F1technical.net

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2020, 04:17

gruntguru wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2020, 03:57

subcritical71 wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2020, 01:17

Gruntguru, I hope you don’t take this as argumentative, I have just worked in this space for more years than I care to admit. But there is a Alstom unit in NJ that reaches 56% efficiency (GT24). This unit is simple cycle and doesn’t have a HRSG attached. I’ve actually worked on that project...once upon a time. This one is the highest I know of.

Just because I haven't heard of a GT with 50% doesn't mean they don't exist - I was hoping someone would show me one! A link would have been good.

Scroll down to 1997;
https://www.powermag.com/a-brief-histo ... urbines-2/

I think that's a misprint. See if you can find a data sheet. I have seen an Alstom GT26 operating and discussed it with the chief engineer. It has about 60% TE combined cycle.

GE's biggest and best SC GT is the "H" class you mentioned. At 43% TE it would be on the scrap heap if Alstom (part of GE now) had a product doing 56% TE.

you all seem to be barking up the wrong tree !
efficiencies given in the power generation context are based on LHV
and seem to be called electrical efficiency
I guess this is the benchmark - it sets aside what would otherwise be different 'efficiencies' with different fuels

eg IEA-ETSAP wrote this in a Technology Brief on Gas-Fired Power on 2 April 2010 .... and that ....
CC (intermediate and peak load) LHV-based efficiency will by 2020 reach 64%
OC (standby load) LHV-based efficiency will by 2020 reach 45%

GE says currently that aeroderivative turbines best OC efficiency is 44% and CC efficiency is 56%
best heavy duty turbines reach 63% CC (afaik and iirc their OC efficiency is famously c 50%)

presumably these 'efficiencies' are also LHV-based
and so not to be directly compared with F1's magic 50% ?

Can we get back on topic please?

I am seeing 46% simple cycle thermal efficiency.

This is still very good.

The F1 engines thermal efficiency includes the MGUH in self sustain mode.

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020, 00:26

I am seeing 46% simple cycle thermal efficiency.

is that 46% thermal efficiency derived from lower heat value or 46% derived from upper heat value ??

when using the fuel's UHV gives a TE of 46% the TE given by using the fuel's LHV is c. the magic 50%

is/isn't the Mercedes 50% TE the same as the gas turbine maker's 50% ??
(a science-true 46%)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020, 09:27

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020, 00:26

I am seeing 46% simple cycle thermal efficiency.

is that 46% thermal efficiency derived from lower heat value or 46% derived from upper heat value ??

when using the fuel's UHV gives a TE of 46% the TE given by using the fuel's LHV is c. the magic 50%

is/isn't the Mercedes 50% TE the same as the gas turbine maker's 50% ??
(a science-true 46%)

46% using the fuel's LHV - same as MB. Don't think many makers quote UHV efficiency.

It isn't really feasible to get that last bit of latent heat energy out of the exhaust by condensing the steam. Even the combined cycle GT's keep the exhaust temperature well above the dew point because any condensation creates havoc (of the corrosion kind) with the final stage heat exchangers.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020, 09:27

PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑

04 Apr 2020, 00:26

I am seeing 46% simple cycle thermal efficiency.

is that 46% thermal efficiency derived from lower heat value or 46% derived from upper heat value ??

when using the fuel's UHV gives a TE of 46% the TE given by using the fuel's LHV is c. the magic 50%

is/isn't the Mercedes 50% TE the same as the gas turbine maker's 50% ??
(a science-true 46%)

LHV. Because the UHV would not be realistic.(in an engine).

Lower Heating Value (LHV) are used to distinguish cases in which water in the combustion products is either liquid (HHV) or gaseous (LHV).

http://www2.latech.edu/~hhegab/pages/me ... l_Sp97.htm

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

31 Mar 2020, 10:49

you all seem to be barking up the wrong tree !
efficiencies given in the power generation context are based on LHV
and seem to be called electrical efficiency
I guess this is the benchmark - it sets aside what would otherwise be different 'efficiencies' with different fuels

eg IEA-ETSAP wrote this in a Technology Brief on Gas-Fired Power on 2 April 2010 .... and that ....
CC (intermediate and peak load) LHV-based efficiency will by 2020 reach 64%
OC (standby load) LHV-based efficiency will by 2020 reach 45%

GE says currently that aeroderivative turbines best OC efficiency is 44% and CC efficiency is 56%
best heavy duty turbines reach 63% CC (afaik and iirc their OC efficiency is famously c 50%)

presumably these 'efficiencies' are also LHV-based
and so not to be directly compared with F1's magic 50% ?

Combined Cycle Gas turbines in 2015 were 61% thermal efficiency, in 2017 production delivered efficiency is now 63%.

Well guys a week to go until (hopefully) we see some cars in Free Practice.

Just wondered if anyone has heard much about the Merc reliability or any work they have done since testing in Barcelona? I know the works team only had one issue but Williams seemed to struggle somewhat with the PU.

Interesting times ahead with Andy Cowell heading for a new project to see how the Merc PU performs and develops, one of the interesting sub plots for me.

saw a lot smoking coming from the rear Racing Point, Williams und Mercedes car. all related to the engine?
havent seen that much smoke last year.

Nano4k wrote: ↑

05 Jul 2020, 20:42

saw a lot smoking coming from the rear Racing Point, Williams und Mercedes car. all related to the engine?
havent seen that much smoke last year.

Was like that in testing already. Only Mercedes engines.

Oil burning?

According to Motorsport.it, phonometric surveys were conducted in Austria in order to evaluate the 2020 PUs. (Fun fact: Last year, the phonometric surveys were conducted in Bahrain.)

Mercedes has been a big step forward with the PU. At least 20 hp clear of Honda with class-leading fuel efficiency.

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-me ... a/4834560/

Excerpts, translated:

"The first thing that deserves to be reported is that the Mercedes F1 M11 EQ Performance PU . . . reaches a power output of almost 1,000 horsepower."

"The RB16, in fact, had to reckon with a Honda engine down 20 horsepower to the unit created by Andy Cowell . . .

. . . In terms of maximum power it's not a big gap, measurable in a couple of tenths at the most, but the differences emerge during the race: according to the rumors we gathered, Hamilton completed the 71 laps distance of the Red Bull Ring with about ten kilos of petrol (left) in the tank, a sign that Brackley's managers didn't want to exaggerate the strategy on a track not demanding for consumption on which 106 kg (out of 110 granted) should be enough to finish the race."

Can someone point me to the methods used for these phonometric surveys? Really curious to know as it sounds pretty interesting (pun fully intended).

20bhp of a 1000bhp is 2%. A repeatable 2% on a calibrated dyno takes some work (at least for dynos in the grasp of most enthusiast shops), let alone using sound.

Trap speeds are about worthless due to the variation in aero drag of the different chassis, let alone some rolling resistance. On a Superbike, you see 3-4mph from a rider who can tuck in better than another, on the same bike, so it doesn't take a lot.