Sounds good to me... in theory. When do you want my car to start mocking it up?

 

Richard
Does your sytem create a bottle neck in the intake air? Meaning does it inhibit air flow from the filter to the throttle body at cruise?

 

Keller, that's a negative, the blower is basicly floating in a partial vacuume. If you were to remove the belt it would turn with the airflow. But when the belt is on it is going faster then it were not. Otherwise it would have been draging the engine.

It self regulates, you only open the throttle until enough mass gets in to do the job you require from the engine. If say the supercharger is drawing in more then needed you would instinctivly lift on the gas just as you would if it were unblown. The air thins out and therefore can't be compressed.

This allows for near "free" ride of the SC during off boost.

If you were to "stall" the SC it would choke the flow at some point, but would still run. This is the reason the FAA is willing to look at my blower over others. A positive displacment blower would stall the engine if it failed. This one would allow at least airflow for cruise power and landing. If it were to loose a belt you would fly like you did unblown. Only the slight loss for the airflow to spin the rotor.

 

Lots of good info on the RX-8 forum; it

 

No dates on installs. Actually we are in a revision of the aerodynamics right now.
While the basic configuration is done, I have not finalized the blade design. In fact that is on my desk right now, if I'm not to lazy I'll design those next week and machine them the following week.

 

Richard
When you get some tests bench data could you please post it. I realize some of this data might be too technical for some people however being an engineer for the space program more data the better.
What effect if any will this charger have on the effects of acoustics in air induction systems. I am not talking about just trying to get the intake louder. What I am referring is tuning the intake system all the way from the filter to the actual valve. Effectively using acoustics to help increase then base efficiency of the engine (Increased piston filling and atomization of fuel). I am sure Honda did there home work when it came to the NA aspect but once you go with a blower acoustic effect might not event be worth looking at.

Any idea on how the axial will work with such a dramatic increase in piston efficiencies once in v-tech.
Valve lift/duration/overlap are dramatically different between non v-tech and v-tech

Any idea on how you are going to tackle the electronics/fuel delivery.
Could give an option to purchase the supercharger with out electronics that way owners that currently have other full systems in place would be more likely to install your system if it proves to produce more power safely. From your posts on the RX-8 forum it looks like this will be the case.

Please do not take the small volume of posts as a diminished interest of your product.
Once there are results posts I am positive that there will be a flood of new posts expressing interest in acquiring your axial supercharger.

Best of Luck

 

I doubt it will be ready, but if it is late this fall you can expect a purchase from me! no matter the cost

 

this looks interesting.....

 

Hello Richard
I am very impressed with your blower system and innovative thought process. I am also a mechanical engineer but alas...I design packaging machinery...and it's not exactly "rocket science" as they say. But I do believe I have discovered another addition and benefit to your design over other systems.
Since in this axial flow design the travel distance from air inlet to exit is shorter (also no intercooler and piping) and the restriction is less that typical compressors (yes?), then could you not "engage" the supercharger whenever it is needed or desired? By clutch or other means? What comes to mind is the "Mad Max Interceptor" which had an engageable blower (though non-functional). I am thinking you could turn this on and off manually and if turned off, and the flow restriction of the "stopped" compressor would not be so bad as to excessively hamper normal "non-compressed" inflow of air. The benefit would be not having to have the thing on all the time using up power, sometime un-neccessarily. And good (or fair) mileage being kept, while having that boost of extra "ummph" when desired at the flick of a switch?
Perhaps even the clutch could be made to slip in some way such that variable compressor rpms could be obtained at various engine rpms? For optimal tuning?

I'm not sure if my ideas are correct but you did inspire me to ponder your system and it's benefits. Let me know what you think.

Thanks

 

Depp, It is a very complex effect to talk about in a forum like this. There is to much to talk about and one needs interaction. But having said that I think it is obvious that you have two waves that effect the flow. Your talking about acoustic waves and then there is the particle wave. The particle wave goes only in one direction but the acoustic wave goes back and forth. The idea is to get the wave going in the right direction at a given RPM to induce filling.

This holds true for the exhaust also. The saving grace is that pressurized air has less critical influence from the natural waves. This is not to say that the air really knows the pressure. It thinks in absolute, we tend to think in standard sea level conditions. The difference is that of an aircraft gauge reading in absolute pressure saying that you have 29.92 in hq at sea level and your car gauge saying it is zero.

Your car gauge will read say 14 in hq of vacuum. while the aircraft gauge will read 16 in hq of pressure. So who told the engine the elevation. It night think you just drove below sea level or up to a ski resort. It doesn't know where it started. What I'm saying is that what worked before it will still work. Don't get me wrong if you have grossly higher or lower pressure there can be improvements madeby adjusting the tune for your desired results.

I have no fear of the honda vtec system. If it works now it will work later. I don't plan on designing systems for race cars with over 15 psi boost. My product is for practical usage on the street and that means not much over 8 psi. Now if you think that is because we can't get more you are wrong. There is no limit on axial flow compression. The GE 101 in the B-1 bomber has an axialflow compressor that has 390 psi. If you there is a limit on flow, how many thousands of CFM go through a 747 engine? Hundreds of thousands.

I am working towards practical supercharging, not a dyno queen. I've been there, I had my first street supercharged car in 1962. I'm old, I should be in a museum myself. You should take advantage of what I have learned the hard way. You guys have this wonderful thing called the internet so you all tarde info. I never had anything but maybe a phone call and that may have been with a couple of people. Thankfully they were some of the smartest engine people who ever walked the earth. I'm greatfull to them. As for everyone else the best you can do is read real books and not magazines. They can be helpful but you can't be sure they tell the truth.
If you can find one get a copy of "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" by Recardo. He wrote the book literally and figurately. Then get a book that is still in print called"Intake and Exhaust Systems" by Smith.

Once you have read those two no one will be able to fool you with snake oil.
True Ricardo's work was WWll and thereafter. But strange as it is his work is what everyone has to thank for where we are today. He had an unlimited budget from the English gov because of the war but he was a genius.
Fayette Taylor wrote the current university level text but he even dedicates his work to Ricardo. I prefer the Ricardo work as I'm a little sceptical of some stuff that came from Taylor. I once tried to speak with him about it and was given his number by Prinstin University. As luck would have it he was busy when I called, celebrating his 100th birthday. That was 1995 so I guess we shall never debate it.

Damn I wish I could type with more then one finger.