:P

Corrected!

 

Priceless!

 

hehe

 

Think this is relevant here:
@MilosB

 

@Brettus even though he is a genius, he completely forgot (in his argument) that the engine (most often) is not made from one cylinder. Ie, while one is exhausting, the other is "power stroking". Something has to push the exhaust gasses out and that is done by other power strokes (on multi cylinder), and inertia on other, just like on an SC... Can explain further if need be

People say it is heat energy that is driving it because there is a big temperature delta. but as the compressor side increases air temperature due to compression , so does the exhaust gas get cooled by simply expanding in the turbocharger.. heat energy that is trapped in the exhaust only because there is EMAP, against which energy is used to push.

I still dont claim a 20y old SC design will match the 10y old G series (or how ever old they are) but it shouldn't be a miles difference at similar boost.

Soon I will have my car road approved (without SC) hopefully that is, so I can install the SC and do testing with a lot of data logging ...
There is single no documented TVS supercharger powered wankel. Only old M series which are almost 10% lover efficiency.. So all the old data is like comparing your turbo "kit" results with gredy -> meaningless.
There are few Screw compressor type used, but those compress air internally to more than the target boost it, thus creating HUGE amount of heat to handle with (and are also not efficient for low boost)...
The centrifugal compressor is imho a POS BS for 99% of implementation.. can work on drag cars that are all the time up in rpm and are not power limited but traction (where its easier to unload and load an engine with SC and modulate power in % even on the high end of power..

 

He does say there is parasitic loss on the exhaust stroke.
Interested to see how much better your TVS SC is than what's been tried so far!
When you say efficiency is 10% better you are talking about thermal efficiency ... correct? The drag on the engine is only slightly improved?
If that is true ... the actual improvement in boost vs whp wont be much at all.

 

Listen carefully how he said it. He says there is parasitic drag only on the exhaust stroke.. and technically looking at only one piston he is correct. But what do the other pistons do in that time.. and aren't they connected with a crankshaft.

That is compressor efficiency. And going from 50-60 to 70 is huge difference in drive load required for same air mass delivered. Also the boost will be lower for the same MAF if the compressor efficiency is higher. That efficiency is not only termal efficiency of compression that is shown there.

Well what is much what is little is quite relative.
Also I know turbo guys like to compare with boost, but both of us know, it is MAF vs power that is important, not psi/kPa vs power.
A bigger turbo than yours would be at lower boost for same power and a smaller one would be at higher.. SC's move air completely differently and the boost is not generated as input to mass flow, but rather as a consequence of mass flow vs engine efficiency.

The M series dont even publish the absorbed power by the SC for a given mass flow/boost (more boost for same maf = > higher power absorption)



Also the only way to control boost on SC is bleeding the air, which you said is not comparative. But that would be like me saying you can use waste gate to controll boost. Its just different ways to do the same thing.. you cannot controll boost with bleeding it off, i cant slow down the spinning of the SC to reduce boost at higher rpm..