Sender: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 20:37:33 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-793691@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.30; envelope-from=rickschrameck@cox.net
User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: supershargers
From: rickschrameck <rickschrameck@cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-793602@logan.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

George.
 Physics work the way you say if you do not do something to deal with the
fixed ratio.  First of all we use a gear reduction on the supercharger not
one to one as you are proposing.  Secondly, We stall the inlet of the
Supercharger therefore reducing the boost of the supercharger and also
reducing the hp load and heat build up on the engine when we require little
or no boost.  like sea level.

Please share with the group the flight numbers that came from my engine run
that was sent to you.  Compare that to the temps of a Turbocharged engine.

Turbochargers and Superchargers both have inefficiencies. I have a lot to do
with my Epic so lets just agree to disagree.

We are still friends,
Rick


on 3/14/05 4:57 PM, Marvin Kaye at marv@lancaironline.net wrote:

> Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:
> 
> Rick,
> 
> This is not a question of who sells what.
> 
> It is a question of the physics.
> 
> The fundamental problem with  superchargers   whose speed is a multiple of
> the speed of the crank shaft is - --  the speed is a fixed multiple of the
> crank shaft when it VERY VERY much needs to be a variable speed, not fixed.
> 
> That fundamental limitation is what defines the source of the inefficiencies
> with fixed ration superchargers - - belt driven,  gear driven, or otherwise.
> 
> Regards,  George
> 
> --
> For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/