Beryllium in engines drama

[saviour stivala]

Bores as large as possible. ''After they (FERRARI) realized Mario Illien is about to fool them with beryllium''. Mario Illien fooled nobody. Mario Illien was just first to have exploited on a formula one track and in a formula one 'engine', and so not in a formula one 'car', and neither in an engine, because Brembo was actually first on a formula one 'car brake caliper', and Porsche was the first to have manufactured pistons. ALBeMeT-AM162, an aluminium-beryllium comprising 62% beryllium. At that time of this material exploitation in engine parts, pistons. liners and gudgeon-pin. with the liner being Nikasil-type coated. FERRARI had bigger bore and shorter stroke, while Illmor had smaller bore and longer stroke, these chosen configurations (1998), the one chosen by illmor when combined by said parts manufactured from said alluminium-berllium, gave the illmor an advantage in overall design, thermal and combustion efficiency/compression ratio advantage, cooling needs, and weight. By 1999 FERRARI had secured its own supply of the same said materials, but instead of using said material which would have resulted in still a greater advantage with the bore/stroke combination they were using, they decided to pursues the 'heath' reasoning. This because although the cited material dust was a known threat, but provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, it was not an issue. The prospects of a component failure in use was not clear-cut.

[saviour stivala]

Bores as large as possible. ''After they (FERRARI) realized Mario Illien is about to fool them with beryllium''. Mario Illien fooled nobody. Mario Illien was just first to have exploited on a formula one track and in a formula one 'engine', and so not in a formula one 'car', and neither in an engine, because Brembo was actually first on a formula one 'car brake caliper', and Porsche was the first to have manufactured pistons. ALBeMeT-AM162, an aluminium-beryllium comprising 62% beryllium. At that time of this material exploitation in engine parts, pistons. liners and gudgeon-pin. with the liner being Nikasil-type coated. FERRARI had bigger bore and shorter stroke, while Illmor had smaller bore and longer stroke, these chosen configurations (1998), the one chosen by illmor when combined by said parts manufactured from said alluminium-berllium, gave the illmor an advantage in overall design, thermal and combustion efficiency/compression ratio advantage, cooling needs, and weight. By 1999 FERRARI had secured its own supply of the same said materials, but instead of using said material which would have resulted in still a greater advantage with the bore/stroke combination they were using, they decided to pursues the 'heath' reasoning. This because although the cited material dust was a known threat, but provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, it was not an issue. The prospects of a component failure in use was not clear-cut.

[saviour stivala]

By the end of 1998 and that is before they (FERRARI) officially logged complain on safety grounds with the FIA, they had already made arrangements for their own supply of AIBeMet - AM162 aluminum-beryllium metal comprising 62% beryllium. The safety concern did not revolve around the components manufacturing processes, because dust while manufacturing was not an issue, provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, it was component failure in use which was not clear cut that pushed the FIA to make its 40GP/g/cc ruling for 2000 for all but internal engine components and for everything metallic from 2021. With that ruling FERRARI did not pursue an aluminum-beryllium program. Safe in the knowledge that it would only be legal for its first year of the V10 racing, BMW shunned the material altogether and it produced the best engine of the 2021 field. That same year Illmor slumped, as a result of its AM162 adventure.

[JohnP]

According to my Ilmor piston from 2000, the bore is 93.5 mm.

[Tommy Cookers]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?
Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

well pardon me for living !!
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com ... ncer-study
you can get the amjclinicaloncology article by searching (the link won't work)

feel free to show me where I have suggested or implied that beryllium can't be harmful
feel free to read the source material not just the Wiki story
feel free to look at the current regulations on Be working

[dialtone]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?
Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com ... ncer-study


feel free to show me where I have suggested or implied that beryllium can't be harmful

I think you need to understand better what you read and the context in which it’s written.

And given your last question, you should also understand better the implications of what and how you write things.

[Espresso]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?
Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

well pardon me for living !!
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com ... ncer-study
you can get the amjclinicaloncology article by searching (the link won't work)

feel free to show me where I have suggested or implied that beryllium can't be harmful
feel free to read the source material not just the Wiki story
feel free to look at the current regulations on Be working

Article only mentions the hazard model for low level radiation is probably wrong.
It specifically doesn’t mention “X-ray is harmless “

https://journals.lww.com/amjclinicalonc ... ld.12.aspx

[Espresso]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?
Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

well pardon me for living !!
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com ... ncer-study
you can get the amjclinicaloncology article by searching (the link won't work)

feel free to show me where I have suggested or implied that beryllium can't be harmful
feel free to read the source material not just the Wiki story
feel free to look at the current regulations on Be working

Article only mentions the hazard model for low level radiation is probably wrong.
It specifically doesn’t mention “X-ray is harmless “

https://journals.lww.com/amjclinicalonc ... ld.12.aspx

[Dazed1]

"X-rays use ionizing radiation, which can damage cell DNA and increase the risk of cancer over time. The risk depends on the amount of radiation exposure and the part of the body being X-rayed. Children are more sensitive to radiation than adults."

[Tommy Cookers]

"X-rays use ionizing radiation, which can damage cell DNA and increase the risk of cancer over time. The risk depends on the amount of radiation exposure and the part of the body being X-rayed. Children are more sensitive to radiation than adults."

sorry but the above seems (to me) the vague but 'pile-on-the-condemnation' approach (that I had complained about)

significant (to me) is a statement elsewhere ....
(at c.20 min into the Thought Emporium youtube item titled 'taking X-rays using grandma's radioactive dishes') ....
'' as long as the exposure is brief enough and within certain known safe limits your body can fix any change without issue or increased cancer risk "


regarding beryllium ....
afaik no notable toxicity has developed from a single exposure event
if that is wrong - can someone show me (eg in source material used by Wikipedia) where it says so ?

[Rodak]

From the National Library of Medicine at the NIH, a U.S. government agency: Beryllium Toxicity by Elaine R. Stearney; Julian A. Jakubowski; Angela C. Regina. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK585042/

Acute beryllium sensitivity and Berylliosis should be suspected in any patient presenting with respiratory complaints alongside known or suspected beryllium exposure. Acute beryllium toxicity will typically occur after exposure levels of 25 to 100 μg/m. It will typically manifest with inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tract, similar to other cases of chemical pneumonitis.

I don't know if this answers your question about a single exposure, but it does mention exposure levels.

[ACRO]

FERRARI had bigger bore and shorter stroke, while Illmor had smaller bore and longer stroke, these chosen configurations (1998), the one chosen by illmor when combined by said parts manufactured from said alluminium-berllium, gave the illmor an advantage in overall design, thermal and combustion efficiency/compression ratio advantage, cooling needs, and weight. By 1999 FERRARI had secured its own supply of the same said materials, but instead of using said material which would have resulted in still a greater advantage with the bore/stroke combination they were using, they decided to pursues the 'heath' reasoning. This because although the cited material dust was a known threat, but provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, it was not an issue. The prospects of a component failure in use was not clear-cut.

Sorry for the late reply - i fully agree with you on this statement !

The ilmor v10 was early on specifically designed with beryllium pistons in mind while ferrari was late to the party .

With ferraris big bore / short stroke design the rev limit here was more the flame front propagation than piston accleration so beryllium would not have helped much
while the ilmor v10 needed this material to rev very high due to larger stroke .

If beryllium would stay legal i think ferrari would have lost the 2000/2001 championship and / or would be doomed to quickly design a lower bore engine . To close the door permanently fia prohibited any material above a given strenght , not only beryllium .

The health issue was a genius foul play by ferrari since it was labeled as a safety issue , and safety issues could be decided by FIA alone .

Ferrari was highly benefited by FIA with this decision .

[gruntguru]

Yes. . . . and yet another avenue for development of disruptive technology gets cut off at the knees.

[ACRO]

Yes , funny we still are talking health issues while in fact ferrari did not gave a s**t about the health of workers and spectators , knowing it was only an issue on manufacturing and not the racetrack .

but they needed it for the political statement .

[saviour stivala]

Yes , funny we still are talking health issues while in fact ferrari did not gave a s**t about the health of workers and spectators , knowing it was only an issue on manufacturing and not the racetrack .

but they needed it for the political statement .

At the time, 1998, Although material dust of aluminum beryllium when being manufactured was a known threat, it was also known that provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, its manufacturing process posed no safety problem. The safety problem was of component failure in use.