Question For Spark Plug Gurus

Dave, Dave, Dave... You had to go ask about [tex]E=MC^{2}[/tex], see even I can't get it to work.

I'm going to have to refer you to Wiki, it'll keep it simple enough to grasp - I hope
Mass?energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That equation gets into some real deep waters.

 

I really do. Sure, there was a clash of egos for a moment, but there's also some great stuff going on here. from such discussions could come the next approachable book on automotive electrics.

I think a lot about language and communication.

Mathematics is the language to describe what physics observes, but is not easily translated into English.

I think this is why QED is eventually impossible without the mathematics - eventually the answer to "what does that mean" or "how does that work" is mathematics and not spoken word english/french/etc.

 

I really thought we had got to the end of this but I am not going to explain any more, rather just go into Google mode because I have written enough.
very quick search on "how an inductor stores energy" brings up a page of fearsome formulae which indicate how much energy is stored:
Energy Stored in an Inductor

Edit: Hang on maybe I will write some more after all, because I can see where you are misunderstanding.
The current required to maintain the magnetic field in the core is minimal and is not part of the energy which is fed out. If you maintain the DC supply once the core is magnetized, almost all of the current flowing is dissipated as heat.

The property which comes into play when the core is becoming magnetized is reluctance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reluctance
Opening summary: "Magnetic reluctance is a concept used in the analysis of magnetic circuits. It is analogous to resistance in an electrical circuit, but rather than dissipating electric energy it stores magnetic energy".

 

Not sure if the fearsome was tongue in cheek, those are the basic equations for energy potentials.

No I'm not confused on exciting current, that's minimal and not transferred, those are losses. An inductor is a passive element, it can not store charge or energy. The magnetic field flux has to vary in time due to a varying current density in time in order to produce work, a quasi-static field does no work.

I understand that it's common to call it 'stored energy' but that doesn't make it technically correct. The electrons pushed through the inductor must overcome a voltage of Ldi/dt (that is, they must overcome an increase in potential of magnitude Ldi/dt), so they gain Lidi/dt of potential energy per unit time. This gain in potential is what the energy in the inductor really is.

The energy state of Electromagnetic potential energy in the inductor is what we are debating, is it stored? I say no.

Induced emf, e=−LdIdt (negative sign indicates the opposing nature, consequence of Lenz law)

The small amount of work done over a small time dt is
dw=e.I.dt
⟹dw=−LI.dI
(Power P=VI is used here, because Power is the rate of doing work as we know...)

Thus, the total work done is establishing a steady current (say Io) is
W=−L∫I0 0 I.dI=−1/2LI2o


Negative sign shows the opposing nature of the emf (same consequence of Lenz law). The small time dt is taken into account because - Whenever you pass current through an inductor, steady current would be established only after some period of time. The current would be established in an increasing order. When the power supply is provided, the induced emf opposes the growth of current and when the power supply is cut-off, the emf now opposes the decay of current. (i.e. It goes in a decreasing order)

Hence, the work done by these agencies is often incorrectly my view referred to as the energy stored in an inductor.

 

This thread is a prime example of:

a.) Why I now come to FChat for entertainment rather than technical information.
b.) How and why the government shutdown occurred.
c.) Both (a.) and (b.)

The answer is (c.)

 

Come on now, this thread is already over 1000 views. It is a serious technical debate that is bumping along the edge of real world and math. It is one of the more interesting threads I have read in a long time. It has to beet YAPT (yet another pricing thread) or the never ending Fv6 (F1 vs 6sp debate). Both of those are nothing but my opinion (stated as absalute fact) blah blah blah. This has substance.

OK, maybe I am a geek at heart.

 

Exactly correct. Thats how it stores the energy. If it is not stored where does it go? Also where does the energy for the spark (which is time shifted from the energy fed in) come from?
There is energy fed into the coil and energy fed out. The energy cant simply disappear then reappear later so it must be stored.

I dont disagree with any of your explanation, other than the statement that energy is not stored. But at least you have added "in my view". So thats fair enough. I cant argue with your view although it is different to the conventionally held one, and also the theory which fits the observation.

Normal service will now be resumed. How about a thread on how often to change timing belts

 

My advice to the OP would be to throw away the Champions and fit NGKs. Their wide heat range plugs were the best thing that ever happened to older Ferraris. They make an iridium plug recommended for your 328, Iridium IX DR8EIX. I am running different NGK iridiums in my 575M. Much preferred over Bosch or Champion plugs.

Have run the older NGKs in all my earlier Ferraris and they really improved running and cut down on fouling on cars like my old Daytona, missing its Dinoplexes, and Dino 246 GT.

 

Nope,

That didn't cut it for me.

Mass at rest, mass in motion, speed of light, and capital E energy.

So, are we talking about the maximum potential kinetic energy of a body in motion and a body at rest?

And simply Mass X Speed of light ^2 gives me the answer?

Is this ATOMIC weight? Or simply weight? That means a defensive lineman at 300 lbs has the same potential energy as 300 lbs of Uranium? Or did I miss something in the back straight?

I'm not a physics kind of guy, although I did enjoy making waves in class back in the day. But I'm not getting this.

Batteries don't store energy, because energy is not a physical thing to store, yet, there can be a formula that includes mass as a component to determine energy, the two seem mutually exclusive.

Does energy exist, or doesn't it? And if it does exist, why can't I store it? Matter exists, the speed of light is a known quantity, so, Energy must be SOMETHING.

Again, I'm not trying to stir the pot, but it's not often I get to gather a few bright guys, full of energy, to discuss something like this, and REALLY, I'm not getting it.

and yes, I read the wiki page before I posed the question, along with a couple other sites that took a quickie shot at explaining it to me.

C'mon guys, give it a whirl. Explain this mass-energy relationship to me in a way that ties in to the original concept that energy is not something to be stored because it's not physical.

WAIT!! I got it. energy is a concept. It's a measurement, not a physical object, right?

D

 

Nah, I respectfully disagree.

It started as a technical topic. A good question that has been answered several times with, USE A BETTER PLUG.

It devolved into a technical discussion of how to measure the quality of a plug, then into an argument over which techno geek (sorry guys, no offense meant) knew more about the topic, and then wandered off to Einstein (sorry, my fault) and back to an answer about the plugs courtesy of Taz, who is ALWAYS the level headed advice providing guru here.

And, I'm enjoying the hell out of the techno babble, even if I'm only getting about 20% stored in my cranial batteries.

D

 

I wasnt going to post again but I just had an idea.

Lets redesign an ignition coil in a way which enables energy storage to be seen. Suppose you have a permanent magnet suspended by a spring, with a coil in a fixed position around it.

You pass a current through the coil, the magnet moves and stretches the spring. Energy is stored in the spring. You switch off the current. The magnet moves back, pulled by the spring. this induces a current back into the coil.

This is not much different to the ignition coil, just that the form in which the energy is stored is different. The input and output are the same, electricity causes a change in a magnetic field and then a change in magnetic field causes electricity.

 

Here's the thing with the E=MC^2 equation, it's all about SR (special relativity). I know this is only going to confuse further, but there is GR General Relativity, SR Special Relativity, Classical, Standard Model, beyond the Std Model and Quantum. Who wants to unify them? Bueller, Bueller....? Ok that's not fair as GR is SR with Gravity because SR does not include gravity it's simply dealing with inertial reference frames. Std Model is particle physics with no full gravitational theory and lets see.. oh Quantum... that's a heavy night of binging on Jagermeister :O
that leaves Classical, the one we all know and love... Newton! lets give it up for the man obsessed with a falling apple

And don't ask about strings or branes, I'll have to get up and go smack someone then!

I've read the Wiki page and it's a good primer, not overly technical and covers the bases. I'll have to think about how to explain a bit differently.

Energy exists everywhere in many forms it could be viewed as the very fabric of the universe. The magnetic and electrostatic fields are examples of mathematical concepts that can only be measured indirectly in the real world, those fields are energy and we manipulate them to move energy around or transform it from one form to another. However it always requires using energy to change an energy state from low to high before it can be used. Hence why we don't have perpetual motion. To keep this topic from diving into the deep end of the pool we'll avoid quantum physics and isolated systems. and it's too early to start drinking.

My nit picky view point is that passive elements can not store energy, active elements can kinda sorta. want to see something neat...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ckpQW9sdUg[/ame]

<iframe src="http://techtv.mit.edu/embeds/1698?size=large&amp;custom_width=432&amp;external_stylesheet=" frameborder="0" height="306" width="544"></iframe>

 

Fixed..

 

You would think for a bunch of techno geeks they could do a better job with the camera.

but, ok, so the glass is the insulator between the two components of the Leyden jar. They store the current in the component pieces, like a capacitor?

Interesting that they won't discharge as components, only as pieces of the larger complete Leyden Jar.

But the glass must be serving some other function, and that's the part that is escaping me.

Ok, I surrender. I'm going back to designing packaging and making big sheets of cardboard into little components and boxes. A job my excellent geometry skills can be applied to.

D

 

You're going to hate this, I still say no. adding in more components and complexity does not change the fact that a coil is a passive element. The spring being held stretched required energy to get to that potential, once released it moves to kinetic energy. it can not stay at that potential without an external force of energy. In this case it's the magnetic field that is being generated by using energy.

Can energy in any form ever be isolated or removed? why or why not? The answer to that is why I hold the view I do.

 

By the way Dave, this is a good way to think about it. The only way to prove it exists is when it does work. Think of the coil this way: I roll a bolder up the hill. Does the the bolder now have energy? How about stored energy? I say no. We coveted some beer into some potential energy by moving the bolder up the hill and it has the potential to do work but it doesn't innately store any energy. If we roll it down the hill we turn that into heat and some kinetic energy (bolder moving). When the bolder hits one of those junker Ferraris sitting at the bottom of the hill the kinetic energy is converted to heat, sound waves, light, and a bunch of deformation (work). We keep changing states but we didn't innately store energy.

 

And this my friend will lead the discussion off the cliff into deep math.

 

There be sharks in that water ARGGGG..




Too bad LateX doesn't work here... we could get all kinds of interesting hieroglyphs plastered up

 

Isn't that a sin?

I think we all covet beer when it comes to pushing boulders up hills

 

Testing...
[tex]W=-L\int_0^{I_0}I.dI=-\frac{1}2LI_o^2[/tex]

[tex]x^2[/tex]

[tex]z_{n+1}=z_{n} ^2+c[/tex]

 

Just saw this thread... Leave it to FerrariChat to turn a question about spark plugs into an energy demonstration from MIT...

 

F-chat doesn't always try but when it does... it drinks deep.

Don't worry there's a test on Monday, it'll go to 11- one more then we need

 

I think we will just need to remain in disagreement on this but my view (for what its worth) would be that it does. The energy is stored in the system consisting of the boulder, the hill and gravity. The energy which you feed into the system cant just disappear so it must have been stored.

Its true that energy is an abstract concept but the way in which it is defined means that it is something which can be measured. It would be perfectly valid to define energy as "something which is stored when you push a boulder up a hill". Instead of measuring in Joules you could define a new unit of measurement defined as "the amount of energy required to push a 100 kg boulder up a 100m hill". It would be just as valid.

Saying its not stored is essentially trying to turn around the definition of energy from a way of measuring a property (which is the way practical science would approach it) into something which only fits a theory and is of no practical use.

 

I think you hit the crux of the two positions. As an EE you are dealing with closed systems and everything pretty much boils down to practical use. In fact, EEs intentionally set a frame of reference so as to work in the 'real world'.

Physics is mathematics and doesn't use the same frames of reference. The goal is to account for everything or else the equations don't balance. Reasonably practical application isn't the objective; the objective is to be able to fit all of the pieces together.

This leads to two positions: 1) the energy is 'stored' for later release/use, 2) the energy was converted into something else (it may be possible to convert it back later but that isn't required).

In electronics you tend to ignore the losses when they are insignificant. In physics you can't ignore losses or the equations don't balance. All of this leads to two different definitions of stored so the positions don't quite converge on agreement.

 

With a frame of reference of the bolder, there is no stored energy. In other words, the bolder (and nothing else) is no different on the top of the hill then the bottom.

From the frame of reference of the system the net energy didn't change. We moved some from beer to a bolder displacement but the system's net energy is no more and no less than before.

If you exclude the beer from the initial state of the system frame of reference then there was added energy and yes, some was 'stored' but that is to intentionally unbalance your frame of reference. You used one frame on the left side of the equation and another frame on the right side of the equation.