An electric supercharger that works?
10-25-2010, 11:29 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2005 Tib
An electric supercharger that works?
http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2...;mktid=cj260233
QUOTE
Controlled Power Technologies, a British startup formed by automotive executives to focus on carbon-reduction solutions, says its electric supercharger is ready for production and the company is seeking OEM customers.
Unlike mechanical superchargers and turbochargers, CPT says in a statement, the electric supercharger features a near-instantaneous air delivery system and costs considerably less (although no price was given).
The supercharger is a perfect product for "extreme engine downsizing" -- reducing the size of an engine by 50 percent or more -- according to its maker.
Shrinking an engine is one way to reduce a vehicle's fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions, but it has the unwanted effect of reducing horsepower as well.
Superchargers and turbochargers allow an engine to deliver bursts of power on demand, offsetting the horsepower shortage that plague most small engines.
Controlled Power Technologies claims its electric supercharger not only provides power when called upon, but can also help reduce soot and particulate emissions from diesel engines.
Unlike mechanical superchargers and turbochargers, CPT says in a statement, the electric supercharger features a near-instantaneous air delivery system and costs considerably less (although no price was given).
The supercharger is a perfect product for "extreme engine downsizing" -- reducing the size of an engine by 50 percent or more -- according to its maker.
Shrinking an engine is one way to reduce a vehicle's fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions, but it has the unwanted effect of reducing horsepower as well.
Superchargers and turbochargers allow an engine to deliver bursts of power on demand, offsetting the horsepower shortage that plague most small engines.
Controlled Power Technologies claims its electric supercharger not only provides power when called upon, but can also help reduce soot and particulate emissions from diesel engines.
10-25-2010, 12:38 PM
#2
Super Moderator
You can not convert energy (twice! in this case) and get more out of a device than you put in. This is guaranteed to provide negative power. I'd like to see the alternator on the car that gets much horsepower out of such a device, and some power in/power out graphs, before even considering the idea.
*clicks link, uses calculator, puts on Surprised Face*
Oh wait, they give specs on the website!
Peak shaft power: 1.8kW
Current draw, acceleration: 350A
350A x 12V = 4.2kW
So you get 42% efficiency out of it then. Your bigass alternator provides 350 amps (good luck) and it gives you 1.8kW. According to a super-quick google search this is just over TWO horsepower.
Wow.
*clicks link, uses calculator, puts on Surprised Face*
Oh wait, they give specs on the website!
Peak shaft power: 1.8kW
Current draw, acceleration: 350A
350A x 12V = 4.2kW
So you get 42% efficiency out of it then. Your bigass alternator provides 350 amps (good luck) and it gives you 1.8kW. According to a super-quick google search this is just over TWO horsepower.
Wow.
10-25-2010, 01:08 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 2,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001/Hyundai/Tiburon
Stocker, you're way off base here. Sorry, but I have to call it.
You would be right if it was hooked directly up to the crankshaft. That's equivalent to hooking up an electric motor which is drawing off energy from the alternator. As you said, this is guaranteed negative power.
That is NOT what this device is doing! This thing is forcing more air into the intake, which allows you to shove more gas into the engine, thereby giving it more power. More power = less gas needed to get your speed up. Less power needed means smaller engine, which means less gas needed. Now you're welcome to discuss if forced induction in a small engine is more fuel efficient than natural induction in a large engine. That's another whole matterin and of itself.
What this device does is allows the engine itself to do more work in a smaller package. It's not helping turn the crankshaft. It's increasing the efficiency of the engine by taking a smaller amount of power (electrical) and helping the rest of the engine work better by letting more gas detonate (chemical)
The same is true of the HHO generators. They're not taking electricity to convert it directly back into mechanical power. That's again guaranteed negative power. But again, that's NOT what HHO generators are doing! They're supplying the engine with richer, better, more potent air. It increases the efficiency of the gas that's already being detonated. Gasoline is <40% efficient in a normal engine. Adding a catalyst (pure oxygen and hydrogen) will bump the efficiency of the gasoline up much higher, resulting in better fuel mileage, and even better power. It also allows the gas to burn faster (similar to higher octane gas, or even your awesome Singh grooves *jealous*) and faster means more power and more efficiency. You're not robbing power to add power back (resulting in a power loss), you're robbing power to help other parts of the engine add more power.
To deny that this device would work is to deny the fact that superchargers work, which is just silly. Superchargers go on the EXACT same principle: pull off a small amount of power and use that to force more air into the engine, thereby creating more power. Superchargers use mechanical power, this device uses electrical power. How can one option (superchargers) work so well, and yet you say the other (this device) won't work at all?
The only reason electric superchargers haven't taken off at all is that they can't come up with one fast enough, and the eBay ripoffs have given them a really bad name.
You would be right if it was hooked directly up to the crankshaft. That's equivalent to hooking up an electric motor which is drawing off energy from the alternator. As you said, this is guaranteed negative power.
That is NOT what this device is doing! This thing is forcing more air into the intake, which allows you to shove more gas into the engine, thereby giving it more power. More power = less gas needed to get your speed up. Less power needed means smaller engine, which means less gas needed. Now you're welcome to discuss if forced induction in a small engine is more fuel efficient than natural induction in a large engine. That's another whole matterin and of itself.
What this device does is allows the engine itself to do more work in a smaller package. It's not helping turn the crankshaft. It's increasing the efficiency of the engine by taking a smaller amount of power (electrical) and helping the rest of the engine work better by letting more gas detonate (chemical)
The same is true of the HHO generators. They're not taking electricity to convert it directly back into mechanical power. That's again guaranteed negative power. But again, that's NOT what HHO generators are doing! They're supplying the engine with richer, better, more potent air. It increases the efficiency of the gas that's already being detonated. Gasoline is <40% efficient in a normal engine. Adding a catalyst (pure oxygen and hydrogen) will bump the efficiency of the gasoline up much higher, resulting in better fuel mileage, and even better power. It also allows the gas to burn faster (similar to higher octane gas, or even your awesome Singh grooves *jealous*) and faster means more power and more efficiency. You're not robbing power to add power back (resulting in a power loss), you're robbing power to help other parts of the engine add more power.
To deny that this device would work is to deny the fact that superchargers work, which is just silly. Superchargers go on the EXACT same principle: pull off a small amount of power and use that to force more air into the engine, thereby creating more power. Superchargers use mechanical power, this device uses electrical power. How can one option (superchargers) work so well, and yet you say the other (this device) won't work at all?
The only reason electric superchargers haven't taken off at all is that they can't come up with one fast enough, and the eBay ripoffs have given them a really bad name.
10-25-2010, 03:50 PM
#4
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 14 EGT 2.0
Actually it has more to do with the amount of electricity coming out of that alternator. Denying that thing would work on our current electrical systems shows that he understands how much power is available to use for compressing air.
10-25-2010, 07:56 PM
#5
Moderator
It could run safely off a gigantic capacitor with a gigantic resistor impeding it's charge rate, saving the battery. It could work.
More amperage takes bigger wires. More voltage requires larger shielding on the same size wire.
The required revisions would be a higher voltage alternator which would allow for more voltage and less amperage to be generated. A large sized step-down transformer could provide the amperage required to run this thing. But then the alternator would be underdriven at low RPMS..
Ok, so, run dual alternators. One alternator generating 50A@12V generating about 2A@10000V.
For the high voltage alternator, Use a diode stack from a traveling-wave-tube(handles up to 120,000v) to handle the relatively small current, and make it rectified (pulsed DC voltage). Pass that into a step-down transformer with nothing but a 100F capacitor on the other end.
The final challenge is how to turn on and off 350A...... Um... That's beyond me. I don't know how to switch that much power electrically. There must be some sort of device, but 350A is pretty much unheard of amperage in a car.
More amperage takes bigger wires. More voltage requires larger shielding on the same size wire.
The required revisions would be a higher voltage alternator which would allow for more voltage and less amperage to be generated. A large sized step-down transformer could provide the amperage required to run this thing. But then the alternator would be underdriven at low RPMS..
Ok, so, run dual alternators. One alternator generating 50A@12V generating about 2A@10000V.
For the high voltage alternator, Use a diode stack from a traveling-wave-tube(handles up to 120,000v) to handle the relatively small current, and make it rectified (pulsed DC voltage). Pass that into a step-down transformer with nothing but a 100F capacitor on the other end.
The final challenge is how to turn on and off 350A...... Um... That's beyond me. I don't know how to switch that much power electrically. There must be some sort of device, but 350A is pretty much unheard of amperage in a car.
10-25-2010, 08:34 PM
#6
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: wamego, kansas
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 hyundai tiburon
we could always run bigger wiring in a 3 phase setup then have a huge antenna that hits power wires as you drive down the road. think of something like a electric trolley,lol.
i don't know crap about wiring for electricity except for the fact that my power unit for my welder at work is 450 amps and it runs on 3 phase.
i don't know crap about wiring for electricity except for the fact that my power unit for my welder at work is 450 amps and it runs on 3 phase.
10-25-2010, 09:46 PM
#8
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lacey, WA
Posts: 12,515
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Vehicle: Two Accents, Mini, Miata, Van, Outback, and a ZX-6
Working electric superchargers do exist. I've never heard of this one, so can't comment on it directly but I'm doubtful.
What you'll find with any effective electric supercharger is that it requires large amount of current and only runs for short bursts. A powerful enough electric motor to power a compressor and compress enough air to feed a typical engine at positive pressure gets very hot or is very large. Given space restrictions it generally is a smaller high output winding that gets very hot. Also you're not going to want to feed this thing 12v. To get the math to make sense you're going to need to be able to supply at least 24v, preferably 48v or more.
What you'll find with any effective electric supercharger is that it requires large amount of current and only runs for short bursts. A powerful enough electric motor to power a compressor and compress enough air to feed a typical engine at positive pressure gets very hot or is very large. Given space restrictions it generally is a smaller high output winding that gets very hot. Also you're not going to want to feed this thing 12v. To get the math to make sense you're going to need to be able to supply at least 24v, preferably 48v or more.
10-25-2010, 10:07 PM
#9
Super Moderator
edit: sorry for the blockoftext guys /edit
HHO generators are a scam until you can show me a running car with over-unity conversion efficiency and a net power gain once electrical losses are taken into account. I've looked into it quite a lot, and the laws of physics have a pesky habit of getting in the way. Singh grooves are apparently black magic, but they take zero additional energy from the engine while allowing it to work more efficiently. Likewise Larry Widmer's Roller Wave piston/head geometry. This is not in the same ballpark, or even on-topic.
I am not denying that superchargers work, or that turbocharging can make an engine more efficient. I am calling BS on converting rotary energy (belt drive) to electric (alternator) to a different type of electric (rectifier) to rotation again (supercharger motor) to pressure (in the compressor) and then coming out far enough ahead of the game that you aren't losing power on the whole. Belt-driven superchargers (compared to turbos) don't put out much power, and that's with only one power conversion. Here you are converting energy FIVE times.
I dug through their graphs. Some of them seem to show drastic improvement but further consideration shows them to be so much hype, or at the very best a marginal improvement before considering the need to power the device. Oranges/Apples comparisons abound. The first engine: They slapped one of these on a small otto cycle engine and "made" approaching 20HP. They did an on/off comparison. How much life does it suck out of a 90HP engine to breathe through this thing with the power turned off? I'm guessing a lot. Give that back, then give up the 5-6HP it takes to run the blower, and you're back to being a marginal improvement at best. Second engine: the only improvement over the comparison turbo setup is below the RPM range where the turbo is making any boost, which means: the turbo was not sized properly for low engine speed boost. Compare it to a supercharger to illustrate low-RPM boost benefits directly. 3rd engine: again comparing to a turbo not-in-boost. Why are we comparing a 'supercharger' to a turbo charger? Oh that's right: MARKETING! 4th engine, same deal: comparing their turbo to a supercharger. This time, with a bonus graph showing a power gain of almost exactly as much as it takes to drive their device's motor. Fail. The emissions reduction is probably also BS, because you still have to make enough power to run the thing, which burns more gas, creating more pollution.
But that's all window dressing. The real reason you should be suspicious is the type of data given vs. the type of product presented. When an informed consumer looks at buying a turbo, he looks at compressor maps and throws around terms with hip acronyms like PSI, CFM, and AR. How many of those do you find on that site? Also, how many prices and store/checkout links? I smell an IPO interest/buzz-generating rat here.
I know (like HHO generators) it sounds like this VTES thing should work, and you can even twist some science to make it zOMGWOW!!!1! but you eventually have to come up against reality and then it's not so hot. The energy conversions are just not efficient enough. If you want more power in a small engine, they have presented a compelling case (albeit indirectly) for a well-sized and properly tuned turbo. Do that.
Bonus for those who can't convert Newton-meters to foot-pounds in their heads: I found this chart http://www.sizes.com/units/charts/Ftlbus.pdf
DTN, high voltage high power FETs are available that can switch your 2A 1000V. In the case of ST Micro's Supermesh series (STD2NK100Z/STP2NK100Z/STU2NK100Z) you can even pulse up to 7.4A through ONE FET. These are only a couple of bucks each. For the low voltage/high current, STV300NH02L can take a prodigious 1200A pulsed switched current up to 24V DC which is pretty freaking awesome for one FET, and still just a few dollars each. The main problem I have with 1000V in a car is crash safety. This is even a problem with a current hybrid's 300V battery packs: How do you isolate the wires in a crash? How do you mark the car so that when it's a mangled heap the Jaws of Life don't cut into 300V and kill your fireman? Even 48V is pushing it, because when you're all wet and conductive, even 48V can kill you. 24V I could live with ( ! ) in a car, especially when it comes to the audio system!
HHO generators are a scam until you can show me a running car with over-unity conversion efficiency and a net power gain once electrical losses are taken into account. I've looked into it quite a lot, and the laws of physics have a pesky habit of getting in the way. Singh grooves are apparently black magic, but they take zero additional energy from the engine while allowing it to work more efficiently. Likewise Larry Widmer's Roller Wave piston/head geometry. This is not in the same ballpark, or even on-topic.
I am not denying that superchargers work, or that turbocharging can make an engine more efficient. I am calling BS on converting rotary energy (belt drive) to electric (alternator) to a different type of electric (rectifier) to rotation again (supercharger motor) to pressure (in the compressor) and then coming out far enough ahead of the game that you aren't losing power on the whole. Belt-driven superchargers (compared to turbos) don't put out much power, and that's with only one power conversion. Here you are converting energy FIVE times.
I dug through their graphs. Some of them seem to show drastic improvement but further consideration shows them to be so much hype, or at the very best a marginal improvement before considering the need to power the device. Oranges/Apples comparisons abound. The first engine: They slapped one of these on a small otto cycle engine and "made" approaching 20HP. They did an on/off comparison. How much life does it suck out of a 90HP engine to breathe through this thing with the power turned off? I'm guessing a lot. Give that back, then give up the 5-6HP it takes to run the blower, and you're back to being a marginal improvement at best. Second engine: the only improvement over the comparison turbo setup is below the RPM range where the turbo is making any boost, which means: the turbo was not sized properly for low engine speed boost. Compare it to a supercharger to illustrate low-RPM boost benefits directly. 3rd engine: again comparing to a turbo not-in-boost. Why are we comparing a 'supercharger' to a turbo charger? Oh that's right: MARKETING! 4th engine, same deal: comparing their turbo to a supercharger. This time, with a bonus graph showing a power gain of almost exactly as much as it takes to drive their device's motor. Fail. The emissions reduction is probably also BS, because you still have to make enough power to run the thing, which burns more gas, creating more pollution.
But that's all window dressing. The real reason you should be suspicious is the type of data given vs. the type of product presented. When an informed consumer looks at buying a turbo, he looks at compressor maps and throws around terms with hip acronyms like PSI, CFM, and AR. How many of those do you find on that site? Also, how many prices and store/checkout links? I smell an IPO interest/buzz-generating rat here.
I know (like HHO generators) it sounds like this VTES thing should work, and you can even twist some science to make it zOMGWOW!!!1! but you eventually have to come up against reality and then it's not so hot. The energy conversions are just not efficient enough. If you want more power in a small engine, they have presented a compelling case (albeit indirectly) for a well-sized and properly tuned turbo. Do that.
Bonus for those who can't convert Newton-meters to foot-pounds in their heads: I found this chart http://www.sizes.com/units/charts/Ftlbus.pdf
DTN, high voltage high power FETs are available that can switch your 2A 1000V. In the case of ST Micro's Supermesh series (STD2NK100Z/STP2NK100Z/STU2NK100Z) you can even pulse up to 7.4A through ONE FET. These are only a couple of bucks each. For the low voltage/high current, STV300NH02L can take a prodigious 1200A pulsed switched current up to 24V DC which is pretty freaking awesome for one FET, and still just a few dollars each. The main problem I have with 1000V in a car is crash safety. This is even a problem with a current hybrid's 300V battery packs: How do you isolate the wires in a crash? How do you mark the car so that when it's a mangled heap the Jaws of Life don't cut into 300V and kill your fireman? Even 48V is pushing it, because when you're all wet and conductive, even 48V can kill you. 24V I could live with ( ! ) in a car, especially when it comes to the audio system!
