I get the "If its so good then why isn't everyone doing it" about my car all the time. far be it from me to pass it on to you. I am a research engineer not a design engineer, I was just following my logic/paranoia. Carry on thou brave soldier. Fight the good fight of Forced Induction. When you emerge victorious may you be hailed as a hero to the rotary world. Maybe then your gf and I can hook up for a photo shoot together.

Well I think we know why he disappears for a while from time to time....a women in chaps around here (Texas) gets all the men excited.

Richard Paul,
If you need a car for mock up or R&D I would be willing to let you use my car. I am located in Valencia so I am literaly a stones throw away from you. Let me know if I can help in further developement, I would like this come to fruition as much as anyone in this forum.
Regards,
TK

RP... Must Post.... Getting Weak... Need Sustanance.

Wow!
This post sure is dieing, Richard post something anything to keep us updated.

He's been busy. :)

Chill out Tonto! ;) Would you rather have him post updates constantly or work on and advance the project?

work on , work on, post when too tired to turn a wench.

Struth - give the man a chance. It is not like he can walk into WalMart and get the blower and the pipework!!!

Cheers,
Hymee.

surely pep boys has what he needs?

Man, this should be easy. I saw an ad in the back of a car magazine for a SC that will increase my HP 25% and gas mileage 35%! And it was only $35.99! I don't see what all the fuss is about. ;)

Man, this should be easy. I saw an ad in the back of a car magazine for a SC that will increase my HP 25% and gas mileage 35%! And it was only $35.99! I don't see what all the fuss is about. ;)

If you trust the quality of this product, go and buy one. :) Else wait patiently for a quality product... :cool: :D

Guy's, I'm real sorry but I've had this computer bug for about a month now and it really got me a few days ago. Couldn't get on the net. E mail was OK. Spent hours on the phone with my server, got nopthing. Took the thing back to the store. They did nothing and I finally picked it up. Just reinstalled The whole XP thing. Must have lost a bunch of stuff but don't know yet.

The first thing I did was log on to this forum. I knew you would be missing me, unlike some women I could name.

Anyway there isn't much to report. The two Rx blowers are done but not much testing has been done. The shop just got three big jobs and we have to do those first. There will not be any room in the shop for supercharger work for three weeks or so.

In the meantime I will spend some time researching the engine managment problem. I'll also keep my ear open to what is going on in the forum.

Thanks for the support, Richard

Thanks for the update, Richard!
Work calls, I'm sure we all understand that. We'll be eagerly waiting!

Wow!!!!!

at first ... i thought i knew how the SC would work....
but now that i see the pic of the pieces again...
i'm not so sure i know how it works and how things will fit together,,,

is there n e one who is animation inclined,.. who would like to make a quick .gif to show everyone how it works?

or maybe someone can just explain it... "in A LOT of detail..."

thanx.
s2je77

If you can picture what a jet engine looks like, this spins the same way. Some of those fins are stationary while others rotate. These blades are called fans and each segment consisting of one stationary and one rotating row is called a stage. Since this has 4 stationary and 4 rotating rows of fans, it is a 4 stage compressor. A 5 stage would add one more stationary and rotating row. It is basically the front half of a jet engine that is spun off of a pulley.

As air enters the first rotating fan stage it is grabbed and thrown into the engine or supercharger in this case. As the air leaves these fans, they hit the stationary fan stage behind it. The stationary blades are angled the opposite direction which causes the air to slow down as it switches direction. When you slow air down, you compress it. The next rotating set of fans grabs this slightly compressed air and slams it into the next stage of fans which compresses it more and so forth and so on. Each stage compresses the air slightly. Since these stages are in series, the total compression of the air through each stage adds up and is cumulative.

This may sound a little confusing but just stare at the pictures and look up jet engine design. It is really quite simple once you actually see it.

I'm glad RG answered that instead of me. We all know what a poor teacher I am. I tend to get too technical and babble on. So good job RG.
BUT, I can't let it go whithout getting more technical. He asked for detail, right?

AF compression works on the wing principal. It adds high pressure under the wing. Now you all learned that "lift" comes from the wing having further for the air to go on top of the wing thus forming a low pressure area. Well that is true but modern airplanes don't fly on that alone. True it is used to great effect on low performance planes like say a 172 etc. there isn't enough lift for the wing loading on most aircraft.

It's angle of attack. (AOA) Meaning there is enough power to tip the wing into the air and hold it up by the incresed pressure. Areodynamic shape as is discribed in high school isn't even present on fast aircraft. A fighter plane has symetrical shape airfoil. That's why they fly upside down just as easy as right side up.

Now the AF compressor takes the shape another way in an attempt to get more lift out of a stage. This requires blade shapes unlike airplane wings. And they are different for each stage sometimes different from rotor to stator. To do more work on the air the airfoil wil require more "camber". This means it will turn the air more.

As the air is compressed it takes less space so stages decrease in size as they reach towards the discharge. Thus you can see why more pressure just requires more stages. I don't know the limit but the GE F 101 engine in the B-1 bomber has 390 psi. I don't know how many stages that took because the engine is still classified. There may be newer info then I have though.

You can also grasp from this that more mass flow only requires bigger blades. You only need to look into a 747 engine and look at mine to get the picture.

So did I get technical enough and babble long enough to keep my image??

i dont know. i completly understood everything you said. so perhaps more babbling is required?

I don't know if it's confusing to some, but I'll tell you the parts I really like:

"Blah Blah Blah Supercharger Blah Blah Blah Rotate Blah Blah Blah Jet Engine Blah Blah BlahCompression Blah Blah Blah 747 Engine."

j/k, it's all really interesting! :p

you didn't like the B-1 bomber or it's engine?

You sure got me there Richard! LOL :D

Yeah, I guess the B-1 and it's engine get some props for cool factor as well!

top of the cool list???

Now you need to show a picture of the SR-71 engines at full throttle. There's something about seeing mach diamonds in the exhaust that is just plain cool!

Great.... now if I could just figure out a way to fit one of those Blackbird engines in my trunk...
Yeah! That'll surely get me a little closer to beating that 350Z off the line! Oh wait... I've got to find a place in my neighborhood that sells jet fuel..hmm... :(

Truthfully tho... I'm more than impressed with Richard's quick turnaround and R&D of 2 working prototypes. Whether or not this thing ends up at the top of the FI food chain, you really gotta give props to a dude for being on top of things! Our community waits steadily & excitedly on your progress.

That picture is incredible... but the caption?!?
SR-71 on taxi with engines... as opposed to what, without engines? Excuse my military ignorance, but are the engines removable for storage or something, or is it just a figure of speech? ;)

With engines on full afterburner.
RG I have a picture like that but can't find it right now. This one leaves something to be desired

top of the cool list???

Nice piccy. They are a very sleek machine. I've seen one up close at the US Space and Rocket Center, Hunstville AL.

The whole plane looks like a life support system for 2 big honk'n engines and a camera!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Nice piccy. The whole plane looks like a life support system for 2 big honk'n engines and a camera!

Cheers,
Hymee.

It is! Oh yeah there are pilots in there too.

All it has to be is a fuel tank and control surfaces. And the engines themselves only produce about 25% of the power themselves. the rest is done from the pressure of the intake. Utilizing that spike you see in the inlet. It moves in and out to adjust the pressure into the combustion chamber.

Meaning they use the intake to pressurize and heat the air. We don't know how but they must completly bypass the compressor and just inject fuel into the incoming air and burn it. then inject more fuel into the burning exhaust for afterburner. They fly on afterburner all the time. Unlike say a fighter plane.

Read Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works". You'll have the best time with some of the pilot statments flying the SR 71. I read it in one sitting, couldn't stop. By the way Ben Rich was responsable for the F 117. Kelly Johnson was responsable for something like 36 plane designs by himself. Including the P-38 and U-2. The last being the SR-71. Probably could never have been built if not for that one man. No one else would have the nerve or the authority to propose such a thing to the CIA for funding.

Oh yh, speaking of pilots there RG. Ben Rich designed the air conditioning system. The cocpit skin temp gets to about 800 F. He said if it failed to pilot would be well done in 15 min. med in 10.

Here's another thing they had to think about. If the intake to exhaust is say 20 feet and you are traveling at mach 3.5 how long does the slug of air going in have to enter get mixed with fuel combusted and spit out the back. Can that prosses happen in that amount of time. We know now that it can but think how they thought.

Speed of sound at -60 f is 2root of 400 x 49= speed in f/s or 980 f/s x 3.5=3430 f/s
so 1 over 3430=.00029 sec for each foot or .0058 sec from entry to exhaust

Can all that chemistry happen in .0058 of a second??
No one had ever flown a jet that fast. All high mach numbers were done with rocket power.

Let's give credit where credit is due. We all know the true technological foundation for this thing came from a downed "weather balloon" in Roswell, NM circa 1947. :D

jds


Read Ben Rich's book "Skunk Works". You'll have the best time with some of the pilot statments flying the SR 71. I read it in one sitting, couldn't stop. By the way Ben Rich was responsable for the F 117. Kelly Johnson was responsable for something like 36 plane designs by himself. Including the P-38 and U-2. The last being the SR-71. Probably could never have been built if not for that one man. No one else would have the nerve or the authority to propose such a thing to the CIA for funding.

Oh yh, speaking of pilots there RG. Ben Rich designed the air conditioning system. The cocpit skin temp gets to about 800 F. He said if it failed to pilot would be well done in 15 min. med in 10.

Didn't they decide that it was some labrotory test dummys that landed there?
They were testing high altitude bail outs.

There were definitely dummies there! ;)

Here are my favorite SR-71 stories.... :D


In his book, "Sled Driver", SR-71 Blackbird pilot Brian Shul writes: "I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occurred one day as Walt (my back-seater) and I were screaming across Southern California 13 miles high. We were monitoring various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles airspace. Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our movement across their scope. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its ground speed."90 knots", Center replied. Moments later, a Twin Beech required the same. "120 knots", Center answered. We weren't the only ones proud of our ground speed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted, "Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout." There was a slight pause, then the response, "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this was, I heard a familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my back-seater.

It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. "Center, Aspen 20, you got a ground speed readout for us?" There was a longer than normal pause .... "Aspen, I show 1,742 knots".

No further inquiries were heard on that frequency!


In another famous SR-71 story, Los Angeles Center reported receiving a request for clearance to FL 60 (60,000ft). The incredulous controller, with some disdain in his voice, asked, "How do you plan to get up to 60,000 feet? The pilot (obviously a sled driver), responded,"We don't plan to go up to it, we plan to go down to it!"

He was cleared.


I remember reading something about these aircraft years back......something about them leaking like sieves when refuelled as the tanks didn't fully seal until they were up to temp at high Mach...?

Regards, Gomez.

Thought I would chime in with some additional info on the engine for the SR-71. It's known as the J58 and was/is manufactured by Pratt&Whitney engines. If you look closely at the attached picture.... you will see a set of tubes that come off of the compressor and dump back behind the turbine. In essence this was the first mixed flow turbofan engine. However, only approximately 40% of the core flow was ducted around the rotating machinery. The US Air Force Museum at Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio has the most complete display of this vehicle and it's earlier development models. This is a great museum to visit if you're ever in the area. I think one of the best aircraft musuems in the world... and the price is FREE.

I scarffed this off their web sight at;US Air Force Museum (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum)

Pratt and Whitney J58 Turbojet Engine
The J58 engine was developed in the late 1950s by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft Corporation to meet a U.S. Navy requirement. It was designed to operate for extended speeds of Mach 3.0+ and at altitudes of more than 80,000 ft. The J58 was the first engine designed to operate for extended periods using its afterburner, and it was the first engine to be flight-qualified at Mach 3 for the Air Force.

Two J58s power the highly-sophisticated Lockheed SR-71 high-altitude strategic reconnaissance aircraft as well as its forerunner, the Lockheed YF-12A prototype interceptor. In July 1976, J58 engines powered an SR-71 to a world altitude record of 85,069 ft. and another SR-71 to a world speed record of 2,193 mph.

Because of the high-temperature environment in which the engine operates, it uses low-volatility JP-7 fuel which requires a chemical ignition system. The engine on display is a prototype version of the J58 and was used as a ground trainer before being transferred to the Museum.

SPECIFICATIONS
Model: J58
Compressor: 9-stage, axial flow, single spool
Turbine: two-stage axial flow
Thrust: 32,500 lbs. with afterburner
Weight: approx. 6,000 lbs.
Max. operating altitude: above 80,000 ft.

Some more cool information and a better picture...

Pratt & Whitney J58 Turbojet
The Pratt & Whitney J58 engine was a nine-stage, axial-flow, bypass turbojet originally developed in the late 1950s to meet U.S. Navy requirements. It was the first jet engine designed to operate for extended periods using its afterburner. The J58 generated a maximum thrust of 32,500 pounds -- more than 160,000 shaft horsepower -- and was the most powerful air-breathing aircraft engine yet devised. The J58 was specifically tailored for operation at extreme speeds, altitudes, and temperatures, and was the first aircraft engine to be flight qualified for the Air Force at Mach 3. At maximum output the fuel flow rate in the J58 is about 8,000 gallons per hour and the exhaust-gas temperature is around 3,400 degrees. The J58 was only used on the Lockheed YF-12 interceptor and its descendents, the A-12 and SR-71.

The J58 required the use of a special AG330 engine starter cart to spool the engines up to the proper rotational speed for starting. The cart was powered by two unmuffled Buick Wildcat V-8 racing car engines which delivered a combined 600 horsepower through a common gear box to the starter drive shaft of the aircraft engines. The J58s had to be spun up to about 3,200 RPM for starting.

The variable-geometry inlets for the engines were quite complex and intricate. The most prominent feature was a hydraulically-actuated conical spike which was automatically moved forward or aft by the Air Inlet Computer as required to keep the supersonic shockwave properly positioned in relation to the inlet throat. Working in conjunction with a series of bypass ducts and doors, the spike prevented supersonic air from entering the inlet and maintained a steady flow of subsonic air for the engine. At Mach 3.2 cruise the inlet system itself actually provided 80 percent of the thrust and the engine only 20 percent, making the J58 in reality a turbo-ramjet engine.

At the speeds the SR-71 operated, surface temperatures were extremely high due to aerodynamic heating: 800 degrees at the nose, 1,200 degrees on the engine cowlings, 620 degrees on the cockpit windshield. Because of the operating altitudes, speeds, and temperatures, Lockheed designers were forced to work at the cutting edge of existing aerospace technology, and well beyond in many cases. Many features and systems simply had to be invented as they were needed, since conventional technology was inadequate to the task. New oils, hydraulic fluids, sealants, and insulations were created to cope with the ultra-high temperatures the craft would encounter. A new type of aviation fuel, JP-7, was invented that would not "cook off" at high operating temperatures, having such a low volatility and high flash point that it required the use of triethylborane as a chemical ignitor in order for combustion to take place. The fuel itself was rendered inert by the infusion of nitrogen and then circulated around various components within the airframe as a coolant before being routed into the J58 engines for burning.

Too bad we can put one of those monsters in our cars, :)

A turbojet will not solve the low torque problem. Go with a gas turbine. A T55-L-714A puts out 4733 shaft hp.

With that hp, you might need some transmission work, though. :D

Cool info turbine_pwr. That was a great read!! Love the 2 stand-alone V8s just to spool up the engines!

Gomez,

I also liked another flying/ATC quote I saw... It was about a B52 coming in for an emergeny landing with one engine shut-down. A fighter pilot requested a priority landing clearance due to some malfunction, but was refused due to the B52's problems. The fighter pilot replied "Oh no - the dreaded 7-engine approach!!" ROFLMAO!!

Cheers,
Hymee.

If any of you are in Dayton to check out the AF Museum, let me know. I live right down the street. ;)

Now back to boost.

Show me all the facts, and I'll buy two.

top of the cool list???
:eek:
The Blackbird has been one of my ALL TIME favorite airplanes -since I was probably 9y/o.

Nice to hear from turbine again. Thought the SR might get you talking.
No one has mentioned that this was the first real use of Titanium. When they desided to use it there was only one company selling it and it was of varying quality. Lockheed had to do the development work in secret. They even had to buy it from the Soviets. They had to set up phony copanys all over the world to hide the fact that they were the end users.

They couldn't drill the stuff or work it. they wound up doing all research on the stuff. They wound up building 13 million separate parts.

Other matirials were, Hastelloy x for ejector flaps, Elgiloy for control cables. plumbing was gold plated.

The piolot story I like best is when we needed to fly over Lebinon after the marine barracks bombing. France wouldn't let us fly over their air space(naturaly).
So going the roundabout way required two air refuelings. When the left for home one engine gave a low oil pressure warning. The pilot pulled back on the throtles and droped down.
They decided to go over France anyway to get back to England faster. All went well for awhile until he saw a French Marage lll off his wing. the guy comes on the radio asking for their diplomatic pass number. Pilot told him to stand by because he had no idea what he was talking about. He asked his backseater who replied don't worry I already gave it to him. What he gave him was the finger. The pilot nailed the afterburners and left the frog standing there. Two minutes later they were over the channel.

Rihcadr Pual si very tired :p

This is one of my favorite places in Omaha -- gets your blood pumping every time as you walk into the SAC museum underneath an SR-71 :D

http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/sr71/blackbird-sac.jpg

Your right Himie, dna i'm gonna leev it that whay.

RxHusker, yes it is. Nice pic. Once they did a low flyby at Reno. Then nailed it at the end of the runway. Nobody knew it was coming except they hand wrote it in on the race timing posted in the pits only. So it was a slight supprise to us and a complete one to the crowd. Once I heard those engines it made wonder what I was doing working on a Merlin which seconds ago I though was the greatest thing ever built.

Then an F-15 came down the runway standing on it's tail then goes 90 degrees up into the air over our head. Looking up into those afterburners I said to Zeuschel (whom I was working with on a P-51) what the hell are we working on this thing for? To which he said "because the govm't wouln't let you have one and that 26 year old kid just burned up 4000 lbs of fuel."

All these stories are great! Surprising technology? No. What would you say if I told you that I saw plasma TV's 12 yrs ago? There is a lot of stuff I can't talk about.
Keep going Richard I hope your work is proceeding well an there is not any muda.
olddragger

I fly an SR-71 to work everyday.

ok.. no... i don't.. that's a lie..

Richard, sorry to digress this thread's current topic of discussion (the SR-71), but I'll be quick... ;) (I Promise! You guys can talk about the Blackbird all you want after this post!)

I understand that you are currently working on another priority project as well as the two prototypes for the 8 that you mentioned earlier.

Basically, I just wanted to remind you while you are still in the development phase of the compressor not to forget about the many automatic underdogs here like many aftermarket companies do when it comes to Induction and/or ECU Tuning. Believe me when I say we probably need these upgrades more than our stick friends, being that we have the lower end of the HP straw.

I'm sure that many auto owners both understand some of the restrictions/issues (tranny holdup, extra ports, etc.) that may amount to not possibly having as much of a boost/hp as manual users, as well as simply want just that little bit more 'push' on their rides.

The truth is, no matter how much some will argue about the true sport this and thats, most sportscar auto owners do this for necessity, such as multiple drivers, price (in the case of the 8), maintenence of the clutch etc., rather than driving preference or knowledge of the tranny. But we should also be able to take advantage of what CAN be available for our cars just the same, and many of us are more than willing to invest in such options.

The last thing I want to accomplish here is to start a posting flood or flame war, although any CONSTRUCTIVE comments on what can/can't work here would be more than appreciated by yourself or the club members.

All I really ask is that, even if it takes a bit longer to perfect, please don't leave us out of the loop, we're more than interested too ! :o

Thanks again for your time, Richard.

One thing about the SR-71,

The fuel tanks got so hot they had to use a fuel that was non-volatile and required a seperate catylst to burn.

The fuel was so inert that if you threw a match into a bucket of it, the fuel would extinquish the match.

The cost of the SR-71 was more than just planes themselves. It was the entire world wide support network needed to support the SR-71 program. That is why it was decomissioned.

That plane and the spaceshuttle are the two of the best aviation marvels to ever happen besides the original Wright brothers plane.

-Mr. Wigggles

I remember as a little kid I was always fascinated with the Blackbird. Reading up on it the first time was an expeirnce. I still remember the single fact that stuck in my head the most for some reason was the plane leaked when it was on the ground. It wasnt until it was in the air going nice and fast that it would heat up and the body would seal properly.

Also, trying to understand the math for the engine spike when I was 9 was not fun :D

Are you kidding me, nobody can do the math on that spike

Also, the fuel leaks until they get the skins warmed up. They put a minimum amount in on the ground then warm it up and get air to air refueling. The plane grows 11 inches when hot.

The fuel is made with some sort of chemical that normally is used in insectaside. When they first produced it there was a summer when insecteside was in short supply. Then they built facilitys to produce enough. But when it first happened they couldn't say why there was no product because it was classified.

Around 1995, on my way to work, I heard over the AM that the SR-71 was being retired an making it's last flight out of Burbank. I thot' what the heck I'll go check it out. Drove around kinda lost and saw a U2 take off, then ended up parking along San Fernando road by a bunch of others. Someone shouts "tally one!" and here come da Blackbird. Low and slow headed straight for my position at the end of a runway. Down over some buildings across the street, I could clearly make out the pilot, over my head and down, Down, DOWN!!! till his aft was about 8' off the tarmack. The he lights the burners with flames bout as long as the plane, then cooks off into the LA smog. Heard later that they set some sort of of West to East record, but never got the number. I've got that whole scene available for instant replay, including stop actions, in my minds eye, FOREVER!!! That's the top of my list, ahead of seeing the shuttle launch (once) and land (twice) and viewing a minuteman launch out of Vandenburg while on a commuter flight down from S.F. Oh, forgot the flight of P-51, Thunderbolt, P-38 and Corsair (musta been out of Chino Planes of Fame) comin in from right to left and buzzing the 405 N about 500 (edit, it was more like 200-250) feet off the deck, passing just in front of me ... but they ain't no indigo blue plane!!

guys guys .. aren't we suppose to talk bout the supercharger here ...

Man, it's Richard's thread.....we'll talk about whatever he wants us to talk about!

This is just a more entertaining way of bumping the thread while we await the latest S/C developments......

Oh, and welcome to the show :) !

Regards, Gomez.

we are talking about superchargers here....turbines aren't just for cars man...

Richard it was nice talking to you on the phone today.

I have a question about the gearing system on the supercharger. I need to see if I got this correct. If so it is pretty damn cool and now I like the supercharger more than ever.

I don't know how accurate my numbers are here so let's just use them as an example. You said the boost curve on yours is not like a centrifugal supercharger. This is only good news to me. I know that a centrifugal is geared so that it spins faster at a set ratio to the engine. Let's just say it is 3:1. It spins 3 times faster than the pulley. If I understand yours correctly you have reversed this ratio so that yours accelerates at 1/3 the pulley speed. This would mean that the your supercharger wouldn't spin in near as large of a speed range but actually be tailored to a smaller range. Is this correct or am I just confused? This would explain the fairly flat boost curve that yours will provide across the rpm range. Since it isn't a positive displacement supercharger I can't see any other way of getting boost down low than to design it to spin fairly quickly down low but not accelerate it's rate of spin at near the ratio of the engine. Combine this with a more efficient compressor and this would walk all over a centriugal supercharger at the same max boost level. This will also take far less power to spin than any positive displacement supercharger and is still more efficient. If I have interpreted this correctly, this is going to be one bad ass mofo!

Am I confused or do I have it right?

oh thats nice if correct. i hope you arent giving away one of his secrets!

I'm not entriely sure if I am correct or not. Near the beginning of the thread he did mention the gearing ratio but I'm not sure if I read it correctly or not.

He doesn't have any secrets! His name isn't "***** ***"!

:) :):) now check our pm's i gotta sign off and get some sleep!
long drive tomorrow

RG,
Your right about the curve, it goes sort of up a ramp. But it still has to get to where it can "fly". Meaning that it has to do some work on the air to get it speed up then defuse. So while it is better then the cent'l it isn't flat. Now most people are tought that it does not work at low speeds. While this is true in gas turbine practice and as Turbine pwr has said; they still have to start. That means that some work has to be going on. So in our application I take advantage of some "off design" design. And build in as much performance as possable at the off design point.

Now as far as what you said about gearing, I don't think I understand what you are talking about. It would be real nice to have a variable speed drive but alas that isn't going to happen. ZF several years ago made a small CVT (conatant velosity transmision). That could probably be made into a variable speed transmision with todays electronic controls and be a wonderfull thing. I just think it will cost a lot more then the blower.

At the moment my unit uses a 4 to 1 internal planetary gearset. Then depending on the engine peack rpm and it's air flow the pulley ratio is set to a small overdrive. Obviously with a 8500 rpm engine the od has to be less then on a 6000 engine.

I do see what you are saying as far as having a smaller overdrive that would make the curve smaller. But it doesn't make any difference as the portion of the field of operation will be the same,


Anyway it is hard to put in words. I'll show you some graphs. That'll help.
It is not all that bad as people think. There are some aero engineers who opin that it will just stall and surge. It doesn't do that. So why can't it perform at partial speed. yes at idle it will not make pressure like a pd unit. But it does do some work and at a point somewhere about 30% of the rev range the output (flywheel) will start to match and then pass the pd blowers. that is given a same peek boost pressure. I will show you a test like that when I see you.

Our plane lands at 1:33. I'll call you after we get to the hotel.

wait, did i hear right, richard will be at 7stock? if so, i look forward to meeting you.

Sorry, not going at least not on sunday because I'm meeting with Hymee Sunday.
Saturday I'm not sure. My freinds are in from England doing a Donovan tour, Sat might be their only gig in LA. I'm meeting them tonight, just waiting to hear from RG. I guess we shall think about it after I catch up with rotarygod. Man that's a lot of rotorheads in one weekend. Don't know if I could take much more. They are liable to convince me to switch over to the dark side.

Don't know if I could take much more. They are liable to convince me to switch over to the dark side.

Little did you know what you were getting into with us :)

Tell Hymee I said 'Hey', and all you boys have fun this weekend.

p.s. It is actually called the right side ;)

The Gulfstream GV has CVT on their AC engine driven generators. They maintain 400hz +- .5 hz. That drove is obviously too expensive and large. I would think there is a smaller one that is not certified that would work It would then be able to maintain a constant pressure over a wide rpm range. I will ask our tech rep if there is a smaller one. Ours maintains 400hz from 58% to 100%


John

richard, join us and we will rule the rotary as tuner and tunee!

John
That's always been a great thought but cost and size has kept it mute.
Hey John, you don't by chance hang out at Ocala airport??
If you do are you familure with Bobby Straman??
He probably has some WWl SE 5A biplanes. They were originaly built here by Tommy Davis of Aviaid fame. They were built entirly from scratch from original plans.
Bobby took them unfinished to Ocala about 20 years ago. When I was down in Palm Beach I never got up to try and see him.

Just wondered when I saw where you lived and had aircraft interest.


Hey Turbine, are you out there? I was wondering if you knew why on some small jets that have the engines on the rear of the hull the cowling is shaped with negative lift??
What would they be trying to overcome?

Gotta go now, Monza F1 qualifying. Fast, fast and Ferrari may not be up front. Oh my God in Italy if Ferrari doesn't win they don't even put the race on the front page. Well, once they did, it just headlined "Ferrari finishes second".

I just don't care I like speed. Cars, planes, boats or women if their fast I love 'em.

John
That's always been a great thought but cost and size has kept it mute.
Hey John, you don't by chance hang out at Ocala airport??
If you do are you familure with Bobby Straman??
He probably has some WWl SE 5A biplanes. They were originaly built here by Tommy Davis of Aviaid fame. They were built entirly from scratch from original plans.
I just don't care I like speed. Cars, planes, boats or women if their fast I love 'em.

I am based at the Ocala airport, I don't know Bobby Straman by name, but I will look him up once this huricane crap goes through. I also am from Palm Beach. My friends with hangers down there lost them in the last huricane, so we are getting all of our birds out of here. I will let you know on Bobby's status once I get back.

p.s. I just came back from Italy. I only saw 2 ferraries on the streets. Ironicly I aslo saw a 99 Corvette in Perugia and the only car that was in Venice was a Mazda 3 on display. I belive mazda was sponsoring a reggata. I would love to see a rotary in F1 but they say it has an "unfair competative advantage"

John

Richard, sorry I didn't get a chance to get together with you. I really needed more time out there. Just got busy. Turbine was at sevenstock. Met him. He's a cool guy.

RG, it is a pity I was looking foward to it. Hymee made though. We got a few hours together. As with most Ausie's he was a very personable guy. Somewher down the road I'm going to meet up with Turbine even if I have to go to Az.

Looks like everone got a lot from sevenstock. Good learning curve. I know they can't tell you everything but I would trust RB with what they did expose. As a FI producer I'm concerned with what you said on the other thread. Why do these seals even touch at all if the clearances are so wide??

You can tell that I do not have a good picture of the seal thing having never built one.
But don't try and clear it up with words I need the engine in front of me. Anyway I'll be following this carfully.

Yeah - Hymee was indeed very fortunate in metting up with Richard Paul at one of his manufacturing facilities. Very impressive. Somehow after a 12 hour flight and all the rest of it I managed to come across OK. Thanks for lunch - if I knew you was gunna pay I would have ordered up big :p

I should write up a more detailed story for y'all just as soon as I get on top of some of my work I am on while I'm here in the US.

Cheers,
Hymee.

RG, it is a pity I was looking foward to it. Hymee made though. We got a few hours together. As with most Ausie's he was a very personable guy. Somewher down the road I'm going to meet up with Turbine even if I have to go to Az.

Looks like everone got a lot from sevenstock. Good learning curve. I know they can't tell you everything but I would trust RB with what they did expose. As a FI producer I'm concerned with what you said on the other thread. Why do these seals even touch at all if the clearances are so wide??

You can tell that I do not have a good picture of the seal thing having never built one.
But don't try and clear it up with words I need the engine in front of me. Anyway I'll be following this carfully.
richard, remember how we talked about parts expanding? It turns out the seals actually expand under heat. Wonder how we missed that.

Hymee, since you brought it up I want to tell everyone that I only bought because you're the one who did all the traveling and NOT because you won that little tit we had about the gauge. People should know that we never got around to that topic.


Ajax, You can find a factor for expansion in any physics textbook. I use my Machinery's Handbook because it happens to be handy. I only know those for aluminum and steel in my head because that is something I use. You will find any material you want in these books. But you must know the material and the exact heat rise. You must know the size of the part. Remember it expands in all directions.

As a practical use for this information sometimes I make pulleys that have a large blower drive part and a smaller accesory drive part. In order to save having to machine a bunch of matirial off the small groove portion I make a blank of each set of grooves and bore a hole in the bigger portion. this hole is smaller then the part we are going to put into it. Knowing how much the part will expand we heat the out ring and freeze the inner part.

When the temp are stable you just drop the bigger part into the smaller hole. Which temporarly is bigger. When the temps become the same there is no way you can take them appart. Done right that is.

Anyway I do not have those books here. If I remember I will look up the possable materials tomorrow. I think someone said the seals were cast iron. I must say that CI has a low expansion rate. Even though I don't know exactly I think it is around .0006 per inch per 100 degrees F. I'll look it up tomorrow.

Hymee, since you brought it up I want to tell everyone that I only bought because you're the one who did all the traveling and NOT because you won that little tit we had about the gauge. People should know that we never got around to that topic.


Ajax, You can find a factor for expansion in any physics textbook. I use my Machinery's Handbook because it happens to be handy. I only know those for aluminum and steel in my head because that is something I use. You will find any material you want in these books. But you must know the material and the exact heat rise. You must know the size of the part. Remember it expands in all directions.

As a practical use for this information sometimes I make pulleys that have a large blower drive part and a smaller accesory drive part. In order to save having to machine a bunch of matirial off the small groove portion I make a blank of each set of grooves and bore a hole in the bigger portion. this hole is smaller then the part we are going to put into it. Knowing how much the part will expand we heat the out ring and freeze the inner part.

When the temp are stable you just drop the bigger part into the smaller hole. Which temporarly is bigger. When the temps become the same there is no way you can take them appart. Done right that is.

Anyway I do not have those books here. If I remember I will look up the possable materials tomorrow. I think someone said the seals were cast iron. I must say that CI has a low expansion rate. Even though I don't know exactly I think it is around .0006 per inch per 100 degrees F. I'll look it up tomorrow.
There's 1 error in all of this logic: not all physics text books have these tables, lol. That was actually the first thing I did and that's when I remembered, I took physics for electrical engineers and we barely covered material science.. U know what you find in our books? lots of electromagnetic theory, magnetism laws, gauss law, faraday's law, ohm's rule (apparently it's not a law.. whatever, physics books are dumb :b)

But yes, a normal physics text book would display it (assuming i knew what the seals were actually made of). I guess i could look around and find out real fast. Maybe I'll do that.

Well, it seems more difficult to find the material on them than i thought it would be. From what I can tell, older models of the car used cast iron alloy for the apex seals and sintered iron for the side seals.

Hehehe - Richard, I wondered when you were gunna bring that up. We could have gone on for days! Sorry I was anxious not to miss my connecting flight. I wished we did get onto that gauge thing.... :p

As for the material, from my hotel room here 1/2 way round the world from where my RX-8 book is, I recall it said something like the Apex Seals were "attricular cast iron", and I'm not sure, but I think the side seals where the same. Someone with a RX-8 book handy please advise.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Excerpt from RX-8 book

New two-piece apex seal of acicular cast iron with very low carbon content is adapted to the RENESIS two-rotor engine. The seat's height is lower than the top piece of the previous three-piece design, 4.5 mm (0.18 in.) versus the three-piece top piece's 4.8 m (0.19 in.). The digitally controlled, electron-beam chill hardening process results in a deeper and more uniform hardened area at the tip of the seal.

The apex seal is crowned and its tip is rounded so that it follows the trochoid sliding surface up to the engine's higher peak revolutions of 9000 rpm.

The spring corner seal's contact surface is chrome-plated and coated with diamond-like carbon (DLC). A cast-iron plug has replaced the elastic filler piece, as the seal is now exposed to the hot exhaust port area.

Ya Hymee, now that you mentioned you could've eaten some more I remember that we ordered the same thing and you finished the whole thing and I never even finished half of mine. I remember some of my crew were Ausies and they also had large capacitys for consumption. What was that word I used for rotarygod? Gluton. But here we need the alternet meaning. You know about eating and drinking.

Gee Fred if it wasn't for you I would never have known of that other meaning. Here it comes in handy so soon. But there must be a good side because there is an awfull lot of Ausies and Kiwis on the race teams. I remember how they were never give up guys, they were still working the next morning when I got back to the track. If you needed a new car built overnight they were your boys.

Carry that one to far. Once I was hurt and went to the hospital. My crew never even showed up there. They were building the backup car for me. As if I could drive with crutches. My crew chief was an Ausie.

Took another team to come get me out of that backwards hospital. Name of country withheld for political reasons.

The Aussie boys at the Bathurst TAFE (tech/trades college) are legendary for their reputation in working all hours in helping teams get cars wrecked in practice/qualifying ready for Sunday's big race. Wich reminds me - Bathurst is coming up agian soon :)

Richard, what other series did you race in other than Formula Atlantic? I'm sure Alan Jones will remember you next time I see him :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hey Paul, did u race in F. Atlantic??? I race in the New Pro Star Mazda... Don't miss the action on Sat september 18th at 11:00 pm (EASTERN TIME) on Speed Channel. I am the red car #1.
Cheers!!! Keep it up with the FI kit. We need it soonnnnnnn

Hey Richard Paul, im just wonderen on where you are at in testing your SC. i really hate to break the chat that was going on, but im tired of getting my ass handed to me by talons!!!! although i know i might never beat them, i still like to pretend that i have a chance :D ..... so just wonderen where you're at in this, good luck!

How does this supercharger differ from the Whipple superchargers which are axial flow as well? After seeing what happened to a supercharged renesis motor at racing beat I am doubtful any forced induction is going to be able to generate significant gains reliably due to the tapering (or lack thereof) of the ports.

Hymee, since you brought it up I want to tell everyone that I only bought because you're the one who did all the traveling and NOT because you won that little tit we had about the gauge. People should know that we never got around to that topic.


Aha! So that fifty stays in Gomez's skyrocket :p !

How does this supercharger differ from the Whipple superchargers which are axial flow as well? After seeing what happened to a supercharged renesis motor at racing beat I am doubtful any forced induction is going to be able to generate significant gains reliably due to the tapering (or lack thereof) of the ports.

The Whipple is a twin screw. I think where you are getting confused with the axial flow is in the fact that in a roots type of blower, the rotors force the air to travel around the outside of the blower housing internally. In a twin screw setup the air travels opposite from the roots and actually goes through the center of the assembly in between the screws rather than around them. The axial flow supercharger is entirely different from either. It uses small vanes. Think of it as several stages of multiple fan blades. A jet engine is an axial flow device. This is very similar to the front half of a jet engine. The way it works is the same. Look at this from the standpoint that you are getting the front half of a jet engine that is spinning off of the crank.

Well put RG :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

So both this supercharger and the twin screw move air axially just achieving it in a different way. IS there a different name for this supercharger or any plans for a different name?

Since turbines are referred to as axial devices, that is the name for it. Richard's company is also called Axial Flow Engineering. I'm sure he could get creative and call it a turbine charger or some other name.

The twin screw is just that, a twin screw. They are also known by their company names such as Whipple, Lysholm, Autorotor, Opcon, etc... The twin screw does not move air axially. The roots does. The manners in which they do it are entirely different though.

Then we could have a "turbine-supercharger" as well as a "turbo-supercharger". Cool!

Although I don't think Richard reffres to it as a turbine. That is reserved for the bit that the exhaust gasses react against, both in a "turbo" and in a gas turbine.

The aerodynamic, fan bladed thingy in Richards unit is known as a Compressor. It has stationary "stators" and rotating "rotors".

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee you're a genious! We'll call it "The fan bladed thingy charger"

http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/content.asp?PageID=67

They lied to me?

Isn't it time for some more pics?? :rolleyes: It's been a while now. How about one of the unit in an RX8??

Thanks.

http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/content.asp?PageID=67

They lied to me?


no they are just using the word axial a little differently.

Keep on batting for us over there, Hymee: half the forum down under is avidly following this thread.
jack.

Wow, I go off and play with my rocker freinds for a couple of days and this tread amps up. By the way does anyone else besides Olddrager even know who Donovan is????

Let get to it. In order.

Hymee, The atlantic series is the only pro racing I did running the entire thing. I had one off races in some other types of cars.

Lsch.... Yes and I even ran in your country from '73 to '76. The Players series. Belive me when I tell you it was a great race, just look up who was running then. Vellinuve the elder. Kikki Rosberg, Bobby Rayhal. and on and on. Do they still run up there near you at Gimley or Grimly as we used to say?

Ti, we are still making short shifters and some other parts. I think this weekend we shall get back to work.

Icemaster, I think you got answers already. But keep the faith, the problems will be solved.

Rotorygod and hymee, thank you save me all that typing and do a good job.
One question, if I use your "thingy" name do you get royalties??

And now we see how they lie, even Dan Rather.

How did I get that seal thread wound into mine?? I don't care it is a related topic. The study of this will mean a lot.

RAP

Those shifters and stuff that RAP make really look the goods.

My shout for lunch next time!

Who wants pics of my short visit to the shop?

Wow, I go off and play with my rocker freinds for a couple of days and this tread amps up. By the way does anyone else besides Olddrager even know who Donovan is????If you mean Donovan Leitch the '60s folk singer, the answer is "yes." If you mean the Donovan of Donovan Engineering, the answer is still "yes."

I knew Ed Donovan also. If you remember Zeuschel was his finest engine builder. I remember those cast 392 valve covers that Ed made with Z's name cast in. I don't remember how long it's been but it is awhile since he passed. He just said no more operations let me go.

Sadly the last time I was with Ed we had a fight and I had to leave the motorhome.
Stuborn man, clever but sturborn. That was at Reno in the mid/late '80's.

So there is no need to spell out which person it was last night. And he sounds exactly like he always did. Healthy too.

Rotorygod and hymee, thank you save me all that typing and do a good job.
One question, if I use your "thingy" name do you get royalties??



How about working something out in the way of a discount for the unit for MY car? ;)

Do you mean in exchange for the royalties?

PM me with what you want.

lol! OK sent you a PM

And I answerd it.

Who wants pics of my short visit to the shop?

Me me me me me me me me

pics would be very generous of you Hymee.

Donovan! Heck yes I remember him! I still sing some of his songs! Although I don't put as much nose in my voice as he put in his! Some of the things from those days are a little fuzzy(like they say if you can remember the 60's then you where not there!) RP , you make music? Heck I've been playing the 6 string for over 40yrs!
I even helped take care of Dawyne Allman in the emergency room after he was brought in (unfortunually from his fatal motocycle accident).
Enough rambling. Keep up the good work. Like I said a long time ago. I think you have the best FI idea around for this car.
olddragger

Donovan! Heck yes I remember him! I still sing some of his songs! ...RP , you make music? Heck I've been playing the 6 string for over 40yrs!
OD, I'm learning the 6 and 12 string finally after close to 40 years (got myself a couple of Martins and haven't looked back!). I wonder how many musicians (or wannabe musicians like myself) we have reading this thread.
And I agree, RP has the most promising FI (Heck, I still can't see that abbreviation without thinking "fuel injection") unit for the RX-8. I doubt that I'll ever be able to afford one, but it'll be great just to see them on the street. I always wanted to put a Latham on my Mopar B blocks!

I wonder how many musicians (or wannabe musicians like myself) we have reading this thread.


While I haven't been playing for 40 years since I'm only 28 years old, I have played guitar for the last 12 years or so. Well, I've been trying to play it for the last 12 years! ;)

Ajax, I looked up the cast iron spec and I was close, it is .00067 per inch per 100 degrees F.
Does anyone know how hot the seals get??? Even if you round the numbers up to .001 per inch. say the seal is .5 inche and I don't know that, and say it grew 1000 degrees that would only be .005 less clearence. but it may get alot hotter, I have no idea. Does it see exhaust gasses?

Now you've gone and done it: Shameless plug time. :cool:

http://www.garageband.com/artist/bureau13

Probably doesn't qualify as music for some of you :D

While I haven't been playing for 40 years since I'm only 28 years old, I have played guitar for the last 12 years or so. Well, I've been trying to play it for the last 12 years! ;)

Ajax, I looked up the cast iron spec and I was close, it is .00067 per inch per 100 degrees F.
Does anyone know how hot the seals get??? Even if you round the numbers up to .001 per inch. say the seal is .5 inche and I don't know that, and say it grew 1000 degrees that would only be .005 less clearence. but it may get alot hotter, I have no idea. Does it see exhaust gasses?

yes richard the seal in question does see exhaust gasses.

The only answer I could get out of anyone at sevenstock about side seal clearances was that they have a larger clearance due to heat expansion. Yes, these seals do see 1600+ degree exhaust gasses. The old 13B side seals didn't.

Now we're getting someplace. All we need is the size now. Just plug in .0007 times the size in inches. That will be how much it grows and remember it grows in all directions.


RG, remember the BTDC vs ABDC thing? Check your explaination of axial flow on the screw or roots. Better cut down on the cheap wine while tech writing.

Did I misinform everyone of something? It is possible that I got confused when typing.

[ The twin screw does not move air axially. The roots does. QUOTE] Rotarygod


Couldn't remember which time????
This is it. We don't want to lead anyone down the wrong path, do we.
They were already confused by someone else's explaination.
IE: axial flow.


Also didn't you tell me that you saw 2000 F on your old rotary??
That was probably turbo'd. But supercharged would also raise the temp just not that high. Let's say 1750 because the inlet is that much hotter and it carrys through. Let's also say that the seals are clearenced for max expansion of 1600, any over temp will remove the saftey factor.

Now that would explain the SC engine what happened to the NA engine??

Oops I guess the twin screw does move the air axially. Unlike the roots though it moves it from front to back (back toi front depending on your view) as well as top to bottom.

I saw those temperatures running really lean with the temperature probe 6" away from the exhaust ports. My engines also have new exhaust sleeves that were machined that no one else has. The exhaust sleeves on the 13B have a huge area expansion that the gasses flow through. This slows the exhaust down alot and dissipates alot of energy. My sleeves maintain the area of the exhaust ports so that no energy or velocity is lost in the way they are in the stock engine. This holds alot more heat in the system. My numbers are not typical of a 13B. Those numbers were also nonturbo! When a turbo was tried with them, it melted the turbine wheel in a matter of minutes! The blades got hot and folded over, restricting flow. That turbo wasn't using an inconel wheel though. The Renesis will probably get up to about 1750 or so.

Are you saying that the seal will see that temp?? That would mean about .010 growth per inch of part.

Damn... with all these posts on side seals, I wish I could find my old post on the size, shape and composition of the seals that I put up for RG... oh well. I might just have to find some time to translate that all over again...

Ha! Found it...

Apex Seal
13B-REW
2mm thick/ 3 piece
material/ cast iron

Renesis
2mm thick/2 piece
material/ cast iron

Side Seal
0.7mm thick
perpendicular cross section
material/sintered iron

1.2mm thick
trapezoid cross section
material/sintered iron

Corner Seal
Rubber plug

Cast iron plug
DLC (Diamond-like Carbon) coating

Blow-by Cut-off Seal
N/A

material/ductile cast iron

Bob/RG,
Would be nice if we could jam someday! I have a lot of friends that play Martins and I have one lady friend that plays a 12 string in a bluegrass band! Now thats interesting. I feel a blues tune coming about fi' ing the 8. (i still think fuel injection also!). My hands are too small for a martin so I have a hand made alvarez (1987 yairi not the production ones). Anyway seems that a little progress is being made concerning the seals issue. I bet its challanging but fustrating having to reverse engineer this stuff. I have a LOT to learn about rotary's but I retire in 5 yrs and I just may get REAL interested then.
This is one of the best threads on this forum. Lot of good mature info sharing. Keep it up guys ! Us ignorant folks appreciate it!
olddragger

Does this thread belong in the lounge?

Only about half of it! :D

Does this thread belong in the lounge?

Richard I could not open up that message from you, email me directly at gabearias@hotmail.com

Thanks :rolleyes:

42 pages...

C'mon... we wanna see those triangles spinning & that charger singing!!!! ;)

hello

Hi!

Well it looks like I have some shop time and we will mount and run the dash 2 blower tomorow.
There is something I need to point out, other companys are trying to develop kits for the 8. They are all taking an existing compressor and making the brackets and such to put it in the rx 8.

On the other hand I am developing the compressor to start with. This is the hard part. We are building this compressor to match the 8 and not as a universal componant to sell to kit builders of all sorts.

I am not trying toot my horn just want you guys to know why it is taking so long. In the mean time we have learned a lot about the Mazda electronics. Not to claim we have all the answers just that we are learning. Now don't go off getting pissed because we don't tell everything we find. If these things cost time and money we need to keep them to ourselves.

I will keep you posted on how the testing is going.

Hopefully your efforts will be rewarded , once your project is completed and tested and the $$$$$$$ start rolling in . :D

PS .I for one appreciate that your compressor is built and designed for the RX8 and not a one size fits all mass produced unit.

cheers
michael

Please excuse me for not watning to wade through 40+ pages. I have been following this thread since the start.

My question is in regards to both your charger for the 8 and any charger for any car. Is a standalone required? I just want to make sure before I jump in one a few projects. If running low psi, it seems to me for the 8 you wouldn't.

Well it looks like I have some shop time and we will mount and run the dash 2 blower tomorow.
There is something I need to point out, other companys are trying to develop kits for the 8. They are all taking an existing compressor and making the brackets and such to put it in the rx 8.

On the other hand I am developing the compressor to start with. This is the hard part. We are building this compressor to match the 8 and not as a universal componant to sell to kit builders of all sorts.

I am not trying toot my horn just want you guys to know why it is taking so long. In the mean time we have learned a lot about the Mazda electronics. Not to claim we have all the answers just that we are learning. Now don't go off getting pissed because we don't tell everything we find. If these things cost time and money we need to keep them to ourselves.

I will keep you posted on how the testing is going.
Richard,
Did we mention you rule?

Lol.

Please excuse me for not watning to wade through 40+ pages. I have been following this thread since the start.

My question is in regards to both your charger for the 8 and any charger for any car. Is a standalone required? I just want to make sure before I jump in one a few projects. If running low psi, it seems to me for the 8 you wouldn't.

As with any form of forced induction, you are not just going to be able to slap it on and get more power with no ecu retuning. Some form of retuning for the ecu is required. Whether Richard offers a solution for this or if he will just recommend an aftermarket unit such as the Canzoomer or Ric Shaw (my personal recommendation) is still unknown. My guess is that if this will be offered as a kit, it will have to deal with this in some fashion.

RG: just the fuel and ignition would have to be delt with correct?
On the rx7club board someone I believe had SC a FC3S for very cheap, which made me wonder if he had a standalone ecu.

Without fuel and ignition we can't make any power. It is vitally important that we control, these properly.

The craze with the older RX-7's right now is to buy a used Eaton M90 supercharger off of a late '80s-early '90s Ford Thunderbird and adapt it to the car. Those guys are just using a pigguback ecu such as an S-AFC to add fuel. They aren't adding a whole lot of power. Also keep in mind that the older RX-7's use a air flow meter which knows how much air is being sucked through it. It compensates automatically up until the flapper door in the sensor is fully open. From here it is up to the S-AFC to add more fuel. The ecu's in those cars is far less invasive than that in the RX-8. They can make things work alot easier. There is still no getting around good tuning. Many of thier systems are bandaids and they are missing the true potential of their engines. A standalone is always the best option. Just like any other car, if those guys try to push it to hard, they will blow stuff up.

I've been following this marathon discussion and not posted anything due to my complete inability to add any value.

HOWEVER, I do have a check for Richard and a burning desire to see an actual test and buy one of these units!! I also know 3 other guys who are waiting, just waiting to send Richard money if it tests well.

Anyone advising Richard on how to go to market wiht this? Shouldn't he seek assistance in doing the ECU stuff? that seems pretty critical..

hopeful in texas,
JPD

I think Richard's pretty sharp on that end of things and will have a product that you can buy with confidence. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he already has something in mind for the ECU situation. I'm hoping that he will have maps available for the Rick Shaw, CZ, et. al. Of course that will come after testing.

After sharing a very nice couple of hours in person with Richard on his home turf, I feel he is more likely to be inclinded to go with the TSI unit. (That is what the "Ric Shaw" unit actually is. I spoke directly to TSI about this and according to them he had nothing to do with the development of the unit, and is just slapping his sticker on it).

If Richard really had his own way, he would stick a Holley or a couple of Webers on it (they are carburettors for those who grew up in the Fuel Injection era :p) and a traditional distrubutor. That way he would have full and total control of his fuel and spark tuning. I'm sure that will throw the cat amongst the pidgeons! You see, to be able to tune it "properly", he needs either to do this, or crack the PCM, or have a 3rd party unit to gain control. I enlightened him to how the TSI unit achieves that, in it's own unique way. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I feel he was unconfortable with the manner in which the CZ/eTrust/Greddy unit, and the rest of them, achieve the fuelling issues.

Cheers,
Hymee.

racing beat is on the path of cracking the pcm. they expect to offer direct flashes(i.e. no piggy backing) to the PCM when they are done. i believe richard is much closer to them physically then to TSI :) i bet jim mederer would love to see Richard's blower :eek: :D :)

I have always thought that the Ric Shaw unit is the way to go for the RX-8 unless you don't mind the hassel and expense of going with a Motec or other true standalone unit. You don't have enough control with the eManage. You are limited to adjusting timing as a whole rather than leading and trailing separately. There is alot to be had in adjusting the trailing timing.

Hi guys,

If nothing else, this post might just help to bump Richards thread along.

Hymee Prototypes Electronic Multi-Stage Axial Flow using Polymer construction.

After visiting Richard and stealing all his designs and intellectual property, I have taken what I have learnt and started building a electronicly controlled, electric prototype:

http://www.hymee.com/rx8/images/dscn6687.jpg

This photo shows my able assistant engineer doing some calcs in the background:

http://www.hymee.com/rx8/images/dscn6689.jpg

Notice the 4 Primary Stages, followed by the slightly narrower pre-secondary stage. Now as the pressure builds we reduce cross section and this is evident in the secondary stage compressor being smaller. Due to the extremely high pressures available in this design, the tertiary stage is quite small, as all that air has been squeezed up so much.

This last photo shows the electronic solid state thermocouple device used in controlling the intercooler. The magnetic field eminating from this device is also used to polarize the air molecules into a pattern that is conducive to the unique side port configuration of the Renesis. This field is generated speficially to the standard (factory) port profiles.

http://www.hymee.com/rx8/images/dscn6691.jpg

The electronic control module automatically senses the air flow requirements (via the thermo couple), and anticipates the drivers need for power. This allows the compressor to spin faster on demand and give boost without having to wait for engine RPM to rise.

Also in the last photo, in the spirit of Hymee's open policy, you can clearly see the model number and specs of one of the 4 primary stage compressors.

(Hope you enjoyed my humor, RAP!)

Cheers,
Hymee.

ROFL!! That is awesome Hymee. Will this work on the Auto 8's too ?? :)

Wow Hymee- you've got to get this to market- think about all the honduh ricers that have been putting in "electric superchargers" over the years- you could make a fortune! :cool:

This last photo shows the electronic solid state thermocouple device used in controlling the intercooler. The magnetic field eminating from this device is also used to polarize the air molecules into a pattern that is conducive to the unique side port configuration of the Renesis. This field is generated speficially to the standard (factory) port profiles.

Damn! Have I got a job for you if your new venture doesn't work out. How about selling bridges out here in the NW? ;)

Thanks for the good laugh!

Does it come with the 3 year Hymee warranty he he he :p

cheers
michael

Nice, Hymee.... I honestly didn't think you had it in you... You're my new hero. ;)

Based upon the size, using your assistant engineer as a guide, the compact size of your composite supercharger should fit without modification to any current engine components.

Hymee, when will this prototype be installed on your RX-8 ?

Nice to know such engineering feats can be hatched from down under.

The funny thing is that electronic version would probably be good for a couple HP.

-Mr. Wigggles

will that void my warranty?

edit: 1000th post biatch!

Wow that thing really blows!!

I'll take a Hymee version!

Hymee,

Your'e a Cunny Funt!

As the old saying goes:

"If you can't baffle them with bullshit, then dazzle them with science!"

Joe

:p Can I get a ricer version with sparkly hot pink paint and decals on mine...? :D

One that says, "HymeeRacing MOTOWerks"













This post paid for by Citizens for HymeeRacing for President
"I am Hymee and I approved this ad..." :D

Paul, seems that the RX8 is a tough cookie to break. Are you regretting in any way, taking the RX8 project instead of the Honda?.

It shouldn't be bad from his standpoint. He has to analyze rotary engine airflow and then build a suitable unit for it's needs. This is no different than any other engine. Fabbing it up so it fits in the car shouldn't be much of an issue either. Only tuning the ecu is the big hurdle but he isn't designing an ecu so that isn't his concern. He isn't the only one designing, building, installing, and tuning this you know. He is working in conjunction with others to make sure it comes full circle.

Well Hymee I should have known when I said you could take pictures that you were copying the engineering files. I may as well go into retirment now, you've done it all even advanced polimers.

Sure beats the ones they are selling on E bay. Get those stators done and you will kill the market.

Sad to say that there are people out there that will go for it like they do the heater motors.

RX8 dx No I am very happy with the Mazda idea and it fits my personal ideals for high tech product. Besides I wouldn't trade you guys for any other group. No BS I mean that.

Any how the dash 2 blower is off the test stand and all went as predicted. Now we will work on adapting to the engine.

Richard,

Excellent news on the -2 blower. Are you going to tempt us with some results?

Is the test stand an engine dyno? Or is it a flow measuring device?

Cheers,
Hymee.

It's a flow measuring device.

RG ..... why does your avatar have a piston ring compression tool?..... I can understand a torque wrench. Or is that one of the new fangaled oil filter removers? :)

I can't wait to see how well this SC does... this is by far the most interesting project on this site. Hymee's is second.... not interested in the turbo's i have enough lag on the bottom end as it is.

Without fuel and ignition we can't make any power. It is vitally important that we control, these properly.

The craze with the older RX-7's right now is to buy a used Eaton M90 supercharger off of a late '80s-early '90s Ford Thunderbird and adapt it to the car. Those guys are just using a pigguback ecu such as an S-AFC to add fuel. They aren't adding a whole lot of power. Also keep in mind that the older RX-7's use a air flow meter which knows how much air is being sucked through it. It compensates automatically up until the flapper door in the sensor is fully open. From here it is up to the S-AFC to add more fuel. The ecu's in those cars is far less invasive than that in the RX-8. They can make things work alot easier. There is still no getting around good tuning. Many of thier systems are bandaids and they are missing the true potential of their engines. A standalone is always the best option. Just like any other car, if those guys try to push it to hard, they will blow stuff up.



thank you ......iv ben saying that for months. every one freaks out when you even bring up "stand alone"

RG ..... why does your avatar have a piston ring compression tool?.....

It's a universal oil filter wrech. Don't ever accusing me of having a piston engine assembly tool ever again!!!

lol... np.... I bow to your wisdom on every post i read of yours!!!
:):):)

lol holy crap thats funny:D

wow that just made my day!!!

-- how are things coming R P ?--

Hymee, after looking at your design I realized that you could have done better if you took advantage of the electric motors. By using the magnetic feild created by rhe motors you could utilize the force to give positive and then negative charge to the ions. This could then be used to get a more true axial flow without any spiral. Thus getting the extra vslosity pressure and more efficency.

I don't know exactly how to give the results since they are complex and volumous.
Just to give you the ones you most likely want, it made 12 psi and over 600 cfm.
Which is what was predicted.

Richard,

Thanks for the pressure and flow. I guess that was at the design speed of ?? Say 42,000 RPM?

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee, I said "as predicted" and you stole the engineering files, so you already know.

Yeah Mate - but I canna understand them. They are written in American ;)

Cheers,
Hymee

Good one, mate.

Thats not a good one....

We won the world biker build off remember :)

A testament to american engineering :)

ok.. back to topic...

We won the world biker build off remember :)


Oh yeah - I forgot to pay hommage to such incredibly important feats. I heard the International Olympic Committee was aspiring to get the status of their games to a point where they will surpass the world biker build off.

At least an Aussie was the first rotar to break 200MPH ;) That gets it back on topic, a little bit :D

Cheers,
Hymee.

I just brought that up to be funny and the fact that it was on not to long ago.. just trying to be funny of course, didnt mean any disrespect at all.... :) ok.. back to the regularly scheduled programming....

I know. I was just trying to continue it in a good humored way.

It is all good.

Cheers,
Hymee.

Interesting concept but still curious: If the axial flow supercharger is superior to the centrifugal supercharger why isn't a company like ABB not using axial compressors on their turbochargers? After all they are using axial flow turbines on the exhaust side of their turbochargers, so they should know how to engineer them?

http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/seapr/seapr035.nsf&v=6311A&e=us&m=9F2&c=580E4A407A088ED1C1256A16003B208E

Also if it has to be spun up to 42'000 rpm wouldn't this add a lot of rotational mass and reduce the responsivness of the engine? Apparently it's pretty light but are several rotors still lighter than one rotor of a centrifugal (radial flow) supercharger?

Any chance of some pics. RP. We haven't had any in a long, long time. :D

Thanks.

I'm just guessing here, but I would think for an automotive turbocharger, the linear boost increase w/ rpm (in this case, its unrelated to engine rpm) would be a disadvantage when compared with the more exponential boost increase in the centrifugal units. You want to hit your max boost as soon as you can with a turbo, and its related to exhaust flow rather than engine rpm. Just a guess though...

jds

Interesting concept but still curious: If the axial flow supercharger is superior to the centrifugal supercharger why isn't a company like ABB not using axial compressors on their turbochargers? After all they are using axial flow turbines on the exhaust side of their turbochargers, so they should know how to engineer them?

http://www.abb.com/global/abbzh/abbzh251.nsf!OpenDatabase&db=/global/seapr/seapr035.nsf&v=6311A&e=us&m=9F2&c=580E4A407A088ED1C1256A16003B208E

Also if it has to be spun up to 42'000 rpm wouldn't this add a lot of rotational mass and reduce the responsivness of the engine? Apparently it's pretty light but are several rotors still lighter than one rotor of a centrifugal (radial flow) supercharger?

Not quite true.

Say you have 3 superchargers, 1 positive dispacement, 1 axial flow, 1 centrifugal.

Say they are all designed to make 12 PSI boost at 9000 RPM. Assume they all take the same power to "turn", and put the same heat in. (Not strictly the case, but we are keeping this simple.)

Centrifugal - Boost increases in proportion to the square of the RPM (in rough terms). So if you 1/2 the RPM you 1/4 the boost.
So at 4500 RPM we get 3 PSI.
8000 = 9.5 PSI
6000 = 5.3 PSI
3000 = 1.3 PSI
2000 = 0.6 PSI

Axial Flow - boost is proportional to the RPM. At 1/2 the RPM you get 1/2 the boost.
So at 4500 RPM you get 6 PSI boost.
8000 = 10.7 PSI
6000 = 8 PSI
3000 = 4 PSI
2000 = 2.7 PSI

Positive Displacement - boost is linear. At any RPM you get the same boost
So at 4500 RPM you get 12 PSI boost.
8000 = 12 PSI
6000 = 12 PSI
3000 = 12 PSI
2000 = 12 PSI

Now, in practice, the numbers are not so precise, but that is the general trend. And the other factors I mentioned above come into play - heat added, power taken to turn.

But you can see why I believe the Axial Flow is far superior to Centrifugal. Especially on a rotary, when we want some low down boost for better drivability. Centrifugal is probably slightly smaller, and measureably cheaper to manufacture.

One more thing - remember, boost is not air flow. The "boost" is the presure inside your intake manifold. That is a function of how much air the supercharger is blowing in, and how much air the motor is taking out. So if you where to plot those curves above, and integrate them to mass air flow, the differences would be even more dramatic.

Anyway - that is enough for theory. I can't wait to get onto the engine dyno and get something working!! :D

Cheers,
Hymee.

Well, I still have my doubts or why are small gas turbines using centrifugal compressors and large gas turbines axial compressors?
Anyway it doesn't really matter since both types of compressors don't deliver pressure at low rpms, there would be no low end torque gain and that's what is kind of missing on that engine.
So you'd probably want to chose the positive displacement compressor anyway unless you're gonna drive these compressors with electric motors or something.
But then again apparently the rotary engine breaths a lot of air without burning it which would mean that you're wasting a lot of energy with any supercharger so you'd probably would prefer a turbocharger (in order to recycle some of that wasted air). Which brings us back to the topic why aren't there any turbo chargers with axial flow compressors?

Besides all that I wouldn't want to hook up any fast (or even slow) spinning compressor on a high reving engine. After all why are people getting lighter flywheels?

Don't get me wrong I believe that this compressor is more efficient than any other type but why not installing it on a low end torque big displacement engine instead? Also the way it's build it could probably accomodate a high frequency electric motor in the center and you'd end up with a really neat electric supercharger. (Which might eventually substitute the mechanical supercharger due to its much higher flexibility).

why aren't there any turbo chargers with axial flow compressors?



The answer to that is insanely simple. It's all based on price. An axial turbine is alot harder and more expensive to make. Turbo manufacturers are making tons of money off of conventional turbo designs. They have no need to get into the complexities of axial units since they can get their goals with cheaper and easier alternatives. Turbo manufacturers first goal is to sell product. The make such a wide range of turbos that they have one for nearly every application. It would be very expensive to go design an axial unit for all of these appications and even more expnsive to manufacture them. When it comes to big business, the only thing that matters is profit.

In Richard's case, his company is called axial flow engineering. That's what he does. It may cost more and be more complex but he is also specializing in a different product. Being unique in a marketplace seems like a good idea but it actually takes bravery to try something that no one else has any experience with. In this application it will definitely be a specialized market and it will take a special buyer for it but it will sell.

Good answer RG :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Which brings us back to the topic why aren't there any turbo chargers with axial flow compressors?




because then you would have something called by several on here "the jet engine". i invented that concept 14 pages ago and the rest of these folk took to naming it. why they get to name it when it was my idea i dont understand. i told them "jet engine" was a name already taken but they would not listen to me:(. but i'm forging ahead with the patent anyway:)





Don't get me wrong I believe that this compressor is more efficient than any other type but why not installing it on a low end torque big displacement engine instead?

that's been done before here's some google results (http://www.google.com/search?q=latham+supercharger&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=0&sa=N) to get you started. what? you thought richard just started with these things at the begining of this thread?

Richard showed me a magazine article where he did install one of his axial flow units on a 350 Chev. It was installed in his 928 Porshe :) He also has extensive test results on this combo (350 chev / axial flow)

One interesting difference - those earlier units did not seem to use the planetary gearset for the step up ratio, just a big honking drive pully, and a rather small driven pulley :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Cheers,
Mark.

because then you would have something called by several on here "the jet engine". i invented that concept 14 pages ago and the rest of these folk took to naming it. why they get to name it when it was my idea i dont understand. i told them "jet engine" was a name already taken but they would not listen to me:(. but i'm forging ahead with the patent anyway:)






It wouldn't be a jet engine. The just engine has combustion inside of it. The air entering the jet engine is compressed, ignited, and the exhaust spins the reas so that the front can suck more in. If we had an axial flow turbo, the air would flow into the turbo, get compressed, enter the engine, get further compressed where combustion takes place and then exhausted out the back spinning the exhaust wheel. This is no different than a current turbocharged engine and they aren't jets. An axial turbocharger would be pretty cool.

hey im not argueing with you. you're argueing with richard and hymee and one or two others. i said "why cant we run this of a turbine from the exhaust instead of a belt and have an axial flow turbocharger" and they said "conrats you just invented the jet engine" and then a had a jolly good laugh at my expense:( ;) i didnt say it was a jet engine i said they had told me i invented "the jet engine". :D

One interesting difference - those earlier units did not seem to use the planetary gearset for the step up ratio, just a big honking drive pully, and a rather small driven pulley :)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Cheers,
Mark.

reading thru some of the search results before i found the same belt/pulley info. i also found several comments from people who were looking for info and mentioned that they had got some real good answers from one richard paul:) the last post of one thread i read mentioned waiting for some technical paper sort of post that richard was going to write.

But wouldn't it be inferior to a centrifugal-type turbocharger for the reasons I mentioned above? When the compressor is belt-driven and dependent on engine rpm, the nature of the centrifugal compressor's boost pattern means you get your maximum power only at maximum rpm, which for cars isn't so hot as we don't get to tool around at a consistently high rpm most of the time. However, for a turbo, you can hold the thing at max boost based on exhaust flow over a wide range of engine rpms. It seems that an axial flow compressor in this case would not reach max boost as quickly, and so would be at a disadvantage.

I know this is a bit of a tangent but globi asked why turbo makers didn't use this design and it seems logical to me...but I'm not 100% sure I'm not missing something obvious.

jds

If we had an axial flow turbo, the air would flow into the turbo, get compressed, enter the engine, get further compressed where combustion takes place and then exhausted out the back spinning the exhaust wheel. This is no different than a current turbocharged engine and they aren't jets. An axial turbocharger would be pretty cool.

The boost curve of a turbocharger will give us much more low end than the axial flow supercharger. They reach max desired boost pretty fast and then we can just hold it there. A turbo is ultimately the way to go in the race for max power. It will also do it over a wide rpm range.

I am a fan of turbos. I have one. Just not on an RX-8. When it comes to supercharging, I am more of a fan of positive displacement superchargers for the same early full boost reasons as a turbo. I am just intrigued by the axial design and have always has a fascination for jet engines. I believe that every product has it's place in the market. This system has a faster boost rise than the centrifugal but not as fast as positive displacement. It does have greater efficiency than both though and this translates into more power at the same boost level. It also takes less power to turn. At cruise speeds, the blower is hardly any drag on the engine at all.

The one thing a supercharger will always have over a turbo is reliability. They don't spin near as fast. The faster it spins, the less reliable it gets. Some turbo's such as the pathetic 3rd gen RX-7 turbos, could get up to 150,000 rpm!!! Turbo's need special care to make them last long. Many people only run oil cooled bearings and these run hotter than water and oil turbos. If run hard they need a turbo timer to prevent coking on shut down. On water cooled turbos, when you aren't on boost and just cruising, you still have hot coolant and oil circulating through the turbo heating it up. Some of this heat will transfer into the intake air. Many superchargers don't have this issue. Even when you are not under boost, you still have an exhaust restriction. So much for good scavenging from the exhaust. This effects mileage. Remember that we need a free flowing exhaust to make lots of power. People assumes this means after the turbo. While this too is important, the turbo itself is the first restiction. For a reliable street machine that wants a power boost but isn't trying to set any records, this supercharger is a great alternative.

For all out no holds barred max power, a properly sized turbo is the way to go. If that's what you are implying then you are correct. It would be neat to see an axial turbocharger. It would be more efficent than the centrifugal turbo.

The boost curve of a turbocharger will give us much more low end than the axial flow supercharger. They reach max desired boost pretty fast and then we can just hold it there. A turbo is ultimately the way to go in the race for max power. It will also do it over a wide rpm range.

I am a fan of turbos. I have one. Just not on an RX-8. When it comes to supercharging, I am more of a fan of positive displacement superchargers for the same early full boost reasons as a turbo. I am just intrigued by the axial design and have always has a fascination for jet engines. I believe that every product has it's place in the market. This system has a faster boost rise than the centrifugal but not as fast as positive displacement. It does have greater efficiency than both though and this translates into more power at the same boost level. It also takes less power to turn. At cruise speeds, the blower is hardly any drag on the engine at all.

The one thing a supercharger will always have over a turbo is reliability. They don't spin near as fast. The faster it spins, the less reliable it gets. Some turbo's such as the pathetic 3rd gen RX-7 turbos, could get up to 150,000 rpm!!! Turbo's need special care to make them last long. Many people only run oil cooled bearings and these run hotter than water and oil turbos. If run hard they need a turbo timer to prevent coking on shut down. On water cooled turbos, when you aren't on boost and just cruising, you still have hot coolant and oil circulating through the turbo heating it up. Some of this heat will transfer into the intake air. Many superchargers don't have this issue. Even when you are not under boost, you still have an exhaust restriction. So much for good scavenging from the exhaust. This effects mileage. Remember that we need a free flowing exhaust to make lots of power. People assumes this means after the turbo. While this too is important, the turbo itself is the first restiction. For a reliable street machine that wants a power boost but isn't trying to set any records, this supercharger is a great alternative.

For all out no holds barred max power, a properly sized turbo is the way to go. If that's what you are implying then you are correct. It would be neat to see an axial turbocharger. It would be more efficent than the centrifugal turbo.


150,000 rpm?!?!
Damn, I thought when Richard mentioned 45,000 rpm on the axial flow that that was about as fast as anything would spin on a street car. Guess I was wrong. This may be a stupid question, but since you mentioned a centrifugal turbocharger, is that what the average turbocharger is? Or do companies produce positive displacement turbos? Do they even exist? I'm not entirely sure I understand.

As far as I know all turbine-driven superchargers (read: "turbochargers") use a centrifugal turbine and a centrifugal compressor (the supercharger part). For one thing it's impractical to use a different type of turbine and compressor since they must operate at the same rpm. The rpm of a turbine at power would be far too high to run a positive-displacement blower, and I think it would also be too high for an axial-flow blower. Turbines suffer from lack of low-speed torque even more that rotaries do! They make up for it by running at very high rpms.

I suppose you could use a gear reduction scheme between the turbine and the blower, but that would cause more complexity, more moving parts, more power loss, and more failures. An axial-flow turbine could work, but it would be costly and difficult to plumb in the engine compartment of a practical automobile.

Centrifugal-centrifugal seems to be the best way to turbocharge. Axial-axial has proven to be the best way to build jet engines. Positive-displacement blowers work best at about the same rpm range as internal-combustion engines (not surprisingly, since IC engines are just a special kind of PD pump). The axial-flow blower seems like a good bet for the rotary because it likes high rpms, but not a lot higher than the rotary does, so a simple gear and/or belt drive system works.

Hey, I may be all wrong here, but that's what I have picked up over the years. Richard, please correct me where I'm wrong and we'll all learn.

As I can understand why turbo manufacturers for cars don't bother to build turbochargers with axial flow compressors, I just don't see why companies that build turbochargers for ship diesel engines with 100000 HP don't use axial flow compressors on their turbochargers since all what they really care about is efficiency. (After all an ocean carrier doesn't go on a drag strip or something.)

http://www.abb.ch/Global/SEAPR/SEAPR035.NSF/viewunid/B82E4EA9415D0C09C1256AA8003DA74A/$file/Range+030415.pdf

As I mentioned before ABB builds gas turbines, so they would definitely have the expertise to build a turbocharger with an axial flow compressor and if you look at the pictures they are actually using axial flow turbines on their turbochargers.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

A turbocharger can easily be transformed into a jet engine (has nothing to do with axial or radial flow):

http://www.nickhaddock.co.uk/jetgallery.htm

Actually, I thought I had a good idea why turbos themselves usually use a centrifugal compressor rather than an axial compressor...however I think I was mistaken...for the same max boost, the axial is actually getting closer soon, as you stated below. So never mind! :D

The boost curve of a turbocharger will give us much more low end than the axial flow supercharger. They reach max desired boost pretty fast and then we can just hold it there. A turbo is ultimately the way to go in the race for max power. It will also do it over a wide rpm range.

I am a fan of turbos. I have one. Just not on an RX-8. When it comes to supercharging, I am more of a fan of positive displacement superchargers for the same early full boost reasons as a turbo. I am just intrigued by the axial design and have always has a fascination for jet engines. I believe that every product has it's place in the market. This system has a faster boost rise than the centrifugal but not as fast as positive displacement. It does have greater efficiency than both though and this translates into more power at the same boost level. It also takes less power to turn. At cruise speeds, the blower is hardly any drag on the engine at all.

The one thing a supercharger will always have over a turbo is reliability. They don't spin near as fast. The faster it spins, the less reliable it gets. Some turbo's such as the pathetic 3rd gen RX-7 turbos, could get up to 150,000 rpm!!! Turbo's need special care to make them last long. Many people only run oil cooled bearings and these run hotter than water and oil turbos. If run hard they need a turbo timer to prevent coking on shut down. On water cooled turbos, when you aren't on boost and just cruising, you still have hot coolant and oil circulating through the turbo heating it up. Some of this heat will transfer into the intake air. Many superchargers don't have this issue. Even when you are not under boost, you still have an exhaust restriction. So much for good scavenging from the exhaust. This effects mileage. Remember that we need a free flowing exhaust to make lots of power. People assumes this means after the turbo. While this too is important, the turbo itself is the first restiction. For a reliable street machine that wants a power boost but isn't trying to set any records, this supercharger is a great alternative.

For all out no holds barred max power, a properly sized turbo is the way to go. If that's what you are implying then you are correct. It would be neat to see an axial turbocharger. It would be more efficent than the centrifugal turbo.

Axial flow have a lot of rotational mass. "turbo Lag" would far greater with an axial flow compressor as opposed to a centrifugal compressor. Therefor an axial flow compressor in a car needs to be mechanically driven. Look at the spoolup time on a large axial flow jet engine. Interesting enough, the axial flow jet engines are more fuel efficient.

John

Look at the spool time on anything as large as a jet engine.

rg wrote: Look at the spool time on anything as large as a jet engine.
which wouldn't really be an issue in a ship diesel, since they are driven at the same rpm for several weeks. So why are they not implementing it?

John wrote: Axial flow have a lot of rotational mass. "turbo Lag" would far greater with an axial flow compressor as opposed to a centrifugal compressor. Therefor an axial flow compressor in a car needs to be mechanically driven.
Exactly, and this rotational mass would also hurt the responsiveness of the engine even if it is mechanically connected to the engine (keyword: Flywheel).
It'd be a different story if it was electrically driven. But you'd need a car that generates and stores enough electric energy to run it. (If a hybrid car would use the electric energy to run a supercharger it would produce much more power overall than if it would just use the electric energy to help driving the flywheel.)

which wouldn't really be an issue in a ship diesel, since they are driven at the same rpm for several weeks. So why are they not implementing it? The very fact that marine diesels run at a constant rpm makes the choice of supercharger type moot; you can use a drive which will run your blower at its peak efficiency whatever kind it is. So you use the one that is most cost-efficient. You design a system that produces x psi boost at y rpm using the cheapest parts available (consistent with durability, of course).


Exactly, and this rotational mass would also hurt the responsiveness of the engine even if it is mechanically connected to the engine (keyword: Flywheel).
It'd be a different story if it was electrically driven. But you'd need a car that generates and stores enough electric energy to run it. (If a hybrid car would use the electric energy to run a supercharger it would produce much more power overall than if it would just use the electric energy to help driving the flywheel.) Just one acronym here: TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

You can't get more power out of a motor than you put into it; you can't even get as much out as you put in. Every time you convert energy to a different form you have a loss. Mechanical to electrical to mechanical is only two conversions and that's what hybrids have. Mechanical to chemical to mechanical is what directly driven blowers and turbine driven blowers have -- again, two conversions.

An electrically driven blower would have a mechanical to electrical (generating the electricity from the engine's output shaft) conversion, then an electrical to mechanical conversion to run the blower motor, then a mechanical to chemical energy conversion (from blower motor motion to compression of the fuel/air mixture) and finally a chemical to mechanical energy conversion in the engine. That's four conversions.

And then there is the weight of the extra batteries you'd need to carry. Yeah, your engine would put out more hp than it would N/A, but the electrical load would use a lot of that extra power up -- more than a simple mechanical or turbine drive would. And you wouldn't have to increase the weight of your vehicle significantly.

Oh, the increased rotational mass of the engine (the blower's moving parts) is more than made up for by the increased power output of the blown engine.

Lets just slap a friggin scramjet on the RX8, mach 7 anyone?

Bob wrote: The very fact that marine diesels run at a constant rpm makes the choice of supercharger type moot; you can use a drive which will run your blower at its peak efficiency whatever kind it is.
Well fact is the most efficient ship diesel engines are turbocharged 2 stroke diesel engines and they don't use axial compressors in their turbochargers and I just raised the question why they are not doing it if it was more efficient. Have you had a chance to look at the links?

Bob wrote: Just one acronym here: TANSTAAFL. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
There might be no free lunch but there's definitely free braking energy. That's why I was mentioning the Hybrid car. This concept, would only make sense in combination with recycling braking energy (flywheel motor/generator). The batteries might add weight but they can also lower the cg and they can be placed anywhere (better weight distribution). Also you generate more power out of a smaller engine. So you end up saving some weight on this end.

If you run the compressor with your recycled braking energy, the car will be more fuel efficient. And not only that: Since you're not taking any power from the crank you can generate more power at the same boost level than you could with a mechanical supercharger (no parasitic loss and no increased backpressure). Besides you have 100% flexibility, you have total control over the rpm of the supercharger. So for instance you could generate more boost at low rpms and less at high without having to blow it off (wasted energy).

Anyway still better than an electric supercharger would be a turbocharger with an electric motor/generator, but that's another story.

I think I found one reason (there might be many others) why gas turbines with axial compressors are more efficient than gas turbines with centrifugal (or radial) compressors: In a gas turbine with centrifugal compressor the gas flow needs to be redirected (friction loss) and in a gas turbine with an axial compressor it does not (it can flow straight through).

However this issue does not apply to an engine with a turbocharger.

globi what are you trying to prove and why are you so against the axial flow?

You need to clarify your last post. The comment about it not applying to an engine with a turbo makes absolutely no sense.

I can give you a VERY big list of problems with turbos. I can also make arguments against any other type of forced induction. Every product has disadvatages. No form of power adder is free and regenerative braking can't power forced induction. At least not for any usable sustained period of time.

Turbos aren't necessarily all that everyone thinks they are. A very large majority of turbo systems out there (every factory turbo system) are very inefficient but people think they aren't because "turbos are efficient". They are just CHEAPEST. That is the ONLY reason you see centrifugal compressors everywhere. Price matters more than efficiency. This isn't the case with jet engines where efficiency comes first.

Any argument you give as to why we don't see axial units more all comes down to price. That's it.

globi what are you trying to prove and why are you so against the axial flow?

You need to clarify your last post. The comment about it not applying to an engine with a turbo makes absolutely no sense.

I can give you a VERY big list of problems with turbos. I can also make arguments against any other type of forced induction. Every product has disadvatages. No form of power adder is free and regenerative braking can't power forced induction. At least not for any usable sustained period of time.

Turbos aren't necessarily all that everyone thinks they are. A very large majority of turbo systems out there (every factory turbo system) are very inefficient but people think they aren't because "turbos are efficient". They are just CHEAPEST. That is the ONLY reason you see centrifugal compressors everywhere. Price matters more than efficiency. This isn't the case with jet engines where efficiency comes first.

Any argument you give as to why we don't see axial units more all comes down to price. That's it.

Did I miss something, I think he was stating why an axial flow turbine would be more efficient? From what I see he wants to see more axial flow units on vehicles like big ships and stuff. About the not applying to a turbocharged engine, I'm at a loss.

I'm not against the axial flow compressor at all. I just believe that people shouldn't blindly support a new product, since that doesn't really help the ultimate application and I'm not saying that this is the case either. I'm just questioning. Asking questions is not necessarily criticizing it. (What's wrong with questioning things - after all there are enough people that don't.)
Maybe it is indeed just the price, but I was just thinking that if a ocean carrier can get an engine with just 1% higher efficiency that would save them a lot of costs per year. (These turbochargers might cost several $100k so price might play less of a role).

Clarification:
In a gas turbine the compressor the combustion chamber and the turbine is all in one line. The basic mass flow doesn't change directions. If you substitute the axial compressor with a centrifugal (radial) compressor it's not in one line. The compressed air moves sideways and needs to be redirected towards the combustion chamber and the turbine.

Here's a picture of a gas turbine with a centrifugal compressor:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~spurr/sec.htm
The mass flow is not in one line.

Now on a turbocharger the air has to move radially away from it anyway, so an axial compressor wouldn't really benefit in that case. This might be another explanation why it doesn't make sense to use axial compressors on turbochargers.

I'm fine with questions. No problem. I also agree that people shouldn't just blindly accept new technologies. On the other hand people should be more open to the possibilities of them though. Just as there are too many people that blindly accept things that don't work, there are an equal number of people that pass up the opportunity to use something very good. I apparently misinterpretted you by thinking you were criticizing it. I was just getting the distinct impression that you were only pro turbo and against everything else. If this is wrong then I apologize. Strong proponets of turbo use will argue their benefit until they are blue in the face and discount the possibility that anything else could possibly be as good regardless of situation. The RX-7 forum is a prime example of this.

I get what you mean on the direction change now. Now that I see it, I'm not sure how I misread it. While the air doesn't have to get directed sideways out of the axial unit, it does change directions every time it hits a new fan stage or stator. You are basing the efficiency advantage on the fact that the air is not having to turn 90 degrees out the side. This is one area that I disagree.

Don't take my comments as hostile towards you. They aren't. I'm just making sure we have open minded questions rather than close minded criticisms. Believe me, I don't hate turbos in any way. I have one.

Wow my server goes down for two days and I get all this action on my thread.
It's overwelming and I can't remember all the things I might coment on. No problem as it seems others have answered for me, thanks.

Except you zoom44, Yes, yes indeed you did invent the jet engine. The only thing the forum helped was we added the combustion section. You alone invented the rest. Don't let the sour grapes get to you.
Also what link did you find that I am expected to provide a paper for. I don'trecall owing anybody a tech paper. If I do then it should be addressed and I will do so if I only knew about it. Prey tell.

A comment on the large engine topic. The only place I know of where an axial flow supercharger is used by the OEM is on railroad engines I think built by Allison.
And on top of that, they drive the generator which then runs the electric motors for rail traction.

This system is also used in ocean going tugs belonging to the Navy.

Again if I forgot anyone Please let me know. I'm back on line and after 3 weeks my e mail works. I have 429 e mails backed up. If one of them is you now you know why.

Except you zoom44, Yes, yes indeed you did invent the jet engine. The only thing the forum helped was we added the combustion section. You alone invented the rest. Don't let the sour grapes get to you.
Also what link did you find that I am expected to provide a paper for. I don'trecall owing anybody a tech paper. If I do then it should be addressed and I will do so if I only knew about it. Prey tell.




see that Fred! thank you richard, fred just refused to believe:) no sour grapes from me- well except on the naming of the thing- if its my idea why should someone else get to name it? ;) although "jet engine" really is a good name and i am very happy with it :D ;)

on the paper comment- it is in a post on another website(McCulloch Supercharger Discussion Area) from one Jim Moody from july something this year. here is the link to his post (http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=131168;article=213;title=McCul loch%20Supercharger%20Discussion%20Area) and i quote "If Richard Paul ever got around to writing a piece on them I'd happily post it on the site - under a section entitled "the rivals"."

i think now upon reading it again that he is just saying he would like to have an article written by you not that he is actually waiting on one. there are a couple other mentions of you on there dealing with a particular latham charger and whether it has a particular 3 bolt stud pattern for mounting it.

see that Fred! thanks you richard fred just refused to believe:)

I do believe. Just not you!!! Hehe! :p

yeah but you're voting for me anyway right? i mean its better to not believe me and still vote for me than doing the same for the other 2.

here i am a mod and going way off on a tangent. i should be ashamed. back to the regularly scheduled program.:)

Money is always the bottom line, 1% higher efficiency just means x amount of dollars saved at the end of the year. Does this translate to more money in your pocket? What was the initial investment? How much money will it cost to retrofit the fleet, or whatever, for what amount of money saved after what period of time? Perhaps these turbochargers are being used by others and so the company making the product can make more money off of bulk sale and save the buyer money. Perhaps this design of ocean carrier is only planned to be used for x amount of years, and the money gained at the end of the lifetime of the ocean carrier is nil. Perhaps the demand of compressors is greater than the ability for certain companies to produce them, and so that would lead to extended down time for replaced compressors and lost money. Really, we can speculate all we want. Richard Paul has given a lot of info on how his compressor compares others. It all depends on what your goals are.

Just as a little bit of interesting side information, when General Electric designs a new jet engine they do durability tests. At their test facility they set an engine up on a stationary stand. Much like a dyno they start the engine and let it run. The incredible part is that they run it at full thrust for 3 months straight! The only stops they make are just to do quick inspections to the parts. During these tests they run lots of debris through the engine. Anything from ice to water to small birds. Kind of makes you feel good about jets when you are on a several hour flight over the ocean somewhere.

rg wrote: regenerative braking can't power forced induction. At least not for any usable sustained period of time.
I think this is not entirely correct. The Toyota Prius has an electric motor/generator with 50kW. And you wouldn't need more than 15kW to power a reasonable supercharger for a 2.0 l engine.
It's true you couldn't use it for any sustained period of time. But what are you using the supercharger for? Mainly to accelerate - where can you drive 150 mph for a long period of time? Let's face it, most people don't drive at WOT more than 5% of the time. Even brakes of Formula 1 cars transfer about 40% of the mechanical energy generated by the engine into heat energy. (Besides even if you'd power the electric supercharger with an electric generator at the same time you'd still end up with a net power gain.)
As soon as we have flywheel/motors/generators and a 42V system and therefore more electric power on hand we'll see electric superchargers or electric turbos (as we'll see electric AC, electric oil and water pumps etc.). Heck, we might even see electrically powered valves at some point.

And I believe this axial compressor might be perfect to accomodate a high frequency electric motor in the center (no gears necessary). But I realize that we're not quite there yet.

Actually, and by no means am I an expert, I believe using the electrical motor to drive the flywheel directly WOULD be more effecient than using it to drive a compressor, simply due to the raw efficiency of an electrical motor to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy.

I'm kinda half pulling these numbers out my ass, but gas engines are only like 40% efficient or something. Something really nasty terrible. Electrical engines, however, are much higher, like 70 percent? Maybe higher than that? I'm in a slight hurry or I'd dig up some hard numbers. Could I get some help here from a smart person? Feel free to tear me up if I'm totally wrong :P

Regenerative braking is cool, but the nice thing is the ability to efficiently transmit that electrical energy to mechanical energy, and the electric motor is about the most efficient device on earth for that purpose (from what I know). Using all that potential to provide aid for a device as terribly efficient as an internal combustion engine would be a waste.

Only reason we use gas engines is because we can store a lot of energy for them in a small package (gas!). Electrical energy is harder and heavier to store. If we could build a battery that held as much energy as a 12 gallon tank of gas, and weighed the same.. there would no longer BE internal combustion cars.

Tresch wrote: Actually, and by no means am I an expert, I believe using the electrical motor to drive the flywheel directly WOULD be more effecient than using it to drive a compressor, simply due to the raw efficiency of an electrical motor to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy.
Regarding efficiency that's correct. However an electric Motor with 20 HP might generate an extra 80 HP if used to supercharge air. So you have a significant power benefit.

I'd say it's a concept for a more efficient sports car. Otherwise I agree I wouldn't suggest that a Toyota Prius should supercharge its own gasoline engine with that 50kW electric motor.

Only reason we use gas engines is because we can store a lot of energy for them in a small package (gas!). Electrical energy is harder and heavier to store. If we could build a battery that held as much energy as a 12 gallon tank of gas, and weighed the same.. there would no longer BE internal combustion cars.
You're missing 2 factors and then we need to get back on subject.
First, you also need the ability to recharge a vehicle in a reasonable amount of time and at a number of different locations. If you have to charge the vehicle for 8 hours to get the effective 12 gallon charge, I hope you're not planning any long distance trips, furthermore, I hope you're charging everyday.

Second, charging and using a battery diminishes it's life. The more often you recharge a cell, the more likely you are to damage that cell and reduce the maximum effective charge of the cell. Lithium Ion are not as strongly affected by that property, however, they are extremely adversely affected by 2 things: overcharging and over-discharging.

Lithium Ion batteries will charge up to a point and then continiued charging will only result in less charge on the battery. At that point, the temperature of the battery will also spike rapidly. By monitoring both the charge and the temperature and charging to the spike (peak charging), you can get the maximum charge out of the battery without overcharging it. Most companies build overcharge protection into their battery circuits, however, over-discharge is something more complicated to prevent.

Over-discharge is very bad for lithium ion batteries because it causes the cells to reverse polarity. This is generally why cell phone battery lifespans get shortenned so much over time. You see, a lithium ion battery is made up of many lithium ion cells. Each cell holds a charge and the combination of all these cells makes up 1 battery. Now when you use that battery the cells begin to discharge but not necessarily uniformly. Some cells will discharge slightly more than others. If any of the cells over-discharge, their polarity reverses and they can no longer be charged with the rest of the battery so they're no longer producing any useful charge. If you continue to use that battery after cells have been over-discharged and expect to maintain the same lifespan, you will probably over-discharge other cells and the battery life will get even shorter.

As far as electric vehicles go, we built 1 fully electric and 1 hybrid hydrogen electric while I was in school. The fully electric was based on a chevy lumina running 2 battery packs of lead acid batteries (very heavy, very good charge but poor lifespan) and 2 90 horsepower motors belted together and bolted to the driveshaft to turn the wheels. Acceleration was totally linear as there was no transmission. The vehicle had 3 gears, forward, off and reverse. The longer you held the gas pedal down, the faster it would go until the 3500 lb lumina reached terminal velocity (we clocked it at about 90 miles per hour). It had regenerative braking as well and well, it wasnt all that useful but it could extend the life of the vehicle when coasting and braking.

As far as acceleration went, it was pretty sluggish off the line but most of that was because of the weight. Those motors were putting approximately 160-170 horsies to the wheels so we were seeing some pretty good power. We dynoed the vehicle like 4-5 times.

In a race between our lumina and the hydrogen/electric explorer, we kicked it's butt :b Even with 30kw of power, we smoked that explorer like you wouldnt believe and get this, the 2 vehicles weighed about the same! The explorer w/no engine is around 3800 lbs. It ran with 2 lithium ion battery packs (the ones the prius uses) and a honeywell hydrogen fuel cell. It was twin turbocharged (technically, lol, it had 2 blowers that had to be on to keep enough air moving through the fuel cell to keep power output up) and required fills of hydrogen and de-ionized water (which we can make at TTU) constantly. Top speed was an abysmal 45 mph and at that speed those 2 blowers were so loud that i couldnt imagine a traffic jam full of them.

Ok.. now.. let's get back on topic! :b

I agree that current battery technologies make this impossible.. this is why we have gas cars. It was more.... a hypothetical statement.

back on the topic of efficiency (would this even be considered properly on topic?) remember that you cannot add power simply by adding air, you must also add fuel. Power added directly to the flywheel by an electric motor powered by regenerative braking is essentially (weight aside) free. You could also have an electric compressor that drove more air into the engine, which could provide for more POWER in the end, that air would have to be accompanied by more FUEL as well, which would offset, possibly negate, any efficiency gains.

Main Entry: ef·fi·cien·cy
Pronunciation: i-'fi-sh&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 : the quality or degree of being efficient
2 a : efficient operation b (1) : effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, and money) (2) : the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it

Now, since we all know that we're really comparing turbo to electrocharge, we of course understand that we're already going to be using extra fuel. The assumption is that since we don't have to restrict exhaust gas (turbo) or run a pully on the motor (super), that we're gaining efficiency. And I would have to agree!

However, for practicality's sake, we also have to understand that braking is not a consistant or plentiful enough source of energy to power a compressor for any extended period of time, so, for any real useable power (i.e: to keep the compressor spinning when we want/need it) we'd need to suppliment the electrical energy to the compressor by another source, which would be a generator, which would reduce efficiency.

So, in conclusion, the winner IS....

*shrugs* hell I dunno, what do I look like, a scientist?

Actually, I'm going to have to say that Richards Axial flow supercharge wins, because it's much shinier than the other ones.

Tresch wrote: I agree that current battery technologies make this impossible.. this is why we have gas cars. It was more.... a hypothetical statement.
Hey the proof is in the pudding. Currently you can purchase about 5 hybrids: Honda Insight, Civic, Accord, Ford Escape and Toyota Prius.
They're all fitted with NiMH batteries. So the batteries are obviously working.

It be interesting to see, what would happen if the new Honda Accord V6 hybrid would be electrically supercharged.

Tresch wrote:....or run a pully on the motor (super), that we're gaining efficiency. And I would have to agree!
That's the point.

At full throttle you reach 150 mph in less than 30 seconds. Why do you need electric power for a sustained period of time? Are you living on some salt lake?

Braking energy is a lot of energy. Again the proof is in the pudding. If it wasn't worth anything the Hybrids wouldn't get such a great mileage.

axial flow superchargers win because they are shinier!! nuff said back on topic-


which is whatever richard was talking about last- i think it was my invention of the "jet engine" :)

This isn't a thread on hybrid electric cars. It is on axial flow superchargers. Hybrids may be making their way to market, but they aren't winning any races anywhere regardless of how good of an idea it is.

axial flow superchargers win because they are shinier!! nuff said back on topic-


which is whatever richard was talking about last- i think it was my invention of the "jet engine" :)
dude! i invented the jet engine.. no wait.. i invented the exploding blender.. either way, it's all about the same!

Just to add to RG's comment on the GE engines, they also do shear wind tests. I think I posted this before but it is well worth another look.
This is the engine for the 777 and is being tested for a 90 degree wind shear test. Thereby unloading the airflow into the compressor. Very violent reaction.
Don't sweat it though this cannot happen in real life.

BTW, thanks for the education on the batterys. Very interesting, never knew that about the charge/discharge on the lithium ion bat.

I like that - an actual photo of what can't happen in real life ;)

Cheers,
Hymee.

BTW, thanks for the education on the batterys. Very interesting, never knew that about the charge/discharge on the lithium ion bat.

No problem.. Nickel metal hydride batteries exhibit the same characterstics. nickel cadnium also exhibit the charge charactersitics but at overdischarge, the cells tend to just die rather than reverse polarity.

I learned way too much about batteries in school.

And yea, that picture is awesome. I remember when you posted it before.

rg wrote: This isn't a thread on hybrid electric cars. It is on axial flow superchargers. Hybrids may be making their way to market, but they aren't winning any races anywhere regardless of how good of an idea it is.
Who's talking about hybrid cars? I was just trying to make a point that the axial flow supercharger might be an ideal application for an electric supercharger - that's it. But I guess it wasn't clear enough.

And regarding race cars: Regenerative braking is prohibited in the Formula 1 and I'm sure FIA wouldn't have prohibited it if they didn't think that any team could benefit from it.

And regarding race cars: Regenerative braking is prohibited in the Formula 1 and I'm sure FIA wouldn't have prohibited it if they didn't think that any team could benefit from it.

True - about 4 or 5 years ago, McLaren had developed and begun testing a regenerative braking system. It was definitely advantageous, so (typically), Ferrari protested and that is why the FIA banned it.

Regards,
Gordon

It does make a lot of sense to use the energy used in slowing down to help you accelerate back up to speed a little quicker, but this is a long way off for commercial vehicles.
As far as I'm concerned, it's alright talking about stuff that isn't really a reality at the moment. When it interferes with progress of stuff that is a reality, it becomes a problem. That isn't the case here.
I think it is good to keep this thread kept alive by talking about this stuff than letting it die?...
Personally, I would prefer pictures tho.... :) ;)

tolkenbrit wrote: As far as I'm concerned, it's alright talking about stuff that isn't really a reality at the moment.
I agree as I mentioned before we're not there yet.

Here's your picture of a (less sophisticated) electric supercharger. But since it's not combined with regenerative braking it's not really that useful. http://www.boosthead.com/home.php
But it can compete against a N2O system, since charging the batteries or capacitors is eventually cheaper than purchasing N2O bottles.

Maybe Richard should develop an electric S/C for the Civic Hybrid.. My cousin has one of those in L.A. It could definitely use more power!!! We went to Vegas in that thing, I didn't think it would get up some of the mountains! :D

Ironicly, The largest cruise ship is powered by an axial flow jet engine that runs generators that power electric pods.

John

Now Hymee, you shouldn't make fun of GE or the FAA, you're going to have to test your product that way too. At least if you want it to fly.

and cheers to you

and cheers to you

G'day Mate! http://www.hymee.com/smilies/sm_wave.gif

RP... have you got this actually hooked up to a engine yet? Just wondering, I have been really interested in this thread and would like to actually hear some stats wether there good or bad.

PS... Also interested in how Hymee's implemenation is going also.

PS... Also interested in how Hymee's implemenation is going also.

With respect to my friend Richard, I would prefer to answer that question in the relevant thread. My latest update is still current.

Cheers,
Hymee.

gettin low so....BUMP

I thought this was pretty entertaining..... if you want to know how Richards Super Charger is gonna work if you were a air molecule :D

http://www.rolls-royce.com/education/schools/journey/flash.html


PS... Ignore the combustion stage

Any updates or difficulties (we like hearing it all!) RP? Anyways, just trying to keep this thread on the first page at least.

Bump

OMG I'm on the second page. That never happened before. Give myself a shameless bump. So I better give an update. Both 4 and 5 stage RX blowers have been built and bench tested. Engine adaption is going on now. Still looking into the electronics problem.

It seems that the only solution at the moment is over $1000 wholesale. Also it seems that with the stock injectors there will be a limit at a point NYD.

Looks like I'm hearing not good things about the composite intake. Not sure that is all true but we might have been changing that anyway. I'm not fond of changing a lot on the intake. It seems I have more faith in the Mazda engineers then do others. I make note of all the trouble you run into just changing the air cleaner ducting.

Not that everyone in the forum didn't tell me so but the damn ECU is the big blocker in here. Just takes time and money. I dream of Webers and distributors nowdays instead of girls. Is life over for me?

[QUOTE

Not that everyone in the forum didn't tell me so but the damn ECU is the big blocker in here. Just takes time and money. I dream of Webers and distributors nowdays instead of girls. Is life over for me?[/QUOTE]

nope, just getting more expensive.

beers
john stewart

Just bringing this back up a bit. I drool everytime I think of hearing this thing spinning.

c'mon, whatever happened to the entertaining (and educational!) Banter about jet engines and whatnot :P

Just think...if he isn't on this forum, what is he most likely doing?

Building us a kickass S/C. So instead of complaining, just punch your wall until FI comes out. (I think I'll need a new wall soon...)

I think everything to do with planes and the like has been discusses here, haha. It's always fun to read and learn about that kind of stuff, but it's also nice to have projects for this car being done too. Can't wait until everything is finished, and I hope all goes well with the ecu nonsense. Thanks Richard.

Oh, definately not a complaint. Wasn't asking Richard to come away from his work at all. Was more curious why everyone else got so quiet all of a sudden! Just playing around :)

alright... because its the weekend i think its worth a bump for an update?... optional of course.

What's the record at RX8Club.com for the longest thread? I don't think I have ever seen a thread this long.

What's the record at RX8Club.com for the longest thread? I don't think I have ever seen a thread this long.

It only has length because it is axial :) :D

Cheers,
Hymee.

Try the lounge... loooong threads in there...

I think relevance is important. Relevant AND long threads are cooler than long threads that go off on tangents (like, maybe, for example, a thread that was talking about axial flow supers that turns into a jet engine thread and then into a weekly "bump, what's up?" question thread ;). For example, see any of the RX-8 and my wife / GF threads in RX-8 multi-media and photo gallery. They always stay on topic.

</sarcasim>

I'm really getting fed up with no usefull news on this thread.

When was the last time any relevant information was Posted?? (axial flow supercharger information). A VERY long time ago. Jet engine and such stuff (although interesting) should be posted in the lounge. I am thinking lame attempt to keep us interested??... But this said, it is much better than a *bump* every week because somebody can't be bothered to post any results (or be bothered to do any further work?? :rolleyes: ).

May I suggest either :

1. - Moderators bin this thread as it is becoming a farce (multiple pages of *bump* and no new info.).

Or

2. - It's moved to the lounge (which is where it belongs at the moment).

Or

3. - RP does something with this and posts something to keep this alive...

It's not worth taking up the space on this forum otherwise.......

i agree with your points but bumps are somewhat worth it to keep the thread alive on the "search new post" page

i agree with your points but bumps are somewhat worth it to keep the thread alive on the "search new post" page

I have to disagree. If the thread is that important it should be made sticky and all of the irrelevant crap should be removed. This thread is just as bad as the CZ thread. It was nearly impossible to find the important details amongst all of the off topic posts. Just like it is a little uncalled for to sift through 51 pages of similar banter in this thread.

It would be really nice to have Richard start a new post.. however, from his past postings, he's said he's not much of a typist.. but yes, this thread in it's current form is almost entirely useless. I actually looked for it this morning to see what was going on and went thru 5 or 6 pages before I gave up :)

I'm really getting fed up with no usefull news on this thread.

When was the last time any relevant information was Posted?? (axial flow supercharger information). A VERY long time ago. Jet engine and such stuff (although interesting) should be posted in the lounge. I am thinking lame attempt to keep us interested??... But this said, it is much better than a *bump* every week because somebody can't be bothered to post any results (or be bothered to do any further work?? :rolleyes: ).

May I suggest either :

1. - Moderators bin this thread as it is becoming a farce (multiple pages of *bump* and no new info.).

Or

2. - It's moved to the lounge (which is where it belongs at the moment).

Or

3. - RP does something with this and posts something to keep this alive...

It's not worth taking up the space on this forum otherwise.......

Patience young grasshopper. These things take time. Richard cannot, as far as I know, spend all of his time working on this thing, he has other projects as well. I am also pretty he doesn't spend all of his time on this. When you get home from work, do you
a) eat, drink, relax
or
b) work on whatever you did at work until you pass out and wake up for another day of work

Give the guy a break. Sure it's been a long time since an update, but there's not much to update. He's testing different things and working out kinks, these things take time. In my opinion this is not much different than the other FI systems in terms of length of the project, SSR worked on theirs forever. Just give Richard some time to finish everything up, he will update when an update is necesary. I also need you to know that his job does not entail keeping you entertained by giving you an update every day. If you want to see the project done, you'd rather him be off the computer and in the shop right?

Richard, whenever your next update may be, I hope to hear good things. Good luck with the rest of your project.

I'm really getting fed up with no usefull news on this thread.

When was the last time any relevant information was Posted?? (axial flow supercharger information). A VERY long time ago.....


Richard posted information on 29th of october (http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=589897&postcount=739)

2 weeks is not a VERY long time to me. you can and may continue to suggest that this thread be moved or altered as much as you want but it is going to stay right here. now if you start getting belligerent about it ill be forced to start deleting your's and anyone else's beligerent posts.