Jump to content


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*!
  • Say hello and join the conversation
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Classifieds with all sorts of Subaru goodies
  • Photo hosting in our gallery
  • Meet other cool people with cool cars
Seriously, what are you waiting for? Make your life more fulfilling and join today! You and your Subaru won't regret it, we guarantee** it.

* 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!

Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

sequential turbo idea.. kinda


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 M_Bailey

M_Bailey

    New User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • deer island, Oregon

Posted 12 February 2013 - 07:33 PM

So I this thought while laying in bed last night... First off im kind've familiar with how a true.sequential turbo set up works with the check valve and dropping the primary turbo out after the secondary turbo kicks in. but.... what if you run your exhaust in the primary turbo and out just as it would normally function, then run the compressed air from the primary turbo into the exhaust side of the secondary turbo but Instead of dumping that "spent gas" out the exhaust run it to intake and then run the compressed air from the secondary turbo just as you normally would to the intake. I would assume one could just use a "y"" pipe to connect the intake to the two turbos.

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 ShawnW

ShawnW

    Subaru Master Technician

  • Administrator
  • 12,914 posts
  • Denver, Colorado

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 NorthWet

NorthWet

    Eeyore Incarnate

  • Members
  • 5,039 posts
  • Bremerton, WA

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 M_Bailey

M_Bailey

    New User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • deer island, Oregon

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:49 AM

I would plan on using an intercooler and yes the secondary turbo would be drivin by only the primary.. Im starting.to see volume problems.with that now

#5 NorthWet

NorthWet

    Eeyore Incarnate

  • Members
  • 5,039 posts
  • Bremerton, WA

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 M_Bailey

M_Bailey

    New User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • deer island, Oregon

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:25 PM

You have shed the light j needed thanks you wise one

#7 M_Bailey

M_Bailey

    New User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • deer island, Oregon

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:25 PM

I*

#8 NorthWet

NorthWet

    Eeyore Incarnate

  • Members
  • 5,039 posts
  • Bremerton, WA

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 maozebong

maozebong

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 268 posts
  • Seattle, WA

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 NorthWet

NorthWet

    Eeyore Incarnate

  • Members
  • 5,039 posts
  • Bremerton, WA

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