Concept power units from 2030

[gruntguru]

H900 seems to be speaking euphemistically while TC and gg are speaking more accurately. You can't detach piston speed from piston acceleration as H900 is holding to, but since the compression and tension forces experience by the piston & rod are described by f=ma then it's more accurate or at least more efficient to speak of a itself and not the separate components that a is derived from (stoke & speed). And as wuzak just posted, a being non-linear makes it the dominant component, beyond being a more useful derivative.

I’ve seen GG try to tell an Ilmor combustion engineer he was wrong about modern F1 PU’s by showing graphs from the early 90s elsewhere. They’re just stubborn.

Your inability to recognise the actual level of understanding demonstrated by that particular (AVL not Ilmor) "combustion engineer" clearly demonstrates your own level of understanding.

I reviewed the thread to which you refer after you posted a similar comment in this forum and had to shake my head at many instances of miscomprehension and confusion displayed by the "expert" you mention. (Do you still believe he has personal experience of an ICE with peak TE occuring at stoichiometry?) His multiple "appeals to authority" (along with your own) contrast with the actual evidence (eg graphs of any vintage) presented in that thread - i.e. ZERO!

[Hoffman900]

H900 seems to be speaking euphemistically while TC and gg are speaking more accurately. You can't detach piston speed from piston acceleration as H900 is holding to, but since the compression and tension forces experience by the piston & rod are described by f=ma then it's more accurate or at least more efficient to speak of a itself and not the separate components that a is derived from (stoke & speed). And as wuzak just posted, a being non-linear makes it the dominant component, beyond being a more useful derivative.

I’ve seen GG try to tell an Ilmor combustion engineer he was wrong about modern F1 PU’s by showing graphs from the early 90s elsewhere. They’re just stubborn.

Your inability to recognise the actual level of understanding demonstrated by that particular (AVL not Ilmor) "combustion engineer" clearly demonstrates your own level of understanding.

I reviewed the thread to which you refer after you posted a similar comment in this forum and had to shake my head at many instances of miscomprehension and confusion displayed by the "expert" you mention. (Do you still believe he has personal experience of an ICE with peak TE occuring at stoichiometry?) His multiple "appeals to authority" (along with your own) contrast with the actual evidence (eg graphs of any vintage) presented in that thread - i.e. ZERO!

He was at AVL then and has been at Ilmor for the last 5 year, so yes, I do.

[Hoffman900]

H900 seems to be speaking euphemistically while TC and gg are speaking more accurately. You can't detach piston speed from piston acceleration as H900 is holding to, but since the compression and tension forces experience by the piston & rod are described by f=ma then it's more accurate or at least more efficient to speak of a itself and not the separate components that a is derived from (stoke & speed). And as wuzak just posted, a being non-linear makes it the dominant component, beyond being a more useful derivative.

I’ve seen GG try to tell an Ilmor combustion engineer he was wrong about modern F1 PU’s by showing graphs from the early 90s elsewhere. They’re just stubborn.

Your inability to recognise the actual level of understanding demonstrated by that particular (AVL not Ilmor) "combustion engineer" clearly demonstrates your own level of understanding.

I reviewed the thread to which you refer after you posted a similar comment in this forum and had to shake my head at many instances of miscomprehension and confusion displayed by the "expert" you mention. (Do you still believe he has personal experience of an ICE with peak TE occuring at stoichiometry?) His multiple "appeals to authority" (along with your own) contrast with the actual evidence (eg graphs of any vintage) presented in that thread - i.e. ZERO!

He was at AVL then and has been at Ilmor for the last 5 year, so yes, I do.

[leblanc]

And what about white hydrogen?
If it can simply be extracted from the ground, wouldn’t that require less energy than producing hydrogen?

Well, a quick peek at wikipedia shows "most of this cannot be extracted economically".

Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is. Moreover, you have to reinvent the wheel for transport, static storage, transfer, in-car storage... plus, cylindrical Type-IV storage containers would be preferred, so there's in-car packaging challenges. It's a big f'n mess that offers myriad reasons to stick with liquid fuel.

[gruntguru]

I’ve seen GG try to tell an Ilmor combustion engineer he was wrong about modern F1 PU’s by showing graphs from the early 90s elsewhere. They’re just stubborn.

Your inability to recognise the actual level of understanding demonstrated by that particular (AVL not Ilmor) "combustion engineer" clearly demonstrates your own level of understanding.

I reviewed the thread to which you refer after you posted a similar comment in this forum and had to shake my head at many instances of miscomprehension and confusion displayed by the "expert" you mention. (Do you still believe he has personal experience of an ICE with peak TE occurring at stoichiometry?) His multiple "appeals to authority" (along with your own) contrast with the actual evidence (eg graphs of any vintage) presented in that thread - i.e. ZERO!

He was at AVL then and has been at Ilmor for the last 5 year, so yes, I do.

You "do" what? Believe in an ICE with peak TE occurring at stoichiometry? That would be a very telling.

[ispano6]

And what about white hydrogen?
If it can simply be extracted from the ground, wouldn’t that require less energy than producing hydrogen?

Well, a quick peek at wikipedia shows "most of this cannot be extracted economically".

Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is. Moreover, you have to reinvent the wheel for transport, static storage, transfer, in-car storage... plus, cylindrical Type-IV storage containers would be preferred, so there's in-car packaging challenges. It's a big f'n mess that offers myriad reasons to stick with liquid fuel.

Humanity should focus on solar-power and electrolysis for hydrogen generation.
An informative read for those interested (will need to download the PDF from the Honda site).
https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?pid=1195&lang=en

[mzso]

Well, a quick peek at wikipedia shows "most of this cannot be extracted economically".

Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is. Moreover, you have to reinvent the wheel for transport, static storage, transfer, in-car storage... plus, cylindrical Type-IV storage containers would be preferred, so there's in-car packaging challenges. It's a big f'n mess that offers myriad reasons to stick with liquid fuel.

Humanity should focus on solar-power and electrolysis for hydrogen generation.
An informative read for those interested (will need to download the PDF from the Honda site).
https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?pid=1195&lang=en

It's a titanic waste of energy. That's why blue hydrogen was brought up in the first place.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is ....

many countries have an increasing surplus of electrical energy from renewables
so the energy cost of making hydrogen is zero or negative

btw yesterday a (UK) energy minister said they (still) want to blend hydrogen into the natural gas main
maybe because EU gas is/has ? become such a blend

[mzso]

.... Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is ....

many countries have an increasing surplus of electrical energy from renewables
so the energy cost of making hydrogen is zero or negative

btw yesterday a (UK) energy minister said they (still) want to blend hydrogen into the natural gas main
maybe because EU gas is/has ? become such a blend

Nothing's free. It's just a question of who bears the cost. Anyway, hard earned energy is better to be stored with0 pretty much any other alternative method to splitting water. Batteries, pumped hydro, gravity storage.

[Tommy Cookers]

... Anyway, hard earned energy is better to be stored with ... Batteries, pumped hydro, gravity storage.

don't tell us this (again) ....
tell the governments on and off the European mainland (who seem set on hydrogen for multiple purposes)

or send us some spare mountains and/or some spare money
2 weeks ago our Drax walked away from their 600 MW pumped storage expansion in Scotland
the only mountain elsewhere in the UK has been doing pumped storage for 50 years at 65% efficiency
(low-head sprawling pumped storage has poor efficiency)

[leblanc]

Well, a quick peek at wikipedia shows "most of this cannot be extracted economically".

Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is. Moreover, you have to reinvent the wheel for transport, static storage, transfer, in-car storage... plus, cylindrical Type-IV storage containers would be preferred, so there's in-car packaging challenges. It's a big f'n mess that offers myriad reasons to stick with liquid fuel.

Humanity should focus on solar-power and electrolysis for hydrogen generation.
An informative read for those interested (will need to download the PDF from the Honda site).
https://www.hondarandd.jp/point.php?pid=1195&lang=en

I would agree as the LCOE for new solar is about a third less per MWh compared to coal (popular in China and and in parts of the US). Natural gas remains cheaper for plants for now. We'll see how things evolve.

"We are 20 years away from nuclear fusion!" <-- one of the greatest perpetuated lies told lol

[leblanc]

.... Which demonstrates how costly hydrolysis is ....

many countries have an increasing surplus of electrical energy from renewables
so the energy cost of making hydrogen is zero or negative

Depending on who owns that surplus. If it's the citizenry selling surplus back to the grid (Germany, et al.), then fine. Here in the US, well... it's complicated, lol.

[Tommy Cookers]

the history of the once-fashionable piston speed doctrine ....
https://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Note_35.pdf
https://www.grandprixengines.co.uk/Sign ... _Other.pdf (see SO2 SO3 SO4)
in the best-ever website

originally 'over-square' or slightly 'under-square' layouts were the designer's choice ....
eg the 1906,1907 and 1908 GPs were won by such engines (then the GP collapsed) ...
but the magazine l'Auto held small-car ('voiturette') races based on the 'expert' advice for 'road-relevant' power rating
('engines being naturally limited by piston speed' stroke limits were unnecessary as 'stroke increase gave no benefit')
but Sizaire/Naudin singles and Lion-Peugeot twins dominated races - by using ultra long stroke for greater capacity
(despite the resulting very high piston speed)
so grossly 'under-square' engines suddenly became the fashion even with rules switching to fixed capacity
eg 78 x 156 Peugeot 3 litre

plus the 'free stroke' type of rules were initially widely mandated for road car licensing (tax)
ie such 'tax horsepower' was determined by aggregate piston area alone (regardless of stroke or capacity etc)
the UK seemingly used their rules to hinder in 1912 the (UK-assembled) model T Ford (and retained them till 1947)
ironically the USA also had such rules (the NACC the ALAM etc) even until very recently (eg in Missouri)
(though Wiki seems to think Europe quickly removed or didn't have the 'free stroke' aspect)

till 1957 2.5 litre Riley (road cars) used an 80.5mm bore & 120 mm stroke - for 110 bhp at 4400 rpm
(Riley had patented valve overlap in 1903 - and had won a lot of races between the wars)
though the 1959 1 litre UK Ford 105E used an 80.96 mm bore & 48.4 stroke - for 39 bhp at 5000 rpm
(and the 56.6 x 92.5 933cc Ford 8 was likely still in production then)
clearly the Riley's 'high' 3500 ft/sec mean piston speed wasn't an issue
similarly the 1921-design Bentley 3 litre Continuation 80 x 149 mm has 80 bhp at 3500 rpm

[vorticism]

plus the 'free stroke' type of rules were initially widely mandated for road car licensing (tax)
ie such 'tax horsepower' was determined by aggregate piston area alone (regardless of stroke or capacity etc)

Reminds me of how, what you might call “free redline” rules led to ever higher engine speeds in F1.

Piston speed is easier to calculate than piston inertia and in some cases easier to explain. Being 50 years before computers and digital calculators, perhaps that’s why the metric became a common frame of reference.

[mzso]

... Anyway, hard earned energy is better to be stored with ... Batteries, pumped hydro, gravity storage.

don't tell us this (again) ....
tell the governments on and off the European mainland (who seem set on hydrogen for multiple purposes)

or send us some spare mountains and/or some spare money
2 weeks ago our Drax walked away from their 600 MW pumped storage expansion in Scotland
the only mountain elsewhere in the UK has been doing pumped storage for 50 years at 65% efficiency
(low-head sprawling pumped storage has poor efficiency)

You don't need mountains. You have coasts. You can build looping dams if you want.