Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 158

Thread: Electric turbo?

  1. #121
    Registered User Justengt4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    canberra
    Posts
    3,638
    Turbos take a decent amount of power to run...nothing is free. But, and it's a big but, combustion engines are horribly inefficient so there is heaps of left over energy in the exhaust gases (in the form of heat) to drive the turbo....that's why turbo power is essentially free and SC have a high parasitic load, but both shift the same amount of air. Simplistic explanation but that's the guts of it.
    GT8
    1UZ Celica
    1.07 flat Wakefield Park

  2. #122
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    The power to turn a turbo with exhaust gas is not free, but harnessing the exhaust pressure is far more efficient than a direct drive (or electric). Since intercoolers work pretty well at negating the effect of the inefficiencies of the compressor side (heat) , the only explanation to why big turbos make more power because they have less parasitic loss (less back pressure).
    Last edited by 2JZR31; 02-06-13 at 09:33 PM.
    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    I think all the ideas talked about in this thread are outweighed by the idea of using a turbine to put power back to the flywheel.



    This system will give a 13l 6cyl 500hp engine a 50hp boost the efficiency is far greater than any other idea that 50hp could be used to drive a supercharger but all this will do is effectively reduce weight.

  4. #124
    Registered User 9triton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    4,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Justengt4 View Post
    Turbos take a decent amount of power to run...nothing is free. But, and it's a big but, combustion engines are horribly inefficient so there is heaps of left over energy in the exhaust gases (in the form of heat) to drive the turbo....that's why turbo power is essentially free and SC have a high parasitic load, but both shift the same amount of air. Simplistic explanation but that's the guts of it.
    i remember seeing a calc/note by rolls royce - on a merlin engine - centrifugal supercharger . for 2000hp engine output supercharger drive was consuming 300hp
    Last edited by 9triton; 02-06-13 at 10:47 PM.

  5. #125
    Registered User 9triton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    4,845
    Quote Originally Posted by dynoryder View Post
    I think all the ideas talked about in this thread are outweighed by the idea of using a turbine to put power back to the flywheel.



    This system will give a 13l 6cyl 500hp engine a 50hp boost the efficiency is far greater than any other idea that 50hp could be used to drive a supercharger but all this will do is effectively reduce weight.
    i reckon thats a great idea - drives a compressor and a secondary turbine one for power to shaft.

    sort of a twin spool turbo prop

    wright turbo compound radial engine had a 3 turbines that extracted energy out of the exhaust and via small quill shafts and some fancy hydraulic gearbox put 450 hp back into te crankshaft .
    suppossedly got te best BSFC (specific fuel consumption) of any big 50's piston engines at cruise conditions

    only problem was a mechanical night mare :

    Following the war, to better serve the civilian market, the Turbo-Compound[3] system was developed to deliver better fuel efficiency and thus economy. In these versions, three power recovery turbines (PRT) were inserted into the exhaust piping of each group of six cylinders and geared to the engine crankshaft by fluid couplings to deliver more power. The PRTs recovered about 20 percent of the exhaust energy (around 450 hp) that would have otherwise been wasted, but reduced engine reliability. The fuel burn for the PRT equipped aircraft was nearly the same as the older Pratt and Whitney R-2800, while producing more horsepower.[4] Many aircraft mechanics of the day, nicknamed them "Parts Recovery Turbines" (and worse).[

    Last edited by 9triton; 02-06-13 at 10:45 PM.

  6. #126
    Opens
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    TEXAS, QLD
    Posts
    9,507
    Probably better off putting an electric motor straight onto the crankshaft or some shit.

  7. #127
    Down with ma homies Greg Rust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Perf
    Posts
    10,614
    Maybe you could also put an auxiliary electric motor onto the crankshaft.
    xw Falcon 393 full race cam, NGK spark plugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monza View Post
    I've never considered myself the type of guy to eat arse but I am currently reviewing that policy

  8. #128
    Registered User EnFlaMEd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    292
    maybe you could collect rain and funnel it through a mini hydroelectric turbine which powers and h20 separator which pumps hydrogen into a small 4 stroke engine powering an electric motor that is coupled to the crankshaft.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by EnFlaMEd View Post
    maybe you could collect rain and funnel it through a mini hydroelectric turbine which powers and h20 separator which pumps hydrogen into a small 4 stroke engine powering an electric motor that is coupled to the crankshaft.

    Too much conversion losses in that system.

  10. #130
    Registered User EnFlaMEd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    292
    Ill never be a scientist

  11. #131
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    Quote Originally Posted by dynoryder View Post
    Too much conversion losses in that system.
    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  12. #132
    Meh
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    26,940
    Quote Originally Posted by 9triton View Post
    wright turbo compound radial engine had a 3 turbines that extracted energy out of the exhaust and via small quill shafts and some fancy hydraulic gearbox put 450 hp back into te crankshaft .
    suppossedly got te best BSFC (specific fuel consumption) of any big 50's piston engines at cruise conditions

    only problem was a mechanical night mare :




    Yep, it's why when the Boeing 707 with its jet engines came along the world was transformed in short order.
    No vibration, able to fly above all the weather, and most of all .... reliable. In the Good Old Days with Lockheed Constellations, etc, to go from the UK to here it'd take a few days and it wasn't uncommon to have to change an engine or two on the way.
    These days it's more common for an airline pilot to go through their career without having any engine failures.



    Quote Originally Posted by myliberty View Post
    Probably better off putting an electric motor straight onto the crankshaft or some shit.
    Bigger engine, light flywheel, the right turbo.

  13. #133
    Registered User Justengt4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    canberra
    Posts
    3,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Billzilla View Post
    Yep, it's why when the Boeing 707 with its jet engines came along the world was transformed in short order.
    No vibration, able to fly above all the weather, and most of all .... reliable. In the Good Old Days with Lockheed Constellations, etc, to go from the UK to here it'd take a few days and it wasn't uncommon to have to change an engine or two on the way.
    These days it's more common for an airline pilot to go through their career without having any engine failures.
    thank fark







    Quote Originally Posted by Billzilla View Post
    Bigger engine, light flywheel, the right turbo.
    Boring.......but sensible option
    GT8
    1UZ Celica
    1.07 flat Wakefield Park

  14. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Billzilla View Post
    Yep, it's why when the Boeing 707 with its jet engines came along the world was transformed in short order.
    No vibration, able to fly above all the weather, and most of all .... reliable. In the Good Old Days with Lockheed Constellations, etc, to go from the UK to here it'd take a few days and it wasn't uncommon to have to change an engine or two on the way.
    These days it's more common for an airline pilot to go through their career without having any engine failures.
    But like I said a jet engine works well on a plane or boat but a car needs pistons or rotors to work well. Yes there has been jet powered cars but they lack engine braking and I bet the jet engine would not be too happy changing revs so fast as a car demands leading to premature engine failure.

  15. #135
    anyone? MRMOPARMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    downtown chicago
    Posts
    12,813
    how about a jet powered hybrid? jet engine only used to charge batteries?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rdyno
    70ynu has to be the most retarded cunt here. "Help me please" me "you need to remove your head" him "fuck off cunt I'm to lazy fuck off out of my thread you told me to do something I don't want to do so you're a cunt fuck off can some one please tell me an easier way???"
    Quote Originally Posted by Tripper
    Its a tight battle between you and rogercordia for the most retarded member on here, thou i think you have it by 5 window licks

  16. #136
    Meh
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    26,940
    Quote Originally Posted by dynoryder View Post
    But like I said a jet engine works well on a plane or boat but a car needs pistons or rotors to work well. Yes there has been jet powered cars but they lack engine braking and I bet the jet engine would not be too happy changing revs so fast as a car demands leading to premature engine failure.
    The turbine-powered cars that Chrysler built in the 60's all had effective engine braking systems so they'd drive like normal automatic gearbox type cars. (variable blades on the engine exhaust into the drive turbine section)
    A premature failure for a modern turbine would be roughly the equivalent of doing about half a million kilometres or so with a piston engine. They're very tough and long-lived these days.

  17. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by MRMOPARMAN View Post
    how about a jet powered hybrid? jet engine only used to charge batteries?
    You mean similar to a jet powered ship only difference is the motors don't use batteries. It works like this jet engine>generator>motor>prop I am not 100% but I believe the jet engine runs at it's most efficient setting 99% of the time while the motors can be variable.

  18. #138
    Meh
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    26,940
    Quote Originally Posted by MRMOPARMAN View Post
    how about a jet powered hybrid? jet engine only used to charge batteries?
    Jets aren't very efficient at small sizes. Certainly not compared to something like a small diesel engine optimised to run at a specific rpm.
    The big jets, like the Rolls Royce Trents used on the Boeing 777 are pretty darn good though; they're more efficient than any internal combustion engine.
    It's the scaling effect thing with air - Like I mentioned in the 2v4v thread.

  19. #139
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    This looks like the same one that was tested in a link this thread. Results are even better than I expected with a fairly low power motor.

    http://www.wildweasel.ca/HowTo/Auto/eturboTest.aspx

    Also there is a thread on MCM. The OP came to similar power requirements as the ones I posted.

    http://forums.mightycarmods.com/show...gers-The-truth
    Last edited by 2JZR31; 03-06-13 at 09:26 PM.
    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  20. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by 2JZR31 View Post
    This looks like the same one that was tested in a link this thread. Results are even better than I expected with a fairly low power motor.



    Also there is a thread on MCM. The OP came to similar power requirements as the ones I posted.
    It appears the blowers start to become a restriction I would like to see these on a engine that revs to 8k. This is where direct drive electric to the crank would be more efficient also a crank driven turbine would potentially work the best if say exhaust pressure was kept at a vacuum. The heat energy would still work on the turbine but if vacuum was maintained in the exhaust then the cylinders would not receive any power robbing draw back.

  21. #141
    Down with ma homies Greg Rust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Perf
    Posts
    10,614
    So maybe put a electric diaphragm pump in the exhaust to make a vacuum.
    xw Falcon 393 full race cam, NGK spark plugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monza View Post
    I've never considered myself the type of guy to eat arse but I am currently reviewing that policy

  22. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Rust View Post
    So maybe put a electric diaphragm pump in the exhaust to make a vacuum.
    No but wonder what the effect of not only using a electric compressor but also have the other half of the turbo the turbine side pulling exhaust through the engine. It would probably just make more of a restriction but also speaking of direct to crank drive bill's previous idea of having a whole turbo driven buy a motor would be cool too.

  23. #143
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    Quote Originally Posted by dynoryder View Post
    It appears the blowers start to become a restriction I would like to see these on a engine that revs to 8k. This is where direct drive electric to the crank would be more efficient also a crank driven turbine would potentially work the best if say exhaust pressure was kept at a vacuum. The heat energy would still work on the turbine but if vacuum was maintained in the exhaust then the cylinders would not receive any power robbing draw back.
    The electric blower they made can only have a tiny motor since its powered by 2 electric leaf blower sized 12v batteries, yet it can still produce almost 3psi on a 2.4L engine at redline and close to 5psi down low. This is not a restriction, its a total success. Clearly the concept works, and with a more powerful motor boost would be much higher. It only became a restriction because they also tested it on a compound setup with the electric turbo feeding a 8psi supercharger on a 2.4L engine.

    Too bad the car they had was fitted with a supercharger rather than a turbo. That would have been an awesome combination of no lag with real turbo top end.
    Last edited by 2JZR31; 04-06-13 at 07:07 AM.
    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  24. #144
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    The guy is on the money. His kit only makes low boost, which means many cars will not need a tune. Low boost means power draw is low and the kit can be cheap. His product only operates on the very bottom of the compressor map. Haters have got hate, but the results speak for themselves.

    Here is the guys website with dyno proof. http://www.phantomsuperchargers.com/dyno-results.html The kits cost $1400, and gains are pretty much unbeatable for the money. Over 30% torque and 25% power for $1400. Install could be done by anyone that has enough skill to install a stereo and fit a CAI.
    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  25. #145
    Now with more ebay parts. 2JZR31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,230
    Audi has already done close to what I describe to eliminate turbo lag!

    The Audi setup is interesting. Similar to what I proposed, but they by pass it, rather than keep it running. If it is kept running it wont be a restriction provided it is sized to be able to produce boost at redline on its own. Their solution is very complicated but it does allow the electric turbo to be switched off once the real turbo spools up to save power. This maters on a diesel as they are always on boost. On a high power modified turbo car which does not see boost often, the power draw of having it running would not be a concern.

    When people think of doing turbo upgrades, one thing they always think of is lag. So they need to compromise between the top end power they want, and a decent usable rev range. If you compound it with an electric turbo, you can have the turbo you wanted for top end power, and still have less lag than your stock turbo.

    10.83 @ 125

    Quickest stock exhaust manifold stud 2JZ in Aus.


    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    Some conclusions empirically were that a large protruding ridge like a prolapsed arsehole around the runner was largely beneficial.

  26. #146
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cuntberra
    Posts
    6,094
    For $1400 I may try one of these but I am building another engine so I might have trouble with money.

  27. #147
    loves the Cressy
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gympie Australia
    Posts
    2,451
    Mate has just mentioned that during WW2 the B29 Super Fortress bombers used electric powered compressors to boost the engines for take off. Similar in effect to how they use JATO units today. ie just to get them off the ground.
    Cheers, Richard

    MX83 Cressida Grande - 1JZ-GTE Twin Turbo JZX81 Motor, Fr Suspension in, tailshaft made & installed, bigger fuel pump in, zorst, wiring, fmic done (thanks jzk25) BA rotors R33 Calipers Now REGISTERED going well
    '92 & '94 TF Holden Rodeo 2.8 TurboDiesel 4WDs - Daily Driver regular breaker/backup ute
    MS85 Crown Super Sedan - Farm Car - Running 3rd 4M - Future project
    '66 Jaguar E-Type 4.2 Manual Coupe
    '66 Jaguar S-Type 3.8 Auto Sedan
    - Long Term Jobs

  28. #148
    Meh
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    26,940
    Quote Originally Posted by jzx83 View Post
    Mate has just mentioned that during WW2 the B29 Super Fortress bombers used electric powered compressors to boost the engines for take off. Similar in effect to how they use JATO units today. ie just to get them off the ground.
    No, they didn't.
    The B-29 used the Wright R-3350 in WW2 and after WW2 they swapped to the Pratt & Whitney R-4360 Wasp Major. Neither had electric supercharged, both with mechanically driven by the engine.

  29. #149

  30. #150
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Qld
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by 2JZR31 View Post
    Audi has already done close to what I describe to eliminate turbo lag!

    The Audi setup is interesting. Similar to what I proposed, but they by pass it, rather than keep it running. If it is kept running it wont be a restriction provided it is sized to be able to produce boost at redline on its own. Their solution is very complicated but it does allow the electric turbo to be switched off once the real turbo spools up to save power. This maters on a diesel as they are always on boost. On a high power modified turbo car which does not see boost often, the power draw of having it running would not be a concern.

    When people think of doing turbo upgrades, one thing they always think of is lag. So they need to compromise between the top end power they want, and a decent usable rev range. If you compound it with an electric turbo, you can have the turbo you wanted for top end power, and still have less lag than your stock turbo.

    This electric turbo thing will never work! wait, wat?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •