2930 replies to this topic

[JasonSw]

Hape I was not agreeing with you.

I was making the point that mathematically 40 is 200% of 20 but temperature as well as decibal and loads of other measurements can not be tackled with percentages. They are exponential measurements therefore a percentage cannot be applied. 40 degrees C is not 200% of 20 degrees C no matter how you measure it!

It is to do with energy and you cannot apply mathematics without knowing how that energy reacts to incremental change.

[HaPe]

I followed your explainations and I understand your arguments very well.
But it seems that we talked across-purposes.
I thank those users, who were able to keep patience and dispassion.

Okay, so I have to admit:

Even if you can calculate the percentage of any numbers (and thats what I mention all along), you cannot in all cases put the unit behind the results, because some units would invalidate the result in terms of the respective science (thanks for mentioning "dB", that was a far better example than C/K).

But doenst that bring us back to the point that actually the unit has to be left out from percentage calculations?! Okay, I cannot say "it doesnt matter" (see above) - thats where I was wrong.
But instead one should say that you should NEVER calculate any unit value, or?!
Percentage is a unit in its own. And since percentage is a linear unit, the "rule" is probably that you can only apply percentage results with linear unit values?!

= = =

Even though I still dont understand why the analogy with the heights of 2 hills in percentage relation is a bad example. The height of hills can be made either from MSL or from the "0" as the middle of the earth. The counter argument with a people or a building is not valid, because they have an own base (where they start from). But hills dont have the MSL as base. They are part of the earth, and thus its a fair question, why their measurements and all percentage calculations are accepted, albeit based on a "virtual" baseline (MSL) instead the "real 0". This is the analogy to "0C" and "0K", whereas the "height" is the temperature. At least IMO.

kindly regards
HaPe

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe

Even though I still dont understand why the analogy with the heights of 2 hills in percentage relation is a bad example. The height of hills can be made either from MSL or from the "0" as the middle of the earth. The counter argument with a people or a building is not valid, because they have an own base (where they start from). But hills dont have the MSL as base. They are part of the earth, and thus its a fair question, why their measurements and all percentage calculations are accepted, albeit based on a "virtual" baseline (MSL) instead the "real 0". This is the analogy to "0C" and "0K", whereas the "height" is the temperature. At least IMO.

Seems to me that it would be simpler to just say 10 degrees C less than an single sourced ambient.

And while the scientific argument versus the unscientific might be interesting or frustrating, depending on your viewpoint, what does it matter to the FIA? They could stipulate what they like, and how it's be be calculated, and that would be how a percentage change method would be applied. I imagine they would apply a percentage process that HaPe would argue for, since that is easily understandable by most people.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally posted by HaPe
I followed your explainations and I understand your arguments very well.
But it seems that we talked across-purposes.
I thank those users, who were able to keep patience and dispassion.

Okay, so I have to admit:

Even if you can calculate the percentage of any numbers (and thats what I mention all along), you cannot in all cases put the unit behind the results, because some units would invalidate the result in terms of the respective science (thanks for mentioning "dB", that was a far better example than C/K).

But doenst that bring us back to the point that actually the unit has to be left out from percentage calculations?! Okay, I cannot say "it doesnt matter" (see above) - thats where I was wrong.
But instead one should say that you should NEVER calculate any unit value, or?!
Percentage is a unit in its own. And since percentage is a linear unit, the "rule" is probably that you can only apply percentage results with linear unit values?!

If you leave the units in the calculation, they will all cancel out. eg (10m-5m)/(5m) :The meters cancel out when you do the calculation. dB was a good example.

Even though I still dont understand why the analogy with the heights of 2 hills in percentage relation is a bad example. The height of hills can be made either from MSL or from the "0" as the middle of the earth. The counter argument with a people or a building is not valid, because they have an own base (where they start from). But hills dont have the MSL as base. They are part of the earth, and thus its a fair question, why their measurements and all percentage calculations are accepted, albeit based on a "virtual" baseline (MSL) instead the "real 0". This is the analogy to "0C" and "0K", whereas the "height" is the temperature. At least IMO.

You explained it perfectly. Height does not have a defined zero point. It's zero point is the base of the object which is being measured. A mountain has no specific base. MSL makes no more or less sense as the center of the earth. In fact, if I were to hand you a sphere and ask you what the height is, I'm pretty sure you would give me the diameter. So why not the diameter of the earth from the peak of Everest, through the center and to a point on the surface exactly opposite Everest. The problem is with the word height. It is used to describe many different things, including altitude and elevation. It is too general of a term. Elevation is the specific name for the vertical distance from MSL to peak.

Rather than that example for height, here is another one.

Let's say that there is a French ruler that is somewhat short, lets say 5'2" or 157cm. So rather than measure people's height from the ground, they measure relative to the French ruler. They say that the height of their great ruler is 0, and then measure in a unit called a Napoleon, which is equal is length to an inch, with a measurement of 1 Napoleon (Np) meaning that the person measured is 1Np (or 1 inch) taller than the ruler. So we measure my friend who happens to be 6Np in height. I, on the other hand am 12Np tall. Am I twice as tall as my friend? Clearly I am not because if we measure in inches, I am 74 inches tall and my friend is 68 inches tall. This is a better analog to temperature.

Thanks for sticking around. I hope we didn't get too rough.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Seems to me that it would be simpler to just say 10 degrees C less than an single sourced ambient.

Without a doubt. Even before I had to admit, I wouldnt vote to do it in %

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Frank Tuesday
You explained it perfectly.

Phew

Originally posted by Frank Tuesday
Rather than that example for height, here is another one.

Let's say that there is a French ruler that is somewhat short, lets say 5'2" or 157cm. So rather than measure people's height from the ground, they measure relative to the French ruler. They say that the height of their great ruler is 0, and then measure in a unit called a Napoleon, which is equal is length to an inch, with a measurement of 1 Napoleon (Np) meaning that the person measured is 1Np (or 1 inch) taller than the ruler. So we measure my friend who happens to be 6Np in height. I, on the other hand am 12Np tall. Am I twice as tall as my friend? Clearly I am not because if we measure in inches, I am 74 inches tall and my friend is 68 inches tall. This is a better analog to temperature.

Thats the problem with such declarative phrases like "twice as ...."
For sure you are not "twice as tall" , but still I could calculate a percentage of the difference of "Np".
Its only that this is not your tallness, but just a metric measurement - and for metric measurements its perfectly legal to do percentage calculations. So I could say:
Your Np measures are twice as much as your friends Np measures.

And I think this shows, where my problem was with the C.
I would have said: 40 degrees Celsius are twice as much as 20 degrees Celsius.
Hmmm is that wrong? I know its wrong to say "twice as warm/hot" and its also wrong to say its 200 % of temperature. But "twice as much"??
Hmmm, you confusing me, mate.

Originally posted by Frank Tuesday
Thanks for sticking around. I hope we didn't get too rough.

No problem. I can cope with that.
I have rather a problem with users, who give up, instead to continue and convince me.;)

[Pikku Pakkanen]

HaPe, sorry about those cheap shots about Alfa Romeos etc. I'm a bit arrogant sometimes. We were propably just talking about different things, you about arithmetics in general, and I about thermometer accuracy values with practical uses.

[Pikku Pakkanen]

And now for something completely different:

To cheer you all up, I made a very funny little experiment with surprising results. I had a very small amount of 60C water in a warm kettle. I also had a bottle of 24C water.

I put a fast digital thermometer sensor into the 60C water. Then I filled the kettle with 24C water as fast as I could. Guess what? The thermometer never showed a value lower than 31.9C. After a while it settled to around 35C.

I felt like Sam Michael.

[alg7_munif]

Originally posted by Pikku Pakkanen
And now for something completely different:

To cheer you all up, I made a very funny little experiment with surprising results. I had a very small amount of 60C water in a warm kettle. I also had a bottle of 24C water.

I put a fast digital thermometer sensor into the 60C water. Then I filled the kettle with 24C water as fast as I could. Guess what? The thermometer never showed a value lower than 31.9C. After a while it settled to around 35C.

I felt like Sam Michael.

You should really learn about thermodynamics and specifc heat capacity. Sure you have a very small amount of hot water but you forgot that the mass of the kettle @60C is probably higher than the mass of the 24C water.

[Kelateboy]

Originally posted by alg7_munif
So you've read the ICA full transcript?

Yes, I have.
-KB

[Pikku Pakkanen]

Originally posted by alg7_munif

You should really learn about thermodynamics and specifc heat capacity. Sure you have a very small amount of hot water but you forgot that the mass of the kettle @60C is probably higher than the mass of the 24C water.

What! You're saying that my wonderfully organized experiment where I spent almost five minutes, is not valid as a scientific evidence!

Actually, what I wanted to say is that the fuel can be illegally cold in the rig, but because the fuel tank sensor is in hot fuel it never has a chance to show any illegal values before the new fuel warms up. There is a lot of hot mass around the fuel tank warming the fuel.

Technically there is illegally cold fuel onboard the car for a little while, but the fuel tank sensor will not show it.

[alg7_munif]

Originally posted by Pikku Pakkanen


What! You're saying that my wonderfully organized experiment where I spent almost five minutes, is not valid as a scientific evidence!

Actually, what I wanted to say is that the fuel can be illegally cold in the rig, but because the fuel tank sensor is in hot fuel it never has a chance to show any illegal values before the new fuel warms up. There is a lot of hot mass around the fuel tank warming the fuel.

Technically there is illegally cold fuel onboard the car for a little while, but the fuel tank sensor will not show it.

If you are involved in motorsport, you will know that the tank would be adequately isolated from any heat source to gain more performance so I doubt that the fuel would even reach 60C.

[Rob]

Originally posted by alg7_munif

If you are involved in motorsport, you will know that the tank would be adequately isolated from any heat source to gain more performance so I doubt that the fuel would even reach 60C.

They keep the fuel tank in a thermos flask

[Pikku Pakkanen]

Originally posted by alg7_munif

If you are involved in motorsport, you will know that the tank would be adequately isolated from any heat source to gain more performance so I doubt that the fuel would even reach 60C.

The fuel tank takes almost the whole space between the engine and the driver. If there is 50-60C in the cockpit because of the engine heat, then how could the fuel tank be much cooler?

"6.5.5 The use of any device on board the car to decrease the temperature of the fuel is forbidden."

I have no idea how hot the fuel in an F1 car can be. It would be nice to know.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Pikku Pakkanen


The fuel tank takes almost the whole space between the engine and the driver. If there is 50-60C in the cockpit because of the engine heat, then how could the fuel tank be much cooler?

"6.5.5 The use of any device on board the car to decrease the temperature of the fuel is forbidden."

I have no idea how hot the fuel in an F1 car can be. It would be nice to know.

There are very effective and very thin thermal insulation products available. No idea if they are used, but would be very surprised if they are not. The teams go to a lot of trouble to cool the fuel, and I'm damn sure they will do everything they can to maintain that temp. I simply do not believe the fuel heats up as quickly as some wish to believe.

[JSF]

The fuel cell housing is entirely surounded in carbon composite and is gold plated to reflect heat.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Pikku Pakkanen
Technically there is illegally cold fuel onboard the car for a little while, but the fuel tank sensor will not show it.

If the sensor is after the fuel pump, then it will not show the fuel that in the tank's temperature either, because the fuel temp. increases under pressure.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
If the sensor is after the fuel pump, then it will not show the fuel that in the tank's temperature either, because the fuel temp. increases under pressure.

Williams showed both: temperature in tank (unpressured) and temperatuer in the fuel pipes.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe

Williams showed both: temperature in tank (unpressured) and temperatuer in the fuel pipes.

All that I read was the Williams has a sensor inside the tank, whose coolest reading was 31C. For all I know though, its hottest reading was 31C too.

[alg7_munif]

Originally posted by Kelateboy


Yes, I have.
-KB

Perhaps you could share with us and we will know the whole story during the two days, not just the appeal is not admissable ruling.

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by Pikku Pakkanen
I have no idea how hot the fuel in an F1 car can be. It would be nice to know.

Yeah, pitty Sam didn't mention the average temperature or the highest, only the lowest. But I guess it doesn't really matter, since neither we nor anyone else, including the FIA can confirm it.

But please, anyone, try and put a small glass of 24C degree water into a 300C degree oven, if it insta-heat to atleast 31 degrees, much less 300, I suppose Sam has a case; the sensors on the Intertechnic fuel rig must be of such low quality or so off spec, they are +-7 degrees off in a best case scenario, +-14 degrees off in an average case scenario and +-28 degrees off in a worst case scenario. That's... uhm... probably it

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by HaPe
Williams showed both: temperature in tank (unpressured) and temperatuer in the fuel pipes.

Unpressured, eh?! Can you back that up?

[HaPe]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Unpressured, eh?! Can you back that up?

Hmm ... afaik the fuel in F1 tanks is not pressured, or?!
Not sure though.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by HaPe

Hmm ... afaik the fuel in F1 tanks is not pressured, or?!
Not sure though.

It would be very dangerous if it was, since on removing the fuel hose the fuel if the tank was full, it would blow back.

So, no.

There would be breather valves to allow the tank to empty too. I presume the fuel lies in a foam structure too. Not that that's relevant.

It would be nice if someone could explain who knows about them. Mostly I know about them from the Honda case where there was a large fuel reservoir and inside the tank itself, which had a very high pressure pump for the injection system. The pump required a very large reservoir, according to Honda. No mentions of much pressure before that fuel reservoir though - but the fuel is pumped into it so the temp would increase there, and a sensible place for one of the thermocouples would be in that reservoir. I thought that tank was mounted high to but that may just have been a drawing I recall.

[Buttoneer]

ISTR that there is a maximum fuel pressure allowed by the rules. The pressurisation process probably starts in the pre-charger reservoir in the BAR-style tank.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
ISTR that there is a maximum fuel pressure allowed by the rules. The pressurisation process probably starts in the pre-charger reservoir in the BAR-style tank.

Yeh, I recall that Honda had 100PSI, but that other teams mostly ran around 50, and that they specified a maximum. But I don't know if they pushed it down to 50 or left the max at 100.

[HP]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Yeah, pitty Sam didn't mention the average temperature or the highest, only the lowest. But I guess it doesn't really matter, since neither we nor anyone else, including the FIA can confirm it.

But please, anyone, try and put a small glass of 24C degree water into a 300C degree oven, if it insta-heat to atleast 31 degrees, much less 300, I suppose Sam has a case; the sensors on the Intertechnic fuel rig must be of such low quality or so off spec, they are +-7 degrees off in a best case scenario, +-14 degrees off in an average case scenario and +-28 degrees off in a worst case scenario. That's... uhm... probably it

FOM and FiA ambient temperatures differed by about 7 degrees. If they take that as standard then everything is set right .. or is it?

Anyway, as usual there's an easy way to be smart (also known as cheating in this case). If you want to have a high temperature reading for the fuel rigs, leave them in the sun. If you want to do it perfect (and don't mind to be obvious about it), put the fuel rig behind glass in a closed room. The net effect should be like when parking the car out in sun on a hot sunny day. Seat and steering wheel searing hot for a time.

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Yeh, I recall that Honda had 100PSI, but that other teams mostly ran around 50, and that they specified a maximum. But I don't know if they pushed it down to 50 or left the max at 100.

The rule says still "max. 100 bar"

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by HaPe

The rule says still "max. 100 bar"

Not Max 100 Million? Maybe McLaren has reason to appeal after all?

[HaPe]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
Not Max 100 Million? Maybe McLaren has reason to appeal after all?

[alg7_munif]

Originally posted by Kelateboy


Yes, I have.
-KB

I'm still waiting for your response, hopefully you're not just full of you know what.