But a sonic pulse will not spin a turbo.
A correctly designed long pipe system will use the pulse to make suck Or scavenging. IE why are extractors called extractors
Printable View
Correct, but only if you are talking about a positive displacement pump.
with a turbine and more so with a centrifugal turbine ( key word centrifugal) Mass is the motivator, energy is Mass X velocity.
Add heat and you get much more velocity but less Mass per volume.
Have a look at Jet engines and why they have moved away from centrifugal to Coaxial.
You could even use the sonic pulses to speed up the Velocity, or to smooth out the gas pulses or us the gas pulses to scavenge, not of which is an option with close mounting a turbo. Infact a close mounted turbo instantly will decrease the efficiency of a IC but the benefits of boost exceed this loss.
I haven’t seen one for years, now days I work with water mainly. Had a quick Google with no luck.
if I remember correctly the most efficient expansion for energy used was only about 380 deg C to double the expansion you needed to go to 1200 deg C i think?
Same here, I understand completely what you are saying, i just have a different understanding of the application. Having said all that if i was to mount a turbo on the rear bar of the county i suspect i would be quite disappointed. The R&D is massive
Temperature
- t -
(oC) Density
- ρ -
(kg/m3) Specific heat capacity
- cp -
(kJ/kg K) Thermal conductivity
- l -
(W/m K) Kinematic viscosity
- ν -
(m2/s) x 10-6 Expansion coefficient
- b -
(1/K) x 10-3 Prandtl's number
- Pr -
-150 2.793 1.026 0.0116 3.08 8.21 0.76
-100 1.980 1.009 0.0160 5.95 5.82 0.74
-50 1.534 1.005 0.0204 9.55 4.51 0.725
0 1.293 1.005 0.0243 13.30 3.67 0.715
20 1.205 1.005 0.0257 15.11 3.43 0.713
40 1.127 1.005 0.0271 16.97 3.20 0.711
60 1.067 1.009 0.0285 18.90 3.00 0.709
80 1.000 1.009 0.0299 20.94 2.83 0.708
100 0.946 1.009 0.0314 23.06 2.68 0.703
120 0.898 1.013 0.0328 25.23 2.55 0.70
140 0.854 1.013 0.0343 27.55 2.43 0.695
160 0.815 1.017 0.0358 29.85 2.32 0.69
180 0.779 1.022 0.0372 32.29 2.21 0.69
200 0.746 1.026 0.0386 34.63 2.11 0.685
250 0.675 1.034 0.0421 41.17 1.91 0.68
300 0.616 1.047 0.0454 47.85 1.75 0.68
350 0.566 1.055 0.0485 55.05 1.61 0.68
400 0.524 1.068 0.0515 62.53 1.49 0.68
Were do you mount the airbox and how do you run 16' of 1 1/2 pipe underneath a defender?.How much lag will you have after dumping 18' of exhaust gas then getting back on the throttle?. Pat
Sure, Mass x velocity is the rate at which work is being done (watts, hp, kW etc). But as far as I understand it, mass is just a means of transporting energy from one point to the other. You say that mass flow rate is that does the work in turning the turbine, sure I agree with that. But, you don't have any mass flow without a pressure differential to move it in the pipe.
I suppose you are taking the view that the engine has to do some work move exhaust gas out into the exhaust system and through the turbo, and regardless of the temperature of the gas that mass needs to go past the turbo, but what moves this mass is the fact that gas wants to go from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone and these pressures change depending on temperature.
Say you had two balloons hooked to a small turbine which you could extract some energy from and measure, If both balloons were inflated with the same amount of mass (x kilograms of air) at the same temperature. And you then heated one balloon and cooled the other. You would phycially see the cold balloon reduce in size and the hot balloon increase in size, if you then vented these balloons through the turbine and measured the amount of work done I would expect to see that more work is done by the hot balloon than the cold one despite the fact that they both have the same mass of air stored within them.
Also with the centrifugal and coaxial in jet engines, i'm assuming you are talking about a compressor here and not a turbine? I can't think of any gas turbine engines that use a centrifugal turbine?... and I did aeronautical engineering so this is rather suprising. I know that centrifugal compressors are good at achieving high compression in a single stage, but they aren't very efficient which is why they have gone to multistage coaxial compressors... but no idea as a turbine.
Correct,, turn it the othere way around energy moves mass.
correct, regardless of temperature
along as you didn’t cool the balloon down to where the internal pressure was = or less than ambient. AND each turbine was designed for each different application, the energy measured would be the same.
Amazing aye
Centrifugal compressors are not good at achieving high compression, that’s why they went to muilty stage centrifugal compressors, and then on to mulity stage coaxial, and to believe that they have compression ratios of over 35:1 and a bypass of 45:1 what would Whittle be thinking now ( probably Dam Germans he was on the wrong track)
A centrifugal turbine was dropped really early on, about the same time as muilty cans got joined together.
OK take your two balloons, same mass different temperature, ( but both have internal pressures above ambient.
fit a smaller outlet to the cooler balloon, and you would get the same velocity for the same period of time as the wormer balloon.
so Mass X velocity would be the same
Hijack, nope on topic, I think this remote turbo is worth exploring, I can see the benefits but also a heap of down side as well.
Ill do some math’s in a minute