h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
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,
|
|
|
| |
The volume pumped would be one third as much as each of the remaining cylinders require. |
|
| |
There is no extra air being forced into this engine. |
|
| |
A PDP Supercharger - whatever next? |
|
| |
I think you will lose more power by sacrificing the one cylinder that you would gain from boosting the others. |
|
| |
The Germas tried this back in the 30's. the example shown was a two cylinder engine with one cylinder bigger than the other to provide boost, needless to say they couldn't balance it and gave up. |
|
| |
This is one idea for the dynacam engine (which has double-ended pistons operating on a single cam): use one side of each piston for combustion, the other side for supercharging. As pointed out by Texticle, fixed displacement superchargers don't work so good when they are the same size as the cylinder being filled! It's a glaringly bad idea for dynacam, so it's not that great an idea here. As for the German idea, it could be made to work: just use two cylinders for combustion and two for supercharging, the crank could be balanced that way. What isn't understood very well is that supercharging is essentially the same as increasing the displacement of the engine. So if you need big pistons for supercharging, why not just use those big pistons for combustion instead? (One way a small, fixed displacement pump could be made to work, is to overdrive it some multiple of the crank speed. Reciprocating pumps are too inefficient anyway, you're still better off with a blower instead). |
|
| |
The difference is, with small cylinders one can devise a much better combustion chamber shape. It wouldn't matter if the "compression" cylinders leave a shape like a 33 1/3 record at tdc, so I'd say it's worth a look. |
|
| |
It'd be rather bulky, though: there are more compact superchargers. |
|
| |
(A lot of current OEM supercharger installations displace about as much as the engines they're on. All they do is improve volumetric efficiency.) |
|
| |
The reason why a Miller Cycle engine is so effcient is because a supercharger can compress air more efficiently than a piston can (The intake valves in a Miller Cycle are left open during part of the compression stroke so that some air is pushed back into a supercharger, which then compresses it back into the cylinder). Since that is true, this design would be much less efficient than just letting a supercharger do all the work. |
|
| |
one a waste of energy and air you bring into ur engine. just use an exhaust driven turbocharger on a rice burner and a belt driven supercharger on a nuscle car. |
|
| |
I would like to point out that in a four cycle
engine the "supercharger cylinder" would sweep
twice for every intake stroke of another cylinder.
In order to be effective there would have to be a
1:1 supercharger cylinder to normal cylinder ratio,
or the supercharger cylinder could be larger. It
would be cool to bore and stroke just the center
cylinder on each bank of an air cooled v6. The air
pumped though the center cylinder could be used
to cool the engine then run though an intercooler
to increase charge density and dissipate engine
heat. |
|
| |
Oh and a bun from me. Considering that this idea
does work. |
|
| |