power, lost or found?
#21
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I made a roughly estimated 190 whp at 4 psi. Big turbo, big wastegate.
Here's a datalog dyno run. Take it with a grain of salt. Then mentally subtract 4psi worth of power.
I have overlayed a stock dyno graph for comparison. Same car, no has trubo.
Here's a datalog dyno run. Take it with a grain of salt. Then mentally subtract 4psi worth of power.
I have overlayed a stock dyno graph for comparison. Same car, no has trubo.
#22
Elite Member
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 1,647
Total Cats: 524
He's saying he wants to see a dynograph of someones car where target boost was zero for the whole rev range. No one has a wastegate large enough to do that, but we know from other dyno's that even when a turbo motor hasnt started building boost yet it will still be making more power than its N/A brother.
#25
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 271
Total Cats: 11
The vol eff does change with the addition of something pushing it in. I'm not sure if it becomes meaningless as a measurement with turbo, but it seems to me the difference in power from atmo stock to atmo with turbo might offer a clue regarding, at least, what it was when stock.
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
#26
The vol eff does change with the addition of something pushing it in. I'm not sure if it becomes meaningless as a measurement with turbo, but it seems to me the difference in power from atmo stock to atmo with turbo might offer a clue regarding, at least, what it was when stock.
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
#28
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
The vol eff does change with the addition of something pushing it in. I'm not sure if it becomes meaningless as a measurement with turbo, but it seems to me the difference in power from atmo stock to atmo with turbo might offer a clue regarding, at least, what it was when stock.
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
I'm often challenged to explain why the power gain at a specific boost pressure is always greater than the pressure ratio. When suggesting it is in part due to taking Evol out of the equation, I sometimes get challenged that one can't do that.
Never taken the time to try proving it, but, wouldn't the two suggested measurements give us a hint?
Then, the question of how best to do the test. Part throttle offers an undue restriction, but an open wg slows the turbine. Easy enough to try both, I just haven't done it.
Useless info perhaps, except for number crunching enthusiasts.
corky
didn't some texan write a book on this?
Also couldn't you test your theory by using a car with a very large turbo that didn't have sufficient exhaust flow to make boost? Or running at lower RPM? Just pick a point where the boost threshold of the system is above your operating parameters.
for example at 2000 rpm on my old setup (VVT full retard, big-ish turbo):
#29
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 271
Total Cats: 11
Would restricting the exhaust be a fair test? Doesn't seem like it.
The writer of that book pleaded ignorance on several subjects and then proceeded to prove it.
The big turbo might prove it, but work and cost...............
Wouldn't an open wastegate (and one big enough) be about the same as the bigger turbo? Or rather, the bigger turbine.
Come on Y8s, anyone who knows what enthalpy means ought to know everything about something as simple as Evol.
corky
The writer of that book pleaded ignorance on several subjects and then proceeded to prove it.
The big turbo might prove it, but work and cost...............
Wouldn't an open wastegate (and one big enough) be about the same as the bigger turbo? Or rather, the bigger turbine.
Come on Y8s, anyone who knows what enthalpy means ought to know everything about something as simple as Evol.
corky
#30
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
I would think an open wastegate would kill turbine efficiency.
Volumetric efficiency is important here though. If you have more air going in than would otherwise be pulled in by the piston suck, then VE goes up. That's why we like turbos in the first place. The engine isn't a closed system though, so you'll also have to look at flow. Take a variable valve timing motor. It can change power output without changing pressure, can't it? Same with bigger valves. same with replacing the air with liquid oxygen. pressure can still be at or below 1.0 ATM and power output will change.
Volumetric efficiency is important here though. If you have more air going in than would otherwise be pulled in by the piston suck, then VE goes up. That's why we like turbos in the first place. The engine isn't a closed system though, so you'll also have to look at flow. Take a variable valve timing motor. It can change power output without changing pressure, can't it? Same with bigger valves. same with replacing the air with liquid oxygen. pressure can still be at or below 1.0 ATM and power output will change.
#31
Power would be lost in such condition. If the motor makes 100hp at redline before turbo at 100kpa it would make less at 100kpa with the turbo since the turbo is blocking the exhaust yet the intake pressure remains the same.
Essentially it would be a leaf blower with an exhaust restrictor and we know that leaf blowers dont work.
If you're going to bring up the show that made the car with the 5 leaf blowers, dont forget they also tuned the car to get the 30 hp.
Essentially it would be a leaf blower with an exhaust restrictor and we know that leaf blowers dont work.
If you're going to bring up the show that made the car with the 5 leaf blowers, dont forget they also tuned the car to get the 30 hp.
#32
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 271
Total Cats: 11
In my observation, power is not lost with both measurements at 100kpa.
That would agreeably defy reason until we know enough about it. Then "reason" might be more reasonable.
The numbers come out about right if the evol of the stock motor is ignored. Is that reasonable?
corky
That would agreeably defy reason until we know enough about it. Then "reason" might be more reasonable.
The numbers come out about right if the evol of the stock motor is ignored. Is that reasonable?
corky
#34
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Power would be lost in such condition. If the motor makes 100hp at redline before turbo at 100kpa it would make less at 100kpa with the turbo since the turbo is blocking the exhaust yet the intake pressure remains the same.
Essentially it would be a leaf blower with an exhaust restrictor and we know that leaf blowers dont work.
If you're going to bring up the show that made the car with the 5 leaf blowers, dont forget they also tuned the car to get the 30 hp.
Essentially it would be a leaf blower with an exhaust restrictor and we know that leaf blowers dont work.
If you're going to bring up the show that made the car with the 5 leaf blowers, dont forget they also tuned the car to get the 30 hp.