He means it's possible to split the exhaust flow of a V8 to drive sixteen turbo chargers, and that there would be no point. Kind of like trying to run a second turbo off the gass pressure from a wastegate...
He means it's possible to split the exhaust flow of a V8 to drive sixteen turbo chargers, and that there would be no point. Kind of like trying to run a second turbo off the gass pressure from a wastegate...
Also, trygin to run a single cylinder engine turbo is pretty difficult.
HUGE lag as the spooling up is only being driven by one exhaust gas pulse and consumed in the inlet pulse.
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
Quite possibly the most random technical question I have ever come across...
For what purpose? I only ask as I see no advantage in this...
I don't know were 16 turbos come from but all I wanted to know is can you run a second turbo off the wastegate from the first one. Simple answer Yes or no. And do mind explaining it to me because the info I find is either evading the question or going around it.
No one's evaded the question, we've just told you that while you could do what you're asking -given enough money- it would have no beneficial effect.
That is what I am saying, are you say adding a wastegate and turbo to the first wastegate dump exhaste pipes is not beneficial or what?
What I want to do is have a V8 and tri-turbo setup, iwith two small Turbos on the main exhaste pipes and a midium or large turbo connected to the small turbos wastegate dump exhaste pipe. Good or not?
why the desire for a tri-turbo ?
Twin turbos are not about ADDING the power, but are about coming up with a method to have good boost across a wide range without the problems of spooling time. So a lighter, smaller one for the initial boost and the normal bigger one for the rest.
THere's no need for a third really and it just gets too complex. Triple pressure recovery systems are best left to steam engines
Also as with all cases, a plumbing nightmare V8 engines lead to having 2 or 4 turbos, split to each bank. Looking to take exhaust pressure up to a central single turbo introduces too many problems and issues.;
"A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'
What you're describing is a twin-sequential setup. What he's describing is a twin independent setup and a third, high pressure setup taking over boost from those two at high revs... right?
I can see where that would seem... interesting? But I agree with Matra, it's really not worth the extra weight and complexity.
So the answer is still "not."
It would seem that an idea stolen from the reciprocating steam locomotive might be applicable. The idea is the compound engine.
In the compound engine high pressure steam first enters a smaller cylinder and does work to move the train forward. The exhaust steam from the smaller cylinder then enters a larger cylinder, at a lower pressure, and is allowed to further expand and do more work to move the train forward.
In this case, partially expanded exhaust from the first turbocharger would be directed into a larger turbine of a second turbocharger where it can further expand and give up an additional amount of the exhaust energy.
This is not the same situation as described by the original poster where it was only the exhaust from the bypass which was to be directed to a second turbocharger. That scenario appears to be useless to me because the point of the bypass is to limit boost. Why run a second turbocharger during a period when you are attempting to limit boost?
I'm not quite sure how it would work out best for the flow of the intake air if the intake air were to also flow through both turbochargers. The compressor portion of the second turbocharger should be smaller than than that of the first so as to operate at a higher pressure and further compress intake air which has already been compressed once. Does one put the smaller compressor on the smaller, primary turbine and the larger compressor on the secondary, larger turbine? In this case the air flows from the secondary turbocharger, with the larger turbine first and then into the turbocharger with the smaller turbine which presumably has less turbo lag.
The other way is to put a smaller compressor on the larger turbine and have the intake air flow through the primary turbocharger first and then into the secondary turbocharger.
Does one put an intercooler between the two turbochargers or after the second turbocharger or in both places?
It seems to me that the whole idea is overly complicated and likely has little practical benefit except for some special use where extracting the maximum amount of energy from the exhaust becomes a significant concern. Don't ask me what that special use might be. I don't know.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)