OT: What is acceleration? (it's got V8's in it.......honest!)

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
N

Neil Brownlee

Guest
Definition of Acceleration

One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than
the first 4 rows of
stock cars at the Daytona 500.
Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
methane per second; a fully
loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being
produced.
A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the
dragster's supercharger.
With 3,000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the
fuel mixture is
compressed into a near-solid form before ignition.
Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry: methodology and technology by which
quantities of reactants
and
products in chemical reactions are determined) 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for
nitro methane, the flame
front
temperature measures 7,050 deg F.
Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the
stacks at night is raw
burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing
exhaust gases.
Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an
arc welder in each
cylinder.
Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After halfway, the
engine is dieseling
from
compression, plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1,400 degrees F. The engine
can only be shut down by
cutting the fuel flow.
If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the
affected cylinders and
then
explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in
pieces or split the block in
half.
In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an
average of over 4G's. In
order to reach 200 mph (well before half-track), the launch acceleration
approaches 8G's.
Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading
this sentence.
Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!
Including the burnout, the
engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.
The redline is actually quite high at 9,500 rpm.
Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for
once NOTHING BLOWS UP,
each run costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second.
The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the
quarter mile (10/05/03,
Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph. (533 km/h) as measured
over the last 66' of
the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).
Putting all of this into perspective:
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered
Corvette Z06. Over a mile up
the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter
mile strip as you pass.
You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through
the gears and blast
across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The
'tree' goes green for both
of you at that moment.
The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard,
but you hear an incredibly
brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds, the dragster
catches and passes you. He
beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed
him.
Think about it; from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph
and not only caught, but
nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you, all within a mere 1,320
foot long race course.
.......and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!

--
Neil


 
Twas Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:42:46 +0000 (UTC) when "Neil Brownlee"
<[email protected]> put finger to keyboard
producing:

>Definition of Acceleration
>
>One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than
>the first 4 rows of
>stock cars at the Daytona 500.
>Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
>methane per second; a fully
>loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being
>produced.
>A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the
>dragster's supercharger.



Not to put too fine a point on it.... sh1t!.


Regards.
Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)
--
___________________________________________________________
"To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.
www.mrnice.me.uk - www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D
___________________________________________________________
 
Nah !! My Year 9 class on the way to lunch, .......... now that ... is real
acceleration


> Think about it; from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200

mph
> and not only caught, but
> nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you, all within a mere

1,320
> foot long race course.
> ......and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!
>
> --
> Neil
>
>



 
in article [email protected], Neil Brownlee at
[email protected] wrote on 20/7/04 15:42:

> Definition of Acceleration
>
> One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower than
> the first 4 rows of
> stock cars at the Daytona 500.
> Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
> methane per second; a fully
> loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being
> produced.
> A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the
> dragster's supercharger.
> With 3,000 CFM of air being rammed in by the supercharger on overdrive, the
> fuel mixture is
> compressed into a near-solid form before ignition.
> Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic lock at full throttle.
> At the stoichiometric (stoichiometry: methodology and technology by which
> quantities of reactants
> and
> products in chemical reactions are determined) 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for
> nitro methane, the flame
> front
> temperature measures 7,050 deg F.
> Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular white flame seen above the
> stacks at night is raw
> burning hydrogen, dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing
> exhaust gases.
> Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug. This is the output of an
> arc welder in each
> cylinder.
> Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed during a pass. After halfway, the
> engine is dieseling
> from
> compression, plus the glow of exhaust valves at 1,400 degrees F. The engine
> can only be shut down by
> cutting the fuel flow.
> If spark momentarily fails early in the run, unburned nitro builds up in the
> affected cylinders and
> then
> explodes with sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in
> pieces or split the block in
> half.
> In order to exceed 300 mph in 4.5 seconds, dragsters must accelerate an
> average of over 4G's. In
> order to reach 200 mph (well before half-track), the launch acceleration
> approaches 8G's.
> Dragsters reach over 300 miles per hour before you have completed reading
> this sentence.
> Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540 revolutions from light to light!
> Including the burnout, the
> engine must only survive 900 revolutions under load.
> The redline is actually quite high at 9,500 rpm.
> Assuming all the equipment is paid off, the crew worked for free, and for
> once NOTHING BLOWS UP,
> each run costs an estimated $1,000.00 per second.
> The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is 4.441 seconds for the
> quarter mile (10/05/03,
> Tony Schumacher). The top speed record is 333.00 mph. (533 km/h) as measured
> over the last 66' of
> the run (09/28/03 Doug Kalitta).
> Putting all of this into perspective:
> You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter "twin-turbo" powered
> Corvette Z06. Over a mile up
> the road, a Top Fuel dragster is staged and ready to launch down a quarter
> mile strip as you pass.
> You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette hard up through
> the gears and blast
> across the starting line and past the dragster at an honest 200 mph. The
> 'tree' goes green for both
> of you at that moment.
> The dragster launches and starts after you. You keep your foot down hard,
> but you hear an incredibly
> brutal whine that sears your eardrums and within 3 seconds, the dragster
> catches and passes you. He
> beats you to the finish line, a quarter mile away from where you just passed
> him.
> Think about it; from a standing start, the dragster had spotted you 200 mph
> and not only caught, but
> nearly blasted you off the road when he passed you, all within a mere 1,320
> foot long race course.
> ......and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!



Yes but can it drive down a greenlane!

 
On Tuesday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Neil Brownlee" wrote:

> Definition of Acceleration


> ......and that my friend, is ACCELERATION!


Tonight, there being nothing much on TV, I shall be playing my DVD of a
film called "The Dish".

Amongst the extras is film of an application of real power which, 35
years ago, made a journey possible which, today, nobody on Earth would
be able to repeat.

The Saturn V launcher and Apollo spacecraft massed about 6 million
pounds, over 2700 tonnes, and in the first two minutes of flight the
First Stage, with five F-1 engines burning Kerosene and liquid oxygen,
burns over 2000 tonnes of fuel, a rate of over 3 tonnes per second per
engine.

The noise generated is so intense that if the water were not to be
sprayed into the flame trench, the reflected energy would destroy the
Saturn V.

The hold-down clamps which anchor the whole column, 346 feet high, to
the pad must hold the Saturn V down until the engines have started,
against a net force of 1,5 million pounds, and then release
simultaneously.

The initial acceleration is small, only a quarter of a gravity, but at
first stage burnout, thirty miles up and two minutes later, with all
that fuel burnt, the acceleration in a vertical climb would be 3.8
gravities. But by they, outside most of the atmosphere, the Saturn V is
mostly accelerating horizontally, picking up the tangential speed needed
to sustain orbit.

And thirty five years ago tonight, a vaguely spider-like craft, carrying
two men, within seconds of running out of fuel, landed on the Moon.
Over the radio came the first words spoken by a human on another world.

"Houston, this is Tranquility Base. The Eagle has landed."



And on the 28th October 1971, the only all-British satellite launch took
place. Black Arrow number R3 carried the Prospero satellite into orbit.
Perhaps appropriately, the combination of kerosene and hydrogen peroxide
used meant that Black Arrow rose into the sky of Woomera on a column of
superheated steam.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"History shows that the Singularity started when Sir Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
 

"Neil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Definition of Acceleration
>
> Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
> methane per second; a fully
> loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being
> produced.


I'd like to see that proven. 747's have been fitted with RollsRoyce RB211
engines amongst others, which provide a spectacular thrust. Let's see some
power/ton figures for both the dragster and the 747.
I work daily testing RB199 engines, which in Combat setting provide approx.
70kN (7 tons) of thrust each, at a mass fuel flow of approx. 4800kg/hour,
the fuel s.g. for those who wish to convert to gallons is 0.798.
I've a sneaky feeling that the thermal efficiency of a jet engine is way
better than an internal combustion one.
Badger.


 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:50 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've a sneaky feeling that the thermal efficiency of a jet engine is way
>better than an internal combustion one.


Good one Badger, I think you may be right as the olympus engine was
reckoned to be very efficient at turning heat into thrust, it lost a
bit when they had two running into a third turbine to run a generator.

Now with a pressure ration of 44 in a modern aero jet we could
probably work out the likely bounds of the conversion if we knew the
peak pressure in the reciprocating engine.

AJH
 
Badger wrote:

> I've a sneaky feeling that the thermal efficiency of a jet engine is way
> better than an internal combustion one.


Has to be. The temperature differential through the engine is much higher.

Steve
 
Steve Taylor wrote:

> Badger wrote:
>
>> I've a sneaky feeling that the thermal efficiency of a jet engine is way
>> better than an internal combustion one.

>
> Has to be. The temperature differential through the engine is much higher.
>


You hope.

P.

On his way to play with adjusting everything adjustable on his 200TDI


 

"Mr.Nice." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Twas Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:42:46 +0000 (UTC) when "Neil Brownlee"
> <[email protected]> put finger to keyboard
> producing:
>
> >Definition of Acceleration
> >
> >One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic inch Hemi engine makes more horsepower

than
> >the first 4 rows of
> >stock cars at the Daytona 500.
> >Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
> >methane per second; a fully
> >loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being
> >produced.
> >A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce enough power to drive the
> >dragster's supercharger.

>
>
> Not to put too fine a point on it.... sh1t!.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.)


Still not as fast as Sammy Millers Rocket car dragster of the early
1980's!.

Dom J



 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I'd like to see that proven. 747's have been fitted with RollsRoyce RB211
> engines amongst others, which provide a spectacular thrust. Let's see some
> power/ton figures for both the dragster and the 747.
> I work daily testing RB199 engines, which in Combat setting provide approx.
> 70kN (7 tons) of thrust each, at a mass fuel flow of approx. 4800kg/hour,
> the fuel s.g. for those who wish to convert to gallons is 0.798.
> I've a sneaky feeling that the thermal efficiency of a jet engine is way
> better than an internal combustion one.
> Badger.
>


Being a Drag-Racing afficionado as well as a LR owner, I <love> the Top
Fuel/Acceleration story but the 747 part makes me raise an eyebrow too.

By my simple schoolboy math, the jet wins hands down on energy
production - employing something like 5.3MJ on a take-off run, compared
to the Top Fueller's 32KJ thusly:

Given that Mass x Acceleration = Force

Vehicle Mass (kg) Best Accel (m/s/s) Force (Joules)

Top Fuel 400 80 (av for 5sec 1/4) 32,000

747 200000 26 (30 secs/800M) 5,333,333

Stands to reason doesn't it? Doesn't each 747 engine make the equivalent
of around 125,000bhp?

However, because the Top Fuel has seven times the power to weight ratio
of the (admittedly very powerful) 747, even including the output from
all four turbines, it's specific fuel consumption in this context -
accelerative efficiency - is better than the jet I think:

Vehicle Force Fuel Consumed (Kg) Joules/Kg

Top Fuel 32,000 20 1,600

747 5,333,333 2000 1,333

Bear im mind this is all fag-packet math from a non-scientist ...

/Simon
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:53:48 +0000 (UTC), Simon Birkby
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Given that Mass x Acceleration = Force
>
>Vehicle Mass (kg) Best Accel (m/s/s) Force (Joules)


'cept you confuse force (Newtons) with energy (Joules)

It gets more complicated because the jet may be developing thrust
(force) at the same rate throughout the take off (i.e. burning fuel at
the same rate) but that does not result in a constant power because
power is thrust times velocity, so the jet gets more useful conversion
of heat to kinetic energy of the plane the faster it travels, I think
;-).
 
On or around Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:33:40 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:53:48 +0000 (UTC), Simon Birkby
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Given that Mass x Acceleration = Force
>>
>>Vehicle Mass (kg) Best Accel (m/s/s) Force (Joules)

>
>'cept you confuse force (Newtons) with energy (Joules)
>
>It gets more complicated because the jet may be developing thrust
>(force) at the same rate throughout the take off (i.e. burning fuel at
>the same rate) but that does not result in a constant power because
>power is thrust times velocity, so the jet gets more useful conversion
>of heat to kinetic energy of the plane the faster it travels, I think
>;-).


also you get interesting results from varying the mass. the simple
equations of motion which are commonly used treat mass as a constant, and
say "F=ma" for example. in fact, F=d(mv)dt, rather than the F=m.dv/dt which
is implied by the former. In the case of both the dragster and the boing,
they may burn fuel fast enough that the mass change becomes significant.
Certainly is with rockets going straight up - initial acceleration is low
due to the heavy mass, then as the fuel is consumed the mass reduces so the
acceleration increases.

in fact, on the jet, it's probably not really significant; I don't think it
uses that much mass of fuel to take off, compared with the gross weight.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:57:53 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>in fact, on the jet, it's probably not really significant; I don't think it
>uses that much mass of fuel to take off, compared with the gross weight.


IIRC a figure of 11tonnes to get a 747 to cruise speed and height,
perhaps we should convert these to 0.5MV^2+MGH and see how much work
that fuel did ;-).

AJH

 
On or around Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:55:31 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 21:57:53 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>in fact, on the jet, it's probably not really significant; I don't think it
>>uses that much mass of fuel to take off, compared with the gross weight.

>
>IIRC a figure of 11tonnes to get a 747 to cruise speed and height,
>perhaps we should convert these to 0.5MV^2+MGH and see how much work
>that fuel did ;-).


hmmm. how much does an all-up 747 weight to start with though?

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Remember that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free than you were before."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180), from Meditations, VIII.16
 
On or around Sun, 25 Jul 2004 14:32:00 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:05:30 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>hmmm. how much does an all-up 747 weight to start with though?

>
>A google gives 377,800kg inc 196,515ltr fuel!


hmmm. jet fuel is probably about .8 kg per litre... feckinell, that's about
half the all-up weight. Mind you, it goes a fair distance on that much.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)
 
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:05:50 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Neil Brownlee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Definition of Acceleration
>>
>> Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes 1-1/2 gallons of nitro
>> methane per second; a fully loaded 747 consumes jet fuel at the same
>> rate with 25% less energy being produced.

>
>I'd like to see that proven.


Nitromethane has a density of 1.124 to 1.129 and a specific energy of
11.6 MJ/kg. Avtur comes in at 0.775 to 0.840 and a specific energy of
at least 42.8 Mj/kg.

From this it's clear to see that a gallon of nitromethane only
contains about a third of the energy that a gallon of avtur does. So
in raw terms the original statement is completely wrong.

Now, I don't have thermal efficiency figures for either dragsters or
jet engines, but seeing as how jet engines are designed with
efficiency in mind and dragster engines aren't, I'm not expecting the
dragster to be able to make up the ground it's already lost.

But I'm willing to be wrong on this one!

--
QrizB

"On second thought, let's not go to Z'Ha'Dum. It is a silly place."
 
I've read somewhere that the workshop manuals, spare parts books and "don't
touch that bit' bulletins for a 747 add up to more than the weight of the
aircraft.
Imagine the shelves in WH Smiths that could hold a Haynes Manual the weight
of a 110!

Steve
Durban
1984 110 V8

snip
> >On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:05:30 +0100, Austin Shackles
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>hmmm. how much does an all-up 747 weight to start with though?

> >
> >A google gives 377,800kg inc 196,515ltr fuel!




 
On or around Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:33:04 +0200, "Steve Maloney"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>I've read somewhere that the workshop manuals, spare parts books and "don't
>touch that bit' bulletins for a 747 add up to more than the weight of the
>aircraft.
>Imagine the shelves in WH Smiths that could hold a Haynes Manual the weight
>of a 110!


The maunals for DEC computers used to be impressive, great row of orange (or
grey, depending on model) folders.

inluded the immortal line about specifying the timeout for operator
intervention in the evnt of a power failure and subsequent auot-reboot. The
timeout, it says, is specified in microfortnights, which approximate to
seconds.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25
 
Back
Top