Was wandering through Motobins online offerings and, in the bottom of service parts section, saw this... (it is available for both K75 and K100

PULSE-JET IGNITION 
( Full Kit For All 3 Cylinders 

Code: 07015K
-Pulse-Jet Ignition is a revolutionary new way of igniting the main cylinder charge, by igniting a small charge in a confined space the pressure and temperature rise very quickly, the emerging explosion from the PJI ports ignites all areas of the main combustion far more efficiently than the heat from a single spark, the differing port volumes of the insert creates an internal low pressure after the initial explosion, drawing in any unburnt fuel and air, as in a Pulse-Jet and fires again and again...around two hundred times per second.---------- • Marked increase in performance and in low rev pick-up • Quicker throttle response • Smoother engine operation • Lower fuel consumption ==== Only spark plug requires changing for service. PJI will not need replacing.
 
K75 | K75C | K75S | 1984 - 1995

---

[size]
K75RT 1988 1996
Show all...[/size]


 In Stock

£142.50
EX VAT




-


https://pulse-jetignition.co.uk/

Anyone used them? My attitude is that they are too expensive to justify (even to myself). Apparently, they were initially developed for (historic?) aircraft racing. 

You want to do a lot of riding to recoup the cost.

GF

Did some Googling on this out of curiosity. Found a few posts on ADV and a few airhead forums.  General consensus seems to be skepticism.

I had an instructor during my apprenticeship pull a heap of fuel saving/performance enhancing devices out of his draw. He listed the devices on the blackboard and the fuel saving % claims lowest to highest. He then used the lowest claims and added them up which totaled over 100 %. His conclusion was that if you added all the devices to your vehicle you would have to stop to drain of the excess fuel.https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiItuTXycXnAhVtxDgGHQhpCP4QFjAeegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fauto.howstuffworks.com%2Ffuel-efficiency%2Ffuel-saving-devices%2F10-fuel-saving-device-hoaxes.htm&usg=AOvVaw2vF9cK419svUQTulD3DZG2
Regards Martin.

Could this turn into one of those single versus four port injectors/oil/tyre threads where the experts argue out the finer points of how much of a fraction of a percent improvement your coin will buy?  

Or perhaps the reality is, yes it does work but only in high performance applications such as racing or aircraft engines and largely irrelevant for out motos?  

Just sayin'.  

It's not just spark plugs and injectors.

A few years back the West Marine catalog of boat stuff had a carbon fibre head listed for a mere $9,995.  That summerl the racers at the yacht club where I worked were all talking about how cool it was and how much it could increase their speed around the course by getting rid of some of the 22 pounds a conventional porcelain head weighed. 

What was amusing to those of us who worked on the boats was that the shipping weight in the catalog for the carbon fibre head was the same as for the porcelain model, so the weight saving couldn't have been more than 4-5 pounds.  Five pounds on a 7,000 pound boat for nearly $10K is not a good deal in my book.

https://www.nauticexpo.com/prod/planus/product-34272-243701.html

MartinW wrote:I had an instructor during my apprenticeship pull a heap of fuel saving/performance enhancing devices out of his draw. He listed the devices on the blackboard and the fuel saving % claims lowest to highest. He then used the lowest claims and added them up which totaled over 100 %. His conclusion was that if you added all the devices to your vehicle you would have to stop to drain of the excess fuel.https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiItuTXycXnAhVtxDgGHQhpCP4QFjAeegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fauto.howstuffworks.com%2Ffuel-efficiency%2Ffuel-saving-devices%2F10-fuel-saving-device-hoaxes.htm&usg=AOvVaw2vF9cK419svUQTulD3DZG2
Regards Martin.

Nah, all wrong. Some devices would be doing the same thing, so one would be redundant because of the effect of the other. The fuel saving would probably be reduced to 95%, thereby saving the necessity of draining the excess fuel.     Gotta keep some fuel circulating in the system!

Bill

The energy that your engine produces to turn the back wheel is in the fuel. A spark just ignites that fuel.
If there is no neat fuel coming out of the exhaust then you can guess that most of it is being burnt.

Put some fuel in a dish and throw a match into it, it goes bang. Do the same but throw 6 matches at once into it, it still goes bang in the same way.

betya you cant do that 200 times a second ....... and at compression pressures

One of the more sobering statements regarding high tech refinement I heard was:

"The cheapest way is for the (bicycle) rider to loose some weight."

Just as well we have 750cc and more available.

Laughable that a carbon fibre head / toilet should weight almost the same as the procelain one. Says a lot that it should be popular. Can't image that the rich boat owners were in a lean physical state.

Pathetic really.

I spent a few weeks crewing (as ballast!) on a yacht in the twilight races on Sydney Harbour. Deadly serious stuff. The owners of the boat wouldn't take it outside the heads because they would get seasick. Nothing 3 days at sea wont cure.

GF

GF Wollongong wrote:You want to do a lot of riding to recoup the cost.

Or have a lathe and a bit of free time...

-Dai