HawkINX4

forget both.. im talking about leaf blower here.. its cheap, easy... and PROVEN.. see here

http://videos.streetfire.net/Player....D-A1AD23CA9564

kungpaosamuraiii

"Smarty" people are probably the only people who'll bother arguing laws of physics :D

It's a nice excercise for the ol' brain.

Well since we're talking about being a drag on the engine - someone should get one of those Typhoon s/c and hook up another car battery to it so that can spin faster than a regular Typhoon and won't take away from the regular car battery. The only cost of that is the weight - other than that you won't have any engine restrictions!

How about this: mount a bit of water in a resevoir near the header and a turbine above the water. As the water evaporates it spins the turbine and makes boost. Steam goes past the turbines and condenses on a sheet of aluminum that is insulated on the header side but is close to wear the FMIC would sit so would be cold and the steam would condense into water again and go back to the resevoir.

However, the loss of heat energy will in turn be a loss of kinetic energy for the exhaust. But whatevers, the actual pathway will stay the same and so long as theres a continual flow of exhaust gas it won't get bogged down too much. This system I bet would have some awesome low end as I think you can start boiling water even at idle. You'd reach max boost at idle all the way to redline. Bigger turbine would only necessitate a larger resevoir and a little longer for the water to get up to temperature. As long as the car is warmed up you can basically boost however much you want, whenever you want!




edit:Thanks, engifineer, 'ppreciate it. Being called a nerd means a lot to me coming from you! :D

matty-tC

OK then, how much power does a turbo use to create it's power?

DynomyteSW

screw both s/c and t/c go w/ a leaf blower

engifineer

?? Well, that depends on the rotational mass of the turbine, the frictional components of the bearings, size of turbine, resistance due to the intake... on and on.. There is no magical number, just as there is none for the drag of a SC. It depends on all of the specs for the unit in its particular application. What are we arguing here? That a turbo does not introduce extra burden on the engine? There really is no way around that. I have agreed and agreed that a sc typically wastes more, but NOTHING is a perfect conductor of energy anywhere.

Here is a good example... why use a catback??? To reduce restriction in the exhaust to gain power... so if you add restriction, what happens? You lose some of your effective power. The difference with the turbo is that the gain you recieve overcomes the used energy to provide a net gain overall. The SC does the same, just not necessarilly as efficient as a turbo at a given point.

I really dont know what else to say, or really where you are going with the argument, which is not what I wanted the discussion to turn into originally.

matty-tC

I understand what you're saying I'm just not sure why you're bringing up the point. Nothing ever makes power without giving up energy. otherwise there would be a perpetual motion machine powering our power grid.

But for arguement's sake on a discussion between supercharging and turbos, it just doesn't make sense to bring up (in my opinion)...
We're not discussing physics specifically. We are discussing differences in forced induction into a combustion engine.

engifineer

The only reason I brought it up was due to the discussion around efficiency. Your earlier post sounded like you were saying that a turbo does not waste any energy. I think that was what we were trying to argue. Sounds more like a misunderstanding to me.

matty-tC

yeah i know it's not the perfect creator of energy but the energy inefficiency created by the turbo's present in the way of the exhaust flow is extremely minimal in comparison to the resistance on the crank compared to a supercharger.

i think we're on the same page now

400amonth

you are a dick trickle