LILS

Not true. But putting wheels on a tokamak or stellerator isn't much more practical.

Old SStroker

Folks are getting closer to a fusion reactor which doesn't use a fission event (like a bomb) and which puts out more energy than it takes to run it. It won't be small, nor cheap.

It made you think, which is good.

racer7088

Wow a Hp AND Torque thread that hasn't even had one chair thrown! I guess it didn't have the usual "VS" component in the title that causes so much trouble like Hp and Tq are some kind of enemies with each other! Cool!

Old SStroker

Yeah, way cool. Hope this doesn't jinx it.

racer7088

You look really sexy in your new picture there Old SStroker!

Old SStroker

You know the real face, Erik. It's more like the previous Popeye avatar. Damn, I wish I looked like Burt! The only thing we share is hair color.

colby72olds

iTrader: (7)

I just read this whole thread and wow, you guys know what yall are talking about.....I think. I just started college this semester and I really hope I never have to do equations like yall are doing (I know I will though). Just wanted to inform yall that yall sound like geniuses.

Jpr5690

iTrader: (13)

Dam I Must Have Been Drunk When I Wrote That ... Not Meany People Got It I Guess.. Hell I Totally Forgot About My Posts Here

I Still Find It Funny

XxGarbSxX

That doesn't make any sense to me. I didn't think it was possible to have greater than 100% efficiency. I'm assuming it has to do with sub-atomic particles and all that crazy nonsensical stuff.

Old SStroker

Evidently it takes a lot of engrgy to cause nuclear fusion, and a fairly high temp. The good thing is that the energy given off from a (controlled) fusion reaction is very high.

I don't think a fusion reactor implies >100% efficiency. If it consumes a megawatt while it is producing 1.02 megawatts, that's about 2% efficient, at least the way I figure it. If the hydrogen fuel is fairly cheap (?), even 2% could make a lot of usable power.

Just my take on it. I'm not a particle physicist, however.

BigBronco

iTrader: (2)

This is a great thread bringing in comical value.

LILS

Does dynamite make any sense to you? A tiny spark results in a huge explosion. That's greater than 100% efficiency and just not possible, right?

The difference with controlled fusion (either magnetic or inertial confinement) is that it takes a big gob of energy to initiate and contain the fusion reaction, not just a tiny spark. However, whether it takes a match or a blowtorch to light a firecracker, the amount of energy that can be released by that cracker doesn't have much of anything to do with how big the flame was that touched it off. Right now, small controlled fusion firecrackers can only be lit with blowtorches that burn about the same amount of energy as the crackers release. Research into bigger crackers (or whole strings of little ones) and smaller blowtorches should be able to greatly change the energy balance sheet -- and that has nothing to do with greater than 100% energy conversion efficiency.

3.4camaro

iTrader: (1)

Dynamite isn't transfering to contained, usable work. If you exploded the dynamite in such a way to turn the explosion into mechanical work, you could measure the work produced versus the amount of energy in the chemical bonds of the dynamite, and THAT would be your efficiency.

ls1tork

Hopefully this is not a hijack, this should go along with the subject. Is there any torque advantage to setup an NA v8 for say 900hp at 10,000rpms (small block) vs 900hp at 5,000rpms (huge big block)? it would seem to me that if these two engines were tested in the same car that the big block would have a big torque advantage since it would put out a little over 900 lbs/ft of torque (and a whole lot more under the curve) and the small block would only put out maybe 700 lbs/ft at 5k rpms and about 450 lbs/ft at 10k rpms. Optimizing a small block for 10k rpms as in a nascar would make it weaker down low, but i guess low gearing makes up for that. i am thinking that if the trans gearing was favorable for both engines, the big block would still out pull the small block.

i was just wondering about this because i saw the historic 1970's era IMSA and CAN-AM car races on the speed channel yesterday, and those big block (500+ cu in) can ams were very impressive- they were in excess of 800hp at lower rpms. i thought those race cars were much more entertaining than the high tech controlled race cars of today- they just don't seem to have any ***** now, just alot of high rpm noise which has the psychological effect of making you think the car is extremely fast (except for Audi's R10 diesel race car).

LILS

Almost. You would need to derive the energy content of the dynamite explosion from the work done in order to make the energy to energy comparison instead of comparing work to energy, but you're on the right track. Similar to examining the chemical potential energy content of unexploded dynamite, you would need to examine the mass-energy content latent in the nuclear fuel prior to fusion. In neither case is the energy content of the ignition source a relevant factor in calculating the efficiency of the energy conversion from either chemical potential energy or nuclear potential energy to other forms.

Old SStroker

Torque at the drive wheels accelerates a vehicle. The 10000 rpm engine with half the torque of the 5000 rpm engine (at power peak) would have twice as much gear to achieve the same mph. If driveline losses were the same (or ignored for this quick look), and the shape of the torque curves was similar for the two engines, torque at the wheels would be the same as would horsepower.

An extreme example would be the 900 hp+ V10 F1 engines of a few years ago. The flywheel torque for 900 hp @ 20,000 rpm is, of course, 1/2 the torque of the 900hp @ 10,000 engine and 1/4 that of the 900hp @ 5000. engine.

It appears you hijacked back on topic.

ls1tork

Interesting. so basically it comes down to the "wow" factor- do you want a screaming small block or a thunderous big block brute to go fast? anyone remember Roger Penske's illmor mercedes "209" v8 at indy in 1994? that engine was very small, and it didn't spin very high, but it was a pushrod and was boosted to 55+ psi- it had monstrous low end torque in areas that a typical indy car engine of those days didn't have, kinda pulled like a "super diesel". that engine was lapping cars 2 to 3 times around indy peaking 245+ mph. that was an all boost motor, and they banned it because it had a big advantage due to a loophole in the indy rules allowing pushrod engines to run more boost than the standard indy engines. ok, sorry, i'm done-back to the topic...