Red Bull Racing's technical chief Adrian Newey has admitted to concern that the new lower nose regulations introduced in Formula One may have uninentionally made driver safety worse.
If we assume the temperature in combustion chamber to be 2300K and exhaust temperature 1200K, we would have ~48% (that is without mechanical and cooling losses).Scotracer wrote:Off the top of my head, Carnot is around 42%?
You can't.WhiteBlue wrote:You can get around Carnot by using multi stage machinery as you do in stationary power generation.
You can still define temperature and entropy change of the whole system (even if you convert heat to electricity etc) and it would be within Carnot's limit. Because it is a square on T-S diagram.WhiteBlue wrote:Ok, I will rephrase. You can get around the Carnot limitations of a single working engine by using combinations of multiple working engines.
Not in practice either according to Gyro.strad wrote:I was going to mention this before in another context...Is it not true that in theory the internal combustion engine will not work?
Hmm... did you watch this vid?WhiteBlue wrote:I have thought about the way F1 is going to restrict fuel use from 2013 onwards. Most people have followed Autosport's interpretation of a technical fuel flow limit.
The Autosport interpretation is based on an original quote by Sam Michael.Autosport wrote:In a bid to further increase F1's green credentials, teams are also keen for there to be a fuel flow rate limit - which will ensure the engines are economical.
When I read this carefully I could also come to the conclusion that Michael talks about a flow meter on the pump when the fuel is filled into the car. He talks about a certain amount of fuel that can be used and not about a flow rate to the engine. I would much prefer that solution and we would have to wait and see what they decide.Sam Michael wrote:Rather than dump as much fuel in as we can at the moment, there will be a fuel flow metre – so you won’t be able to blow more than a certain amount of fuel. It is a good chunk less than we had at the moment.
No its not true. Thats like saying that the bicycle would not work either!strad wrote:I was going to mention this before in another context...Is it not true that in theory the internal combustion engine will not work?
I would imagine the opposite. Newey would relish the challenge, but the down side is that whoever came up with the magic formula, would then be subjected to constant complaints by the other times, and calls for "clarification".WhiteBlue wrote: Teams like Red Bull are likely to protect their current supremacy in high drag chassis design and ambush the low drag plan.
Depends on how well rules are written. IMO 5 cm min radius rule is a good example of the rule that does not really produce ambiguity (there were questions about exhausts on Ferrari F60 but it was immediately settled down).gilgen wrote:but the down side is that whoever came up with the magic formula, would then be subjected to constant complaints by the other times, and calls for "clarification".
There is no ambiguity in a race fuel limit of 110 kg or a flow limit of 25 g/s. There is only the problem that some may not commit to it.gilgen wrote:I would imagine the opposite. Newey would relish the challenge, but the down side is that whoever came up with the magic formula, would then be subjected to constant complaints by the other times, and calls for "clarification".WhiteBlue wrote: Teams like Red Bull are likely to protect their current supremacy in high drag chassis design and ambush the low drag plan.
Well it is true...They also say that in theroy a plane can't flygilgen wrote:No its not true. Thats like saying that the bicycle would not work either!strad wrote:I was going to mention this before in another context...Is it not true that in theory the internal combustion engine will not work?
I don't know how you come to that conclusion but it is true...They also said that in theory a plane can't fly.gilgen wrote:No its not true. Thats like saying that the bicycle would not work either!strad wrote:I was going to mention this before in another context...Is it not true that in theory the internal combustion engine will not work?
A bike is pwered in a similar fashion to an ICE. force is applied to a crank which in turn changes it to a circular drive, to provide propulsion. And by the way, there is no theory to say that a plane cannot fly. Now a bunble bee, THAT@S different.strad wrote:I don't know how you come to that conclusion but it is true...They also say that in theory a plane can't fly.gilgen wrote:No its not true. Thats like saying that the bicycle would not work either!strad wrote:I was going to mention this before in another context...Is it not true that in theory the internal combustion engine will not work?
