RE: Electric Superchargers On The Way

[the Fantom]

dwilkie said:

Good point, the T25 is as you say sized for a 2 Litre. It's kinda not what I mean though, the point I was trying to get across was the 120mm fans in our servers are rated at 115cfm, and are quite large. Surely a fan that small would struggle to move any reasonable amount of air?

It's not my area of expertise, but dont' mistake this for trolling, i am actually genuinely interested

The "fan" being used here runs at 70,000 rpm. The fans used in PCs typically run at up to 1,500 rpm, maybe a little more in servers.

[SleeperCell]

JonRB said:

The Black Flash said:

The advantage of being able to switch it on or off are obvious though.

preferably with a switch on the gear-lever Max Max style.

Some superchargers do this anyway via a clutch system, the Toyota ones from the 80s used to be ecu controlled and only activated at higher throttle openings but you could always rerig the wiring to switch them on and off mad max style.

[ctallchris]

the Fantom said:

dwilkie said:

Good point, the T25 is as you say sized for a 2 Litre. It's kinda not what I mean though, the point I was trying to get across was the 120mm fans in our servers are rated at 115cfm, and are quite large. Surely a fan that small would struggle to move any reasonable amount of air?

It's not my area of expertise, but dont' mistake this for trolling, i am actually genuinely interested

The "fan" being used here runs at 70,000 rpm. The fans used in PCs typically run at up to 1,500 rpm, maybe a little more in servers.

Would it have to be a fan? If you don't have to worry about the drive could you not use screw rotors or something similar?

[dwilkie]

the Fantom said:

dwilkie said:

Good point, the T25 is as you say sized for a 2 Litre. It's kinda not what I mean though, the point I was trying to get across was the 120mm fans in our servers are rated at 115cfm, and are quite large. Surely a fan that small would struggle to move any reasonable amount of air?

It's not my area of expertise, but dont' mistake this for trolling, i am actually genuinely interested

The "fan" being used here runs at 70,000 rpm. The fans used in PCs typically run at up to 1,500 rpm, maybe a little more in servers.

That's true, I'd forgot that bit. According to the status monitor 3750 for our server. Which is odd because they should be running about 1500 also like they are on the others...

Guess I better go take a look

[bosscerbera]

The bottom line is this uses battery power to augment the output of an internal combustion engine. Where does the battery power come from? The internal combustion engine.

But what if the battery power came from the braking system? That might make sense. However, F1's KERS, energised by braking (not the engine), is deployed into the drivetrain (not the engine).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are conditions under which the supercharger thing makes sense but these must, surely, be marginal?

[JimGTxx]

This kind of Tech has been around for a long time, a friend of mine was helping develop it for Integral Powertrain WWW.INTEGRALP.COM

check it out:- http://www.integralp.com/supergen.aspx

[Marf]

JimGTxx said:

This kind of Tech has been around for a long time, a friend of mine was helping develop it for Integral Powertrain WWW.INTEGRALP.COM

check it out:- http://www.integralp.com/supergen.aspx

Page 2 Gentleman Jim

[JimGTxx]

just noticed that! doh! lol!

[Marf]

[SleeperCell]

barks said:

crb said:

alock said:

Article said said:

...delivered in less than a second.

That lag belongs in the 80s

I think they mean 1 sec from ignition, not foot down......................boost.

No I think they mean from foot down. Remember though that this is at low engine RPM and is complemented by a typical mechanical turbocharger when the engine speed is higher. So at higher engine speed you will get whatever boost response your mechanical turbocharger gives. At lower speeds you have to wait a second for the electric motor to spin up the compressor, I think its this spin up time that they are quoting. A second really isnt a long time to wait for boost! It will give boost from engine idle as long as it can get enough electrical power to spin up the compressor.

Waiting a second between hitting the throttle and getting the power is actually quite a long time to wait in reality when you want power instantly, hence so many people complain about turbo lag on old cars and throttle lag on drive by wire cars, both of those are delays of less than a second, but it's still annoying.

Anyway what's the point of it when a conventional turbo will spool up in under a second anyway (modern turbos have virtually no lag and wide powerband and work with high compression ratios so off boost they aren't anywhere near as bad as the old days). The only benefit I can think of is that it might work as a less damaging 'anti-lag' style device that creates instant off the line boost if you set it to spin up pre-emptively as part of a launch control system, although it doesn't really seem worth the effort for something like that for the average road car.

I'd rather an F1 style KERS style system that feeds the extra electric torque directly to the drivetrain the instant I press an overtake button. It would probably far more useful and probably more efficient way of using it as well.

[Belfast Boy]

Just get a Leaf blower from a boot sale and attach, Job done!

[barks]

SleeperCell said:

barks said:

crb said:

alock said:

Article said said:

...delivered in less than a second.

That lag belongs in the 80s

I think they mean 1 sec from ignition, not foot down......................boost.

No I think they mean from foot down. Remember though that this is at low engine RPM and is complemented by a typical mechanical turbocharger when the engine speed is higher. So at higher engine speed you will get whatever boost response your mechanical turbocharger gives. At lower speeds you have to wait a second for the electric motor to spin up the compressor, I think its this spin up time that they are quoting. A second really isnt a long time to wait for boost! It will give boost from engine idle as long as it can get enough electrical power to spin up the compressor.

Waiting a second between hitting the throttle and getting the power is actually quite a long time to wait in reality when you want power instantly, hence so many people complain about turbo lag on old cars and throttle lag on drive by wire cars, both of those are delays of less than a second, but it's still annoying.

Anyway what's the point of it when a conventional turbo will spool up in under a second anyway (modern turbos have virtually no lag and wide powerband and work with high compression ratios so off boost they aren't anywhere near as bad as the old days). The only benefit I can think of is that it might work as a less damaging 'anti-lag' style device that creates instant off the line boost if you set it to spin up pre-emptively as part of a launch control system, although it doesn't really seem worth the effort for something like that for the average road car.

I'd rather an F1 style KERS style system that feeds the extra electric torque directly to the drivetrain the instant I press an overtake button. It would probably far more useful and probably more efficient way of using it as well.

It wont spool up below a given rev range though. I think the point is that you can use a low capacity engine at low speed to improve the carbon emissions by using boost. High torque and low speed seems to be a good recipie for low C02 emissions, maybe as you get less frictional losses and such things. A turbo isnt much good at this as it needs decent engine RPMs to get enough energy into the exhaust system to drive the turbo compressor.

[vauxhallloving]

Im sick to death of all this "GREEN" bullst! fk off with it!!! We have been coming out of a ice age since before man kind! I cant wait to the day I die at least I wont have to listen to this bullst all the while! Nowonder the car industry is up the wall having to waste millions on "less CO2" emmisions. Stop cutting the fking trees down maybe that would be a start. IDIOTS

Off topic I know but it pisses me off sorry

Edited by vauxhallloving on Wednesday 23 September 17:52

[Ricky944s2]

vauxhallloving said:

Im sick to death of all this "GREEN" bullst! fk off with it!!! We have been coming out of a ice age since before man kind! I cant wait to the day I die at least I wont have to listen to this bullst all the while! Nowonder the car industry is up the wall having to waste millions on "less CO2" emmisions. Stop cutting the fking trees down maybe that would be a start. IDIOTS

Off topic I know but it pisses me off sorry

Edited by vauxhallloving on Wednesday 23 September 17:52

Tough day at work then???

[bakerjuk]

I think everyone is comparing this to conventional turbocharge and supercharge systems.

This is an independent electronic charge designed for small engines only where sub 3000rpm torque is insufficient. By using this unit torque at very low revs can be increased, Therefore meaning you can run lower capacity engines and therefore "QUOTE" lower co2 emisions across their range. I doubt it would work very well on a performance engine as the flow rates would not be sufficient. I think its just a way of reducing crappy 1.6-2.0 engines to 1.1's giving the same 0-60 with far lower co2. This way they can maintain true performance cars without having to modify their co2 emissions.

Quite clever really.

[bakerjuk]

vauxhallloving said:

Im sick to death of all this "GREEN" bullst! fk off with it!!! We have been coming out of a ice age since before man kind! I cant wait to the day I die at least I wont have to listen to this bullst all the while! Nowonder the car industry is up the wall having to waste millions on "less CO2" emmisions. Stop cutting the fking trees down maybe that would be a start. IDIOTS

Off topic I know but it pisses me off sorry

Edited by vauxhallloving on Wednesday 23 September 17:52

+1

[mrmr96]

bosscerbera said:

The bottom line is this uses battery power to augment the output of an internal combustion engine. Where does the battery power come from? The internal combustion engine.

But what if the battery power came from the braking system? That might make sense. However, F1's KERS, energised by braking (not the engine), is deployed into the drivetrain (not the engine).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are conditions under which the supercharger thing makes sense but these must, surely, be marginal?

This isn't the HHO bks that was being talked about by some Scooby driver. The system being discussed in this thread ALLOWS MORE FUEL TO BE BURNED. There is no paradox here dude. Conventional superchargers also derive the power to run them from the engine they feed, so do turbos. I don't think you can dispute that they work. The only difference is that instead of a belt drive you have an alternator, then a wire, then a motor. It won't be as 'efficient' as a belt (due to losses in converting mechincal energy into electrical and back again) but the benefit is the flexibility in the way that the fan speed can be controlled indepenant of the engine speed.


It strikes me as funny that it appears people come on and try to use flawed logic to prove some kind of paradox in the fundamental principles of this type of operation. Sorry, you don't come across as cleverer.

[bosscerbera]

mrmr96 said:

bosscerbera said:

The bottom line is this uses battery power to augment the output of an internal combustion engine. Where does the battery power come from? The internal combustion engine.

But what if the battery power came from the braking system? That might make sense. However, F1's KERS, energised by braking (not the engine), is deployed into the drivetrain (not the engine).

I wouldn't be surprised if there are conditions under which the supercharger thing makes sense but these must, surely, be marginal?

This isn't the HHO bks that was being talked about by some Scooby driver. The system being discussed in this thread ALLOWS MORE FUEL TO BE BURNED. There is no paradox here dude. Conventional superchargers also derive the power to run them from the engine they feed, so do turbos. I don't think you can dispute that they work. The only difference is that instead of a belt drive you have an alternator, then a wire, then a motor. It won't be as 'efficient' as a belt (due to losses in converting mechincal energy into electrical and back again) but the benefit is the flexibility in the way that the fan speed can be controlled indepenant of the engine speed.

It strikes me as funny that it appears people come on and try to use flawed logic to prove some kind of paradox in the fundamental principles of this type of operation. Sorry, you don't come across as cleverer.

A good point, almost lost under attitude which makes you sound like an idiot.

As my last line said, I'm not doubting its function, merely questioning the gains - partly because, as you state, "It won't be as 'efficient' as a belt (due to losses in converting mechincal energy into electrical and back again)".

[Futuramic]

Apparantly it is more than possible to make a mini-jet engine out of the exhaust housing of an old turbo. The wheel acts as the compressor, and a bit of fuel is injected for the burn.

To the exhaust outlet of this tiny jet engine weld another, smaller turbo. So jet exaust spins the impellor of the normal turbo. Rig up the rest of the intake pipes in the normal way.

Thus we have a system that weighs less than the electric one and costs less.

There would be no parasitic losses as it only requires petrol to spin the turbine. Throttle response would be instant as the turbine is pre-spun. Also a small jet is capable of producing many horsepowers.

Simple.

The electric one does not appear to have an intercooler. Hig RPM motors get very hot. They also burn out quickly under load, no-one's mentioned this yet.

[Hellbound]

One day electric cars are going to blow us all away...one day....