View Single Post
Old 02-28-2012, 12:58 PM   #98 (permalink)
oil pan 4
Corporate imperialist
 
oil pan 4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 11,268

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
SUV
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
SUV
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 273
Thanked 3,571 Times in 2,835 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by payne171 View Post
I would love to hear why it is more efficient to spin a supercharger with a turbine than the crankshaft, but not more efficient to turn a generator (switched reluctance, which is a key part of the process from what the article said)
The difference between a super charger and a turbocharger is the super charger is a pump bolted on to the engine being driven by shaft power.
A turbocharger is a heat engine. A brayton cycle engine.
The brayton cycle is purely driven by waste heat from the diesel cycle.
A turbodiesel is a combinded cycle heat engine, more efficient than a diesel cycle with an extra pump attached.

Later I will tell why a turbine driven alternator would suck.
__________________
1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote