|
Half the displacement (4 cycle inducts only half the displacement per revolution), minus the manifold vacuum percentage of atmospheric pressure, times the RPM.
.5DXvac/ATPXRPM=volume of air flow.
750 CC (per revolution inducted) at 550 RPM at 22 inches of manifold vacuum which leaves 8 inches available (assumption). That is assuming atmospheric pressure is 28 inches, slightly low but easy to calculate.
Manifold vacuum at 22 inches would leave 8 inches of available atmospheric pressure for induction or about 25%, of the volume if it was unrestricted.
46 cubic inches---X---550 RPM---X25% of atmospheric pressure volume of air.
That works out to 6325 cubic inches of air at idle or 3.66 cubic feet of air.
Christ, I am not engineer by any stretch of the imagination, but if the power is so low then conversely it would take very little power to boost the engine to 1 atmosphere pressure. I think the quote was over 200 Amps for the power necessary to provide boost. It would seem to me that you should be able to get much more than .0005 out of the same system.
Basically the basis of my thought was the fact that most engines operate at a certain average of manifold vacuum.
I was not talking about an propeller of any type. I was talking about a positive displacement pump that would have to rotate if any air passed through it.
It could not be reciprocating and would by design only restrict the air available to the engine in the same way a throttle plate does.
That is a loss that already exists.
Exhaust heat already exists.
Both do represent energy losses, but in the same way that aero drag on your vehicle represents an existing energy loss.
Please do not consider this as any rebuttal to any of you who are interested in this thread and have taken there precious time to post a response.
My line of thinking (which could certainly be miles off, merely conceptual) is if you could extract the energy lost due to throttle plate restrictions which are always there, then you could use that recaptured energy to provide boost when necessary. As long as the boost was very limited it would be an energy neutral condition.
Now it is certain that you could never extract the same energy you would need to apply to reverse the situation and provide boost to the engine, but that expenditure would only be a very small amount of the total running time of the same engine.
A decent analogy would be the way we tested tire-wheel combinations on the car when we had a vibration problem that did not respond to balancing.
We took one of the small angle grinders, backed the brake pads off the front rotors and used the angle grinder to spin the wheel up to a high speed. The angle grinder produced very little power. You could hold the disc and pull the trigger and it would not spin over.
However that same low power source would spin a wheel-tire assembly up to close to 100 MPH. That's enough energy to rip your arm off if you grabbed that rotating tire.
My calculation looks a lot lower that Tom's. I would assume he figured the air going into the engine would be at atmospheric pressure, when the volume represented only 25% of what it would be if the throttle was wide open.
Not sure of anything, just thinking out loud, no need to slam me as a moron.
We do know how much power it takes to boost the sir into the engine. I would think you could extract about a third of that energy with a proper setup.
I'll show a picture of my small demo prototype on a variable displacement, positive displacement pump, that is what I would use in this theoretical application if you like.
Its the basis of my pending patent.
What I really like about the electric supercharger is that it does not add to the engines loads unless it is being used. Even then it is using battery energy, which could be recovered when you were in DFCO or at other times when it would not be a direct cost of operation all the time.
regards
Mech
|