View previous topic | View next topic

Internal Combustion Engine

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

plinkplonk
754385.  Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:12 pm Reply with quote

plinkplonk wrote:
Apparently the parts for the internal combustion engine were lain down in 1206, when Al-Jazari described a reprociating piston pump with a crank-connecting mechanism. In fact the Chinese, Mongols and Arabs all used rocket propelled internal combusition engine. The Palace of Versailles had its water delivered by gunpowder powered internal combusition engines. The actual turbine was invented in 1791.

The re-invention of the internal combustion goes on and on. The latest innovation is the scotch yoke engine created by Toyota in 2004. (it turns linear motion to rotational motion and vice versa).


Well Al-Jazari is a source of course, but you could also look at http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=2710 for this. http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=2710 features info about rocket propulsion. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Automotive_Systems mentions the Palace of Versailles. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blenginegasturbine.htm is about the invention of turbine. I think the scotch yolk engine is mentioned later. Did I really get this from so many sources? It seems unlikely...

 
Ion Zone
754393.  Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:55 pm Reply with quote

Jet turbines are feasible, they are supposedly more reliable as they contain far fewer components (as much as four fifths less).

1963 Chrysler Turbine



There is a new concept car using this type of engine. It runs on bio-diesel.

 
AlmondFacialBar
754400.  Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:13 pm Reply with quote

brunel wrote:
PDR wrote:
brunel wrote:
Also, to address this point - I agree that KERS systems do have considerable potential for the future, although at the moment, the F1 systems are on hold due to the high cost of development.


I don't know that that's true - although still legal the KERS weren't used this season for a number of political reasons, but they are back next season with a vengence (that is to say that next season's KERS are allowed longer durations than the 2009 season ones). Many teams will be using them.

PDR

They are thinking of bringing back KERS, but the price for a KERS system is intended on being capped (there is talk of 1.5 million per year for a standard system, based on the Magnetti Marelli system used in 2009, as used by Ferrari and Renault). On top of that, from 2011 onwards, the teams have agreed to limit the number of personnel, including engines and powertrain development staff, which will slow down the development of KERS systems quite a bit, I would wager.

So, although we could well see KERS back in the sport, the amount of development work allowed on the current KERS system is going to be quite limited, to prevent a repeat of the spending war last time (there was talk that Mercedes spent as much as $80 million in joint research with Zytek).

Anyway, I'll answer the earlier question about the BMW turbo engine, and what fuel it used.

There is an urban legend that BMW used a secret WW2 aviation fuel, or rocket fuel, which stopped the fuel igniting prematurely - spread, in part, by a former employee.
It also seemed to gain a lot of popularity because the official fuel supplier to BMW had been part of IG Farben during WW2, and had done a lot of research into aromatic chemicals derived from coal, some of which had gone into various fuels used by the German military at the time.

However, there are a lot of problems with this story - WW2 aviation fuel typically had a RON of 110-120, but, in F1, the RON value was limited to 102 (and the Brabham BMW team were nearly disqualified when it was found that they were very close to the limit in 1983). Secondly, aviation fuels of the time had a high alcohol content - also banned in F1 at the time.

The true answer, based on testimony from a former Wintershall employee (BASF and Wintershall, in a combined project, supplied BMW with the fuel for their engines) appears to be toluene and heptane.

Toluene has a high energy density, which was very important, because the rules at the time banned refuelling (from 1983 until 1993), and restricted the fuel tanks of the cars.
More important was toluene's high resistance to premature ignition - which was vital, especially for the qualifying engines, which worked at very extreme pressures and temperatures. To make sure that the fuel would just sit below the limit of RON as 102, a small amount of heptane would be blended into the mixture.

So, the correct answer would be about 85% toluene, and 15% heptane, with possibly traces of other aromatic chemicals - but certainly not, despite the ring that the story has to it, a Nazi rocket fuel.


Also, using fuel from coal hydration wouldn't really have worked from a cost/ benefit point of view because the fuel isn't as good as it is expensive to produce. The only capitalist country that has used the technology on an industrial basis since 1945 was apartheid South Africa because owing to the sanctions they had far more coal than oil. I guess you could say it's a bit of an emergency technology. Currently the only countries that use it beyond research purposes are China and Mongolia.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
PDR
754446.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:35 am Reply with quote

...or even the Rover gas turbine, but they are hideaously inefficient because turbines are lousay at running at anything much below full power. A turbo-electric system might be worthwhile, combined with a large KERS, but the manufacturing costs would be high.

It's also true to say that although the component cound of a turbine is lower than a piston engine, the actual components are more highly stressed (to be efficient the 1st stage HP turbine blades will be operating in an environment that is 20-30% above their melting point) and so the reliability benefit can be moot.

PDR

 
Alfred E Neuman
754461.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:15 am Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
Also, using fuel from coal hydration wouldn't really have worked from a cost/ benefit point of view because the fuel isn't as good as it is expensive to produce. The only capitalist country that has used the technology on an industrial basis since 1945 was apartheid South Africa because owing to the sanctions they had far more coal than oil. I guess you could say it's a bit of an emergency technology. Currently the only countries that use it beyond research purposes are China and Mongolia.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar


That's not strictly true, although the Sasol plants were developed for exactly the reasons AFB mentioned, they are still being used to this day, and contribute a significant percentage of South Africa's fuel demand (somewhere between 25 and 40 percent).

 
brunel
754483.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:49 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
...or even the Rover gas turbine, but they are hideaously inefficient because turbines are lousay at running at anything much below full power. A turbo-electric system might be worthwhile, combined with a large KERS, but the manufacturing costs would be high.

It's also true to say that although the component cound of a turbine is lower than a piston engine, the actual components are more highly stressed (to be efficient the 1st stage HP turbine blades will be operating in an environment that is 20-30% above their melting point) and so the reliability benefit can be moot.

PDR

There have been a few concept cars which have used a micro turbine to power a generator - Jaguar showed off one recently at the Paris Motor Show, called the CX-75. http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/paris-motor-show-2010-jaguar-cx75-supercar

Admittedly, it is unlikely that this will be built for some time, although the turbine engines fitted to that car are in commercial production (and were originally designed for motorbikes - the designer wanted to race a bike at the Isle of Man TT powered by one of these micro turbines).

 
AlmondFacialBar
754562.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:45 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
AlmondFacialBar wrote:
Also, using fuel from coal hydration wouldn't really have worked from a cost/ benefit point of view because the fuel isn't as good as it is expensive to produce. The only capitalist country that has used the technology on an industrial basis since 1945 was apartheid South Africa because owing to the sanctions they had far more coal than oil. I guess you could say it's a bit of an emergency technology. Currently the only countries that use it beyond research purposes are China and Mongolia.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar


That's not strictly true, although the Sasol plants were developed for exactly the reasons AFB mentioned, they are still being used to this day, and contribute a significant percentage of South Africa's fuel demand (somewhere between 25 and 40 percent).


Still coal-based? Even Leuna switched to oil while still in GDR-times, so if SASOL manage to run coal hydration efficiently that's quite some feat.

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
Bondee
754602.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:48 am Reply with quote

plinkplonk wrote:
I think the scotch yolk engine is mentioned later.


Is that what powers the machine that's used to make scotch eggs?
; )

 
PDR
754607.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:01 am Reply with quote

I was wondering when someone would spot that. I'm waisted here...

PDR

 
Bondee
754617.  Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:13 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I'm waisted here...


I wouldn't say that. We think you're quite hip.

 
deadstick
769778.  Sat Dec 25, 2010 10:24 pm Reply with quote

Re "internal combustion", it is quite appropriate to call a rocket that. The combustion does indeed take place inside the engine, and more important, in the working fluid -- in fact, it generates the working fluid. Any combustion that takes place outside the rocket represents energy gone to waste.

Remember, "flame" and "combustion" are not the same thing. A flame is a region of space that contains a gas at a high enough temperature to be ionized. The flame behind a rocket has substantially completed its combustion before it ever leaves the nozzle.

Re "jet turbine", it is not appropriate to apply that to the Chrysler turbine car. It has a gas turbine engine. In the turboprop engines used in aircraft, most of the energy developed by the turbine is converted into shaft work which powers a propeller and the remainder is accelerated through a nozzle to create a "Newton's third law" force, or jet propulsion, which accounts for perhaps a quarter of the total thrust. In the Chrysler engine, almost all of the turbine energy goes into shaft work and the remainder is dissipated in a muffler -- no jet thrust takes place.

rj

 
aTao
769794.  Sun Dec 26, 2010 5:22 am Reply with quote

I remember seeing an F1 gas turbine car. Run by Gold Leaf team Lotus.
The only noise it made was tyre and wind, freaky compared to the roar of the other cars.
It was, however, a racing disaster, the turbine took several seconds to respond to power demand, so to drive it was necessary to floor the accelerator when entering a bend so you had the power for the straight immediately after.

 
brunel
769884.  Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:25 am Reply with quote

aTao wrote:
I remember seeing an F1 gas turbine car. Run by Gold Leaf team Lotus.
The only noise it made was tyre and wind, freaky compared to the roar of the other cars.
It was, however, a racing disaster, the turbine took several seconds to respond to power demand, so to drive it was necessary to floor the accelerator when entering a bend so you had the power for the straight immediately after.

That would be the famous Lotus 56B, which was used back in 1971 for a handful of races - and as it was not used for a great number of races, that is a fairly rare car to have seen. Was it at Brands Hatch, where the car first ran during a non championship event?

It originally started out as an Indianapolis 500 car, inspired by Parnelli Jones, who had entered a gas turbine car in 1967 and nearly won, only for a transmission bearing to fail a handful of laps from the end of the race.
In 1968, the Lotus 56 was easily the fastest car at the Indy 500, but Graham Hill crashed after a wheel bearing failed, and both his team mates went out with broken fuel pumps within moments of each other, with under 10 laps to go of the race.

Unfortunately for Chapman, the USAC took exception to the Lotus 56, as it easily thrashed its rivals, so they banned anything that wasn't a piston engine, or with four wheel drive (which the 56 also had) from 1968 onwards.

In fact, there were several problems with the Lotus 56B beyond the throttle delay you mentioned. The four wheel drive system made the car quite nose heavy (and overweight in general), and the fuel consumption was very high compared to the famous Cosworth DFV that was in use at the time (the turbine car used 75 gallons a race, compared to 45 gallons for a DFV).
And, added to that, even at idle the turbine was producing 70bhp, and there was no clutch or other mechanism to disconnect the engine. So, not only did the car require unusually powerful brakes, just to hold it still at the start of a race, but the car behaved very strangely under braking as it tried to continue moving forwards.

According to Dave Walker, who drove the car several times in 1971 (and his biography is here http://www.f1rejects.com/drivers/walkerd/biography.html ), it was, all in all, a very hard car to drive - the only time that it was remotely competitive was in the Dutch Grand Prix, which started out wet, giving the four wheel drive car an advantage. However, Walker crashed out after six laps (having nevertheless moved up from 22nd to 10th) - Chapman was furious, thinking that Walker could have won both his and the cars first ever championship race.

However, given that the track was rapidly drying, and the strange braking behaviour making the car increasingly hard to drive, most observers doubt that Walker would really have been able of winning, or even scoring points.

 
aTao
769886.  Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:35 am Reply with quote

I saw it at Oulton Park, cant remember the year, but I guess you have it. I was at the track the day before the race and stayed overnight in one of the BBC links vehicles with my dad. We were woken by the practice laps on race day, I bleared out of the van to see a car disappearing that I hadnt heard pass. after a few laps it was apparent that there was a 'silent' car.
As a young boy I was enthralled by this and adopted it as my favourite, only to be soon dismayed that it vanished without winning anything.

 
brunel
769915.  Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:17 pm Reply with quote

That, I suppose, is one of the most interesting things about Formula 1 cars from that era - since you had the freedom to develop the cars in very different ways.
True, quite a lot of the time, the experiments would end in failure - asides from the 56B, Lotus also tried out the 63, which was another four wheel drive car (although using the trusty Cosworth DFV). That, like the 56, was another damp squib, with the four wheel drive system being more of a hindrance than a help, and eventually that too was abandoned.

However, both the Lotus 56B and 63 did have major long term impacts on the design of the cars of the time. Both cars inspired work on the Lotus 72, particularly the wedge shaped body of the Lotus 56B and the wings of the 63, and the 72 is considered to be the forerunner of the modern F1 cars.

Considering that the Lotus 72 was very successful in its lifetime, taking 20 wins, three constructors and two drivers championships, the fact that the 56B was so unsuccessful, forcing Lotus to turn all of their resources on the 72, perhaps was a blessing in surprise after all.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group