h a l f b a k e r yFlaky rehab
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
//turbo lag is a bummer and keeps us for the most part from running the same sort of huge boost numbers on a car engine that the big truck guys are// |
|
| |
No - compression ratio, and engine durability factors keep you from using exceedingly high boost numbers. |
|
| |
Adding Nitrous to the exhaust inlet of the turbine will not magically make turbo-lag dissappear. The primary function of NO2 is to cool the air that is being coming into the cylinders as to increase air density and to provide an oxidizer as to more completely burn your air/fuel mixture. By dumping NO2 into the exhaust, it simply leaves the car. Thus wasting what you have in your tank. |
|
| |
Besides, the big tractor-trailers use turbo-charging systems to compliment an engine that runs on diesel - an engine design that relies on compression of the fuel and air to be burned. A high compression ratio as a result of increased induction pressure for a diesel motors translates into higher output for them, while it translates into broken connecting rods and a short lifespan for gasoline engines. |
|
| |
I am not a member of the Pedant Police, but even I cannot fathom /he'res/. |
|
| |
What you need is to put in large amounts of energy in a short period, in order to spin the turbo up quickly to build pressure. This is not the best way to do it. It might be better to have the inlet air bypass the turbo at low revs, so the compressor is essentially spinning in a vacuum and can maintain high RPMs. Other than that, an anti-lag system will keep your turbo speed up, albeit at the cost of demolishing your exhaust system on a regular basis. |
|
| |
Yeah - igniting exhaust gasses isn't going to help acceleration. Or your luck with the ladies. |
|
| |
I am //a member of the Pedant Police//, probably, and I object strongly to the spelling and writing of this idea. I'd fishbone it for that, but I want to object to the complexity of the idea. |
|
| |
An NO2 bottle, with a valve and nozzle, and a fuel injector, with all its plumbing, and a spark plug, is a lot to install and to carry around. A rocket motor would be a lot simpler. |
|
| |
Of course, not driving like a loony would be best. |
|
| |
This is a little beyond what I understand. Would this possibly put the pressure of combusted gasses back into the engine (not much pressure, but some)? He'res Johnny! |
|
| |
Steady on [UnaBubba], he's not talking about rocket propulsion. He's talking about burning fuel in the presence of nitrous oxide upstream of the turbo's turbine in order to spool the turbo. |
|
| |
Anti-lag systems (usually extreme retardation of ignition timing) are baked, however, and I can see a few pitfalls with the proposed idea. It's not as ridiculous as rocket propulsion from the tailpipe though. |
|
| |
That almost adds up to a gas turbine powering the compressor for the piston engine, and the piston engine *being* the compressor for the gas turbine (and putting exhaust rather than fresh air into the gas turbine intake). |
|
| |
What if you had a regular gas turbine, with its own intake and compressor, powering the compressor for the piston engine? |
|
| |
[david_scothern] // It might be better to have the inlet air bypass the turbo at low revs, so the compressor is essentially spinning in a vacuum and can maintain high RPMs.// |
|
| |
You'd need some way to create the vacuum downstream of the compressor. It would create its own vacuum on the upstream side. |
|
| |
Don't they have turbo charging systems that are pre-spun by electric motors nowa days? |
|
| |
//The primary function of NO2 is to cool the air that is
being coming into the cylinders// - in that case, won't
engines perform marginally better in cold climates? |
|
| |
[Letsbuildafort]-- electric turbos (usually called superchargers by their manufacturers) exist, but frankly, they suck. So much power is needed to run the thing, they can only spin it for short periods of time and then the batteries have to recharge. |
|
| |
[caspian] I should make myself clearer; I didn't mean that the turbo would spin in a vacuum in the true sense; merely that the inlet side of the compressor should be shut off, thus removing the pumping load. |
|
| |
//electric turbos (usually called superchargers by their manufacturers) exist, but frankly, they suck// [5th Earth] you obviously don't understand even the basic principles of forced-air induction. |
|
| |
[5th Earth] is right about the electric superchargers. The ones I have seen are of centrifugal pump design and hence look like turbochargers. I think they draw about one third of the starter motor current, and therefore are only run in short bursts. |
|
| |
[5th Earth] I was not speaking about an "e-ram" or an electric supercharger. I was speaking about a turbo charger that employs the use of a high-duty electric motor to spin the turbo at WFO. Cutting down on the turob lag by pre-spinning the conventional turbocarger until positive exhaust pressure can be achieved. |
|
| |
[Texticle] - Really? Have you ever seen the "E-ram?" |
|
| |
No, I hadn't seen the e-ram. I note that the e-ram is an axial fan, which I would have thought was a poor choice due to lack of pressure. |
|
| |
The ones I were thinking of were centrifugal. |
|
| |
Yeah - The people that put out the e-ram claim that their top end model can produce in excess of 3 atmospheres in a well sealed airbox at low speeds. |
|
| |
3 atmospheres from an axial fan like that seems dubious to put it nicely. |
|
| |
"electric turbos [...] exist, but frankly, they suck."
Must've been installed backward. |
|
| |
Yes, upon closer inspection, I seem to be COMPLETELY wrong ... again. |
|
| |
Their top-line "Super E-Ram" is capable of only 1.7psi. I gotta link with some videos. Now bear in-mind that I'm going off on a tangent reguarding the comment I made about the electric-spun turbos. This is just a high out-put fan that suppliments engine manifold pressure. Not actually what I was talking about in the first place, but to carry-on with the comments made by [Texticle]. |
|
| |