Date:         Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:42:26 +1300
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Increasing horsepower
In-Reply-To:  <EFD8523F-E1E7-11D6-9170-00039398EEBC@mac.com>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>Superchargers are normally powered from the main crank (which means
>that they add more air in proportion to the engine speed.)

In fact most superchargers today are exhaust-driven, and are sloppily
called turbos. This has been a thread on the list before. Turbos ARE
superchhargers, plain and simple. They came into common use on
American aircraft in the war (B17s, B24s, LP38s) and were initially
called "turbosupercharger", later contracted to "turbocharger".

>However,
>with modern electronics, yah, I guess it is possible to add them and
>control them via electronics (and electric motors) instead. I can see
>certain advantages to that too, like no additional friction added to
>the crank...

VW had Mitsubishi working on electric turbochargers in the 80s, using
torpedo-motor technology. This came to nothing, obviously, or these
would have replaced exhaust-driven turbos (allow me a little
hypocrisy!).

Note that a turbocharger MUST have a turbine, or naturally it's not a
turbo. A turbocharger has an exhaust-driven turbine connected by a
shaft to a compressor wheel. As an electric unit would have no
turbine (replaced by a motor), it would not correctly be a
turbocharger. So what should it be properly called? Ideas?
Electrocharger? Bah, just electric supercharger.
--
Andrew Grebneff
165 Evans St, Dunedin 9001, New Zealand
<andrew.grebneff@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut