Thread: Remote Turbo's?

you people think too much. Just bolt a turbo on your car and see what happens, who cares about the theory behind it.

Originally Posted by stirlsilver

Say we extend this to the limit. What if we cooled the cold balloon to the point were the gas inside it is the same pressure as the atmosphere. You hook up the little turbine and you measure zero energy.

So hot balloon produces X Joules of energy, cold balloon produces zero Joules of energy. A third baloon with same mass of air etc. somewhere between the hot and cold balloon temperatures would be Y joules of energy.

So from this, I think it is safe to say that X is greater than Y is greater than 0.

I just wanna make mention that the baloon example is flawed. You are measuring the energy stored in the baloon. A baloon full of hot air is stretched further, and has more energy stored. Exhaust pipe is not elastic.

An engine pumps the same amount of exhaust gas (mass) out constantly. Without resistance, the mass throughput at any time is the same. With resistance, it will level out to be the same throughput, but dynamic characteristics may result in a delay while the smaller volume cold air can build pressure. Hot air will occupy more volume and build pressure faster. Flow over a resistance is based largely on pressure differential, and a number of less significant factoes like density etc...

Remote turbos to me sounds like potentially tragic lag. I usppose a 7L v8 isnt poor to start tho. If the throttle bodies are close or direct to head, it would reduce the plenum volume in vacuum, but there is still a lot of volume in lines to fill.

Cheers!

What I thinks y'all fighten about is different applications of the same basic rules - i.e. transfer of energy by mass. E.g. one ton of water following over a waterfall can be made to do the same amount of work whether falling in 1 minute, one hour or one year - it will just take the minute, hour or year to do the work. BUT the water will do more work if the height of the waterfall is greater. I.e. the pressure (or in my example, height of the waterfall) makes a difference, not just the mas involved. Otherwise cars hitting each other at 10kph would do exactly the same amount of damage as cars at 100kph - they have the same mass after all.

The other cause for confusion here is that the exhaust gas is not pushing out the exhaust pipe against nothing (vacuum) but against air pressure, so reduction in pressure before the turbo DOES impact the efficiency of the turbo, equivalent to decreasing the height of the waterfall. Of course, the arguements for resistance etc apply whether the turbo has an additional pressure gradient before or after it, but the flow rate has a large impact on the resistance of the pipe. For the "mass mover" theorists, remember that there's a fairly large mass of air outside the motor which would press in if given the chance, e.g. the air "drawn in" by the turbo is actually pushed in by air pressure.

I'll admit this has dragged on a bit, but it's interesting stuff... well, for me anyway. And it's always fun to have a good juicy debate.

Originally Posted by andrew e

you people think too much. Just bolt a turbo on your car and see what happens, who cares about the theory behind it.

How many of those argueing "theory" about turbocharging have done it?

I was waiting for you to have a dig rovercare.I think the part about 7ltr V8 might mask alot of the problems such as lag etc.I would be nice to have the money to try out a couple of theorys though. Pat

why is there a thums down on my post? i didnt put it there

Originally Posted by rovercare

How many of those argueing "theory" about turbocharging have done it?

Turbo, super, Nos,

still like to do old school things like 180HP Vivia ( doing the lotus thing)

currnetly have an isusu to start