KERS to generate ozone from air?

[g-force_addict]

What Do you guys think about a KERS system where stored electricity is used to generate ozone to boost engine power?
The advantage is that the ozone generating system is pretty light. Mostly composed of wires.
Maybe they can even use supercapacitors instead of batteries?

The downside if efficiency. The could only generate 6% ozone with corona discharge methods.

Although trophosphere (ground level) ozone is considered a pollutant. Virtually no ozone will be left after exiting the engine combustion chambers.

[g-force_addict]

It has been proposed spark plugs work by creating a little ozone which is actually the primer for combustion:
http://sparkplugengineering.com/word/?p=36

Ozone greatly improves fuel economy and emissions:
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/Current/Projects/J0324.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/100 ... 062015.pdf

[hollus]

If you add ozone without sacrificing the existing oxygen, sure, you will increase power, as you are increasing the amount of oxidant available. If you make O3 by using the available O2, I don't think you will get anything sizeable out of it, at least not in the current air limited formula we live in.
Rather than in the combustion properties of ozone, which I assume to be similar to those of 1.5 times as many molecules of O2, the only benefit I can see is the reduction of the total number of molecules. Transforming O2 into O3 would reduce the volume of the involved air, allowing more air (and O2) into the engine. But I can only imagine the energy cost of doing that to any measurable extent to be prohibitive, and that the energy spent would be better used by pushing the car directly.

[olefud]

Ozone would have a bit better enthalpy than oxygen and allow a somewhat higher CR. But gains would be marginal vs complexity.

[WhiteBlue]

I'm afraid it is not complexity alone. If you look at the energy balance you see that the power would be used to very little effect. And turbo engines which we will have from next year will be even less limited by oxidation. You can pump any amount of oxygen into the combustion chamber that you might want.

[olefud]

Actually, ozone would produce a bit more power. Better enthalpy means it takes less energy to burn than O2. And since it has three atoms it will occupy less volume and permit a higher CR for a given compression pressure while expanding to the same volume after combustion. Marginal but real.

[WhiteBlue]

That depends on the boundary of your energy balance. If you consider that electricity can be used almost 100% as motive power it appears foolish to throw most of it away to produce a slightly more aggressive oxidizer which you can also get free from the atmosphere. Particularly for next year it will not make any sense.

[Richard]

electricity can be used almost 100% as motive power it appears foolish to throw most of it away to produce a slightly more aggressive oxidizer

As I recall the KERS harvesting potential is far higher than the storage allowance. So ozone generation would avoid throwing away that surplus potential.

I've had a check of the rules, it appears the energy limits on KERS only relate to storage and discharge (measured at the fly wheel). So it would be OK to harvest excess energy as long as it is not stored or connected to the drivetrain.

Of course all this is hypothetical on the premise that generating ozone has some benefit.

[WhiteBlue]

...I've had a check of the rules, it appears the energy limits on KERS only relate to storage and discharge (measured at the fly wheel). So it would be OK to harvest excess energy as long as it is not stored or connected to the drivetrain....

5.2.3 The maximum power, in or out, of any KERS must not exceed 60kW.

I'm afraid your interpretation would not be conform with § 5.2.3 of the 2013 F1 technical regulations. It restricts the total transfer of power in and out of the KERS system to 60 kW. Once you have stored away the electric allowance of 400 kJ - worth 7s of breaking - there will not be much left to convert to ozone.

[piast9]

I don't think so. You can charge up the batteries with 60 kW until they accumulated 400 kJ and then you may use the 60 kW of electricity for whatever you want. Bigger problem is that you have this 60 kW of electricity under braking which for sure isn't the moment at which the engine horsepower matters.

[WhiteBlue]

The average lap time is 80 s around the circuit Gilles Villeneuve which is the heaviest baking circuit in F1. 17% of the lap time is spent under braking which is less than 14 s. So even on the circuit with the highest braking action you need half the available brake energy/ brake time to load the KERS. Only half the braking energy is available for ozone production. I don't even want to know how much it is around Monza. But I doubt very much that someone will load all that additional weight on the car to produce 200 to 400 kJ electricity per lap. And how much ozone would that be? I bet very little. Would it make a difference? I bet not!

[CMSMJ1]

Ozone is not a nice substance though is it? Bad for you...not sure the punters in the stands would appreciate being subjected to more of the nastyness, quite apart from the already sweet smelling and probably bad for you fuels and oils!

[PlatinumZealot]

Ozone is poisonous. I was buying an industrial ozone system the other day. You need to supply it with compressed air: Moisture free and dust free. A large system only makes a few grams per hour. It's enough to sterilise water, but... I don't how that works to generate ozone for an engine. Besides.. the mass of oxygen doesn't change! Actually The ozone generator only converts some of the oxygen... so there is wastage there. I think its better to use Nitrous oxide.

[autogyro]

Would be better to use any 'excess' energy to get rid of some of the Nitrogen in the induction.

[PlatinumZealot]

Like some sort of Nitrogen destruction unit?
Even still... lets work it out...
Nitrogen is 75% by mass of the air we breath.
If you remove that 75% from a given volume...according to Charle's law, the oxygen left back will naturally occupy still the same volume but its partial pressure will reduce.

Going by the ideal gas law.. Total pressure = n*RT/V (nitrogen)+ n*RT/V (oxygen).
Nitrogen mole to oxygen mole ratio is 2.7 to 0.7. So the Partial pressure of nitrogen is 2.7/3.4 of your intake manifold pressure.

The partial pressure oxygen is at 0.7/3.4* intake manifold pressure.

If you remove the nitrogen from the system. This is what happens the oxygen still occupies the same volume the same moles are there.. therefore the partial pressure drops to 0.7/3.4 * intake manifold pressure.

So if such a "Nitrogen destruct" system exists.. your intake manifold pressure will drop by 79%.
Yes you have the same amount of oxygen... and "pure" oxygen at that too...
I am not sure if this lower intake manifold pressure affects the peak cylinder pressure after combustion.

?? there are other implications too.