Axial Flow Supercharger
02-02-2006, 11:10 PM
#2728
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
In the end the difference is that there was more mass for the given pressure.
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
I also can claim this sort of delta compared today with any roots blower out there.
Cheers,
Hymee.
02-02-2006, 11:25 PM
#2730
Originally Posted by Hymee
So what this translates to in laws of nature is that your compressor puts less heat into the charge, as the relationship between pressure, mass and volume gets back to a constant. More mass for the same pressure must mean less temp.
Originally Posted by Hymee
Thank goodness I'm using a twin-screw instead.
02-03-2006, 07:58 AM
#2732
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP compressor gets more net power form an engine because of the following main reasons not including the mixing effect if additional fuel is added before the compressor
1) It take less power to drive the unit at any given PSI/RPM (less parasitic drag on the crank)
2) It produces a higher mass flow rate at any given PSI/RPM (due to a more efficient compression mode causing less heat of compression)
3) The compressed air charger is lower in temperature so the ignition timing can be advanced.
1) It take less power to drive the unit at any given PSI/RPM (less parasitic drag on the crank)
2) It produces a higher mass flow rate at any given PSI/RPM (due to a more efficient compression mode causing less heat of compression)
3) The compressed air charger is lower in temperature so the ignition timing can be advanced.
02-03-2006, 10:11 AM
#2734
Originally Posted by deppenma
RP compressor gets more net power form an engine because of the following main reasons not including the mixing effect if additional fuel is added before the compressor
1) It take less power to drive the unit at any given PSI/RPM (less parasitic drag on the crank)
2) It produces a higher mass flow rate at any given PSI/RPM (due to a more efficient compression mode causing less heat of compression)
3) The compressed air charger is lower in temperature so the ignition timing can be advanced.
1) It take less power to drive the unit at any given PSI/RPM (less parasitic drag on the crank)
2) It produces a higher mass flow rate at any given PSI/RPM (due to a more efficient compression mode causing less heat of compression)
3) The compressed air charger is lower in temperature so the ignition timing can be advanced.
Damn, I was trying to cheat a little by not mentioning that mixing thing. I guess you read my homoginization paper where I mention this test. So yes the fuel went in before the blower because it was a drawthrough carb system. So were the others. But the ign timing was held the same for all blowers.
02-03-2006, 12:36 PM
#2737
Registered
I'd be curious to see what would have happened if that test was allowed to have seen what the full max potential from each design was with optimum tuning for each setup. Forget being fair. Let the axial flow walk away even further from those heaters.
02-07-2006, 04:16 PM
#2739
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP are you still planning on adding additional fuel before the compressor?
If yes
Have you figured out how much heat will be removed from the air charge due to the evaporation/mixing of the fuel with the air as it goes thru the compressor?
If yes
Have you figured out how much heat will be removed from the air charge due to the evaporation/mixing of the fuel with the air as it goes thru the compressor?
02-07-2006, 07:52 PM
#2740
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ely, UK
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really can't put a definitive figure on how much heat is going to be taken out. You always want to be careful when injecting fuel that far away. If you get a backfire in the intake (probably a lot harder on a rotary than pistons), you can very easily destroy the blower.
So is the Axial Flow basically a better centrifugal blower (in powerband type)?
So is the Axial Flow basically a better centrifugal blower (in powerband type)?
02-08-2006, 01:16 AM
#2741
Rotary only since 1980
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southeast of Seattle
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beodude123
You always want to be careful when injecting fuel that far away. If you get a backfire in the intake (probably a lot harder on a rotary than pistons), you can very easily destroy the blower.
02-08-2006, 11:07 AM
#2743
Registered
Originally Posted by Beodude123
You really can't put a definitive figure on how much heat is going to be taken out. You always want to be careful when injecting fuel that far away. If you get a backfire in the intake (probably a lot harder on a rotary than pistons), you can very easily destroy the blower.
So is the Axial Flow basically a better centrifugal blower (in powerband type)?
So is the Axial Flow basically a better centrifugal blower (in powerband type)?
The powerband should be better than a centrifugal. As was stated earlier, in a perfect world the boost curve of this would be linear. A centrifugal though has it's boost rise with the square of the rpm. The axial would have more midrange power.
02-08-2006, 12:20 PM
#2747
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
He wasn't going to do it as far as I knew. That's just how he would do it if he decided to.
so you dont realy know; it could go either way
Were is RP
he has not posted in a while to busy working...... 
02-08-2006, 04:41 PM
#2750
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Beodude123
You really can't put a definitive figure on how much heat is going to be taken out. You always want to be careful when injecting fuel that far away. If you get a backfire in the intake (probably a lot harder on a rotary than pistons), you can very easily destroy the blower.