Definately possible, but in practice it mostly useless in my opinion. A properly designed turbo or supercharger would probably make quick work of it.
I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but here are my opinions about the issue.
Turbo - not very efficient at low RPMs (point already noted), but can produce much more boost due the the "ram jet" effect. You'll have to consider cooling, fuel delivery, ECU programming.
Supercharger- efficient at low RPMs, restricted by higher RPMs since it's belt driven, can be compensated by changing pulley set ups (still restricted, just better performance with the same RPMs), generally work better on larger displacement engines.
Best- Free-bearing Turbos, a combination of both, where the induction of air would be done by the Supercharger at low RPMs, once the engine is at higher RPMs and the exhaust can spool faster than the belt, the impeller would spin faster and break away from the restriction of the belt driven Supercharger (fiction?). Also cost you beaucoup moolah.
Turbo - not very efficient at low RPMs (point already noted), but can produce much more boost due the the "ram jet" effect. You'll have to consider cooling, fuel delivery, ECU programming.
Supercharger- efficient at low RPMs, restricted by higher RPMs since it's belt driven, can be compensated by changing pulley set ups (still restricted, just better performance with the same RPMs), generally work better on larger displacement engines.
Best- Free-bearing Turbos, a combination of both, where the induction of air would be done by the Supercharger at low RPMs, once the engine is at higher RPMs and the exhaust can spool faster than the belt, the impeller would spin faster and break away from the restriction of the belt driven Supercharger (fiction?). Also cost you beaucoup moolah.
heating the air is the last thing you want. Ignition has little to do w/ temperature so making the air hotter wouldnt really get you anywhere (unless it was superheated). Both compress the air, making it more dense, thus more O2 per unit volume to allow for more complete combustion and more power.
-doug
-doug
by mere physics, compressed air will have higher temp than non compressed. More volume means more molecules > less space > more friction > more heat > intercooler.
now, if any of you physic nuts out there can figure this out, it'll make you a rich man. The expansion rate needed to cool the air down given both the impeller and expansion blade is mounted on a centrifugal shaft (same volume). This has been an idea of mine for a long time, but I don't think that I'll ever be able to make it a reality, so consider this a freebie.
An interesting statement. Could you please provide _any_ compartive sets of data to support this statement?
Most generally, the opposite is true. There are application specific instances where a supercharger is a better choice, but if the goal is all-out cranking power at WOT, turbo always wins ... if you can figure out how to tune the air:fuel ratio to make use of the air.
Huh?
well, regardless.. If it's simple physics math, I'm sure other thermal engineering people have thought about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter