Talk:Ignition system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Control theory.
 
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Question[edit]

I'm doing a report on cars and Wikipedia is just one of my sources. I was just reading the entry of ignition on HowStuffWorks.com and noticed that they describe "Solid State Ignition" as "distributorless". Is this Solid State Ignition the same as Electric Ignition? If so, it seems like Wikipedia has much more information than HowStuffWorks.

I think 'solid state' is a rather ambiguous term. Really it can be applied to any type of electronics not using valves (tubes), so the term 'solid state ignition' is really pretty meaningless. Electronic ignition can be distributorless or use a distributor. The latter type is more common, since it is really just an electronic version of the classic contact breaker ignition, using a single coil and distributor. The distributorless version replaces the distributor with low voltage electronic switching, and a small separate coil at each spark plug. This type is gaining favour as it is more reliable since there are fewer moving parts and no high voltage (HT) leads needed. Hope this helps - HowItWorks is a great resource but often they don't explore a particular topic in all its variations - to do so would probably confuse more than enlighten. Here at WP we have no such qualms ;-) Graham 21:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Graham! The extra info clears it up for me as well as giving me more to write about. (Maybe you should add this more detailed info into the article.)

Article scope?[edit]

The current article only really talks about piston engines, but internal combustion engines as a group include rocket and jet engines. I'm thinking the article should be enlarged a bit to cover these too. The article already mentions aircraft engines a bit. Comments?WolfKeeper 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt whether there is any standard technology for igniting rocket or jet engines which burn their fuel continuously; in any case ignition is not needed during the normal operation of these engines. Ignition is only needed to get them started and many methods could be used: electrically heated wire, electric spark, mechanical spark (as in a cigarette lighter), electromechanical sparker (like a piezoelectric starter for a gas oven) or just tossing a lighted match.

Has anyone information on how jet aircraft engines are started (or restarted in flight)? 84.210.109.151 17:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Who invented spark ignition?[edit]

This type of arrangement was quickly superseded by spark ignition, attributed to Karl Benz, a system which is generally used to this day, albeit with sparks generated by more advanced circuitry.

The above seems in conflict with the invention by Charles Kettering. The mechanical-breaker and coil ignition system is known to me as "the Kettering" rather than "the Benz" system. Can anyone settle this issue by providing dates? 84.210.139.189 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

i would most apreciate if you could expand about the Distributorless ignition system (DIS) or create a new article

Chemical Ignition[edit]

Looking at an engineering book from 1935, I found this odd passage:

"Chemical ignition hy injecting an active liquid capable of ignition on contact with one of the fuel components into the chamber, is doubtlessly the most convenient method of non-recurrent and recurrent ignition. Such liquids ere known (e.g, the solution of phosphorus in carbon dlsulfide) and they have been recommended many times for internal-combustion engines."

Any idea what he is talking about? DonPMitchell (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Leburg electronic ignition system[edit]

Anyone have any knowledge or information on the Leburg electronic ignition system? There was a little section in the article that was removed by a unregistered user mentioning it was an advertisement(On May 3, 2009).


The section removed

More recently a retrofit Leburg electronic ignition system was made available for VW aero engines. This system does away with the distributor and other mechanical parts entirely. The variable ignition timing is based on the instantaneous RPM, which is measured with an electronic sensor.

The Leburg Electronic Ignition System is suitable for most aircraft engines to provide improved and consistent dual ignition to replace magnetos. For details see www.leburg.com ( Sept 17th 2009 )Henry Mickleburgh (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


--Rent A Troop (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Circuit Diagram Available[edit]

I found an Ignition system diagram on the Wikimedi Commons in French and arranged for it to translated to English.

deleted (moved to new section: Ballast resistor not shown in diagrams.Dcebr (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you 129.215.149.98 and PiRK

I will be integrating this graphic into the article soon, if no one beats me to it!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Circuit Diagram 'Revert'[edit]

We had an edit conflict there! (I think I nodded off over my keyboard, local time is very late!)

I have gone back to the 'original' diagram but full size because:

  • It fits the text better, which still needs re-writing
  • The text here is specifically about the mechanically ('points') switched system
  • I had it translated specifically to use here
  • It (or a version of it) may fit better under 'Electronic Ignition' --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

'Code' for thyristor switched ignition[edit]

In case it's needed again, may put this back in.

  • Switch should probaly link to contact breaker/ points not switch
  • Thyristor seems to be for an 'analog' electronic ignition system?
  • Hall effect or optical 'points'??
  • Needs a 'legend' of what component labels mean ie. Lp = Coil Primary Winding
diagrams
A: with switch (S)
B: with thyristor (T)

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I missed the little diagram ,. sorry . Do what you think is worthwhile,it all looks good,it is your ball .Wdl1961 (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Developments/ Developing Technologies[edit]

Ford is developing a system that uses LASERS in place of spark plugs to ignite the fuel.

I know Wiki is not a cystallball, but this is apparently a serious proposal. Researching reliable source/s required.

Refer to http://greenprophet.com/2009/07/14/10523/fords-laser-spark-plugs/ URL from Spark plug article

NB Spark plug article is longer than Ignition System article! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information about ignition coil[edit]

After further consideration this has been removed.

Connected?[edit]

For an ignition coil, one end of windings of both the primary and secondary are connected together. That's a quote from the Modern Ignition Systems section. I'm not seeing the connection point. I think this is shakey. Is there a clearer way to describe this?Longinus876 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. They're connected. They're connected at the same point as the contacts and condenser. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit Diagrams: Reality Check[edit]

As i read the articles "ingnition system" and "ignition coil" in the german and english Wikipedia, i noticed that most of the circuit diagrams (of classical ignition) do not match the "real thing". In fact I think only the one about "wasted spark" ist correct.

(1) The classic ingnition coil has only three connectors (numbered "15" - 12 V switched by car key from battery/generator, "1" via contact breaker to ground and finally "4" high voltage via spark plug to ground). And that implies that there ist no connection to GND, when the contact breaker is open. Therfore the only closed loop for the ingnition current (the current which "feeds the spark") is through the battery (its internal impedance is very small). Unfortunately no circuit diagram shows that. This circumstance is important, because alternators (the rectifier in it) will be destroyed by the high voltage which drives this (quite small) current of the spark, when the battery is disconnected in case the motor is running.

(2) Most of the classical ignition systems have two resistors of some importance: One with several kOhm in the high voltage loop, integrated either in the cable or in the sparkplug. This resistor has to effects: it makes the duration of the spark a little bit longer (but the spark a little "weaker") and it reduces interferences of the ignition system with radio frequencies. The other (second) resistor in series with the primary coil of the ignition coil, usually between +12 V an pin 15 of the coil (it has only about 0,5 to 1 Ohm). This resistor reduces the current when the ignition is on and the breaker is eventually closed (motor isn't runnig) and it improves the engine start, because the resistor is bypassed (by the starter switch) when the starter is operating and the voltage of the system drops due to high start current.

I did some rework of one of the diagrams which looks like that: http://www.brix.de/elektrik/_images/Batterie-Spulenzuendung_Schaltplan.jpg

Stefan Brix, sx@brix.de (sorry, currently no user-account in the english Wikipedia ...)

--77.187.23.139 (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Function of the condenser in a breaker points ignition system[edit]

The purpose of the capacitor is merely to protect the breaker contacts from high voltage spikes induced in the primary winding of the coil. It does not form an oscillating lc circuit with the coil to store energy for the spark as stated in the article. The energy for the spark is stored in the magnetic field created in the coil windings by the battery current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.247.70.97 (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ballast resistor not shown in diagrams[edit]

There are good diagrams here, yet unfortunately I didn't see a ballast resistor in any of them. The electronic ignition schematic (with electronics symbols) can probably omit one because there is a timing capacitor to control the maximum dwell time to limit the current through the coil.Dcebr (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

hello ?[edit]

whoever is deleting "purpose" (as if that isn't pertinent) and editing main article. the purpose is not to be so generalistic as to say nothing, where the same number of words describes exactly. your welcome.

please watch youtube about adjusting points before flatulating about diagrams

someone is promoting the idea a condenser is a capacitor - it IS NOT (the name differs for a reason).

someone is flooding the article with lengthy descriptions that are really just trivia of part cost / efficiency related. AND are also incorrect and not revealing of electron direction and force anyway.

while the Kettering or other historical references are interesting. listing every every CONTRIVED electronic circuit that does the job:

needs to be a different topic - one for the auto hobby channel

and already one can see diagrams on google for particular cars - there is no need to list what each current car manufacturer is doing currently. just reference it or even show a few diag out of (chilton's)

my tone here is someone is deleting ANY addition without considering purpose or any rules of articles, simply to command the topic: while accusing me of being non-encyclopedic and even IP attacking me

this deletion harassment and IP attacks by "admins" or other deranged users needs to stop or be by reader vote - be done with psychopathic admins

72.219.202.186 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The problems are first, your writing is nearly incoherent. Basic English language writing ability is required to make significant edits. Others could copyedit for you to fix the problem, but your writing is so bad that nobody actually knows what you're trying to say. The essay Wikipedia:Competence is required explains this further.

Second, you are adding your own opinions and observations without clearly citing verifiable sources. This violates the Wikipedia policy no original research.

It is rude to call your contributions "crap", and Wikipedia doesn't allow attacking other editors. But honestly, if you can't be more clear and can't name sources coherently, then you're not helping the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)