Twin Centrifugals VS Single
Walter Sherwin
wsherwin at home.com
Fri Apr 13 02:25:24 GMT 2001
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C0C39F.75C90AA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Forwarded from another list.....
>Here's something I've been tossing around in my mind, for street toy =
use, and I'd love to hear more from the group........
>Let's say you have a large displacement stroker motor, and you desire =
to artificially stuff it's hunger with centrifugal supercharging (non =
manufacturer specific at this >point). The typical approach today would =
be to seek out a largish single centrifugal unit that would do the dirty =
job, and pulley it to gain the max desired air flow/boost at >a specific =
engine speed. This would net you a large diameter centrifugal, =
operating at a somewhat less than maximum impeller speed, hung from one =
side of your >engine. This would work, and you would prolly have a cog =
belt drive arrangement as a result, if you wanted serious manifold =
pressure. Of course this will generate a new >force/belt vector load at =
the nose of the crank, that may or may not affect your front bearings. =
One might even direct the output of this large compressor to a single =
>inter/aftercooler device for post cooling.
>Let's consider a different approach......
>What about mounting two smaller centrifugals, low on the motor, perhaps =
directly opposed to the crank centerline so as to cancel the belt load =
vectors. Further imagine >the discharge(s) from these compressors being =
directed thru two parallel inter/aftercooler exchangers (ala: Porsche =
twin turbo setups). The twin intercoolers might be a >bit easier to =
position within a street vehicle. At an esoteric design level, twins =
could allow a person to fabricate an engine bay setup that has a =
symmetric and artful >appearance.
>Cost aside, does anyone see any further advantages/disadvantages to =
running two slightly smaller compressors in place of one larger unit? =
Obviously, the cost will be >higher with twins. I'm more wondering =
about airflow versus crank speed, throttle response, boost response =
profile, parasitic drain at a given combined flow/pressure, >etc. =20
>Thoughts would be appreciated;
>Walt.
------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C0C39F.75C90AA0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Forwarded from another list.....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Here's something I've been tossing around in my =
mind, for=20
street toy use, and I'd love to hear more from the =
group........</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Let's say you have a large displacement stroker =
motor, and=20
you desire to artificially stuff it's hunger with centrifugal =
supercharging (non=20
manufacturer specific at this >point). The typical approach =
today would=20
be to seek out a largish single centrifugal unit that would do the dirty =
job,=20
and pulley it to gain the max desired air flow/boost at >a =
specific=20
engine speed. This would net you a large diameter =
centrifugal,=20
operating at a somewhat less than maximum impeller speed, hung from one =
side of=20
your >engine. </FONT><FONT size=3D2>This would work, and =
you would=20
prolly have a cog belt drive arrangement as a result, if you wanted =
serious=20
manifold pressure. Of course this will generate a new =
>force/belt=20
vector load at the nose of the crank, that may or may not affect your =
front=20
bearings. One might even direct the output of this large =
compressor to a=20
single >inter/aftercooler device for post cooling.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Let's consider a different =
approach......</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>What about mounting two smaller centrifugals, =
low on the=20
motor, perhaps directly opposed to the crank centerline so as to cancel =
the belt=20
load vectors. Further imagine >the discharge(s) from these =
compressors=20
being directed thru two parallel inter/aftercooler exchangers (ala: =
Porsche twin=20
turbo setups). The twin intercoolers might be a >bit easier to =
position=20
within a street vehicle. At an esoteric design level, twins could =
allow a=20
person to fabricate an engine bay setup that has a symmetric and =
artful=20
>appearance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Cost aside, does anyone see any further=20
advantages/disadvantages to running two slightly smaller =
compressors in=20
place of one larger unit? Obviously, the cost will be >higher =
with=20
twins. I'm more wondering about airflow versus crank speed, =
throttle=20
response, boost response profile, parasitic drain at a given combined=20
flow/pressure, >etc. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Thoughts would be appreciated;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>>Walt.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C0C39F.75C90AA0--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org
More information about the Diy_efi
mailing list