Re: Turbo Theories

[phile@stpaul.gov (Philip J Ethier)]

>   There are really talking about injecting fuel into the *exhaust* upstream
>   from the turbine, and not the intake, right?
> 
>   -glen

Looks that way to me.  Reminds me of a product put on the market some
years back.  The rational was that:

1.  Virtually any method of increasing power of an engine is based on the
principle of using more fuel.  Whether making the engine bigger, running
it faster, or supercharging, the idea is to use more fuel and air to make
more power.

2.  Supercharging is an effective way to do this.  The two methods of
supercharging both use some of the engine power which is realized by
cramming more fuel and air into the cylinders.  More total power to the
wheels would be realized if the power to run the supercharger came from
somewhere else.

A turbo-supercharger, like the one found in a Turbo Quattro, is essentially a
gas turbine driven by the exhaust of the piston engine.  These guys built a
gas-turbine-driven supercharger that did not rely on the car's main engine 
for its power.
 
The supercharger half hooked up up the intake like any other.  The exhaust
of the piston engine was vented using conventional headers and pipes.  The
gas turbine half of the blower was run off of an LP gas cylinder.

They sold these things in ads in the back of car and mechanics/science
magazines.  I have never seen one, but have always wanted to meet someone
that used one.  The would be easier to hook up than either a belt-driven
supercharger or a turbo-supercharger, since you only needed to plumb the
intake, not mess with the exhaust or the pulleys.  It might be interesting
tuning a car for fixed boost, regardless of RPM.  Lots of low-end torque and
instant throttle response.

I bet a lot of engines got blown up with these things.  It would be so
easy to just turn it up a little higher...

phil.ethier@stpaul.gov