|
| markr154 |
|
|||
|
fritzz wrote: Quote: It'd be a healthy debate if there wasn't so much misinformation being thrown around. And thats it from me. agreed, i feel sorry for the people that are trying to learn of these forums. Agreed ...too much thread-mining and scientific s**t going on here.
_________________ Hot Chilli Red EL XR6, 5-spd, JMM DEV 5 enhanced (161 rwkw custom tuned), Eliminator Switch Chip, 18" BA GTP rims, Pedders Superlows, BA XR6 badges, BA Sunroof, Pioneer Stereo, Splits, 6x9's, 10" sub, 700W 6-ch Viper amp.
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| xcabbi |
|
||
|
markr154 wrote: fritzz wrote: Quote: It'd be a healthy debate if there wasn't so much misinformation being thrown around. And thats it from me. agreed, i feel sorry for the people that are trying to learn of these forums. Agreed ...too much thread-mining and scientific s**t going on here. Scientific s**t is the very reason why yuou have forced induction options in the falcon 6. Hell its the very reason why you have any options at all. |
||
| Top | |
||
| Slick |
|
|||
|
I said step outside the box & challenge the post objectively. meaning, either show some proof or explain it.
take xcabbi for instance. he's asked an inquisitive question because its something new & unheard of. he's learning something new just as much as I. sorry to say this, but the rotrex traction gear drive turbo/supercharger is pushing the turbo aside.....
_________________ Mind f**k!!! it works on feeble minded ignorant sheeples... there's plenty of em on this site... some are very intelligent but by god they are so thick!!! Pakrat wrote: You can buy them seppertly
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| xcabbi |
|
||
|
Not quite slick. It is but it also isn't depending on what you are after.
Rotax = stump puller off idle. Turbo = f**k mobile b**ch excavator (read burnout machine that tears the tarmac up) when its hits its straps. A rotax drive on a turbo has an advantage in that boost pressure can be made to come on earlier than a fixed geometry turbo. But a turbo is much more efficient. Turbines are the second most efficient rotational devices known to man. Electric motors come first. The reason this holds true is because blowers need mechanical energy to drive them. This comes straight from the crank. Turbo's take hot exhaust gas at greater than atmospheric pressure to drive them. Hot air under pressure has a fair amount of internal energy. Then when you factor in the mass flow rate of the engine there is a s**t of energy on offer to spin the turbo. This is why a turbo will also use less fuel to make the same power as on a supercharged motor. Another way to put it. Rotax driven blowers out perform turbo's when the engine is operating below its peak torque (efficiency) rpm. But when the engine is in its peak torque range then a rotax won't even come close to a perfectly matched turbo. Also with the rotax drive on a turbo it no longer can be considered a turbo because the turbine has been removed. Its basically a centrifugal blower with a fancy drive system. |
||
| Top | |
||
| xcabbi |
|
||
|
Slick wrote: take xcabbi for instance. he's asked an inquisitive question because its something new & unheard of. he's learning something new just as much as I
Slightly OT but I never knew that a dual fuel GRA setup was possible by bolting the stock tps to the GRA mixer. I found that out when Hans popped his bonnet on Thursday night. This, combined with learning that an AU ecu can read positive pressure (after a few tweeks to the map function) and I am like a man posessed. If I had an open chequebook I'd be aiming as close to 500rwkW on E85 and LPG. Hell I got a vid on my comp of an AU I6T making 470rwkW on LPG in a 66 stang. Only engine mods are rods, pistons and cam (unported heads). |
||
| Top | |
||
| Slick |
|
|||
|
xcabbi wrote: Not quite slick. It is but it also isn't depending on what you are after.
Rotax = stump puller off idle. Turbo = f**k mobile b**ch excavator (read burnout machine that tears the tarmac up) when its hits its straps. A rotax drive on a turbo has an advantage in that boost pressure can be made to come on earlier than a fixed geometry turbo. But a turbo is much more efficient. Turbines are the second most efficient rotational devices known to man. Electric motors come first. The reason this holds true is because blowers need mechanical energy to drive them. This comes straight from the crank. Turbo's take hot exhaust gas at greater than atmospheric pressure to drive them. Hot air under pressure has a fair amount of internal energy. Then when you factor in the mass flow rate of the engine there is a s**t of energy on offer to spin the turbo. This is why a turbo will also use less fuel to make the same power as on a supercharged motor. Another way to put it. Rotax driven blowers out perform turbo's when the engine is operating below its peak torque (efficiency) rpm. But when the engine is in its peak torque range then a rotax won't even come close to a perfectly matched turbo. Also with the rotax drive on a turbo it no longer can be considered a turbo because the turbine has been removed. Its basically a centrifugal blower with a fancy drive system. Whats the max rpm of a turbo? I know they are around the 100K's or more the last time I've looked into them some 15 years ago. lol its not about peak power. thats something for the aftermarket. its about practical application and thats where the car manufacturer are heading. downsizing engines but retaining torque & power on demand of its larger former counterpart. the traction drive S/C is already there & improving ever minute. they're now spinning those little things up to 240K's and efficiency as high as 98%. and now we hear of the antonov gear drive hitting the scene faster then my broadband speed... they came out two years ago. lol they're becoming more compact & efficient as development goes full steam ahead. Don't know, but I could see the smaller 2010 falcon v6 with twin head units on the drawing boards. Bookmark this pages so we can review what I've just said, if its a hit or miss! LOL
_________________ Mind f**k!!! it works on feeble minded ignorant sheeples... there's plenty of em on this site... some are very intelligent but by god they are so thick!!! Pakrat wrote: You can buy them seppertly
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Slick |
|
|||
|
xcabbi wrote: Slick wrote: xcabbi wrote: Slick wrote: They only made that gear drive for the Rotrex centrifugal charger so far. don't know yet if the plans are up & running for a universal unit. the idea of the drive is to run the blower really fast at low engine speed. the gearing suppose to automatically shift up seamlessly so it'll operate efficiently at high engine revs. basically an automatic drive. Thats right xcabbi, depending on how you like your setup. it has to be geared to match the engine type from what I gather. example: to run a centri like the procharger mentioned previously with a speed limit of 55000rpm. the step-up gear in the centri would run in the vicinity of a ratio of 11:1, for a engine that max out at 5000rpm. thats where the antonov comes in, the drive gear will step-down the ratio to reduce the external blower overdrive pulley speed at max engine revs, but the blower itself is spinning cross to its max speed. don't take my word for it, but its an example. This is where a CVT would absolutely kick a***. Constant boost all the way from idle right through to redline with no drop offs/steps what so ever. Could do but with something alot simpler in design & cost effective, like the Nuvinci bicycle CTV. but you'll need a external control, I guess thats where a vacuum actuator comes in.  the antonov design operates by centrifugal force. in other words, a more advance centrifugal clutch drive. Thinking about the antonov 2 speed box there is a way in which it could work. Looking at compressor maps there are islands of equal efficiency. Therefore there are multiple states (mass air flow and pressure satios) where the efficiency is the same. So by spinning the turbo past its max efficiency back on to a certain efficiency (say e.g. 65%) then gearing it back down so that 65% efficiency is reached at a lower maf and/or pressure ratio the blower will still be picking up efficiency throughout the rest of the rev range. The only problem here is, does the rest of the engine have an adiabatic efficiency matched to the blower throughout the whole rev range. Having said that I think antonov's are aimed purely at true street stump pullers. The street/strip guys want their torque peaks as high in the rev range as possible. How many people don't get this so I try can word it in a different manner.
_________________ Mind f**k!!! it works on feeble minded ignorant sheeples... there's plenty of em on this site... some are very intelligent but by god they are so thick!!! Pakrat wrote: You can buy them seppertly
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| xcabbi |
|
||
|
I suppose 1.36:1 instead of 11:1 would work, and rather effectively as well. All we need is someone cashed up enough to try it and report on their results.
|
||
| Top | |
||
| badcooky |
|
||
|
any more news on these Antonov thingy's.
_________________ BA XL ute. |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests |
