Alternative F1 fuels

[xpensive]

Good point mikey, but one parameter often forgotten is how to convey the electrical energy to said storage device.
One liter of gasoline is some 34 MJ, or MWs, why a 60 liter tank holds 2000 MJ. To charge an electrical storage device with that amount of energy in 6 hours, you would need a 100 kW connection. Oh mama.

[autogyro]

Good point mikey, but one parameter often forgotten is how to convey the electrical energy to said storage device.
One liter of gasoline is some 34 MJ, or MWs, why a 60 liter tank holds 2000 MJ. To charge an electrical storage device with that amount of energy in 6 hours, you would need a 100 kW connection. Oh mama.

Good points Mickey, the forum is after all F1 development from the current norm and not EV's in general.
However before WW2 most American and many European Cities and Towns had electric trolley buses and trams and it was not until GM bought up many systems and replaced them with fossil fuel buses that we entered WW2 and the fossil fuel greed system.

These electric public transport systems used wire networks for the most part. There were developments for congested City center's and on long routes that included a slot and plough surface pick up method for the electrical systems however. Not many people know but this slot system was made available in some places for electric car and truck owners to use to recharge on the move.
A modern version of on the move recharge for electric vehicles could be built into lane sections of the current trunk road network with current supplied either from the NG or wind generators.
This would sort out the current range and recharge problems with EV,s for long distance use.
I do not disagree with mickey on using F1 to develop fuel types and efficiency, this is essential as is a return to Kers development.
A formula for on the move recharge EV racing could be interesting though.
Scalextric anyone?

[riff_raff]

autogyro,

"The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity."

I'll have to nitpick your comment. Considering just the typical resistance in most wiring systems and electric motor losses, electrical power transfer is likely less efficient than mechanical power transfer in an automotive driveline.

A well designed spur gear transmission will transfer power from the engine crank to the rear axel, while changing rotational speed, with only a 2 or 3 percent loss. A well designed PM electric motor system performing the same function, will easily have double those losses.

When you consider the entire "Well-to-Wheel" fuel impacts and manufacturing life cycle energy usage requirements, a good diesel piston IC engine system still outperforms the best fuel cell or plug-in EV.

With a pure EV, once you consider the efficiency losses at each stage of the electrical power generation (a modern coal-fired co-gen powerplant might hit 60% BTE) and transmission system (10% line losses), and the losses incurred during the charge and discharge cycles (70% efficiency at best) of the battery, you probably have losses of at least 62% by the time the car's motor sees the electrical power. Add in the average 10% loss of the electrical motor, and you only end up with about 34% of the original energy making it to the rear axel of your EV.

A good production automotive diesel will hit 40% BTE (ie. an SFC of 195 g/kw-hr), and with a 3% transmission loss, it's 39% energy conversion efficiency rate is still better than the EV's.

If you don't like my guesstimated numbers, let me know.

Best regards,
Terry

[autogyro]

autogyro,

"The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity."

I'll have to nitpick your comment. Considering just the typical resistance in most wiring systems and electric motor losses, electrical power transfer is likely less efficient than mechanical power transfer in an automotive driveline.

A well designed spur gear transmission will transfer power from the engine crank to the rear axel, while changing rotational speed, with only a 2 or 3 percent loss. A well designed PM electric motor system performing the same function, will easily have double those losses.

When you consider the entire "Well-to-Wheel" fuel impacts and manufacturing life cycle energy usage requirements, a good diesel piston IC engine system still outperforms the best fuel cell or plug-in EV.

With a pure EV, once you consider the efficiency losses at each stage of the electrical power generation (a modern coal-fired co-gen powerplant might hit 60% BTE) and transmission system (10% line losses), and the losses incurred during the charge and discharge cycles (70% efficiency at best) of the battery, you probably have losses of at least 62% by the time the car's motor sees the electrical power. Add in the average 10% loss of the electrical motor, and you only end up with about 34% of the original energy making it to the rear axel of your EV.

A good production automotive diesel will hit 40% BTE (ie. an SFC of 195 g/kw-hr), and with a 3% transmission loss, it's 39% energy conversion efficiency rate is still better than the EV's.

If you don't like my guesstimated numbers, let me know.

Best regards,
Terry

Not interested much in your numbers as they are the wrong comparison, work on this.

I have been designing transmissions for over 30 years and a 2 to 3 percent loss is cloud cuckoo land, the losses from the bearings alone are more than that.
You are also ignoring the huge losses from the IC engine whether petrol, diesel or what ever.
The energy transfer losses from an electrical pick up system would also depend on other factors. One being whether the system was inductive or not. It is strange that such systems work very efficiently on train systems and that some train systems ie the French system,the braking energy from the trains is actually sold 'back' to the national grid!
Well to wheel maths conveniently miss the possibility of locally sited wind turbines that are already being used to supply power carbon free to industrial and commercial set ups. Lotus are in fact just installing one near me. Easy to extend that to lane recovery.

People should really wake up to the EV revolution going on under their noses and take far less notice of the fossil fuel share holders and brrm brrm merchants they live in an ancient world.

[xpensive]

This is why I looove this forum, thanks tomba! Where else can a self-proclaimed inventor post his/hers incomprehensible ramblings about various achievement without a shade of evidence or credibility?

Talking about myself of course!

Speaking of energy transfer, get the load of this; Filling up a 60 liter gasoline tank in 40 seconds?
That is 60 times 34 MJ or 2000 MJ (2000 MWs) over 40 sec, which translates to a Power of 50 MW or 68 000 Hp!

[flynfrog]

autogyro,

"The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity."

I'll have to nitpick your comment. Considering just the typical resistance in most wiring systems and electric motor losses, electrical power transfer is likely less efficient than mechanical power transfer in an automotive driveline.

A well designed spur gear transmission will transfer power from the engine crank to the rear axel, while changing rotational speed, with only a 2 or 3 percent loss. A well designed PM electric motor system performing the same function, will easily have double those losses.

When you consider the entire "Well-to-Wheel" fuel impacts and manufacturing life cycle energy usage requirements, a good diesel piston IC engine system still outperforms the best fuel cell or plug-in EV.

With a pure EV, once you consider the efficiency losses at each stage of the electrical power generation (a modern coal-fired co-gen powerplant might hit 60% BTE) and transmission system (10% line losses), and the losses incurred during the charge and discharge cycles (70% efficiency at best) of the battery, you probably have losses of at least 62% by the time the car's motor sees the electrical power. Add in the average 10% loss of the electrical motor, and you only end up with about 34% of the original energy making it to the rear axel of your EV.

A good production automotive diesel will hit 40% BTE (ie. an SFC of 195 g/kw-hr), and with a 3% transmission loss, it's 39% energy conversion efficiency rate is still better than the EV's.

If you don't like my guesstimated numbers, let me know.

Best regards,
Terry

Not interested much in your numbers as they are the wrong comparison, work on this.

I have been designing transmissions for over 30 years and a 2 to 3 percent loss is cloud cuckoo land, the losses from the bearings alone are more than that.
You are also ignoring the huge losses from the IC engine whether petrol, diesel or what ever.
The energy transfer losses from an electrical pick up system would also depend on other factors. One being whether the system was inductive or not. It is strange that such systems work very efficiently on train systems and that some train systems ie the French system,the braking energy from the trains is actually sold 'back' to the national grid!
Well to wheel maths conveniently miss the possibility of locally sited wind turbines that are already being used to supply power carbon free to industrial and commercial set ups. Lotus are in fact just installing one near me. Easy to extend that to lane recovery.

People should really wake up to the EV revolution going on under their noses and take far less notice of the fossil fuel share holders and brrm brrm merchants they live in an ancient world.

so wait we are supposed to ignore the numbers and just take your word that EVs are better.

I have build a few solar EVs they are horrible for the environment.

also wind turbines are not fossil fuel or carbon free. What do you think is used to make the epoxy resin that holds the carbon and glass fibers together.

This being a technical forum if you cant back up your ramblings with numbers its pretty hard to have a constructive conversation.

[autogyro]

autogyro,

"The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity."

I'll have to nitpick your comment. Considering just the typical resistance in most wiring systems and electric motor losses, electrical power transfer is likely less efficient than mechanical power transfer in an automotive driveline.

A well designed spur gear transmission will transfer power from the engine crank to the rear axel, while changing rotational speed, with only a 2 or 3 percent loss. A well designed PM electric motor system performing the same function, will easily have double those losses.

When you consider the entire "Well-to-Wheel" fuel impacts and manufacturing life cycle energy usage requirements, a good diesel piston IC engine system still outperforms the best fuel cell or plug-in EV.

With a pure EV, once you consider the efficiency losses at each stage of the electrical power generation (a modern coal-fired co-gen powerplant might hit 60% BTE) and transmission system (10% line losses), and the losses incurred during the charge and discharge cycles (70% efficiency at best) of the battery, you probably have losses of at least 62% by the time the car's motor sees the electrical power. Add in the average 10% loss of the electrical motor, and you only end up with about 34% of the original energy making it to the rear axel of your EV.

A good production automotive diesel will hit 40% BTE (ie. an SFC of 195 g/kw-hr), and with a 3% transmission loss, it's 39% energy conversion efficiency rate is still better than the EV's.

If you don't like my guesstimated numbers, let me know.

Best regards,
Terry

Not interested much in your numbers as they are the wrong comparison, work on this.

I have been designing transmissions for over 30 years and a 2 to 3 percent loss is cloud cuckoo land, the losses from the bearings alone are more than that.
You are also ignoring the huge losses from the IC engine whether petrol, diesel or what ever.
The energy transfer losses from an electrical pick up system would also depend on other factors. One being whether the system was inductive or not. It is strange that such systems work very efficiently on train systems and that some train systems ie the French system,the braking energy from the trains is actually sold 'back' to the national grid!
Well to wheel maths conveniently miss the possibility of locally sited wind turbines that are already being used to supply power carbon free to industrial and commercial set ups. Lotus are in fact just installing one near me. Easy to extend that to lane recovery.

People should really wake up to the EV revolution going on under their noses and take far less notice of the fossil fuel share holders and brrm brrm merchants they live in an ancient world.

so wait we are supposed to ignore the numbers and just take your word that EVs are better.

I have build a few solar EVs they are horrible for the environment.

also wind turbines are not fossil fuel or carbon free. What do you think is used to make the epoxy resin that holds the carbon and glass fibers together.

This being a technical forum if you cant back up your ramblings with numbers its pretty hard to have a constructive conversation.

Oh dear must be awful at times worshiping numbers and those who give you them.

Many wind turbines use concrete pillars and steel/wood laminar blades.
Where is the fossil fuel needed there?
Of course at present fossil fuel is used to heat the steel and run the process of production but it does not have to be so does it.
So what then? A range of figures from being fully filthy to fully non fossil.
Who now produces such a range of figures? Nobody, it would not support their religion of wasting energy.
No, just accept the 'well to use' figures conveniently constructed by those who make the profit from fossil fuels and products. Great!!!
Unfortunately the technology you demand figures for is getting more and more obsolete and environmentally damaging. Soon there will be figures to prove just what a short time it has left.
F1 is part of this world of so called advanced technology but developments in F1 over the last few decades have only been variations on a theme from designers and engineers becoming more and more controlled by computer data bases at the expense of human innovation. Kers was the only sensible development direction but it scared the big car makers so much they set up Fota and banned it, because it confronts their spin master technology and their set in stone figures. All bow to the east old engineers, from there comes the future. Brrm brrm

[xxChrisxx]

Oh dear must be awful at times worshiping numbers and those who give you them.

Many wind turbines use concrete pillars and steel/wood laminar blades.
Where is the fossil fuel needed there?
Of course at present fossil fuel is used to heat the steel and run the process of production but it does not have to be so does it.
So what then? A range of figures from being fully filthy to fully non fossil.
Who now produces such a range of figures? Nobody, it would not support their religion of wasting energy.
No, just accept the 'well to use' figures conveniently constructed by those who make the profit from fossil fuels and products. Great!!!
Unfortunately the technology you demand figures for is getting more and more obsolete and environmentally damaging. Soon there will be figures to prove just what a short time it has left.
F1 is part of this world of so called advanced technology but developments in F1 over the last few decades have only been variations on a theme from designers and engineers becoming more and more controlled by computer data bases at the expense of human innovation. Kers was the only sensible development direction but it scared the big car makers so much they set up Fota and banned it, because it confronts their spin master technology and their set in stone figures. All bow to the east old engineers, from there comes the future. Brrm brrm

The following is not an argument about any points, its just a statement as to what I think of this post.

"What a load of crap."

That is all.

[xpensive]

Know what Chris4x, the posting reminds me of the Swedish engineer's weekly, which has been taken over by "green" journos.
As a consequence, all numbers and credibility has been taken away to be replaced by substance-free visions and wishful thinking on the future of the world's energy supply. Again, pretty much like the above posting.

[flynfrog]

autogyro,

"The best way to transfer energy is by using electricity."

I'll have to nitpick your comment. Considering just the typical resistance in most wiring systems and electric motor losses, electrical power transfer is likely less efficient than mechanical power transfer in an automotive driveline.

A well designed spur gear transmission will transfer power from the engine crank to the rear axel, while changing rotational speed, with only a 2 or 3 percent loss. A well designed PM electric motor system performing the same function, will easily have double those losses.

When you consider the entire "Well-to-Wheel" fuel impacts and manufacturing life cycle energy usage requirements, a good diesel piston IC engine system still outperforms the best fuel cell or plug-in EV.

With a pure EV, once you consider the efficiency losses at each stage of the electrical power generation (a modern coal-fired co-gen powerplant might hit 60% BTE) and transmission system (10% line losses), and the losses incurred during the charge and discharge cycles (70% efficiency at best) of the battery, you probably have losses of at least 62% by the time the car's motor sees the electrical power. Add in the average 10% loss of the electrical motor, and you only end up with about 34% of the original energy making it to the rear axel of your EV.

A good production automotive diesel will hit 40% BTE (ie. an SFC of 195 g/kw-hr), and with a 3% transmission loss, it's 39% energy conversion efficiency rate is still better than the EV's.

If you don't like my guesstimated numbers, let me know.

Best regards,
Terry

Not interested much in your numbers as they are the wrong comparison, work on this.

I have been designing transmissions for over 30 years and a 2 to 3 percent loss is cloud cuckoo land, the losses from the bearings alone are more than that.
You are also ignoring the huge losses from the IC engine whether petrol, diesel or what ever.
The energy transfer losses from an electrical pick up system would also depend on other factors. One being whether the system was inductive or not. It is strange that such systems work very efficiently on train systems and that some train systems ie the French system,the braking energy from the trains is actually sold 'back' to the national grid!
Well to wheel maths conveniently miss the possibility of locally sited wind turbines that are already being used to supply power carbon free to industrial and commercial set ups. Lotus are in fact just installing one near me. Easy to extend that to lane recovery.

People should really wake up to the EV revolution going on under their noses and take far less notice of the fossil fuel share holders and brrm brrm merchants they live in an ancient world.

so wait we are supposed to ignore the numbers and just take your word that EVs are better.

I have build a few solar EVs they are horrible for the environment.

also wind turbines are not fossil fuel or carbon free. What do you think is used to make the epoxy resin that holds the carbon and glass fibers together.

This being a technical forum if you cant back up your ramblings with numbers its pretty hard to have a constructive conversation.

Oh dear must be awful at times worshiping numbers and those who give you them.

Many wind turbines use concrete pillars and steel/wood laminar blades.
Where is the fossil fuel needed there?
Of course at present fossil fuel is used to heat the steel and run the process of production but it does not have to be so does it.
So what then? A range of figures from being fully filthy to fully non fossil.
Who now produces such a range of figures? Nobody, it would not support their religion of wasting energy.
No, just accept the 'well to use' figures conveniently constructed by those who make the profit from fossil fuels and products. Great!!!
Unfortunately the technology you demand figures for is getting more and more obsolete and environmentally damaging. Soon there will be figures to prove just what a short time it has left.
F1 is part of this world of so called advanced technology but developments in F1 over the last few decades have only been variations on a theme from designers and engineers becoming more and more controlled by computer data bases at the expense of human innovation. Kers was the only sensible development direction but it scared the big car makers so much they set up Fota and banned it, because it confronts their spin master technology and their set in stone figures. All bow to the east old engineers, from there comes the future. Brrm brrm[/quote]
I'm done!

[autogyro]

Know what Chris4x, the posting reminds me of the Swedish engineer's weekly, which has been taken over by "green" journos.
As a consequence, all numbers and credibility has been taken away to be replaced by substance-free visions and wishful thinking on the future of the world's energy supply. Again, pretty much like the above posting.

Even wishful thinking is better than where your frame work for figures and the rigid grasp of fossil fuels is taking us.
Just because a masters degree allows somebody to prove with figures that a current clean alternative to fossil fuels is less efficient in their defined terms, it does not mean that the alternative is not the best way to go in the future.
Facts in science are not truths. If they were, there would be no way of changing facts and science does this all the time. It is a great servant but a terrible master. Such a pity that there are fewer and fewer real geniuses in engineering.
Laugh away, it will not change the EV revolution.

[xxChrisxx]

Even wishful thinking is better than where your frame work for figures and the rigid grasp of fossil fuels is taking us.

Yes fantasy is generally more palatable than reality isn't it.

Lets design something that runs on hope and is lubricated by dreams. That'll work perfectly with 110% efficiency.



The instant you said this:

Nobody, it would not support their religion of wasting energy.

You lost all credibility on the subject.

Facts + figures will always trump emotional pleading and bullshit.

[Astro1]

CAUTION TREE HUGGER

[Mikey_s]

Auto,
I think the best analogy to this argument is monetary...
If you spend a dollar to make a dime is that financially efficient?

It's the same with energy! If you (ex)spend 10 MJ to gain 1MJ it is not efficient...
That's where the laws of thermodynamics come into the debate.

Spending 10MJ the maximum theoretically possible to extract is 10MJ... practically it's waaaay less than that.

There is no perpetual motion machine in our world - never will be. So you MUST include all the losses in a given model to determine the best solution.

Of course the ulitmate goal is to build a better widget, but it's not good to say we'd be better off starting from a different place... we are currently in a fossil fuel based economy and we all recognise the need to move to a sustainable one. The question is 'how to get there?'.

Stick to facts please, opinions - every has them...

[autogyro]

Auto,
I think the best analogy to this argument is monetary...
If you spend a dollar to make a dime is that financially efficient?

It's the same with energy! If you (ex)spend 10 MJ to gain 1MJ it is not efficient...
That's where the laws of thermodynamics come into the debate.

Spending 10MJ the maximum theoretically possible to extract is 10MJ... practically it's waaaay less than that.

There is no perpetual motion machine in our world - never will be. So you MUST include all the losses in a given model to determine the best solution.

Of course the ulitmate goal is to build a better widget, but it's not good to say we'd be better off starting from a different place... we are currently in a fossil fuel based economy and we all recognise the need to move to a sustainable one. The question is 'how to get there?'.

Stick to facts please, opinions - every has them...

It certainly is money mikey.
Best example is that fantastic aircraft the Concorde (interesting the same name is used for stability in F1).

A late Uncle of mine was a top aircraft designer and I was lucky to have some access to the brilliant figures and sums he did as a consultant on the Concorde project. The result was a British aircraft that was technically above anything before and has never been technically bettered.
I shall say little more in argument to the detractors of my opinions on this thread, it is after all a technical thread and they are in the most part correct in redirecting my approach to the subjects.
To conclude I shall simply say.
Where is the Concorde now?????