Which is more sensitive?

[rktech]

With all its moving parts, friction, speed, power generated, and required precision associated with an F1 engine, which would you guess is more sensitive and more affected by its environment and unwanted energies (from a performance perspective), an F1 engine operating at 18k rpm's bouncing around on an open track at 175 mph or a stationary atomic force microscope properly positioned in a well-engineered research building?

I have reason for asking this so I'd appreciate hearing your reasons for your answer.

[Tim.Wright]

Bit of an open ended handwavy question isn't it?

Both of these things would be designed to minimise performance variations coming from environmental disturbances, so until you make some attempt to equate the "performance" of an F1 engine with the "performance" of an atomic force mircoscope it just going to become a penis size discussion...

[WillerZ]

The microscope is obviously more fragile. If you drive the microscope around a bumpy track it won't work; if you install an F1 engine in a lab it will work. QED.

[mep]

There is no particularly high precision required of an engine. It requires tight tolerances but the “precision” of power output is not high, it can vary by around 10%. This would not be accepted for a microscope.

[Hobbs04]

What is your reason? Putting a microscope on f1 car ehh?

[rktech]

There is no particularly high precision required of an engine. It requires tight tolerances but the “precision” of power output is not high, it can vary by around 10%. This would not be accepted for a microscope.

Good response, Mep. However, if you think about a piston travelling up and down upwards of 280 times per second at break neck speed and velocity, we know that tremendous precision engineering (including tolerances) is essential to make that happen. Especially when that translates to just over 2 million oscillations per race or more than 16 million oscillations for all 8 pistons for one race. With the intended desire that the last combustion at the checkered flag is roughly equivalent to the first at the start of the race.

That's not including the movement of the cams, cranks, valves, etc over a 2 hour period of time.

Would you not agree that if it takes tremendous engineering precision to design/mfg'er these engines, that it also takes tremendous precision to make them operate as intended, even though the conditions may be adverse?

[Jersey Tom]

Would you not agree that if it takes tremendous engineering precision to design/mfg'er these engines, that it also takes tremendous precision to make them operate as intended, even though the conditions may be adverse?

I dunno if I'd say that. High precision? Yes. "Tremendous" (whatever that may mean as far as specifics)? Perhaps not so much. Having worked in a machine shop for a few years, you'd be surprised how tight of tolerance you can hold even on manual equipment. On a good day I'd say you could turn a piece to +/- 0.001 to +/- 0.002 without too much difficulty. The equipment and precision to make engine parts I'd subjectively put as vastly easier than say microscope components - which are much more "specialty items."

[tuj]

Well the original Hubble Space Telescope mirror was off by 2,200 nanometers and that basically ruined the initial pictures. So I'd say optics are more sensitive to accuracy and precision than an F1 engine.

[Richard]

I have reason for asking this so I'd appreciate hearing your reasons for your answer.

Could you give some context? Otherwise we're comparing chalk and cheese.

For example I guess an atomic micoscope has far tighter dimensional tolerances than an engine due to the need for a precision fit. So that might infer the micoscope is more sensitive. However an engine built with that sort of precision fit would be useless because it couldn't accommodate thermal expansion.