Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!
![]() |
Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created. We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!
* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning ** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it! Serving the Subaru Community since May 18th, 1998! |
sequential turbo idea.. kinda
#1
Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:33 PM
Would this work?
P.s. In my head I would run the same boost pressur on both turbos but since the second turbo is larger there would be an increased volume at the higher rpm
#2
Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:25 AM
There's a lot of heat are you considering where or how to get rid of it?
#3
Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:09 AM
So, the secondary turbo is being driven solely by the energy from the air from the compressor side of the primary?
#4
Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:49 AM
#5
Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:33 AM
This has issues with the First Law of ThermoDynamics: Energy is neither created not destroyed. You can not get any more energy out of the second turbo then you put into it.
Although it is conceivable that some of the heat energy from the Primary's output stream might be converted to kinetic enegy in the exhaust turbine of the Secondary (and thus into pressure and volume in the outlet), it is far more likely that the ineffiencies of a mechaniical system will just turn more useful energy into low-level waste heat.
#6
Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:25 PM
#7
Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:25 PM
#8
Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:46 PM
Not wise, just questioning/cynical.
No progress occurs without questioning "common knowledge", so keep thinking. Just keep in mind that the Laws of Physics aren't just a good idea... they are the Law!
(As in: No, you can't "burn" water, it is already "burned" to its lowest energy state. And, lacking "Maxwell's Daemon", perpetual motion is not possible.)
Edit: what I had originally typed at this point was too much like a thread hijack, and little relevance to this thread. So, I removed it. :endEdit
Edited by NorthWet, 15 February 2013 - 11:53 PM.
#9
Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:28 AM
also, this is why turbochargers are made with the compressor side typically bigger than the turbine side.
but, nobody really bothers with sequential turbo setups these days. most setups are parallel, where all the turbos run at once. cummins diesel guys have made 1200hp and 2500ft lbs with parallel setups... very rarely sequential.
#10
Posted 16 February 2013 - 01:08 PM
also, this is why turbochargers are made with the compressor side typically bigger than the turbine side.
but, nobody really bothers with sequential turbo setups these days. most setups are parallel, where all the turbos run at once. cummins diesel guys have made 1200hp and 2500ft lbs with parallel setups... very rarely sequential.
Commercial diesels are a different world, as are aviation uses. The wide-range flexibility that MIGHT come from sequential turbochargers is irrelevant in applications where gas volumes vary little.
Edited by NorthWet, 16 February 2013 - 01:09 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users










