Turbo vs Super. was variable comp...variable disp....

[gt bradley]

Jim Davies wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, Clare Snyder wrote:
>
> >
> > I BELIEVE HE WAS REFERRING TO THE CENTRIFUGAL SUPERCHARGER, in
>
> > shaft driven instead of exhaust turbine driven. Works good for low boost
> > (altitude compensation, for example).  It does not provide a "positive
> > boost" like a positive displacement unit.
>
> FWIW, many of these "low boost" systems put out 18 to 50 PSI and were
> capable of more with wide-open throttle.
>
> Jim Davies

  One idea I liked, (and is commercially available as an automotive after
market modification),  is to have a turbocharger with a stator? (spinning part
of an electric motor) built into the turbine.  For acceleration from low
rpm's, current is applied and the unit effectively becomes a centrifugal
supercharger, once the engine speed builds, the exhaust takes over and it
functions like a turbo (current no longer applied, and the stator spins free).

Since this is used only for the initial spin-up a much smaller motor is used
than would be required for a full electric supercharger (already dismissed by
this thread), and with a low duty-cycle, many of the mechanical/electrical
problems become solvable.

The initial application is for Bus/Trucks, but auto-enthusists are fitting it
to street cars.  I'm not sure if any work has be done on a control system (for
the car application) or if it is just a switch for use when waiting for the
street light to turn green.

Flame on...