OT: electric supercharging

#31

"VanguardLH" <V (AT) nguard (DOT) LH> wrote

Quote:

JD wrote:

"VanguardLH" <V (AT) nguard (DOT) LH> wrote in message
news:h9k3or$5j2$1 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net...
JD wrote:

There are electrical losses no matter how you size it up and the
reason they don't generally build electric superchargers is for that
very reason. Power is not free; to make it, requires gas.

I doubt the consumers looking at getting turbos do so for fuel
efficiency. The same logic applies to any supercharger whether
electrical or mechanical.

Then why use electrical ones when direct-drive ones are proven technology
and will be more efficient and effective?

I think the gimmick is to have more horsepower at the low RPM end of the
range instead of linearly (or even non-linearly) increasing along with
RPM. You start with more HP at the start of the curve instead of having
to building it up.

I've since talked with a buddy that is far more into cars than I am. He
goes to all the car shows, even the buff shows, and custom shows. His
son is going through tech school to be a car mechanic and he has lots of
contacts that have customized their cars (like father, like son). From
their experience with other jobbers, pre-boost units that just deliver 1
or 2 PSI to help at low RPM are often used by trucks that need low-speed
horsepower for towing. Because they are looking at getting horsepower
up immediately at the bottom end of the RPM range, superchargers don't
work for them. That's why I think the VTES is going to convince buyers
that often look at horsepower and off-the-mark takeoffs without having
to first rev their engines while holding down on the brakes.

A high-efficiency electric motor is still in the 90-95% range. The 5-10%
represents losses. Electric motors get considerably heavie as they
generate
more power because of how they work; all electric motors work on the same
basic principles.

Not if you're talking about electric motors that only have to provide a
peak load and don't run constantly at that load. Consider a 2-watt
resistor. Will it blow because you momentarily make it dissipate 4W?
Nope, but it better be a short interval.

A two-watt resistor is resistive. A motor is inductive. Because it is
inductive, it doesn't matter how much power you try to deliver to the motor;
it won't get there without heavy enough cabling, and it won't generator the
power without a stator of sufficient size, and windings of sufficient gauge
because wire becomes resistive when you put enough current through it. Its
basic physics; it how electric motors work.

Quote:

You still need a huge motor with huge starting currents, which means huge
cables and a massive alternator to be effective in even the very small
window you are talking about.

For a constant or sustained HP rating, yes. Doesn't appear to be the
situation here. I think at this point that we can only agree to
disagree. It will interesting to see how fruitful is the HyBoost
project and what car mfrs pickup on the VTES supercharger to include it
as an add-on option to their turbo package.

No. Even for the short intervals you are talking about.

Quote:

Actually, many are going much higher. An STi, stock, deleivers 14.2 PSI.
With some tuning, many people are running 21 to 25 PSI and even higher
with
meth injection.

I don't think the VTES is even targeting that after-market. It looks
like they want to provide a car mfr production solution for typical
passenger cars but let them go to smaller displacement engines to
improve (reduce) emissions.

Except it won't and there are other options that are cheaper, lighter, and
more flexible.

Quote:

Going from 14.7 PSI to 18.7 PSI absolute is the 4 PSI differential
(guage). How much more air goes into the same 1.2 liter space (73
cubic inches) for a 29% increase in pressure?

A lot. Air compresses.

I used Boyle's law to determine how much ambient air would have to be
supplied to compress to 4 PSI and came up with the 74 cu. in
displacement in the engine would need 93 cu. in. That's for an ideal
gas with no temperature change due to pressure change. Maybe it would
be 100 cu. in. in reality for this pre-boot and turbo setup. The intake
volume went up 29%, the same as the pressure change, according to
Boyle's law (as I understood when I read it when replying here). I
didn't see a 29% (34% for the 5 PSI the article mentioned) as being "a
lot" but I guess you do.

I do. Because air compresses and you need a near instantaneous increase in
pressure (which this thing claims to do by running up to 70K RMP in 0.3 sec)
to get the air into the engine in a short time, it is still a massive amount
of energy in comparison to what a 1.0 L engine could deliver in its
electrical system.

I would imagine that 100 HP would be considered a pretty high output for a
small engine like that. 25KW is a little over 33 HP; approx 1/3 of the
engine's total power out, ignoring losses and ignoring the added weight,
would be required to spool the thing up.

Quote:

I don't buy it. I know electric motors and none that I know of would be
capable of doing what they claim on the power that they claim.

Well, since 1-2 PSI pre-boost superchargers have apparently existed
previously for use with low-RPM power improvement for truck towing, it
seems they're just trying to incrementally up the pressure. With a
smaller engine in the same car, they probably may have the extra room
for the pre-boost supercharger and its electric motor (or it might get
so tight that they'll have to remove the front grill and fenders to get
at anything).

In one of the other articles I mentioned in my other post, the
VTES motor draws 220A steady state and 350A during acceleration so,
yes, the electrical system will have to be beefed up.

Beefed up? You would need a whole new generator system and a cable
capable
of delivering 350A, with a safety margin, would be huge unless you want
to
see the car burst into flames.

I'd suspect they wouldn't be using round stranded cables anymore but
instead bus bars. Or they could go with 0000 guage (0.46" diameter)
solid wire (not stranded) which means it would have to be pre-moulded to
the car and model since you couldn't bend it or do so as well to route
it through the confined constrains of a packed engine compartment.

Seems to me that a conventional supercharger would be cost-effective and
have way more benefits than this gizmo.

That's why I mentioned the really high cost of adding a Whipple
supercharger, like six grand. The VTES would probably be offered as an
option to their turbo package (i.e., the consumer would first have to
choose to pay more to get the turbo and then decide if they also want
the VTES). It's hard to say what the production cost would be to add
the VTES supercharger to a turbocharged model (and then how much markup
the car mfr will charge for the luxury package). I don't want to even
hazard a guess as how much less the VTES option would be (in addition to
the turbo option) versus a Whipple supercharger alone option (which
appears very, very pricey).

I would expect with the required additions to the electrical system, the
required safety additions for high currents, the additional batteries since
car batteries could never discharge at that speed and would not have the
capacity required, probably about the same

Quote:

It will be interesting to watch this project to see if it actually
provides a usable and far cheaper solution than the others presented
here. I remember the naysayers that claimed you couldn't achieve zero
resistance at room temperature but now we're experimenting with carbon
nanotubes. I'm hoping you'll be surprised. Alas, it's doubtful that
any of my future passenger work-a-day cars will have this stuff. I'm
more into practical cars these days than ego-puffing monster fun cars
(and which got me lots of tickets).

I highly doubt it. There have been lots of scams on the internet about
electric forced induction, brown's gas makers that allow you to run your car
on water; you name it. This looks like just another in a long list.

#32

"bugalugs" <bugalugs (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

JD wrote:

"YKhan" <yjkhan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:e67761a5-8b0f-4ee5-b0ec-e4faf13d62b3 (AT) v2g2000vbb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:04 pm, cl... (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca wrote:
And a 1 liter vehicle is going to have a battery capable of
repeatedly supplying close to a thousand amps of power? Or a charging
system capable of replentishing said battery?

Well, obviously a 1L engine would then need a full-sized lead-acid
battery, just like you'd find on any larger engine. That would be the
only concession to the electric supercharging. And of course, the
supercharger doesn't even need to kick in if all you're doing is
cruising along at low speeds, or you don't need to get away too
quickly from the stoplight. The ECU can probably determine when to
turn on the supercharger, depending on throttle position and RPM and
other factors. Or at least the ECU can probably supply a separate
computer over the CANBUS with all of this information so it can make
the determination.

Yousuf Khan

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.

Why not a little turbo for low RPM and a bigger one for the higher stuff.

What a great idea!

Quote:

Hang on.........that's what I've got !!

Figured somebody probably would.

Quote:

Seriously, and without going into the numbers, when you look at when this
device might be used, I would think that you're only going to get about
half-a-car-length advantage over the guy next to you when you get to the
next set of lights.

Assuming it worked; which it probably wouldn't.

Quote:

I like the idea but the practicality/benefits don't add up. Much like
designing a chocolate teapot.

There is a cost to everything; power is never free.

#33

"bugalugs" <bugalugs (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote

Quote:

JD wrote:

"YKhan" <yjkhan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:e67761a5-8b0f-4ee5-b0ec-e4faf13d62b3 (AT) v2g2000vbb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:04 pm, cl... (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca wrote:
And a 1 liter vehicle is going to have a battery capable of
repeatedly supplying close to a thousand amps of power? Or a charging
system capable of replentishing said battery?

Well, obviously a 1L engine would then need a full-sized lead-acid
battery, just like you'd find on any larger engine. That would be the
only concession to the electric supercharging. And of course, the
supercharger doesn't even need to kick in if all you're doing is
cruising along at low speeds, or you don't need to get away too
quickly from the stoplight. The ECU can probably determine when to
turn on the supercharger, depending on throttle position and RPM and
other factors. Or at least the ECU can probably supply a separate
computer over the CANBUS with all of this information so it can make
the determination.

Yousuf Khan

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.

Why not a little turbo for low RPM and a bigger one for the higher stuff.

Hang on.........that's what I've got !!

What do you drive, a JDM TT Legacy by any chance?

Martin
--
martin<dot here>whybrow<at here>ntlworld<dot here>com

Quote:

Seriously, and without going into the numbers, when you look at when this
device might be used, I would think that you're only going to get about
half-a-car-length advantage over the guy next to you when you get to the
next set of lights.

I like the idea but the practicality/benefits don't add up. Much like
designing a chocolate teapot.

#34

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:54:27 GMT, "JD" <me (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

Quote:

"bugalugs" <bugalugs (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:h9mdpi$ou3$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org...
JD wrote:

"YKhan" <yjkhan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:e67761a5-8b0f-4ee5-b0ec-e4faf13d62b3 (AT) v2g2000vbb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:04 pm, cl... (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca wrote:
And a 1 liter vehicle is going to have a battery capable of
repeatedly supplying close to a thousand amps of power? Or a charging
system capable of replentishing said battery?

Well, obviously a 1L engine would then need a full-sized lead-acid
battery, just like you'd find on any larger engine. That would be the
only concession to the electric supercharging. And of course, the
supercharger doesn't even need to kick in if all you're doing is
cruising along at low speeds, or you don't need to get away too
quickly from the stoplight. The ECU can probably determine when to
turn on the supercharger, depending on throttle position and RPM and
other factors. Or at least the ECU can probably supply a separate
computer over the CANBUS with all of this information so it can make
the determination.

Yousuf Khan

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.

Why not a little turbo for low RPM and a bigger one for the higher stuff.

What a great idea!

Hang on.........that's what I've got !!

Figured somebody probably would.

Seriously, and without going into the numbers, when you look at when this
device might be used, I would think that you're only going to get about
half-a-car-length advantage over the guy next to you when you get to the
next set of lights.

Assuming it worked; which it probably wouldn't.

I like the idea but the practicality/benefits don't add up. Much like
designing a chocolate teapot.

There is a cost to everything; power is never free.
Better to just couple the big series wound motor directly to the

driveshaft and use the INSTANTANEOUS torque of the series motor to
provide the extra accelleration torque.

#35

<clare (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca> wrote

Quote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:54:27 GMT, "JD" <me (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

"bugalugs" <bugalugs (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:h9mdpi$ou3$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org...
JD wrote:

"YKhan" <yjkhan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:e67761a5-8b0f-4ee5-b0ec-e4faf13d62b3 (AT) v2g2000vbb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:04 pm, cl... (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca wrote:
And a 1 liter vehicle is going to have a battery capable of
repeatedly supplying close to a thousand amps of power? Or a charging
system capable of replentishing said battery?

Well, obviously a 1L engine would then need a full-sized lead-acid
battery, just like you'd find on any larger engine. That would be the
only concession to the electric supercharging. And of course, the
supercharger doesn't even need to kick in if all you're doing is
cruising along at low speeds, or you don't need to get away too
quickly from the stoplight. The ECU can probably determine when to
turn on the supercharger, depending on throttle position and RPM and
other factors. Or at least the ECU can probably supply a separate
computer over the CANBUS with all of this information so it can make
the determination.

Yousuf Khan

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.

Why not a little turbo for low RPM and a bigger one for the higher
stuff.

What a great idea!

Hang on.........that's what I've got !!

Figured somebody probably would.

Seriously, and without going into the numbers, when you look at when
this
device might be used, I would think that you're only going to get about
half-a-car-length advantage over the guy next to you when you get to the
next set of lights.

Assuming it worked; which it probably wouldn't.

I like the idea but the practicality/benefits don't add up. Much like
designing a chocolate teapot.

There is a cost to everything; power is never free.
Better to just couple the big series wound motor directly to the
driveshaft and use the INSTANTANEOUS torque of the series motor to
provide the extra accelleration torque.

I agree. But wouldn't we call that mechanical supercharging?

#36

Martin Whybrow wrote:

Quote:

"bugalugs" <bugalugs (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:h9mdpi$ou3$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org...
JD wrote:
"YKhan" <yjkhan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:e67761a5-8b0f-4ee5-b0ec-e4faf13d62b3 (AT) v2g2000vbb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Sep 25, 11:04 pm, cl... (AT) snyder (DOT) on.ca wrote:
And a 1 liter vehicle is going to have a battery capable of
repeatedly supplying close to a thousand amps of power? Or a charging
system capable of replentishing said battery?
Well, obviously a 1L engine would then need a full-sized lead-acid
battery, just like you'd find on any larger engine. That would be the
only concession to the electric supercharging. And of course, the
supercharger doesn't even need to kick in if all you're doing is
cruising along at low speeds, or you don't need to get away too
quickly from the stoplight. The ECU can probably determine when to
turn on the supercharger, depending on throttle position and RPM and
other factors. Or at least the ECU can probably supply a separate
computer over the CANBUS with all of this information so it can make
the determination.

Yousuf Khan

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.
Why not a little turbo for low RPM and a bigger one for the higher stuff.

Hang on.........that's what I've got !!

What do you drive, a JDM TT Legacy by any chance?
Martin

2002 GT Bilstein twin turbo Legacy which while exported and
new-on-the-road in NZ would be very close to the JDM.

#37

On Sep 26, 7:47*pm, "JD" <m... (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

Quote:

Why not just use a smaller turbo? *It would have the same effect.

Well, that's already being done, and it doesn't result in any fuel
savings, in fact it likely has higher fuel consumption. I think that
this electric supercharger is for fuel economy rather than all-out
performance. A larger turbo charger on a small engine will not even
come on till very high in the RPM range. The larger turbo will result
in less intake obstruction when the turbo is not running. The
supercharger will only get turned on in very special circumstances. It
seems the whole idea of the engine is to not Xcharge it at all, or
wait till the last moment to bring on one of the chargers. While it's
not being Xcharged, it is saving fuel.

Yousuf Khan

#38

On Sep 28, 12:03*am, YKhan <yjk... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 26, 7:47*pm, "JD" <m... (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

Why not just use a smaller turbo? *It would have the same effect.

Well, that's already being done, and it doesn't result in any fuel
savings, in fact it likely has higher fuel consumption. I think that
this electric supercharger is for fuel economy rather than all-out
performance. A larger turbo charger on a small engine will not even
come on till very high in the RPM range. The larger turbo will result
in less intake obstruction when the turbo is not running. The
supercharger will only get turned on in very special circumstances. It
seems the whole idea of the engine is to not Xcharge it at all, or
wait till the last moment to bring on one of the chargers. While it's
not being Xcharged, it is saving fuel.

*Yousuf Khan

to me, that just seems backwards. A turbo is an 'energy recovery'
device (granted, with limitations) but a supercharger seems to require
'primary use' energy in either fuel for direct-drive, or fuel for
battery/cap charging w'ever. And since inertia is the big requirement
for energy, slow acceleration IS a fuel saving aspect. Quick
acceleration is what costs fuel. That is why regnrative braking will
be the primary form of any advances in fuel savings. That is why the
Prius has such great city driving mpg numbers. It can throw braking
energy into the battery pack.(some - not all). That is also why
things like hydrogen and veggie oil will only be transitive
alternatives. Any viable future car drivetrain must have a way to
perform regen-brkng . Either with compressed air, or hydraulic
accumulators or electric battery charging. (Of course a hydrogen/
electric or veggie oil /electric hybrid could do regen-brkng).

A physicist I worked with in a previous job did an experiment in his
full-size chevy truck. To cruise on the highway at 55mph only required
12 horsepower. 12hp. The reson an engine needs 150-200 hp or w'ever is
for acceleration - overcoming inertia to GET to cruising speed. That
is why the Prius doesn't really offer an advantage over other small
cars in highway mileage. No braking, no energy to recover/re-use.

If a capacitor bank could be charged with some braking energy, then
dumped into an 'assist from stop' electric motor OR ,maybe' and
electric turbocharger - you might see some fuel savings. As another
poster said, put an electric motor on the flywheel or drive shaft and
just use it for pulling away from a stop.

#39

On Sep 28, 7:32*am, 1 Lucky Texan <alcky... (AT) swbell (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 28, 12:03*am, YKhan <yjk... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Sep 26, 7:47*pm, "JD" <m... (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

Why not just use a smaller turbo? *It would have the same effect.

Well, that's already being done, and it doesn't result in any fuel
savings, in fact it likely has higher fuel consumption. I think that
this electric supercharger is for fuel economy rather than all-out
performance. A larger turbo charger on a small engine will not even
come on till very high in the RPM range. The larger turbo will result
in less intake obstruction when the turbo is not running. The
supercharger will only get turned on in very special circumstances. It
seems the whole idea of the engine is to not Xcharge it at all, or
wait till the last moment to bring on one of the chargers. While it's
not being Xcharged, it is saving fuel.

*Yousuf Khan

to me, that just seems backwards. A turbo is an 'energy recovery'
device (granted, with limitations) but a supercharger seems to require
'primary use' energy in either fuel for direct-drive, or fuel for
battery/cap charging w'ever. And since inertia is the big requirement
for energy, slow acceleration IS a fuel saving aspect. Quick
acceleration is what costs fuel. That is why regnrative braking will
be the primary form of any advances in fuel savings. That is why the
Prius has such great city driving mpg numbers. It can throw braking
energy into the battery pack.(some - not all). *That is also why
things like hydrogen and veggie oil will only be transitive
alternatives. Any viable future car drivetrain must have a way to
perform regen-brkng . Either with compressed air, or hydraulic
accumulators or electric battery charging. (Of course a hydrogen/
electric or veggie oil /electric hybrid could do regen-brkng).

A physicist I worked with in a previous job did an experiment in his
full-size chevy truck. To cruise on the highway at 55mph only required
12 horsepower. 12hp. The reson an engine needs 150-200 hp or w'ever is
for acceleration - overcoming inertia to GET to cruising speed. That
is why the Prius doesn't really offer an advantage over other small
cars in highway mileage. No braking, no energy to recover/re-use.

If a capacitor bank could be charged with some braking energy, then
dumped into an 'assist from stop' electric motor OR ,maybe' and
electric turbocharger - you might see some fuel savings. *As another
poster said, put an electric motor on the flywheel or drive shaft and
just use it for pulling away from a stop.

Yeah, here's a blurb on Ford's Hydraulic Launch Assist.
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/14/ford-f-150-to-debut-with-hydraulic-hybrid-system/

#40

1 Lucky Texan wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 28, 12:03 am, YKhan <yjk... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Sep 26, 7:47 pm, "JD" <m... (AT) home (DOT) ca> wrote:

Why not just use a smaller turbo? It would have the same effect.
Well, that's already being done, and it doesn't result in any fuel
savings, in fact it likely has higher fuel consumption. I think that
this electric supercharger is for fuel economy rather than all-out
performance. A larger turbo charger on a small engine will not even
come on till very high in the RPM range. The larger turbo will result
in less intake obstruction when the turbo is not running. The
supercharger will only get turned on in very special circumstances. It
seems the whole idea of the engine is to not Xcharge it at all, or
wait till the last moment to bring on one of the chargers. While it's
not being Xcharged, it is saving fuel.

Yousuf Khan

to me, that just seems backwards. A turbo is an 'energy recovery'
device (granted, with limitations) but a supercharger seems to require
'primary use' energy in either fuel for direct-drive, or fuel for
battery/cap charging w'ever. And since inertia is the big requirement
for energy, slow acceleration IS a fuel saving aspect. Quick
acceleration is what costs fuel. That is why regnrative braking will
be the primary form of any advances in fuel savings. That is why the
Prius has such great city driving mpg numbers. It can throw braking
energy into the battery pack.(some - not all). That is also why
things like hydrogen and veggie oil will only be transitive
alternatives. Any viable future car drivetrain must have a way to
perform regen-brkng . Either with compressed air, or hydraulic
accumulators or electric battery charging. (Of course a hydrogen/
electric or veggie oil /electric hybrid could do regen-brkng).

A physicist I worked with in a previous job did an experiment in his
full-size chevy truck. To cruise on the highway at 55mph only required
12 horsepower. 12hp. The reson an engine needs 150-200 hp or w'ever is
for acceleration - overcoming inertia to GET to cruising speed. That
is why the Prius doesn't really offer an advantage over other small
cars in highway mileage. No braking, no energy to recover/re-use.

If a capacitor bank could be charged with some braking energy, then
dumped into an 'assist from stop' electric motor OR ,maybe' and
electric turbocharger - you might see some fuel savings. As another
poster said, put an electric motor on the flywheel or drive shaft and
just use it for pulling away from a stop.

Another alternative would be to look at the commercial potential of the
KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) being used on some Formula 1 cars.