Date:         Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:32:28 -0400
Reply-To:     gmbulley <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         gmbulley <gmbulley@BULLEY-HEWLETT.COM>
Subject:      Re: turbocharger versus Kompressor (supercharger)
Comments: To: 'Björn Ratjen' <bratjen@DIRECT.CA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Björn-

Although I don't recall the exact reason, I recall there is a good reason that diesels use turbos rather than superchargers. I have a bunch of old books on diesel motors, and all their applications, (various publication dates from 1930-1965), and read about it in one of these. Unfortunately, they are all packed right now. 
I would suggest a trip to your local library, or university library. 
Suzanne P. Bulley
Bulley-Hewlett & Associates
Cary, NC USA
www.bulley-hewlett.com 
888.468.4880 tollfree

-----Original Message-----
From:   Björn Ratjen [SMTP:bratjen@DIRECT.CA]
Sent:   Thursday, September 23, 1999 2:53 PM
To:     vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject:        turbocharger versus Kompressor (supercharger)

Hello Volks,

Joel Walker and I have been tossing around the idea of using a Kompressor
(supercharger) instead of a turbo for a Diesel engine. This basically would
mean that a belt driven fan pushes cold air towards the combustion process
instead of using the preheated one from an exhaust driven turbocharger.  


Here is a new question for connaisseurs:
Who knows details of a possible setup for this and the pros and cons?

The Kompressor (supercharger) setup may use a bit more energy, however that
should not matter that much. What about the amount of air pressure though
and how to regulate it?




Björn Ratjen
Mill Bay, B.C.

1987 Vanagon est alia (self camperized)
1978 VW Bulli (self camperized)
1995 Passat TD Wagon (hers)
1970 VW Beetle (son's)