest =3D effective timing) is related to 3 things= ; spark=20 timing, rpm and MIXTURE

 =

Why=20 mixture? Because air and fuel mixtures burn at different rates dependin= g on=20 how rich or lean they are.  So at a given RPM, MAP and spark advan= ce=20 you can vary your effective timing by changing the mixture. =20

 =

=C2= =B7 &n= bsp;      =20 Want=20 to advance your timing? Change your mixture to a 50 deg ROP mixture =E2= =80=93 which=20 is the fastest burning.

=C2= =B7 &n= bsp;      =20 Want=20 to retard your timing?  Make your mixture richer or leaner from 50= deg=20 ROP.

 =

And=20 since optimal power is achieved at an effective timing of 16 deg ATDC,= =20 advancing the spark timing may or MAY NOT increase horsep= ower=20 depending on the mixture.  But advancing the timing will likely=20 increase the magnitude of peak intracylinder pressure leading to higher= =20 intracylinder pressures, higher cylinder head temperatures and greater= =20 stress =3D shorter enging life.

 =

For=20 those of you who are using electronic ignition (I am=20 not):

=C2= =B7 &n= bsp;      =20 Are=20 you sure you are getting more horsepower?  How do you=20 know?

=C2= =B7 &n= bsp;      =20 If=20 you are getting more horsepower, are you getting it during all modes of= =20 engine operation?  Rich of peak, lean of peak, high MAP, low MAP,= =20 etc

=C2= =B7 &n= bsp;      =20 What=20 is happening to your TBO?

 =

D.=20 Brunner

 

The biggest=20 advantage of any of the electronic systems (in my opinon) is that they= =20 provide a spark advance that is a function of at least manifold pressur= e,=20 giving an advantage any time the manifold pressure is much lower than m= aybe=20 25 inches.  But there is very little combustion taking place in th= e=20 exhaust system regardless.  The reason the exhaust temperature ris= es is=20 that more of the combustion occurs after TDC and that means less of the= =20 energy is being converted to work.  The down side of advancing the= =20 spark is that since more combustion occurs at the highest cylinder pres= sure,=20 more heat is transferred to the cylinder head and piston. =20

&n= bsp;