Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: JEvans <(email redacted)>

Does that sound ME enough? Sorry, I only eeked by fluids and thermo.
Notice the biological in my signature.

This whole Sebring intercooling thread makes me wonder about the BEGI
System I setup. Is the Garrett turbo as efficient as the Sebring? i.e.
is the System I intake manifold temperature higher or lower than the
Sebring (both without heat exchangers)?


Just another reason (and reassurance to spending the $$$) to save up and
get the system IV.


92 plain jane 1.6L
Jonathan Evans
mailto:(email redacted)
Biological Engineer
Angiosonics, Inc.
angiosonics.com
Therapeutic Ultrasound Technologies

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

In a message dated 98-12-23 08:54:14 EST, (email redacted) writes:

<< Is the Garrett turbo as efficient as the Sebring? >>

The efficiency of various air pumps is as hot a topic as I care to get into,
but here's what I think I know plus a little extra fun.

General thermal efficiencies:
Garrett T25/T28: peaks at about 77%, varies over the rev range to a low of
65%
Aerodyne Turbo: 77/78%, same 65% at low point
Typical turbo: 71/75%
Autorotor:

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

In a message dated 98-12-23 08:54:14 EST, (email redacted) writes:

<< Is the Garrett turbo as efficient as the Sebring? >>
I was sitting here typing and my "mail is sent" sign shows
up..............will continue

Autorotor: 74%
Typical centrifugal blower: varies from abot 55% for the makers that won't
copy turbo compressor technology to 75% for those that will.

GMC type Roots: 35%
Eaton: 55% according to their design engineers in an SAE paper several years
back. Probably developed as far as 65% today per Mr. Jerry Magnusson.

Now the fun: The Eaton was reported by Norman G. to be 129%, based on the
temperature numbers published in the Sebring flyer. This was later dropped
to 94%, then trimmed to 84%. Mr. Jackson is hanging in with 100%.

Close: I don't know all the compressors in the world by any means, but do any
of the contributors to this list have knowledge of any form of compressor that
exceeds 80% in thermal efficiency?

Corky

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Ralph Alder" <(email redacted)>


-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>
To: (email redacted) <(email redacted)>; (email redacted)
<(email redacted)>
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 11:10
Subject: Re: Heat Exchangers and Pump efficiencies


SNIP
>
>Now the fun: The Eaton was reported by Norman G. to be 129%, based on the
>temperature numbers published in the Sebring flyer. This was later
dropped
>to 94%, then trimmed to 84%. Mr. Jackson is hanging in with 100%.
>
>Close: I don't know all the compressors in the world by any means, but do
any
>of the contributors to this list have knowledge of any form of compressor
that
>exceeds 80% in thermal efficiency?
>
>

Have no knowledge of compressors...but if a compressor were actually 129%
thermally efficient (Sebring) couldn't it be used all by itself as an air
conditioner removing more heat than it began with? See...what taking one
Physics class way long ago will get you?

Ralph Alder
Tustin, CA
'90 Classic Red w/Yellow Stripes
Team Aerodyne

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mike Marzalek <(email redacted)>

The exit temperature from my aerodyne turbo was quite hot (~80 degrees F
over ambient) - even when the turbo was doing no work. This was discussed
maybe 6 months ago and corroborated by Daryl Donnahoo. It seemed the air
was being heated by the turbo touching the exhaust manifold & exhaust gas
and thus heating the intake air. Daryl & I both modified the CAI to the
turbo so that it worked - it made hardly any difference.

Discussing turbo efficiencies seems somewhat meaningless in this context.
Sure the output got hotter when the turbo was working. Bottom line - an
intercooler fixes everything.

Since a supercharger does not have this heating from exhaust mechanism -
someone postulated that possibly a lower efficiency Sebring might in
practice actually be more efficient than a turbo - especially at light
loads. That person was stoned and the thread died :-)

Mike Marzalek
(email redacted)
'96 red aerodyne
Sonoma County, Ca.

-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted)
[mailto:(email redacted)]On Behalf Of JEvans
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 5:55 AM
To: 'miatapower'
Subject: Heat Exchangers and Pump efficiencies



Does that sound ME enough? Sorry, I only eeked by fluids and thermo.
Notice the biological in my signature.

This whole Sebring intercooling thread makes me wonder about the BEGI
System I setup. Is the Garrett turbo as efficient as the Sebring? i.e.
is the System I intake manifold temperature higher or lower than the
Sebring (both without heat exchangers)?


Just another reason (and reassurance to spending the $$$) to save up and
get the system IV.


92 plain jane 1.6L
Jonathan Evans
mailto:(email redacted)
Biological Engineer
Angiosonics, Inc.
angiosonics.com
Therapeutic Ultrasound Technologies

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

In a message dated 98-12-23 20:04:15 EST, (email redacted) writes:

<< couldn't it be used all by itself as an air
conditioner removing more heat than it began with? >>

Not quite. Truly unfortunate too. It just means it won't heat as much as
classic thermodynamics woulf predict. Classics would predict about 10 degrees
per psi for 100% eff. The 129% would just acheive 7 degrees instead.
cb

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Tom Graham" <(email redacted)>


Perhaps when the test was done the Eaton was "cool" , also, the pressure
may not have been as high as reported. I think the afm ofthe 1.6 limits
flow at high rpm and the pressure may have been less. I belive the test
that has been refered to was merely a demonstration and should have been
stuidied and reported more accurately.
Tom Graham
4CED AIR 90
Columbus, Ohio
Who is not an engineer but plays one on the internet.

>From: (email redacted)
>Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 09:02:18 EST
>To: (email redacted), (email redacted),
(email redacted)
>Subject: Re: Heat Exchangers and Pump efficiencies
>Reply-To: (email redacted)
>
>
>In a message dated 98-12-23 20:04:15 EST, (email redacted)
writes:
>
><< couldn't it be used all by itself as an air
> conditioner removing more heat than it began with? >>
>
>Not quite. Truly unfortunate too. It just means it won't heat as much
as
>classic thermodynamics woulf predict. Classics would predict about 10
degrees
>per psi for 100% eff. The 129% would just acheive 7 degrees instead.
>cb



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at hotmail.com