Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Charles, post: 412858, member: 103"] An excerpt from my last post where I explicitly addressed everything now suggested in the OP's last post in a single paragraph, and in greater breadth, seeing as he is ignoring the fact that even a "perfectly" matched turbo will only be "perfectly" matched at ONE throttle/rpm/load point... and NOWHERE else, as the blower is mechanically tied to engine rpm whereas the turbo is not, and will vary with changes in throttle, rpm and load. What I addressed already, from my previous post before the OP's latest: So we're placing a mechanically driven unit in the scheme, with increased parasitic losses compared to a turbine-driven stage.... and then we hope to get some of that back by shifting the load back over to a turbine driven stage via a second stage turbocharger that ends up running as a single charger, making 99% of the pressure ratio on it's own anyway, and hopefully not sucking a vacuum through a two rotor flame thrower first. So basically, we would consider it a success if we could just get back [i]close[/i] to the amount of loss we had before we added in a bunch more loss and heat with a blower out front and sucking drive off the crank by having the blower basically do nothing but spin and pump exactly as much volume as the turbocharger compressor is moving by itself? So why did we add the blower again? Exactly. Whereas if you would place the positive displacement unit AFTER the turbocharger, just like the ENGINE... (which is positive displacement...obviously) then the blower displacement would become your engine displacement in terms of turbocharger sizing. You could spin a much larger turbo, much sooner than if the blower weren't there, yet the blower could NEVER get in the way of the turbo, and the turbo could NEVER get in the way of the blower, as they would operate INDEPENDENTLY of one another. Focker out... [/QUOTE]