Plasma actuators in F1?

[zeffman]

Does anyone know whether plasma actuators are being used or explored by F1 teams to alter air flow over the car surfaces or to act as non-structural vortex generators? I am curious as to whether these would be deemed legal or illegal as there are no moving parts and thus not a 'movable aerodynamic device'.

Some examples:

https://www3.nd.edu/~sst/teaching/AME60 ... al_dbd.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/674f/7 ... 6689ff.pdf

Thanks in advance,

Zeffman

[PhillipM]

Would be banned under active aero rules.

[roon]

Would be banned under active aero rules.

I believe the rules are around driver influence and moving components. A solid state, pre-programmed device may pass muster. If a suitably effective device could be powered and integrated into the vehicle. Which I think is the main limitation for these sorts of technologies. I would guess their weight and power requirements would be prohibitive for the application.

[Greg Locock]

i don't think you understand the engineering definition of active. After all the marketing bullshit it means you put power in, directly.

[roon]

i don't think you understand the engineering definition of active. After all the marketing bullshit it means you put power in, directly.

I mean to suggest that the regs have language about driver influence and moveable bodywork. I don't recall mentions of 'active,' specifically, nor disagree with your definition.

Can a powered system ever be defined as passive? By definition, does having a suspension which is capable of compressing constitute active suspension? By definition, a supply of electrical energy to a solid state device within the bodywork would be as passive or active as the energy supplied to the bodywork via engine vibrations/sound waves.

In fact, the power level supplied to the SS electrical device could be ensured as constant, and not driver influenced, which could not be said of the engine vibrations and suspension jolts which the driver supplies to the bodywork as is.

Presently I wonder if any work's been done around tuning the vibrations of the aero elements toward benefit. Little TMDs in the wings or some such.

[Greg Locock]

All springs store energy and release it later. They are not active components. Shock absorbers with non symmetric damping tend to pump up, or suck down, on rough surfaces, thereby storing positive or negative potential energy. They are not active.

[roon]

Sure, but by your previous definition, you will have, in all those scenarios, "put power in, directly."

[Greg Locock]

Are you arguing for arguing's sake? Wrong room, try the next one down the corridor.

[roon]

The word active is mentioned four times in the 2017 technical regulations, and referenced only in the realms of engine and electronics. As I mentioned twice before, the aero regs pertain to driver influence and movement of bodywork. Your definition of active is simplistic and not entirely relevant to the thread topic. If you can't handle simple, light questioning of your premises proffered, then it is you who should be looking for another room.

3.8 Aerodynamic influence With the exception of the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance: a) Must comply with the rules relating to bodywork. b) Must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom). (Flexible or moveable bodywork with allowance for DRS.)

With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.6.8 (in addition to minimal parts solely associated with its actuation) and the ducts described in Article 11.4, any specific part of the car influencing its aerodynamic performance must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.

Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances. (Skirts.)

No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the parts referred to in Articles 3.7.10, 3.7.11 and 3.7.12, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.

With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.6.8, any car system, device or procedure which uses driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited. (F-Duct)

My annotations in bold. Active aero is not defined. A non-moving, non-driver controlled electronic device within the bodywork should be legal, as I said previously.

To the OP, one thinks that such devices could be integrated out of sight. The question is how much power would they consume, how voluminous they be, and how much would they weigh.

[godlameroso]

Dielectric barrier discharge, hmm depends, it's not so much power as voltage needed to ionize the air. You only need enough energy to divert air or delay separation. How much depends on where you put it, or what you want the air to do. Using it to manage tire squirt isn't realistic, that area is too chaotic, but it could strengthen some well defined flow structure upstream, which in turn helps manage tire squirt, or energize something else downstream. As for weight and size, it's relatively light, 2 conductors and a piece of non conductive material between them, you pass an A/C current between the conductors and you get a magnetic field that ionizes air. From there you can either push or pull airflow in a direction, just like those ionic fans. Do you think it would be worth it to apply it to the rear wing to stall it maybe, in order to cut drag?

[zeffman]

Thanks all for the informative replies and debates.

The active/passive question is interesting. If active is strictly interpreted as no power applied then it would seem to preclude these actuators. But if the rules are concerned with movable devices only then it might be applicable. My own interpretation of active in the rules is as a responsive part of a closed-loop mechanism but a plasma actuator (or indeed a series of actuators...) could possibly be used in a simple always-on mode.

The fact that such devices could be hidden within the floor, nose ducts, or even rear wing raise some interesting possibilities. I don't know how much of an influence on aero the dielectric discharge methods have at F1 speeds and air pressure but it could possibly be used to entrain airflow in a preferred direction above or below the car or, as mentioned in a previous reply, to initiate airflow which could be further energised downstream.

Assuming (lots of assumptions here) that they had a beneficial effect and the discharge itself was in a place where it was not easily visible, the conductors might even appear to be merely sensors.

[J.A.W.]

Good topic, ta zeffman..

Perhaps such devices are already discreetly incorporated within F1 aero strakes/vanes/vortex forms/winglets?
(& indeed.. if not, why not.. utilized within engine air-intake plenum systems, too )

Given the FIA's propensity to subtly 'ban' any advanced-tech innovations* - as 'loophole' rule violations..
I'd think that teams would try to keep quiet about them, as S.O.P. - 'don't ask, don't tell' - mode surely dictates.

*As shown by recent FIA 'crackdowns' on ++ oil-consumption, & potential shunting 'electrickery' - as power-aids..