STS: Is it just a bad system.....?

[Ram From Hell]

Heat energy is different than HOT.

Okay Professor Primate, an object isn't hot, but rather dissipating the heat energy that it produced or had been transferred to it. If heat cannot do anything more than transfer to another object or substance, are you referring to the subsequent reaction of that object or substance to the act of that transference process (such as the rapid expansion of air in the combustion process)? Are you meaning that heat energy is the act of the conveyance of the heat from one substance or object to another?

So what is the definition of heat energy?

Definition: Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transfered by particles bouncing into each other.

Or perhaps it is thermal energy?

In thermal physics, thermal energy is the energy portion of a system that increases with its temperature. In a loose sense, "thermal energy" is a term often used to describe the energy content of a system related to heating effects, e.g. temperature increase or decrease. In thermodynamics, thermal energy is the internal energy present in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by virtue of its temperature.[1] The term is not widely used, however, in a rigorous sense, owing to the result that the phrase "thermal (heat) energy" is counter-intuitive. That is, heat can only be defined as any spontaneous flow of energy (energy in transit) from one object to another, caused by a difference in temperature between two objects; thus, an object cannot posses "heat".[2] This is explained by the second law of thermodynamics. Hence, by extrapolation, it is difficult to define quantities of heat energy (thermal energy). In isolated cases, however, a few definitions do exist.

Your turn.

 

[Muzzy]

I'm certainly not the one to dispute anything you have stated above. But your opinion would be appreciated...your post relates to turbo charging...so can you go back one step and give us your decision process in looking at turbo charging vrs. supercharging...just seems to me that on the front end (if you are not shooting for over a 1000 rwhp, that the supercharging route seems the more practical and less problematic approach...what is your opinion?

Thanks in advance for the super posts that really educate and in a way I can almost understand!

Roy

As far as supercharging vs. turbocharging…I have played with both. In my opinion and experience, turbo chargers are one of the easiest ways to make power. Getting more boost is as easy as holding the wastegate closed a little longer (controller by actuator and boost controller). Turbochargers do not take horsepower to make horsepower (less parasitic drag than a supercharger). Turbochargers are easier to intercool and generally occupy less engine compartment space, plus there is more flexibility to their location. However, turbocharging is more temperamental. Managing boost is more difficult, but there have been great strides in boost management over the last few years. They have boost controllers that are tunable per gear, so you can set your boost a certain value in first gear to get you out of the hole with minimal wheel spin, then add more boost for each subsequent shift. Pretty cool stuff. I will be installing one on my wife’s SRT-4. In the old days (20 years ago) turbo lag was a big problem. You had to either go with a higher compression ratio and less boost to overcome the lag, or load the engine (transbrake) to get the turbo to spool up and start making boost. Today, turbo design has improved to the point of almost no lag (given that the correct size is chosen for the application). The newer factory turbo charged vehicles utilize a Throttle Inlet Pressure (TIP) sensor to prevent overboost conditions. It measures inlet pressure before the throttle body allowing the ECU to adjust fuel, timing, and the wastegate to prevent boost from exceeding a certain level. I think incorporating that sensor into some of the kits would greatly help with reliability.

Supercharging had always been a favorite of mine from the standpoint your vehicle doesn’t sound like a Hoover on steroids going down the road. A supercharger (SC) offers most consistency in operation and boost output. On an engine like the Viper stuffed in a 5000lb+ Ram I would opt for the roots type like Roe’s. You have instant pressure off the line low in the RPM range where you need it. It is easier on the drivetrain since you do not have to rap up the RPM’s up to get your boost. With the positive displacement design of the roots type you are “packing†air into the intake. The main obstacle to overcome is heat. I have seen some water to air intercooler setups for roots type SC’s, but they seem to be pretty rare. The centrifugal type SC’s are almost a compromise between the roots type and a turbo. Same principle in boost generation as a turbo. You have an easier time setting up an intercooler than with the roots type. The centrifugal makes their power higher in the RPM range. Either SC type allows you to alter boost based on a pulley swap, but lacks the electronic adjust-on-the-fly capabilities of the turbo.

Ultimately, the better choice is going to depend on your goal (this is regarding our trucks) . If you want insane amounts of power that you would never be able to put to the ground, then go with a turbo setup. Heck, strap two on and 1000HP will be cake as long as you have very deep pockets. If you want a moderate increase in power with reliability, then I would go with the Roe setup.

-Muzzy

 

[Silverback]

Okay Professor Primate, an object isn't hot, but rather dissipating the heat energy that it produced or had been transferred to it. If heat cannot do anything more than transfer to another object or substance, are you referring to the subsequent reaction of that object or substance to the act of that transference process (such as the rapid expansion of air in the combustion process)? Are you meaning that heat energy is the act of the conveyance of the heat from one substance or object to another?

So what is the definition of heat energy?

Definition: Heat energy (or just heat) is a form of energy which transfers among particles in a substance (or system) by means of kinetic energy of those particle. In other words, under kinetic theory, the heat is transfered by particles bouncing into each other.

Or perhaps it is thermal energy?

In thermal physics, thermal energy is the energy portion of a system that increases with its temperature. In a loose sense, "thermal energy" is a term often used to describe the energy content of a system related to heating effects, e.g. temperature increase or decrease. In thermodynamics, thermal energy is the internal energy present in a system in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by virtue of its temperature.[1] The term is not widely used, however, in a rigorous sense, owing to the result that the phrase "thermal (heat) energy" is counter-intuitive. That is, heat can only be defined as any spontaneous flow of energy (energy in transit) from one object to another, caused by a difference in temperature between two objects; thus, an object cannot posses "heat".[2] This is explained by the second law of thermodynamics. Hence, by extrapolation, it is difficult to define quantities of heat energy (thermal energy). In isolated cases, however, a few definitions do exist.

Your turn.

I have explained it a number of times on this site as well as the NFFF. With my work schedule I'm not going to get into it again, as I really do not have time.

I generally try to keep things as simple as possible so most can understand what I'm saying. It does no good to deleve into a thermodynamics book and toss out a bunch of formulas and terms that 90% of the members would not understand.

 

[Django]

I have explained it a number of times on this site as well as the NFFF. With my work schedule I'm not going to get into it again, as I really do not have time.

I generally try to keep things as simple as possible so most can understand what I'm saying. It does no good to deleve into a thermodynamics book and toss out a bunch of formulas and terms that 90% of the members would not understand.

Werd............................

D

 

[Prof]

As far as supercharging vs. turbocharging…I have played with both. In my opinion and experience, turbo chargers are one of the easiest ways to make power. Getting more boost is as easy as holding the wastegate closed a little longer (controller by actuator and boost controller). Turbochargers do not take horsepower to make horsepower (less parasitic drag than a supercharger). Turbochargers are easier to intercool and generally occupy less engine compartment space, plus there is more flexibility to their location. However, turbocharging is more temperamental. Managing boost is more difficult, but there have been great strides in boost management over the last few years. They have boost controllers that are tunable per gear, so you can set your boost a certain value in first gear to get you out of the hole with minimal wheel spin, then add more boost for each subsequent shift. Pretty cool stuff. I will be installing one on my wife’s SRT-4. In the old days (20 years ago) turbo lag was a big problem. You had to either go with a higher compression ratio and less boost to overcome the lag, or load the engine (transbrake) to get the turbo to spool up and start making boost. Today, turbo design has improved to the point of almost no lag (given that the correct size is chosen for the application). The newer factory turbo charged vehicles utilize a Throttle Inlet Pressure (TIP) sensor to prevent overboost conditions. It measures inlet pressure before the throttle body allowing the ECU to adjust fuel, timing, and the wastegate to prevent boost from exceeding a certain level. I think incorporating that sensor into some of the kits would greatly help with reliability.

Supercharging had always been a favorite of mine from the standpoint your vehicle doesn’t sound like a Hoover on steroids going down the road. A supercharger (SC) offers most consistency in operation and boost output. On an engine like the Viper stuffed in a 5000lb+ Ram I would opt for the roots type like Roe’s. You have instant pressure off the line low in the RPM range where you need it. It is easier on the drivetrain since you do not have to rap up the RPM’s up to get your boost. With the positive displacement design of the roots type you are “packing†air into the intake. The main obstacle to overcome is heat. I have seen some water to air intercooler setups for roots type SC’s, but they seem to be pretty rare. The centrifugal type SC’s are almost a compromise between the roots type and a turbo. Same principle in boost generation as a turbo. You have an easier time setting up an intercooler than with the roots type. The centrifugal makes their power higher in the RPM range. Either SC type allows you to alter boost based on a pulley swap, but lacks the electronic adjust-on-the-fly capabilities of the turbo.

Ultimately, the better choice is going to depend on your goal (this is regarding our trucks) . If you want insane amounts of power that you would never be able to put to the ground, then go with a turbo setup. Heck, strap two on and 1000HP will be cake as long as you have very deep pockets. If you want a moderate increase in power with reliability, then I would go with the Roe setup.

-Muzzy

Wonderful, understandable, and to many of us very, very helpful.

Thanks for taking the time, and sharing the knowledge.

Roy

 

[Ram From Hell]

I have explained it a number of times on this site as well as the NFFF. With my work schedule I'm not going to get into it again, as I really do not have time.

Oh sure. Stick and run!