Subject: Different idea for turbo-compounding
From: Rotary Engine
Date: 2/29/2008, 5:29 PM
To: AAA Put this in the To box


       > All this is moving further and further away
from Bill
       > Jepson's KIS.
       > -- Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
       >
       > Paul,
       > From your comment you obviously "got" my
idea. The idea here
       > is a
       > proof of concept ULTRA SIMPLE idea using NO
Turbocharger, only
       > an axial flow turbine. Accepting that the
system would only
       > be optomized
       > at one RPM and altitude and being happy if
it didn't mess up
       > the rest.
       > Just concidering the turbine as an exhaust
restriction the
       > rest of
       > the time.
       > On another front here, why would it be
advantagous to be in
       > line with
       > your turbocharger with your power turbine?
They are
       > independent shafts.
       > A very short connector from the TC's
outflow on a
       > turbocharged machine
       > is desireable, but otherwise who cares? The
idea here is almost
       > stooopidly
       > simple. The paddlewheel in the millrace
type of thing. ANY power
       > recovered
       > is a bonus and you can get by with a much
simpler muffler.
       > Since we
       > would
       > normally run the engine up to at least
cruise RPM static before
       > takeoff you
       > would always be recovering some of the
exhaust hp. Think of
       > it as a
       > "magic
       > muffler." Paul you found a great cutaway of
an axial flow
       > turbine, which
       > I lost.
       > Do you still have it? This could be done on
a normally
       > aspirated engine,
       > in fact
       > it would be easier that way.
       > Bill Jepson
       >
       > Is this it?
       >
       > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor
       >
       > No Paul,
       > Though the drawing you have there is
helpful you had an actual
       > physicalexample. A cut away in the metal so
to speak. It may
       > have been combinned
       > with the photos of the Senica (sic) turbo
compound diesel.
       > Bill
       >
       >
       > Senica does not ring a bell. I need some
key words. I have
       > upwards of
       > 100,000
       > files. You mean Scania?
       >
       > Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
       >
       > Yes Paul that is what I meant. That isn't
the picture I was
       > hoping for
       > though.
       > I'll see if I can find it and post it to
you. Thanks for the
     efforts.
       > Bill
       >

     Hi Paul and group,

     This link sell different parts for bottoming
engines.  Il it could help
     you guys  http://www.bowmanpower.co.uk/

     Marc J.
     NexusMustang



Hi Paul and all

I thought one of the benefits of a electrical
generator connected to a
turbo shaft (save the efficiency losses associated
with convertion to
electrical and then back to machanical) might be
doing away with the
wastegate to govern turbine rpm and instead
adjusting the load on the
genertor elecrically thereby governing the rpm of
the turbine.

Just thinking

Steve Izett
Perth West Aust
Glasair SII RG Renesis

A couple of problems. We are dealing with at least
30 HP here.
30 HP is 23 KW. One HP is equal to 746 watts.

A 23 Kw alternator is a big  and heavy alternator.
At 12 volts that
is 1916 amps!!!! That is a lot of amps.  At 36 volts
it is still
638 amps. The solid state components necessary to
deal with 638 amp
alternating current  are  real expensive.

If we fed that into a 36 volt electric motor that
would be a big
and heavy electric motor. A starter motor is about 3
HP for a short
period of time until it over heats.

Now every time you convert mechanical HP to electric
HP there is some loss.

Lets say the eff. of the alternator is 85% and
the eff. of the motor is 85%. The over all eff. of
the system is
85% times 85% is 68%. We are throwing away 32% of
our 30 HP or
9.6 HP and we are now down to 20.4 HP net.

It is best to stick to mechanical HP when ever
possible.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.


I'm about as far from being an engineer as a
hombuilder can be, but I would think that you'd want
to keep the turbo compound as simple as possible. So
wouldn't the best solution be to have the turbine
wheel mounted on the flywheel/ flexplate in between
the engine and redrive. It would take some testing to
find the optimum exhaust diameter(flow speed, turbine
wheel diameter) you might be able to make the wheel a
smaller diameter if the diameter of the exhaust were
made bigger- say 3 inches. You'd have a lower
pressure/slower exhaust flow  exerting it's force over
a larger area.  A 24 inch diameter turbine might be
the optimum size, but would be a bit hard to fit into
an RV-4.

Brian Trubee


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2007 All world wide rights reserved.