Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
this 1938 Rover special was raced for 60 years ie F2 & F1 in-period and historics
using the production Rover 75 IOE engine etc https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arch ... /warhorses
the 4 cylinder 1.6 & 2 litre IOE engine was (until replaced by an OHV engine c. 1959) also in the Land Rover
in Rover and RR engines (having detachable heads) both valves were inclined and so rather large
different from the early IOE (inlet directly above the exhaust) which of course wasn't detachable head
detachable heads and the head gasket didn't exist when (mostly American) engines had IOE ('f') heads
so before c.1930 SV and IOE 'f' head needed removable access plugs for making and maintaining the valve seats etc
the 'f' head 'removable plug' incorporating a pushrod driven OH inlet valve etc was eg the so-called 'pocket valve' H-D
American IOE eg H-D was superseded by SV advances enabled by separate construction eg squish and aluminium alloy
British IOE (derived from Ricardo's c.1930 prototype for Bentley ?) was a step above SV & maybe (small-bore) ohv
NOTE TO SELF
UK car purchase tax was 45% from 1947 till 1962
(even more over £2000 - Jaguar destroyed its competitors by staying below this threshold)
the Land Rover was a 'commercial vehicle' so subject to a lower tax rate
(3-wheeled cars were taxed lower - and 'kit cars' were untaxed - as parts were not liable to purchase tax)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on 27 Nov 2022, 11:48, edited 1 time in total.
this 1938 Rover special was raced for 60 years ie F2 & F1 in-period and historics
using the production Rover 75 IOE engine etc https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arch ... /warhorses
(the 4 cylinder 1.6 & 2 litre IOE engine was (until replaced by an OHV engine c. 1959) also in the Land Rover
in Rover and RR engines (having detachable heads) both valves were inclined and so rather large
different from the early IOE (inlet directly above the exhaust) which of course wasn't detachable head
detachable heads and the head gasket didn't exist when (mostly American) engines had IOE ('f') heads
so before c.1930 SV and IOE 'f' head needed removable access plugs for making and maintaining the valve seats etc
the 'f' head 'removable plug' incorporating a pushrod driven OH inlet valve etc was eg the so-called 'pocket valve' H-D
American IOE eg H-D was superseded by SV advances enabled by separate construction eg squish and aluminium alloy
British IOE (derived from Ricardo's c.1930 prototype for Bentley ?) was a step above SV & maybe (small-bore) ohv
"In March 2011, the Great East Japan earthquake caused a massive tsunami that disabled the cooling systems of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (福島第一原子力発電所).
Without proper cooling, the plant's nuclear fuel melted down and several hydrogen explosions resulted.
The plant's owner TEPCO and the Japanese government have since committed billions of dollars to the site's safe and efficient decommissioning.
To minimize human safety risk, the company has developed and deployed a series of advanced, radiation-hardened robots to perform a variety of critical tasks.
I have wanted to do this topic since the very start of this channel. In this video, let's take a look at the Fukushima Robots. "
I am led to believe that in conventional coal fired power stations hydrogen is used as a coolant in bearing blocks??
Further explanation of the DB600 WW2 engine, the fuel side of things is revealing
well contrary to some fuel 'revelations' made in the above .....
iso-octane is exactly NOT an aromatic - so the mention of 'other aromatics' is nonsense
there was no WW2 150 octane fuel
the fuel though often for clarity called 150 octane was 100 ON Octane Number/150 PN Performance Number
(C3 fuel when tested by the Allied book was 100 ON/135 PN)
Further explanation of the DB600 WW2 engine, the fuel side of things is revealing
well contrary to some fuel 'revelations' made in the above .....
iso-octane is exactly NOT an aromatic - so the mention of 'other aromatics' is nonsense
there was no WW2 150 octane fuel
the fuel though often for clarity called 150 octane was 100 ON Octane Number/150 PN Performance Number
(C3 fuel when tested by the Allied book was 100 ON/135 PN)
Yes, you are right.
However, his two mistakes dont diminish the wealth of information revealed here.
From the effect of the two different organisational structures (can you transpose that to today?)
To the methods of making fuel in difficult circumstances was amazing
Coal to ICE fuel has been tried here but not successfully, from what I know.
The difference in knock resistant fuels between the two sides was telling.
I try to give credence rather than critcism.
Maximum CH temperature of 205C, 23 psi boost and the wing deicing method...
Was there some methanol used?
We've had fly-ins of the B-17 and B-25 here, Yakima, USA, with the planes open for tours with total access except the cockpit; I've been amazed at how small the planes are and how thin the skin! The pilots of these things were brave indeed, especially considering the poor survival rate in early European raids.
Did a ride in a PBY in New Zealand and was amazed at how safe that lumbering thing felt; we flew around Te Mata Peak low and slow - an amazing experience. My father was a Marine in WW2 in the Pacific and hitch-hiked on them back to Wanganui, NZ after his discharge to marry my mother. He was at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, so I guess I owe my existence to that attack!
is where it says even (the best) German fuel C3 was 100 octane but allied fuel was 130 octane and 150 octane
that is just wrong
for '100 octane' fuels etc there is no such thing as a rich octane rating ....
(outside the enthusiast's imagination detonation propensity isn't something measurable in units called octanes)
'lean' (rather least-favourable) mixture at 1 atmosphere is compulsory for Knock ratings expressed as Octane Number
'rich' fuel Knock rating tests are via 'supercharge' pressure and called Performance Number
in 1940 to avoid mistakes the RAF called the new 100/130 fuel 100 octane
but by 1944 to avoid mistakes the new 100/150 fuel was called 150 octane & 'demoted' 100/130 called 130 octane
(though both 100/130 and 100/150 were 100 octane ie tested 100 in the motor octane number MON test)
a supreme ruling eventually forced the USAAF (in the ETO) to use (or talk) the same fuels as the RAF
yes early German C3 was c.95/110 and later C3 was c.100/135
no-one ever marketed gasoline above nominally 115 octane number ie ICAO 115/145 (triptane wasn't producable)
the ICAO standard has been and still is Avgas 100/130 (100 MON/130 PN) - it won F1 in 1958-1960
MON must be 100 but likely will be c.103 (so RON is maybe c.110)
(MON seems to have superseded the aviation lean rating)
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/om030621b
whence it seems that .....
US TEL monopoly supplied worldwide till eg German manufacture started in 1935 and GB manufacture in 1940
US road gasoline had max allowed TEL increased from 3 mg to 4 mg in 1959 (the first 100 octane road fuel ?? why ?)
https://fredstarr.com/wp-content/upload ... rshall.pdf .... is priceless ....
and seems to show clearly that .....
USA's invention and part supply of 100 octane fuel wasn't the 100/130 fuel mandated late in WW2 and ever since
(and of course the eventual USA and UK etc domestic 100 octane roadside fuel wasn't - ie it was c.100/108)
this paper https://www.enginehistory.org/Reference ... istics.pdf seemingly shows
the majority petrol/gasoline ingredients classed as paraffins have little or no response to richening
(remember charge air temperature is fixed in ON and PN tests)
eg our friendly reference fuel (iso)octane) has nil response......
(though paraffins have a good response to TEL)
the apparent nil response of iso-octane is an artifact of its position (with n-heptane) as a reference fuel
their actual response is the definition of 'nil' response used for evaluating a subject fuel's response in test
