document_title: Induction cooking

question_text: which two types of cookware will not work for induction cooking

text: Induction cooking

text: Cooking properties[edit]

text: Induction cooking provides faster heating, improved thermal efficiency, and more consistent heating than cooking by thermal conduction, with precise control similar to gas.[1] The induction element has heating performance comparable to a gas burner, but is significantly more energy-efficient.[2] The surface of the cooker is heated only by the pot and so does not usually reach a hazardous temperature. Because the temperature of the cooking surface matches that of the pot, this permits precise control of the cooking temperature. The control system shuts down the element if a pot is not present or not large enough. Induction cookers are easy to clean because the cooking surface is flat and smooth and does not get hot enough to make spilled food burn and stick.

text: The unit can detect whether cookware is present by monitoring power delivered. This allows it to keep a pot just simmering, or automatically turn an element off when cookware is removed.

text: Because the cook top is shallow compared to a gas-fired or electrical coil cooking surface, wheelchair access can be improved; the user's legs can be below the counter height and the user's arms can reach over the top.[1]

text: Resilience[edit]

text: Induction cookers usually have glass ceramic tops that can be damaged by sufficient impact although they are required to meet minimum specified product safety standards with regard to impact.[3] Aluminum foil can melt onto the top and cause permanent damage or cracking of the top. Surfaces can be scratched by sliding pans across the cooking surface. As with other electric ceramic cooking surfaces, a maximum pan size may be specified by the manufacturer.

text: Noise[edit]

text: A small amount of noise is generated by an internal cooling fan. Audible electromagnetic noise (a hum or buzz) may be produced by cookware exposed to high magnetic fields, especially at high power if the cookware has loose parts; cookware with welded-in cladding layers and solid riveting is less likely to produce this type of noise. Some users may detect a whistling or whining sound from the cookware or from the powered electronic devices.

text: Other considerations[edit]

text: Some cooking techniques available when cooking over a flame are not applicable. Persons with implanted cardiac pacemakers or other electronic medical implants are usually instructed to avoid sources of magnetic fields; the medical literature seems to suggest that proximity to induction cooking surfaces is safe, but individuals with such implants should always check first with their cardiologists.[4] Radio receivers near the induction-cooking unit may pick up some electromagnetic interference.

text: Efficiency[edit]

text: Cooking methods that use flames or hot heating elements have a significantly higher loss to the ambient; induction heating directly heats the pot. Because the induction effect does not directly heat the air around the vessel, induction cooking results in further energy efficiencies. Cooling air is blown through the electronics beneath the surface but is only slightly warm.

text: The purpose of a cooktop is to prepare food; for example, long periods of simmering may be required. A rational measure of efficiency would be to compare the actual energy input to the cooktop compared to some theoretical value require to prepare the specified foodstuffs. Since experiments to make these measurements would be difficult to replicate, energy efficiency measurements that are published concentrate on the ability of a cooktop to transfer energy to a metal test block, which is much easier to measure in a repeatable fashion.

text: Energy transfer efficiency, as defined by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is the percentage of the energy consumed by a cooker that, at the end of a simulated cooking cycle, appears to having been transferred as heat to a standardized aluminum test block.

text: The DOE test cycle starts with both the block and the cooktop at room temperature: 77 °F ± 9 °F (25 °C ± 5 °C). The cooktop is then switched to maximum heating power. When the test block temperature reaches + 144 °F (+80 °C) above the initial room temperature, the cooktop power is immediately reduced to 25% ± 5% of its maximum power. After 15 minutes of operation at this lower power setting, the cooktop is turned off and the heat energy in the test block is measured.[5] Efficiency is given by the ratio between energy in the block and input (electric) energy.

text: Such a test, using a combination of two different power levels, was conceived to mimic real life use. Wasted energy terms such as residual unused heat (retained by solid hot-plates, ceramic or coil at the end of the test), and losses from convection and radiation by hot surfaces (including the ones of the block itself) are simply disregarded and don't contribute to efficiency.

text: In typical cooking, the energy delivered by the cooker is only partly used to heat the food up to temperature; once that has occurred, all the subsequent energy input is delivered to the air as loss through steam or convection and radiation from the pan sides. Since there is no increase in the food temperature, the DOE test procedure would consider the efficiency substantially zero. Cooking procedures such as reduction of a sauce, braising meat, simmering, and so on are significant uses of a cooker, but efficiency of these practices is not modelled by the DOE test procedure.

text: In 2013 and 2014 DOE developed and proposed new test procedures for cooking products to allow direct comparison of energy transfer efficiency measurements among induction, electric resistance, and gas cooking tops and ranges. The procedures use a new hybrid test block made of aluminum and stainless steel, so it is suitable for tests on induction cookers. The proposed rule lists results of real lab tests conducted with the hybrid block. For comparable (large) cooking elements the following efficiencies were measured with ±0.5% repeatability: 70.7% - 73.6% for induction, 71.9% for electric coil, 43.9% for gas. Summarizing the results of several tests, DOE affirms that "induction units have an average efficiency of 72.2%, not significantly higher than the 69.9% efficiency of smooth—electric resistance units, or the 71.2% of electric coil units".[6] Moreover, DOE reminds that the 84% induction efficiency, cited in previous Technical Support Documents, was not measured by DOE laboratories but just "referenced from an external test study" performed in 1992.[6]

text: In addition independent tests conducted by manufacturers,[7] research laboratories[8] and other subjects seem to demonstrate that actual induction cooking efficiencies stays usually between 74% and 77% and reach occasionally 81% (although these tests could follow procedures different from that of DOE). These clues indicate that the 84% induction average efficiency reference value should be taken with caution.

text: Just for comparison and in agreement with DOE findings, cooking with gas has an average energy efficiency of about 40%. It can be raised only by using special pots with fins whose first design and commercialization came years ago,[9] but that have been recently rediscovered, redesigned in a different way and put again on the market.[10] So for environmental considerations dealing with induction versus gas, a 40% gas efficiency will be used.

text: When comparing with gas, the relative cost of electrical and gas energy, and the efficiency of the process by which electricity is generated, affect both overall environmental efficiency[11] (as explained in more detail below) and cost to the user.

text: Ventilation[edit]

text: Energy lost from gas cooking heats the kitchen, whereas with induction cooking, the losses are much lower. This results in less heating of the kitchen itself and can affect the amount of ventilation required.

text: Gas cooking efficiencies may be lower if waste heat generation is taken into account. Especially in restaurants, gas cooking can significantly increase the ambient temperature in localized areas. Not only may extra cooling be required, but zoned venting may be needed to adequately condition hot areas without overcooling other areas. Costs must be considered on an individual situation due to numerous variables in temperature differences, facility layout or openness, and heat generation schedule. Induction cooking using grid electricity may surpass gas efficiencies when waste heat and air comfort are quantified.

text: In a commercial setting, induction cookers do not require interlocks between the fuel source and the ventilation, as may be required with gas systems.

text: Design[edit]

text: An induction cooker transfers electrical energy by induction from a coil of wire into a metal vessel that must be ferromagnetic. The coil is mounted under the cooking surface, and a high frequency (e.g. 24 kHz) alternating current is passed through it. The current in the coil creates a dynamic magnetic field. When an electrically conductive pot is brought close to the cooking surface, and the pan is thicker than the skin depth, the magnetic field induces large eddy currents in the pot. The eddy currents flow through the electrical resistance of the pot to produce heat through Joule heating; the pot then in turn heats its contents by heat conduction.

text: The cooking vessel typically needs to be made of a suitable stainless steel or iron. The increased magnetic permeability of the material decreases the skin depth, concentrating the current near the surface of the metal, and so the electrical resistance will be further increased. Some energy will be dissipated wastefully by the current flowing through the resistance of the coil. To reduce the skin effect and consequent heat generation in the coil, it is made from litz wire, which is a bundle of many smaller insulated wires in parallel. The coil has many turns, while the bottom of the pot effectively forms a single shorted turn. This forms a transformer that steps down the voltage and steps up the current. The resistance of the pot, as viewed from the primary coil, appears larger. In turn, most of the energy becomes heat in the high-resistance steel, while the driving coil stays cool.

text: Often a thermostat is present to measure the temperature of the pan. This helps prevent the pan from severely overheating if accidentally heated empty or boiled dry, but also can allow the induction cooker to maintain a target temperature.

text: Applications[edit]

text: Induction equipment may be a built-in surface, part of a range, or a standalone surface unit. Built-in and rangetop units typically have multiple elements, the equivalent of separate burners on a gas-fueled range. Stand-alone induction modules are usually single-element, or sometimes have dual elements. All such elements share a basic design: an electromagnet sealed beneath a heat-resisting glass-ceramic sheet that is easily cleaned. The pot is placed on the ceramic glass surface and begins to heat up, along with its contents.

text: In Japan, some models of rice cookers are powered by induction. In Hong Kong, power companies list a number of models.[12] Asian manufacturers have taken the lead in producing inexpensive single-induction-zone surfaces; efficient, low-waste-heat units are advantageous in densely populated cities with little living space per family, as many Asian cities are. Induction cookers are less frequently used in other parts of the world.

text: Induction ranges may be applicable in commercial restaurant kitchens. Electric cooking avoids the cost of natural gas piping and in some jurisdictions may allow simpler ventilation and fire suppression equipment to be installed.[13] Drawbacks for commercial use include possible breakages of the glass cook-top, higher initial cost and the requirement for magnetic cookware.

text: Controls[edit]

text: The ferromagnetic properties of a steel vessel concentrate the induced current in a thin layer near its surface, which results in a strong heating effect. In paramagnetic materials like aluminum, the magnetic field penetrates deeper, and the induced current encounters little resistance in the metal.[14] According to Lenz's law the efficiency of the induction in the pot may be sensed, so that the induction may be attained accordingly with special electronics devices. At least one high-frequency "all-metal" cooker is available, that works with lower efficiency on non-ferromagnetic metal cookware.

text: The cooking surface is made of a glass-ceramic material which is a poor heat conductor, so only a little heat is lost through the bottom of the pot. In normal operation the cooking surface stays significantly cooler than with other stove cooking methods, but still needs to cool down before it can be safely touched.

text: Units may have one, two, three, four or five induction zones, but four (normally in a 30-inch-wide unit) is the most common in the US and Europe. Two coils are most common in Hong Kong and three are most common in Japan. Some have touch-sensitive controls. Some induction stoves have a memory setting, one per element, to control the time that heat is applied. At least one manufacturer makes a "zoneless" induction cooking surface with multiple induction coils. This allows up to five utensils to be used at once anywhere on the cooking surface, not just on pre-defined zones.[15]

text: Small stand-alone portable induction cookers are relatively inexpensive, priced from around US$20 in some markets.

text: Cookware[edit]

text: Cookware must be compatible with induction heating; in most models, only ferrous metal can be heated. Cookware usually have a flat bottom since the magnetic field drops rapidly with distance from the surface. (Special and costly wok-shaped tops are available for use with round-bottom woks.) Induction disks are metal plates that are heated by induction and heat non-ferrous pots by thermal contact, but these are much less efficient than ferrous cooking vessels.

text: Induction compatible cookware for an induction cooking surface can nearly always be used on other stoves. Some cookware or packaging is marked with symbols to indicate compatibility with induction, gas, or electric heat. Induction cooking surfaces work well with any pans with a high ferrous metal content at the base. Cast iron pans and any black metal or iron pans will work on an induction cooking surface. Stainless steel pans will work on an induction cooking surface if the base of the pan is a magnetic grade of stainless steel. If a magnet sticks well to the sole of the pan, it will work on an induction cooking surface. An "all-metal" cooker will work with non-ferrous cookware, but available models are limited.

text: Aluminum or copper alone does not work on an induction stove because of the materials’ magnetic and electrical properties.[16] Aluminum and copper cookware are more conductive than steel, but the skin depth in these materials is larger since they are non-magnetic. The current flows in a thicker layer in the metal, encounters less resistance and so produces less heat. The induction cooker will not work efficiently with such pots. However, aluminum and copper are desirable in cookware, since they conduct heat better. Because of this 'tri-ply' pans often have an induction-compatible skin of stainless steel containing a layer of thermally conductive aluminum.

text: For frying, a pan with a base that is a good heat conductor is needed to spread the heat quickly and evenly. The sole of the pan will be either a steel plate pressed into the aluminum, or a layer of stainless steel over the aluminum. The high thermal conductivity of aluminum pans makes the temperature more uniform across the pan. Stainless frying pans with an aluminum base will not have the same temperature at their sides as an aluminum sided pan will have. Cast iron frying pans work well with induction cooking surfaces but the material is not as good a thermal conductor as aluminum.

text: When boiling water, the circulating water spreads the heat and prevents hot spots. For products such as sauces, it is important that at least the base of the pan incorporates a good heat conducting material to spread the heat evenly. For delicate products such as thick sauces, a pan with aluminum throughout is better, since the heat flows up the sides through the aluminum, allowing the cook to heat the sauce rapidly but evenly.

text: The heat that can be produced in a pot is a function of the surface resistance. A higher surface resistance produces more heat for similar currents. This is a “figure of merit” that can be used to rank the suitability of a material for induction heating. The surface resistance in a thick metal conductor is proportional to the resistivity divided by the skin depth. Where the thickness is less than the skin depth, the actual thickness can be used to calculate surface resistance.[16] Some common materials are listed in this table.

text:
Skin depth at 24 kHz[16]

Material
Resistivity
(10−6 ohm-inches)
Relative
permeability
Skin depth,
inches (mm)
Surface resistance,
10−3 ohms/square
(thick material)
Surface resistance,
relative to copper

Carbon steel 1010
9
200
0.004 (0.10)
2.25
56.25

Stainless steel 432
24.5
200
0.007 (0.18)
3.5
87.5

Stainless steel 304
29
1
0.112 (2.8)
0.26
6.5

Aluminum
1.12
1
0.022 (0.56)
0.051
1.28

Copper
0.68
1
0.017 (0.43)
0.04
1

text: To get the same surface resistance as with carbon steel would require the metal to be thinner than is practical for a cooking vessel; at 24 kHz a copper vessel bottom would need to be 1/56th the skin depth of carbon steel. Since the skin depth is inversely proportional to the square root of the frequency, this suggests that much higher frequencies (say, several megahertz) would be required to obtain equivalent heating in a copper pot as in an iron pot at 24 kHz. Such high frequencies are not feasible with inexpensive power semiconductors; in 1973 the silicon-controlled rectifiers used were limited to no more than 40 kHz.[16] Even a thin layer of copper on the bottom of a steel cooking vessel will shield the steel from the magnetic field and make it unusable for an induction top.[16] Some additional heat is created by hysteresis losses in the pot due to its ferromagnetic nature, but this creates less than ten percent of the total heat generated.[17]

text: "All-metal" models[edit]

text: New types of power semiconductors and low-loss coil designs have made an all-metal cooker possible, but the electronic components are relatively bulky.

text: Panasonic Corporation in 2009 developed a consumer induction cooker that uses a higher-frequency magnetic field, and a different oscillator circuit design, to allow use with non-ferrous metals.[18][19]

text: History[edit]

text: First patents date from the early 1900s.[20] Demonstration stoves were shown by the Frigidaire division of General Motors in the mid-1950s[21] on a touring GM showcase in North America. The induction cooker was shown heating a pot of water with a newspaper placed between the stove and the pot, to demonstrate the convenience and safety. This unit, however, was never put into production.

text: Modern implementation in the USA dates from the early 1970s, with work done at the Research & Development Center of Westinghouse Electric Corporation at Churchill Borough, near Pittsburgh,[16] That work was first put on public display at the 1971 National Association of Home Builders convention in Houston, Texas, as part of the Westinghouse Consumer Products Division display.[citation needed] The stand-alone single-burner range was named the Cool Top Induction Range. It used paralleled Delco Electronics transistors developed for automotive electronic ignition systems to drive the 25 kHz current.

text: Westinghouse decided to make a few hundred production units to develop the market. Those were named Cool Top 2 (CT2) Induction ranges. The development work was done at the same R&D location, by a team led by Bill Moreland and Terry Malarkey. The ranges were priced at $1,500 ($8,260 in 2017 dollars), including a set of high quality cookware made of Quadraply, a laminate of stainless steel, carbon steel, aluminum and another layer of stainless steel (outside to inside).

text: Production took place in 1973 through to 1975 and stopped, coincidentally, with the sale of Westinghouse Consumer Products Division to White Consolidated Industries Inc.

text: CT2 had four burners of about 1,600 watts each, measured by calorimetry. The range top was a Pyroceram ceramic sheet surrounded by a stainless-steel bezel, upon which four magnetic sliders adjusted four corresponding potentiometers set below. That design, using no through-holes, made the range proof against spills. The electronic section was made in four identical modules cooled by fans.

text: In each of the electronics modules, the 240V, 60 Hz domestic line power was converted to between 20V to 200V of continuously variable DC by a phase-controlled rectifier. That DC power was in turn converted to 27 kHz 30 A (peak) AC by two arrays of six paralleled Motorola automotive-ignition transistors in a half-bridge configuration driving a series-resonant LC oscillator, of which the inductor component was the induction-heating coil and its load, the cooking pan. The circuit design, largely by Ray Mackenzie,[22] successfully dealt with certain bothersome overload problems.

text: Control electronics included functions such as protection against over-heated cook-pans and overloads. Provision was made to reduce radiated electrical and magnetic fields.[23][24] There was also magnetic pan detection.[25]

text: CT2 was UL Listed and received Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval, both firsts. Numerous patents were also issued. CT2 won several awards, including Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 1972 best-product award [26] and a citation from the United States Steel Association. Raymond Baxter demonstrated the CT2 on the BBC series Tomorrow's World. He showed how the CT2 could cook through a slab of ice.

text: Sears Kenmore sold a free-standing oven/stove with four induction-cooking surfaces in the mid-1980s (Model Number 103.9647910). The unit also featured a self-cleaning oven, solid-state kitchen timer and capacitive-touch control buttons (advanced for its time). The units were more expensive than standard cooking surfaces.

text: In 2009 Panasonic developed an all-metal induction cooker that used a different[clarification needed] coil design and a higher[clarification needed] operating frequency to allow operation with non-ferrous metal cookware.[citation needed] However, the units operate with somewhat reduced coupling efficiency and so have reduced power compared to operation with ferrous cookware.

text: Vendors[edit]

text: The market for induction stoves is dominated by German manufacturers, such as Bosch, Fissler, Miele, Siemens and ELAG. The Spanish company Fagor, The Turkish Company Beko, Italian firm Smeg, Sweden's Electrolux (also using the brand AEG), French ARPA and Slovenia's Gorenje are also key players in the European market. Prices range from about £250 to £1,000 within the United Kingdom.[citation needed] In 2006, Stoves launched the UK's first domestic induction range cooker at a slightly lower cost than those imported.

text: Single ring portable hobs have become popular in the UK, with prices as low as £30 from discounters such as Aldi.[citation needed]

text: The European induction cooking market for hotels, restaurants and other caterers is primarily satisfied by smaller specialist commercial induction catering equipment manufacturers such as Adventys of France, Induced Energy of Brackley in the UK, Control Induction and Target Catering Equipment of the UK and Scholl of Germany.

text: Taiwanese and Japanese electronics companies are the dominant players in induction cooking for East Asia. After aggressive promotions by utilities in HK like CLP Power HK Ltd, many local brands like UNIVERSAL, icMagIC, Zanussi, iLighting, German Pool also emerged. Their power and ratings are high, more than 2,800 watts. They are multiple zone and capable of performing better than their gas counterpart. The efficiency is as high as 90% and saves a lot of energy and is environmentally friendly. Their use by local Chinese for wok cooking is becoming popular. Some of these companies have also started marketing in the West. However, the product range sold in Western markets is a subset of that in their domestic market; some Japanese electronics manufacturers only sell domestically.

text: In the United States, as of early 2013 there are over five dozen brands of induction-cooking equipment available, including both build-in and countertop residential equipment and commercial-grade equipment. Even restricting to build-in residential-use units, there are over two dozen brands being sold; residential countertop units add another two-dozen-plus brands to the count.

text: The National Association of Home Builders in 2012 estimated that, in the United States, induction cooktops held only 4% of sales, compared to gas and other electric cooktops.[27]

text: In April 2010, The New York Times reported that "In an independent survey last summer by the market research company Mintel of 2,000 Internet users who own appliances, only 5 percent of respondents said they had an induction range or cooktop. . . . Still, 22 percent of the people Mintel surveyed in connection to their study last summer said their next range or cooktop would be induction."[28]


document_title: Katie Walder

question_text: who plays shannon on how i met your mother

root

text: Katie Walder

text: Career[edit]

text: Walder is best known for her recurring roles on Gilmore Girls as Janet Billings, How I Met Your Mother as Shannon, and Mad Men as Sherry. She has appeared in over 40 television shows, including New Girl, Franklin & Bash, Fairly Legal, The Good Wife, Supernatural and Rules of Engagement. In 2007 she played Trevor Wright's girlfriend in the award-winning independent film Shelter.[1] In 2014 she starred in the horror film Come Back to Me.[2][3]

tag: p

text: Walder got her start in New York City, performing in stage roles with Broadway directors including Michael Greif, Keith Reddin and Daniel Aukin. She will soon be seen in the Paramount-owned comedy short Billy Glimmer opposite Ben Stiller.[3]

text: Filmography[edit]

text:
Film

Year
Title
Role
Notes

2007
McBride: Semper Fi
Kaia Rourke
TV movie

2007
Shelter
Tori

2007
Safe Harbour
Vanessa Bowles
Direct-to-video

2007
The Neighbor
Nancy

2008
Bitter Brew
Brittany
TV movie

2008
Extreme Movie
Drunk Girl

2009
Always and Forever
Lindsey
TV movie

2011
Intervention: Cinderella
Cinderella
Short film
Also executive producer and writer

2012
Cupid
Trina
TV movie

2014
Come Back to Me [4]
Sarah

tag: table

text:
Television

Year
Title
Role
Notes

2002
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Carey Thorne
Episode: "Prodigy"

2003-2005
Gilmore Girls
Janet Billings
10 episodes

2004
Cracking Up
Female Student
Episode: "Pilot"

2005
Cold Case
Beth Adams
Episode: "Blank Generation"

2006
CSI: Miami
Melinda Carson
Episode: "Shock"

2006
Without a Trace
Claire Norton
Episode: "All for One"

2006-2014
How I Met Your Mother
Shannon
4 episodes

2007
Hustle
Janet
Episode: "As One Flew Out of the Cuckoo's Nest, One Flew In"

2007
Saving Grace
Patty
Episode: "A Language of Angels"

2007
Rules of Engagement
Claire
Episode: "Bag Ladies"

2009
Trust Me
Jacy
Episode: "What's the Rush?"

2009
The Good Wife
Jennifer Lewis
Episode: "Pilot"

2010
The New Adventures of Old Christine
Hannah
Episode: "A Whale of a Tale"

2010
Chase
Charlene Hughes
Episode: "Repo"

2011
Mad Love
White Whale
Episode: "The Spy Who Loved Me"

2011
Supernatural
Atropos/Fate
Episode: "My Heart Will Go On"

2011
NTSF:SD:SUV:: [5]
Reporter
Episode: "Cause for ConCERN"

2011
Man Up!
Sheri
Episode: "Wingmen"

2011-2013
New Girl
Cheryl
2 episodes "Bad In Bed" & "Bachelorette Party"

2012
Fairly Legal
Beth Shepperd
Episode: "Shattered"

2012
Franklin & Bash
Carrie Dutton
Episode: "Jango and Rossi"

2012
The Mentalist
Nancy Sterling
Episode: "Not One Red Cent"

2012
Grimm
Elisha
Episode: "To Protect and Serve Man"

2013-2015
Mad Men
Sherry
2 Episodes

2013
Bad Teacher
Brie
Pilot

2015
Kroll Show
Barb

2016
Square Roots [6]
Ruth
Pilot


document_title: Changi Prison

question_text: what was built by the inmates of changi prison camp

text: Changi Prison

text: History[edit]

text: First prison and POW camp[edit]

text: Changi Prison was constructed by the British administration of the Straits Settlements as a civilian prison, in 1936.

text: During World War II, following the Fall of Singapore in February 1942, the Japanese military detained about 3,000 civilians in Changi Prison, which was built to house only 600 prisoners. The Japanese used the British Army's Selarang Barracks, near the prison, as a prisoner of war camp, holding some 50,000 Allied soldiers, predominantly British and Australian; and from 1943, Dutch civilians brought over by the Japanese from the islands in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).[1] POWs were in fact rarely, if ever, held in the civilian prison. Nevertheless, in the UK, Australia, The Netherlands and elsewhere, the name "Changi" became synonymous with the infamous POW camp nearby.

text: About 850 POWs died during their internment in Changi during the Japanese occupation of Singapore,[2] a relatively low rate compared to the overall death rate of 27% for POWs in Japanese camps.[3] However, many more prisoners died after being transferred from Changi to various labour camps outside Singapore, including the Burma Railway and the Sandakan airfield.

text: Allied POWs, mainly Australians, built a chapel at the prison in 1944 using simple tools and found materials. Stanley Warren of the 15th Regiment, Royal Regiment of Artillery painted a series of murals at the chapel. Another British POW, Sgt. Harry Stodgen built a Christian cross out of a used artillery shell. After the war, the chapel was dismantled and shipped to Australia, while the cross was sent to the UK. The chapel was reconstructed in 1988, and is now located at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Canberra.

text: After the war, the prison was used to hold former Japanese staff officers, Kempeitai, police, and guards from concentration camps. Executions were conducted in the inner yard where three gallows were erected. British soldiers were stationed there as prison guards. On 17 October 1945, all 260 German seamen of the former U-Boats were moved from Pasir Panjang to the prison. On 26 June 1946, all German soldiers and civilians were notified they would be shipped back to England on a passenger liner, the Empress of Australia.[4]:245–252

text: Kempeitai[edit]

text: The prison also contained the headquarters of the Kempeitai, the Japanese military police. The Kempeitai tortured prisoners there, who they suspected were spies.[citation needed]

text: Changi Chapel and Museum[edit]

text: In 1988, Singapore built a replica chapel (which was built by the POWs) and museum next to the Changi Prison. When Changi Prison was expanded in 2001, the chapel and museum were relocated to a new site 1 km away and the Changi chapel and museum were officially established 15 February 2001.

text: Current Prison[edit]

text: In 2000, the old prison was demolished and its inmates were relocated to a new consolidated prison complex in a neighbouring site. In view of its historical significance, the Preservation of Monuments Board worked with the Singapore Prison Service and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to allow the front gates of the old prison to be preserved and moved to the new prison. In 1994 Changi Women's Prison and Drug Rehabilitation Centre was opened.

text: Presently, the new Changi Prison houses the most serious criminal offenders in the country, including criminal offenders who are serving long sentences and those who have been sentenced to death. It serves as the detention site for death row inmates at Changi, before they are executed by hanging, traditionally on a Friday morning.

text: Changi Prison is also one of the main places (though not the only one) where judicial corporal punishment by caning is carried out. Caning sessions at Changi are held twice per week. A former employee of the prison has been quoted as saying: "They are flogging more and more these days. Before they were doing maybe 60 on Tuesdays and Fridays, now they're doing a hundred".[5]

text: On 15 February 2016, the remaining structures of the original prison – the entrance gate, wall and turrets were designated as the country's 72nd national monument.[6][7]

text: Notable detainees[edit]

text: Prisoners of war[edit]

text:
Sir Norman Alexander Professor of Physics, Raffles College, Singapore, Vice-Chancellor, Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria. Helped build a salt evaporation plant at Changi and a small industrial plant that fermented surgical spirit and other products for prison hospital.
Sir Harold Atcherley, businessman, public figure and arts administrator.
Geoffrey Bingham, AM, MM, (6 January 1919 – 3 June 2009), who returned to Australia and wrote several books reflecting on his experiences, including his conversion to Christian faith in The Story of the Rice Cakes,[8] Angel Wings,[9] and Tall Grow the Tallow Woods.[10]
Freddy Bloom, journalist and campaigner for deaf children[11]
Russell Braddon, (25 January 1921 – 20 March 1995), Australian writer, who wrote "The Naked Island" about his POW experience.
Sheila Bruhn (née Allan), who wrote about her experiences in Diary of a Girl in Changi.
Sir John Carrick (Australian politician), AC, KCMG (born 4 September 1918). The impact of his experiences on his political thinking is described in his biography, "Carrick: Principles, Politics, and Policy," written by Graeme Starr.
Anthony Chenevix-Trench (10 May 1919 – 21 June 1979), Headmaster of Eton College, 1964–1970.
James Clavell is one of the most famous survivors; he wrote about his experiences in the book King Rat.
Eugene Ernest Colman, chess master.
John Coast British, (30 October 1916 – 1989), writer and music promoter. He wrote one of the earliest and well-known POW memoirs of Changi The Railroad of Death, (1946). Coast admitted that he and his fellow officers regularly stole coconuts during the night to alleviate their hunger. Other works of Coast include Dancers of Bali (1953), and Dancing Out of Bali (1954).
Hugh Edward de Wardener, British, CBE, MBE, (8 October 1915 – 29 September 2013), physician and professor of medicine at Charing Cross Hospital. He was a member of the Royal Army Medical Corps. He operated a Cholera Ward at the prison hospital. He also treated British soldiers who were forced to build the Burma Railway, as fictionalised in the film The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957). He was a gifted renal research physician having made many breakthroughs in that area. Although he attained the advanced age of nearly 98, in his last months he suffered from peripheral neuropathy, a legacy of Changi. He died in the De Wardener Ward, the intensive care renal unit at Hammersmith Hospital, Acton, London, England.[12]
Lieutenant Colonel Sir Ernest Edward "Weary" Dunlop, AC, CMG, OBE (12 July 1907 – 2 July 1993) was an Australian surgeon who was renowned for his leadership
Carl Alexander Gibson-Hill, medical doctor and Director of the Raffles Museum.
John Hayter, Anglican priest who later wrote of his experiences in Priest in Prison.[13]
Percy Herbert, actor.
Ezekiel Saleh Manasseh (died 1944), British rice and opium merchant, died in Changi Prison[14]
Sir Percy McElwaine, the Chief Justice of the Straits Settlement.
Jim Milner AM (1933–1937)—Former chairman Washington H. Soul Pattinson and former President NRMA.[15]
Sir Alexander Oppenheim, mathematician. In 1984, he published "The prisoner's walk: an exercise in number theory", based in part of his experiences at Changi.
Lieutenant-General Arthur Ernest Percival, commander of Allied forces in Singapore, following his surrender to the Japanese; he was moved to a camp in China in late 1942.
Sydney Piddington, postwar Australian mentalist entertainer with wife Leslie, "The Piddingtons" ABC and BBC radio and stage mindreading team, who developed his verbal code in Changi.
Rohan Deakin Rivett, Australian, writer (16 January 1917 – 5 October 1977) War correspondent and journalist with Malaya Broadcasting Corporation in Singapore. Formerly a soldier in the Australian Imperial Force. Although the British surrendered the island on 15 February 1942, he was not captured until 8 March, in Java, after harrowing journeys by sea and land. His harrowing experiences are vividly chronicled in Behind Bamboo (1946). The book, 392 pages long, was written in October–November 1945 while its author was recovering from the rigours of captivity; reprinted eight times, it sold more than 100,000 copies.[16]
Tjalie Robinson, (1911–1974), Dutch Indo-European (Eurasian) author, activist, journalist.
Ronald Searle, cartoonist.
Robert Skene, ten goal polo player.
Colonel Julian Taylor FRCS, surgeon.
Ernest Tipson, linguist.
Sir Michael Turner, Chief Manager of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (1953–1962)
Arthur Varley, Australian Army officer & diarist
Leo Vroman, Dutch poet.
Stanley Warren, artist and art teacher; murals produced during his incarceration remain at the prison.
Ian Watt (9 March 1917 – 13 December 1999), literary critic, literary historian and professor of English at Stanford University.
Leonard Wilson, Bishop of Singapore, and later Bishop of Birmingham.
Sir Michael Woodruff, surgeon and scientist.

tag: ul

text: Convicted criminals incarcerated after conversion from a wartime prisoner camp[edit]

text:
Hiroshi Abe, Japanese war criminal
Nick Leeson, former derivatives broker convicted of rogue trading in the collapse of Barings Bank
Janatin and Harun Thohir, executed in 1968 for the MacDonald House bombing

text: Others[edit]

text:
Van Tuong Nguyen, a Vietnamese-Australian executed in 2005 for drug trafficking[17]
Peter Lloyd, an Australian journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation arrested in July 2008 for drug trafficking and possession[18]

text: Changi in popular culture[edit]

text:
King Rat (1962 novel), by James Clavell
King Rat (1965 film), based on the novel
Changi: The fortunes of a fictional group of Australian POWs were dramatised in this television miniseries, screened by Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 2001.


document_title: Formula One engines

question_text: what engine does a f1 car have 2017

question_tokens: what engine does a f1 car have 2017

text: Formula One engines

text: Operation[edit]

text: Formula One currently uses 1.6 litre four-stroke turbocharged 90 degree V6 reciprocating engines.[1]

text: The power a Formula One engine produces is generated by operating at a very high rotational speed, up to 15,000 revolutions per minute (rpm).[2] This contrasts with road car engines of a similar size which typically operate at less than 6,000 rpm. The basic configuration of a naturally aspirated Formula One engine had not been greatly modified since the 1967 Cosworth DFV and the mean effective pressure had stayed at around 14 bar MEP.[3] Until the mid-1980s Formula One engines were limited to around 12,000 rpm due to the traditional metal valve springs used to close the valves. The speed required to operate the engine valves at a higher rpm called for ever stiffer springs, which increased the power loss to drive the camshaft and the valves to the point where the loss nearly offset the power gain through the increase in rpm. They were replaced by pneumatic valve springs introduced by Renault,[4][5] which inherently have a rising rate (progressive rate) that allowed them to have extremely high spring rate at larger valve strokes without much increasing the driving power requirements at smaller strokes, thus lowering the overall power loss. Since the 1990s, all Formula One engine manufacturers used pneumatic valve springs with the pressurised air allowing engines to reach speeds of over 20,000 rpm.[5][6][7]

text: Short stroke engine[edit]

text: Formula One cars use short stroke engines. These engines are common in racing motorcycles and streetbikes.[8] The bore is the diameter of the cylinder in the engine block, and the stroke is the distance the piston travels from top dead-centre (TDC) to bottom dead-centre (BDC) inside the cylinder. To operate at high engine speeds the stroke must be relatively short to prevent catastrophic failure; this is usually connecting rod failure as the rod is under very large stresses at these speeds. Having a short stroke means that a relatively large bore is required to make the 1.6 litre engine displacement. This results in a less efficient combustion stroke, especially at lower rpm.[citation needed] The stroke of a Formula One engine is approximately 39.7 mm (1.56 in), less than half the bore diameter 98.0 mm (3.86 in), what is known as an over-square configuration.

text: In addition to the use of pneumatic valve springs a Formula One engine's high rpm output has been made possible due to advances in metallurgy and design allowing lighter pistons and connecting rods to withstand the accelerations necessary to attain such high speeds, also by narrowing the connecting rod ends allowing for narrower main bearings. This allows for higher rpm with less bearing-damaging heat build-up. For each stroke, the piston goes from a null speed, to almost two times the mean speed, (approximately 40 m/s) then back to zero. This occurs once for each of the four strokes in the cycle: one Intake (down), one Compression (up), one Power (ignition-down), one Exhaust (up). Maximum piston acceleration occurs at top dead center and is in the region of 95,000 m/s2, about 10,000 times standard gravity or 10,000 g.

text: History[edit]

text: Formula One engines have come through a variety of regulations, manufacturers and configurations through the years.[9]

text: This era used pre-war voiturette engine regulations, with 4.5 L atmospheric and 1.5 L supercharged engines. The Indianapolis 500 (which was a round of the World Drivers' Championship from 1950 onwards) used pre-war Grand Prix regulations, with 4.5 L atmospheric and 3.0 L supercharged engines. The power range was up to 425 hp (317 kW), though the BRM Type 15 of 1953 reportedly achieved 600 hp (447 kW) with a 1.5 L supercharged engine.

text: In 1952 and 1953, the World Drivers' Championship was run to Formula 2 regulations, but the existing Formula One regulations remained in force and a number of Formula One races were still held in those years.

text: Engine size was reduced to 2.5 L. for naturally-aspirated and 750 cc supercharged cars were allowed but no constructor built one for the World Championship. The Indianapolis 500 continued to use old pre-war regulations. The power range was up to 290 hp (216 kW).

text: Introduced in 1961 amidst some criticism, the new reduced engine 1.5 L formula took control of F1 just as every team and manufacturer switched from front to mid-engined cars. Although these were initially underpowered, five years later average power had increased by nearly 50% and lap times were better than in 1960. The old 2.5 L formula had been retained for International Formula racing, but this didn't achieve much success until the introduction of the Tasman Series in Australia and New Zealand during the winter season, leaving the 1.5 L cars as the fastest single seaters in Europe during this time. The power range was between 150 hp (112 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW).

text: In 1966, with sports cars capable of outrunning Formula 1 cars thanks to much larger and more powerful engines, the FIA increased engine capacity to 3.0 L atmospheric and 1.5 L compressed engines. Although a few manufacturers had been clamouring for bigger engines, the transition wasn't smooth and 1966 was a transitional year, with 2.0 L versions of the BRM and Coventry-Climax V8 engines being used by several entrants. The appearance of the standard-produced Cosworth DFV in 1967 made it possible for small manufacturers to join the series with a chassis designed in-house. Compression devices were allowed for the first time since 1960, but it wasn't until 1977 that a company actually had the finance and interest of building one, when Renault debuted their new Gordini V6 Turbo at the British Grand Prix at Silverstone that year. In 1980 Renault proved that turbocharging was the way to go in order to stay competitive in Formula One (particularly at high-altitude circuits like Kyalami in South Africa and Interlagos in Brazil); this engine had a considerable power advantage against the Ford-Cosworth DFV, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo naturally aspirated engines. Following this, Ferrari introduced their all-new turbocharged engine in 1981. Following these developments, Brabham owner Bernie Ecclestone managed to get BMW to make the team turbocharged inline-4 engines from 1982 onwards. And in 1983, Alfa Romeo made a turbocharged V8 engine, and in the same year and following years, Honda, Porsche (badged as TAG), Ford-Cosworth and other smaller companies made turbo-charged engines, mostly twin-turbocharged V6's. By the midpoint of 1985, every competing team had a turbocharged engine in their car. By 1986, power figures were reaching unprecedented levels, with all engines reaching over 1,000 hp during qualifying with unrestricted turbo boost pressures; This was especially seen with the BMW engines of Benetton's cars, reaching around 1,350 hp at a 5.5 bar boost pressure during qualifying. However, these engines & gearboxes were very unreliable because of the engine's immense power, and would only last about four laps. For the race, the turbocharger's boost was restricted to ensure engine reliability; But, the engines still produced 850 - 1000 hp during the race. The power range from 1966 to 1986 was between 285 hp (210 kW) to 500 hp (370 kW), turbos 500 hp (370 kW) to 900 hp (670 kW) in race, in qualifying up to 1,350 hp (1,010 kW). Following their experiences at Indianapolis, in 1971 Lotus made a few unsuccessful experiments with a Pratt & Whitney turbine fitted to chassis which had also 4WD.

text: Following the turbo domination, forced induction was allowed for two seasons before its eventual ban. The FIA regulations limited boost pressure, to 4 bar in qualifying in 1987 for 1.5 L turbo; and allowed a bigger 3.5 L formula. These seasons were still dominated by turbocharged engines, the Honda RA167E V6 supplying Nelson Piquet winning the 1987 Formula One season on a Williams also winning the constructors championship, followed by TAG-Porsche P01 V6 in McLaren then Honda again with the previous RA166E for Lotus then Ferrari's own 033D V6.

text: The rest of the grid was powered by the Ford GBA V6 turbo with Benetton, then the only naturally aspirated engine, the DFV-derived Ford Cosworth DFZ 3.5 L V8 outputting 575 hp (429 kW) in Tyrrell, Lola, AGS, March and Coloni.[10] The BMW M12/13 inline four was found in Brabhams BT55 tilted almost horizontally, and in upright position under the Megatron brand in Arrows and Ligier, producing 900 bhp (670 kW) at 3.8 bar in race.[11] Zakspeed was building its own turbo inline four, Alfa Romeo was to power the Ligiers with an inline four but the deal fell through after initial testing had been carried out. Alfa was still represented by its old 890T V8 used by Osella, and Minardi was powered by a Motori Moderni V6.

text: The 1988 Formula One season was again dominated by turbocharged engines limited to 2.5 bar and Honda with its RA168E turbo V6 producing 640 hp (477 kW) at 12500 rpm in qualifying, this time with McLaren drivers Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost winning all the grands prix except one won by Ferrari with its 033E V6 with about 650 hp (485 kW) at 12800 rpm in qualifying. Just behind, Ford introduced its DFR 3.5 L V8 producing 620 hp (462 kW) at 11000 rpm for Benetton, and the 640 hp (477 kW) Megatron BMW M12/13 was still powering Arrows ahead of the Lotus-Honda. Judd introduced its 600 hp (447 kW) CV 3.5 L V8 for March, Williams and Ligier, and the rest of the grid was mainly using previous year's Ford 590 hp (440 kW) Cosworth DFZ except Zakspeed with their own 640 hp (477 kW) engine and the 700 hp (522 kW) Alfa-Romeo V8 turbo for Osella.

text: Turbochargers were banned from the 1989 Formula One season, leaving only a naturally aspirated 3.5 L formula. Honda was still dominant with their RA109E 72° V10 giving 675 hp (503 kW) at 13000 rpm on McLaren cars, enabling Prost to win the championship in front of his teammate Senna. Behind were the Renault RS01 powered Williams, a 67° V10 giving 650 hp (485 kW) at 14300 rpm. Ferrari with its 035/5 65° V12 giving 660 hp (492 kW) at 13,000 rpm. Behind, the grid was powered mainly by Ford Cosworth DFR V8 giving 620 hp (462 kW) at 10,750 rpm except for a few Judd CV V8 in Lotus, Brabham and EuroBrun cars, and two oddballs: the 620 hp (460 kW) Lamborghini 3512 80° V12 powering Lola, and the 560 hp (420 kW) Yamaha OX88 75° V8 in Zakspeed cars. Ford started to try its new design, the 75° V8 HBA 1 with Benetton.

text: The 1990 Formula One season was again dominated by Honda in McLarens with the 690 hp (515 kW) at 13000 rpm RA100E powering Ayrton Senna and Gerhard Berger ahead of the 680 hp (507 kW) at 12750 rpm Ferrari Tipo 036 of Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell. Behind them the Ford HBA4 for Benetton and Renault RS2 for Williams with 660 hp (492 kW) at 12,800 rpm were leading the pack powered by Ford DFR and Judd CV engines. The exceptions were the better Lamborghini 3512 in Lola and Lotus, and the new Judd EV 76° V8 giving 640 hp (477 kW) at 12,500 rpm in Leyton House and Brabham cars. The two new contenders were the Life which built for themselves an F35 W12 with three four cylinders banks at 60°, and Subaru giving Coloni a 1235 flat 12 from Motori Moderni

text: Honda was still leading the 1991 Formula One season in Senna's McLaren with a 710 hp (529 kW) at 13,000 rpm 60° V12 RA121E, just ahead of the Renault RS3 powered Williams benefiting from 700 hp (520 kW) at 12,500 rpm. Ferrari was behind with its Tipo 037, a new 65° V12 giving 710 hp (529 kW) at 13,800 rpm also powering Minardi, just ahead the Ford HBA4/5/6 in Benetton and Jordan cars. Behind, Tyrrell was using the previous Honda RA109E, Judd introduced its new GV with Dallara leaving the previous EV to Lotus, Yamaha were giving its 660 hp (492 kW) OX99 70° V12 to Brabham, Lamborghini engines were used by Modena and Ligier. Ilmor introduced its LH10, a 680 hp (507 kW) at 13000 rpm V10 which eventually became the Mercedes with Leyton House and Porsche sourced a little successful 3512 V12 to Footwork Arrows; the rest of the field was Ford DFR powered.

text: By the end of the 1994 season, Ferrari's 043 was putting out 820 hp (611 kW) at 15,800 rpm.[12]

text: This era used a 3.0 L formula, with a power range between 650 hp (485 kW) and 950 hp (708 kW). Renault was the dominant engine supplier between 1991 and 1997, winning five world championships with Williams and Benetton. From 1998 to 2000 it was Mercedes power that ruled giving Mika Häkkinen two world championships. Ferrari gradually got better with their engine. For 1996, they changed from their traditional V12 engine to a smaller and lighter V10 engine. They preferred reliability to power, losing out to Mercedes in terms of outright power initially. At the 1998 Japanese GP, Ferrari's 047D engine spec was said to produce over 800 bhp (600 kW). From 2000 they were never short of power or reliability.

text: BMW started supplying their engines to Williams from 2000. In the first season, the engine was very reliable though slightly short of power compared to Ferrari and Mercedes units. BMW went straight forward with its engine development. The P81, used during the 2001 season, was able to hit 17,810 rpm. Unfortunately reliability was a big issue with several blowups during the season.

text: The BMW P82, the engine used by the BMW WilliamsF1 Team in 2002, had hit a peak speed of 19,050 revolutions a minute in its final evolutionary stage. It was also the first engine in the 3.0 litre V10-era to break through the 19,000 rpm-wall, during the 2002 Italian Grand Prix's qualifying.[13] BMW's P83 engine used in 2003 season managed an impressive 19,200 rpm and cleared the 900 bhp (670 kW) mark and weighs less than 200 lb (91 kg).[14]

text: In 2005, the 3.0 L V10 engine was permitted no more than 5 valves per cylinder.[15] Also, the FIA introduced new regulations limiting each car to one engine per two Grand Prix weekends, putting the emphasis on increased reliability and decreased power output. BMW and Mercedes engines had about 930 bhp (690 kW) in this season. Renault, Honda, Toyota and Ferrari had about 900 bhp (670 kW).

text: For 2006, the engines had to be 90° V8 of 2.4 litres maximum capacity with a 98 mm (3.9 in) maximum circular bore,[clarification needed] which implies a 39.8 mm (1.57 in) stroke at maximum bore. They had to have two circular inlet and exhaust valves per cylinder,[clarification needed] be normally aspirated and have a 95 kg (209 lb) minimum weight. The previous year's engines with a rev-limiter were permitted for 2006 and 2007 for teams who were unable to acquire a V8 engine, with Scuderia Toro Rosso using a Cosworth V10, after Red Bull's takeover of the former Minardi team did not include the new engines.[16]

text: Pre-cooling air before it enters the cylinders, injection of any substance other than air and fuel into the cylinders, variable-geometry intake and exhaust systems, and variable valve timing were forbidden. Each cylinder could have only one fuel injector and a single plug spark ignition. Separate starting devices were used to start engines in the pits and on the grid. The crankcase and cylinder block had to be made of cast or wrought aluminium alloys. The crankshaft and camshafts had to be made from an iron alloy, pistons from an aluminium alloy and valves from alloys based on iron, nickel, cobalt or titanium. These restrictions were in place to reduce development costs on the engines.[17]

text: The reduction in capacity was designed to give a power reduction of around 20% from the three litre engines, to reduce the increasing speeds of Formula One cars. Despite this, in many cases, performance of the car improved. In 2006 Toyota F1 announced an approximate 740 hp (552 kW) output at 18000 rpm for its new RVX-06 engine,[18] but real figures are of course difficult to obtain.

text: The engine specification was frozen in 2007 to keep development costs down. The engines which were used in the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix were used for the 2007 and 2008 seasons and they were limited to 19,000 rpm. In 2009 the limit was reduced to 18,000 rpm with each driver allowed to use a maximum of 8 engines over the season. Any driver needing an additional engine is penalised 10 places on the starting grid for the first race the engine is used. This increases the importance of reliability, although the effect is only seen towards the end of the season. Certain design changes intended to improve engine reliability may be carried out with permission from the FIA. This has led to some engine manufacturers, notably Ferrari and Mercedes, exploiting this ability by making design changes which not only improve reliability, but also boost engine power output as a side effect. As the Mercedes engine was proven to be the strongest, re-equalisations of engines were allowed by the FIA to allow other manufacturers to match the power.[19]

text: 2009 saw the exit of Honda from Formula 1. The team was acquired by Ross Brawn, creating Brawn GP and the BGP 001. With the absence of the Honda engine, Brawn GP retrofitted the Mercedes engine to the BGP 001 chassis. The newly branded team won both the Constructors' Championship and the Drivers' Championship from better-known and better-established contenders Ferrari, McLaren-Mercedes, and Renault.

text: Cosworth, absent since the 2006 season, returned in 2010. New teams Lotus Racing, HRT, and Virgin Racing, along with the established Williams, used this engine. The season also saw the withdrawal of the BMW and Toyota engines, as the car companies withdrew from Formula One due to the recession.[20]

text: In 2009, constructors were allowed to use kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS), also called regenerative brakes. Energy can either be stored as mechanical energy (as in a flywheel) or as electrical energy (as in a battery or supercapacitor), with a maximum power of 81 hp (60 kW; 82 PS). Four teams used it at some point in the season: Ferrari, Renault, BMW, and McLaren.

text: Although KERS was still legal in F1 in the 2010 season, all the teams agreed not to use it. KERS returned for the 2011 season, when only three teams elected not to use it. For the 2012 season, only Marussia and HRT raced without KERS, and in 2013 all teams on the grid had KERS. From 2010 to 2013 cars have a regular power of 700-800 hp.

text: The FIA announced the intention to change the 2.4-litre V8 engines to 1.6 litre V6 turbo engines for the 2014 season. The new regulations include multiple energy recovery systems [21] and fuel flow restrictions, to attract more commercial partners.

text: The new formula reintroduced turbocharged engines, which last appeared in 1988. These have their efficiency improved by turbo-compounding and introduce more energy recovery systems – with power to be harvested from the brakes and exhaust gases.[22] The original proposal for four-cylinder turbocharged engines was not welcomed by the racing teams, in particular Ferrari. Adrian Newey stated during the 2011 European Grand Prix that the change to a V6 enables teams to carry the engine as a stressed member, whereas an inline 4 would have required a space frame. A compromise was reached to adopt V6 turbocharged engines instead.[22] The internal combustion engines are limited to 15,000 rpm, but rarely exceed 12,000 rpm during Grand Prix due to the new reliability and fuel flow restrictions.[23]

text: Energy recovery systems were allowed to have a maximum power of 120 kW (160 bhp) and 2 megajoules per lap. KERS was renamed Motor Generator Unit-Kinetic (MGU-K). Heat energy recovery systems were also allowed, under the name Motor Generator Unit-Heat (MGU-H)

text: The 2015 season was an improvement on 2014, adding to most engines about 30-50 hp, the Mercedes engine being the most powerful with 870 hp.

text: Of the previous suppliers, only Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault produced engines to the new formula in 2014, whereas Cosworth stopped supplying engines. Honda returned in 2015 with their own engine, partnering McLaren who used Mercedes power for the 2014 season.[24]

text: Engine specification progression[edit]

text:
Years
Other than
4 Stroke piston
engines[note 1]
Engine displacement (max.)
Revolution
limit
Cylinders
Fuel

Naturally aspirated
Super- or
Turbo-charged
Alcohol
Gasoline

2014-present[note 2]
Prohibited
1.6 L[note 3][25][26]
15,000 rpm
90° V6
5.75%[note 4]
Unleaded[27]

2009–2013[note 5]
2.4 L
Prohibited
18,000 rpm
90° V8

2008
19,000 rpm

2007
Prohibited

2006[note 6][28]
Unrestricted

2000–2005
3.0 L
V10

1999
Up to 12

1995–1998
Unleaded

1992–1994
3.5 L

1989–1991
Unrestricted

1988
1.5 L, 2.5 bar
Unrestricted

1987
1.5 L, 4 bar

1986
Prohibited
1.5 L

1981–1985
3.0 L

1966–1980
Unspecified

1963–1965
1.5 L (1.3 L min.)
Prohibited
Pump[29]

1961–1962
Unrestricted

1958–1960
2.5 L
0.75 L

1954–1957
Unrestricted

1947–1953[note 7]
4.5 L
1.5 L

text: Note:

text:
Jump up ^ 2 Stroke, Gas Turbine, Rotary, etc.
Jump up ^ Kinetic (brake) and heat (exhaust) energy recovery systems allowed.
Jump up ^ Normally aspirated engines are not prohibited. Boost pressure is not limited, but fuel flow rate (which was not regulated up to 2013) is limited to 100 kg per hour. (This translates to about 3.5 bar with the specified fuel at the maximum rpm.)
Jump up ^ 5.75% bio-sourced alcohol content is required in pump-gas.
Jump up ^ Kinetic (braking) energy recovery system (KERS) was allowed from 2010, and used from 2011.
Jump up ^ For 2006 and 2007, FIA reserved the right to give special dispensations to teams (without access to new 2.4 L engine) to use 2005 spec 3 L engines with a rev-limiter. This dispensation was given to Scuderia Toro Rosso in 2006.
Jump up ^ For 1952 and 1953, World Championship races were run to Formula Two rules (0.75 L with compressor, 2 L without), but Formula One regulations remained intact.

tag: ol

text: Records[edit]

text: Figures correct as of the 2017 Italian Grand Prix

text: Bold indicates engine manufacturers competing in Formula One in the 2017 season.

text: World Championship Grand Prix wins by engine manufacturer[edit]

text:
Rank
Engine
Wins
First win
Latest win

1
 Ferrari
229
1951 British Grand Prix
2017 Hungarian Grand Prix

2
 Ford *
176
1967 Dutch Grand Prix
2003 Brazilian Grand Prix

3
 Renault
168
1979 French Grand Prix
2014 Belgian Grand Prix

4
 Mercedes **
159
1954 French Grand Prix
2017 Singapore Grand Prix

5
 Honda
72
1965 Mexican Grand Prix
2006 Hungarian Grand Prix

6
 Coventry Climax
40
1958 Argentine Grand Prix
1965 German Grand Prix

7
 TAG ***
25
1984 Brazilian Grand Prix
1987 Portuguese Grand Prix

8
 BMW
20
1982 Canadian Grand Prix
2008 Canadian Grand Prix

9
 BRM
18
1959 Dutch Grand Prix
1972 Monaco Grand Prix

10
 Alfa Romeo
12
1950 British Grand Prix
1978 Italian Grand Prix

11
 Maserati
11
1953 Italian Grand Prix
1967 South African Grand Prix

11
 Offenhauser
11
1950 Indianapolis 500 ****
1960 Indianapolis 500

13
 Vanwall
9
1957 British Grand Prix
1958 Morocco Grand Prix

14
 Repco
8
1966 French Grand Prix
1967 Canadian Grand Prix

15
 Mugen-Honda
4
1996 Monaco Grand Prix
1999 Italian Grand Prix

16
 Matra
3
1977 Swedish Grand Prix
1981 Canadian Grand Prix

16
 TAG Heuer *****
3
2016 Spanish Grand Prix
2017 Azerbaijan Grand Prix

18
 Porsche
1
1962 French Grand Prix

18
 Weslake
1
1967 Belgian Grand Prix

text: ^ * Built by  Cosworth

text: ^ ** Between 1997-2005 built by  Ilmor

text: ^ *** Built by  Porsche

text: ^ **** The Indianapolis 500 was part of the World Drivers' Championship from 1950 to 1960.

text: ^ ***** Built by  Renault

text: Most wins in a season[edit]

text: By number[edit]

text:
Rank
Manufacturer
Season
Races
Wins
Percentage
Engine(s)
Winning team(s)

1
Mercedes
2016
21
19
90.5%
PU106C Hybrid
Mercedes

2
Renault
1995
17
16
94.1%
RS7
Benetton, Williams

Mercedes
2014
19
84.2%
PU106A Hybrid
Mercedes

2015
PU106B Hybrid
Mercedes

5
Ford
1973
15
15
100.0%
DFV
Lotus, Tyrrell, McLaren

Honda
1988
16
93.8%
RA168E
McLaren

Ferrari
2002
17
88.2%
Tipo 050, Tipo 051
Ferrari

2004
18
83.3%
Tipo 053

9
Renault
2013
19
14
73.7%
RS27-2013
Lotus, Red Bull

10
Ford
1974
15
12
80.0%
DFV
McLaren, Tyrrell, Lotus, Brabham

1977
17
70.6%
Lotus, McLaren, Wolf, Shadow

TAG
1984
16
75.0%
TTE PO1
McLaren

Renault
1996
16
75.0%
RS8
Williams

2011
19
63.2%
RS27-2011
Red Bull

text: By percentage[edit]

text:
Rank
Manufacturer
Season
Races
Wins
Percentage
Engine(s)
Winning team(s)

1
Ford
1969
11
11
100.0%
DFV
Matra, Brabham, Lotus, McLaren

1973
15
15
Lotus, Tyrrell, McLaren

3
Renault
1995
17
16
94.1%
RS7
Benetton, Williams

4
Honda
1988
16
15
93.8%
RA168E
McLaren

5
Ford
1968
12
11
91.7%
DFV
Lotus, McLaren, Matra

6
Mercedes
2016
21
19
90.5%
PU106C Hybrid
Mercedes

7
Ferrari
2002
17
15
88.2%
Tipo 050, Tipo 051
Ferrari

8
Ferrari*
1952
8
7
87.5%
Tipo 500, Tipo 375
Ferrari

9
Alfa Romeo**
1950
7
6
85.2%
Tipo 158, Tipo 159
Alfa Romeo

10
Mercedes
2014
19
16
84.2%
PU106A Hybrid
Mercedes

2015
PU106B Hybrid
Mercedes

text:
* Only Alberto Ascari raced in the 1952 Indianapolis 500 with Ferrari.
** Alfa Romeo did not race in the 1950 Indianapolis 500.

text: Most consecutive wins[edit]

text:
Rank
Manufacturer
Wins
Season(s)
Races
Engine(s)
Winning team(s)

1
Ford
22
1972, 1973, 1974
1972 Austrian Grand Prix–1974 South African Grand Prix
DFV
Lotus, Tyrrell, McLaren, Brabham

2
Ford
20
1968, 1969, 1970
1968 British Grand Prix–1970 Monaco Grand Prix
DFV
Lotus, Matra, McLaren, Brabham, March

3
Renault
16
1995, 1996
1995 French Grand Prix–1996 San Marino Grand Prix
RS7, RS8
Benetton, Williams

4
Honda
11
1988
1988 Brazilian Grand Prix–1988 Belgian Grand Prix
RA168E
McLaren

5
Ferrari
10
2002
2002 Canadian Grand Prix–2002 Japanese Grand Prix
Tipo 051
Ferrari

Mercedes
2015, 2016
2015 Japanese Grand Prix–2016 Russian Grand Prix
PU106B Hybrid, PU106C Hybrid
Mercedes

Mercedes
2016
2016 Monaco Grand Prix–2016 Singapore Grand Prix
PU106C Hybrid
Mercedes

8
Ford
9
1980, 1981
1980 Dutch Grand Prix–1981 Belgian Grand Prix
DFV
Brabham, Williams

Renault
2013
2013 Belgian Grand Prix–2013 Brazilian Grand Prix
RS27-2013
Red Bull

10
Ford
8
1974, 1975
1974 Austrian Grand Prix–1975 Spanish Grand Prix
DFV
Brabham, Lotus, McLaren, Tyrrell

1976, 1977
1976 German Grand Prix–1977 Argentine Grand Prix
McLaren, Penske, March, Lotus, Wolf

TAG
1984, 1985
1984 British Grand Prix–1985 Brazilian Grand Prix
TTE PO1
McLaren

Honda
1987
1987 Monaco Grand Prix–1987 Italian Grand Prix
RA166E, RA167E
Lotus, Williams

Ferrari
2003, 2004
2003 Italian Grand Prix–2004 Spanish Grand Prix
Tipo 052, Tipo 053
Ferrari

Mercedes
2014, 2015
2014 Italian Grand Prix–2015 Australian Grand Prix
PU106A Hybrid, PU106B Hybrid
Mercedes