Honda Power Unit Hardware & Software

[wuzak]

Can this be applied to single-stage axial compressor: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130223984

No, because it specifically relates to multi stage compressors and has counter rotation - which is also illegal.

[wuzak]

I didn't say multi-stage....I said MULTI-SPOOL
look up two or three spool turbine designs

I know what you said, but you also said:

But I think people forget there are ways of getting multi stages within FIA rules.

So I said you cannot have anything with multi-stages because it is prohibited.

I thought multi-spool was self explanatory as for why it was not allowed. I guess you could have two or more spools, but only one of the spools with one set of blades on it. That would be multi-spool and fit within the regulations, but it'd be pointless.

As you eluded to in another post, mixed flow sounds a likely candidate. I agree.

The Heinkel HeS 011 used a mixed flow compressor feeding into its 4 stage axial compressor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 1_USAF.jpg

It was a dismal failure - the mixed flow compressor - termed a diagonal compressor - didn't work very well. It was a result of the technical ministry, teh RLM, suggesting that Heinkel continue with centrifugal flow compressors, while other worked on axial flow.

[dren]

It sounds like they are having issues cooling electrical components, thus forcing Honda to run those components detuned. The compressor location may be creating more heat in the V, overheating the MGUH. I haven't read anything about the compressor being the actual issue.

Ferrari last year had issues with their PU not having a high steady state power output which was likely the MGUH to MGUK transfer. Looking at some of their energy flow diagrams, it seemed like they were dumping all power to the ES, and then pulling all from the ES. They did move their compressor location, but I don't know if that was a big reason for their issues last year. Its size might have been compromised, but how much gain they got by moving its location I don't know.

[Sasha]

how about a design from today not WW2?

PW610

[3jawchuck]

Can this be applied to single-stage axial compressor: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130223984

No, because it specifically relates to multi stage compressors and has counter rotation - which is also illegal.

I am not sure that there is any statement in FIA regulations about counter rotation. Otherwise, my question was can be the counter rotation applied to a single-stage configuration. In the regulations, there is no specific definition of a "stage". In the case of the axial compressors, should be static blades required to "wrap" a stage?

I think this part of the technical regulations covers counter rotation.

"§5.1.6 ... The shaft must be designed so as to ensure that the shaft assembly, the compressor and the turbine always rotate about a common axis and at the same angular velocity...."

[wuzak]

Can this be applied to single-stage axial compressor: https://www.google.com/patents/US20130223984

No, because it specifically relates to multi stage compressors and has counter rotation - which is also illegal.

I am not sure that there is any statement in FIA regulations about counter rotation. Otherwise, my question was can be the counter rotation applied to a single-stage configuration. In the regulations, there is no specific definition of a "stage". In the case of the axial compressors, should be static blades required to "wrap" a stage?

The rules require the compressor to turn with the same angular velocity as the turbine. In a counter rotating system one shaft is rotating opposite, so it fails the test.

The only point of counter rotation is to have more than one stage of compression.

The definition of compression stages is the general definition, I guess.

[wuzak]

how about a design from today not WW2?

PW610

OK, did not know about that.

What is the presure ratio of that compressor stage, given that it feeds a centrfigal compressor behind?

[djos]

Does angular velocity actually mean the same direction tho?

I'd have thought that merely rules out the compressor being mounted by say 90 degrees to the exhaust turbine turbine?

As long as the counter rotating section is matching the speed of the turbine it could possibly be legal?

[wuzak]

Does angular velocity actually mean the same direction tho?

Angular velocity is a vector quantity, so yes.

If they said angular speed, then it would be no.

I'd have thought that merely rules out the compressor being mounted by say 90 degrees to the exhaust turbine turbine?

The rule does also specify that they are on a common axis, as is teh shaft assembly. So the Compressor shaft cannot be offset or at an angle to the turbine shaft, as you hav esaid.

As long as the counter rotating section is matching the speed of the turbine it could possibly be legal?

Even if you managed to argue that angular velocity doesn't involve direction, you still have the problem with needing two compressor stages, as that's the only reason you'd use counter rotating shafts. It would be heavier (because of the need for gears to reverse rotation) than a simple shaft for a single stage compressor.

[djos]

Does angular velocity actually mean the same direction tho?

Angular velocity is a vector quantity, so yes.

If they said angular speed, then it would be no.

I'd have thought that merely rules out the compressor being mounted by say 90 degrees to the exhaust turbine turbine?

The rule does also specify that they are on a common axis, as is teh shaft assembly. So the Compressor shaft cannot be offset or at an angle to the turbine shaft, as you hav esaid.

As long as the counter rotating section is matching the speed of the turbine it could possibly be legal?

Even if you managed to argue that angular velocity doesn't involve direction, you still have the problem with needing two compressor stages, as that's the only reason you'd use counter rotating shafts. It would be heavier (because of the need for gears to reverse rotation) than a simple shaft for a single stage compressor.

Thanks wuzak, i appreciate the explanation.

[shady]

The point is, if the turbo is in fact revolutionary (/pun) then our current foundation is itself incomplete. We cannot make assumptions about a new tech, or even a new implementation based on older tech that inherently violates the tech regs for this year. If the compressor is axial, then it would stand to reason that the engine which had a hard homologation date, and 4 races under its belt is legal.

Traditional Axial compressors would be illegal. Any multistage reduction would appear to contravene the tech regs. So how if its axial could you compress the fluid within the ruleset? Is scarbs using the appropriate terminology for the tech? Didnt Graham Hill race a turbine engine in the 60s (completely off topic but..)?

I think we need clarity on staging.. From my extensive knowledge (lol), a single stage axial != single stage radial..

afaik a single stage axial, has both a rotor and 'nozzle' (which looks a lot like another rotor and is generally fixed).. depending on how the regs are interpreted, honda can get creative through the diameter of the fins for both components of the stage. Also the depth of the fins may not be as shallow as you would see in an aerospace application which need multiple stages to achieve thrust, which is a wholly different requirement than atmos compression for increased combustion. So if we change those parameters, our assumptions about compression rates (which are based on tech from another application, so its not nearly 1:1) and efficiency are inapplicable.

Our analysis cannot be conventional if what were being told is true, which is still itself up for debate.

[Edis]

Probably a 'poor' source, but I was reading the wiki page for individual stages for axial compressors. The 'over 2' is for research compressors, at supersonic speeds. Yes a stretch, but that's what it states. Ron Dennis went on and on about the tech never used before on this PU at the season start, so maybe there is some validity to this?

But I am a bit unsure as to the air speed, is it talking about how fast the vehicle is moving (incoming air speed) or about velocity through the compressor? I'm guessing the former. Which really puts us into the range of PR at 1.2 on the high end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_compressor

This comes from a chart on that page:

Industrial Subsonic 1.05–1.2 88%–92%
Aerospace Transonic 1.15–1.6 80%–85%
Research Supersonic 1.8–2.2 75%–85%

It's the speed of the incoming air relative to the blade speed, at the tip of the blades.

And the compressor is smaller like the honeywell dual-boost TC?
Dren might be right; the compressor might be radial and it's just smaller...

I kept thinking the dual boost was dual stage, even though the wheel is basically back to back compressor wheels. Or does the dual boost not qualify as dual stage?

Double sided impellers are single stage. This design was used on some early jet engines, like the Goblin

That is why I would put my money on a Mixed-Flow compressor

Still at least two stages.

For anybody that is curious it is a mix of axial and radial. normally used in helicopter engines and such.. pretty obvious it is two or more stages of compression. And would not in any way change the exducer diameter of the radial part. So I rule this one out.

http://www.kutriebresearch.com/wp-conte ... -Stack.jpg

That's not a mixed flow compressor, but a multistage axial with a final radial compressor stage.

This picture shows the difference between a radial and a mixed flow turbine, the principal is the same with compressors. A mixed flow compressor have a discharge that is not fully radial but neither fully axial.

[PlatinumZealot]

Probably a 'poor' source, but I was reading the wiki page for individual stages for axial compressors. The 'over 2' is for research compressors, at supersonic speeds. Yes a stretch, but that's what it states. Ron Dennis went on and on about the tech never used before on this PU at the season start, so maybe there is some validity to this?

But I am a bit unsure as to the air speed, is it talking about how fast the vehicle is moving (incoming air speed) or about velocity through the compressor? I'm guessing the former. Which really puts us into the range of PR at 1.2 on the high end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_compressor

This comes from a chart on that page:

Industrial Subsonic 1.05–1.2 88%–92%
Aerospace Transonic 1.15–1.6 80%–85%
Research Supersonic 1.8–2.2 75%–85%

It's the speed of the incoming air relative to the blade speed, at the tip of the blades.

And the compressor is smaller like the honeywell dual-boost TC?
Dren might be right; the compressor might be radial and it's just smaller...

I kept thinking the dual boost was dual stage, even though the wheel is basically back to back compressor wheels. Or does the dual boost not qualify as dual stage?

Double sided impellers are single stage. This design was used on some early jet engines, like the Goblin

http://www.cairdpublications.com/scrap/ ... lin550.jpg

That is why I would put my money on a Mixed-Flow compressor

Still at least two stages.

For anybody that is curious it is a mix of axial and radial. normally used in helicopter engines and such.. pretty obvious it is two or more stages of compression. And would not in any way change the exducer diameter of the radial part. So I rule this one out.

http://www.kutriebresearch.com/wp-conte ... -Stack.jpg

That's not a mixed flow compressor, but a multistage axial with a final radial compressor stage.

This picture shows the difference between a radial and a mixed flow turbine, the principal is the same with compressors. A mixed flow compressor have a discharge that is not fully radial but neither fully axial.

http://www.full-race.com/store/images/f ... ent-11.jpg

It IS a mixed flow compressor no matter how you look at it. Even your own post suggest that it is.

You are being a bit literal but, Edis you are correct that street car compressor wheels are mixed flow. To the chagrin of some here, I already know that the typical radial compressor is mixed flow (sorry guys). The thing is, the common radial compressor is not called mixed flow these days. For the masses here, I used that photo because I know that is what he meant ( a more pronounced combination of axial then a radial).

I have worked with double sided pump rotors before... Your typical domestic booster pump is double sided. Basically two pump rotors in one if you ask me.. they also deliver high higher pressure ratios. In my post, I said it can be argued to be two compressors. One gas path going in the splits into two different gas paths then joins back again. Heck you can even put two different blade designs on either side if you want. I have no idea what would be the dynamic results of that though. But again in my opinion dual boost can be argued to be two compressors. Why? because say, for example if you stuck two regular compressor wheels on the same shaft facing the same direction instead of back to back, by the wording of the rules it would be no different from a "dual boost" compressor. And yes it would be can be said to be a single stage too... (one step in compression). So it would be up to the FIA to clear this up...

Guys do you realize you have discovered a loop hole!

[wuzak]

I was given this link on another forum.

It suggests an elongated axial compressor, which possibly sounds like a diagonal compressor.

[wuzak]

It IS a mixed flow compressor no matter how you look at it. Even your own post suggest that it is.

If you look at the unit as a whole, yes it is a mixed flow compressor, comprising three axial stages and one centrifugal stage.

None of the individual stages are, however, mixed flow.

You are being a bit literal but, Edis you are correct that street car compressor wheels are mixed flow. To the chagrin of some here, I already know that the typical radial compressor is mixed flow (sorry guys). The thing is, the common radial compressor is not called mixed flow these days. For the masses here, I used that photo because I know that is what he meant ( a more pronounced combination of axial then a radial).

No common turbocharger compressors are correctly termed centrifugal compressors. They are not actually mixed flow. There is only a minor axial component at the inlet, same as there always has been with centrifugal compressors.

I have worked with double sided pump rotors before... Your typical domestic booster pump is double sided. Basically two pump rotors in one if you ask me.. they also deliver high higher pressure ratios. In my post, I said it can be argued to be two compressors. One gas path going in the splits into two different gas paths then joins back again. Heck you can even put two different blade designs on either side if you want. I have no idea what would be the dynamic results of that though. But again in my opinion dual boost can be argued to be two compressors. Why? because say, for example if you stuck two regular compressor wheels on the same shaft facing the same direction instead of back to back, by the wording of the rules it would be no different from a "dual boost" compressor. And yes it would be can be said to be a single stage too... (one step in compression). So it would be up to the FIA to clear this up...

I would argue that dual boost is a single compressor, because even if there are two impellers they are fixed to the same shaft and cannot operate independently of one another.