Improve power...please help!

[~tc~]

First, Wikipedia is not as reliable a source as young people think. Anyone can edit it, and it will always be susceptible to terms currently en vogue instead of necessarily accurate. Just as "bimonthly" has come to mean both "two times per month" and "every other month", but if you want to call them both "forced induction" as opposed to "supercharging", whatever - the point remains they are both doing exactly the same thing.

My post above is called "The Laws of Thermodynamics" as they relate to internal combustion engines, and you're more than welcome to pick up a textbook or take a couple college courses (as I have done) to verify that what is written above is accurate, but I thought it might be a bit much to write out in a forum, sorry. It takes 78 pages here: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstre ... sequence=3

To sum up:
The thermal efficiency of an engine is primarily determined by the difference between the inlet and exhaust temperatures. If your EGT is ambient temperature, then you have extracted all the energy from the combustion. Compression ratio cures all - you get more power AND more efficiency with higher compression ratios (see diesel and SkyActiv).

Here's some links to your beloved Wikipedia that are reasonably accurate to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio (although this article really should address external compression ratio due to forced induction)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger (note the turbo supercharger terminology used)

[KuroNekko]

Interesting response. I'll admit something: I'm actually not in the field of science nor have taken university-level courses in physics. So, pat on the back, you're one-up on me... though it's not that impressive unless you are actually in the profession as an automotive engineer. I took courses in Epidemiology and Infectious Diseases in college and I wouldn't call myself a doctor.
Regardless, it's not that I'm at an argumentative disadvantage. My very field of university study and occupation revolves around argument. I work in law. Now, let's take a look here:

First, Wikipedia is not as reliable a source as young people think. Anyone can edit it, and it will always be susceptible to terms currently en vogue instead of necessarily accurate. Just as "bimonthly" has come to mean both "two times per month" and "every other month", but if you want to call them both "forced induction" as opposed to "supercharging", whatever - the point remains they are both doing exactly the same thing.

I'm well aware of the flaws of Wikipedia however, its flaws are also its advantages. The very editing nature makes it a living encyclopedia meaning that changes to practices, knowledge, terminology, etc. will be updated and reflected in these articles. You are also assuming that just anyone wrote that. In fact, the majority of article authors are experts in their fields and the material is cross-checked in the review process. Hence, the relatively high accuracy and annotations of Wikipedia articles.

Back to topic: "Turbo supercharging" appears to be an obsolete term even among industry insiders. It probably as to do with the fact that while "whatever - the point remains they are both doing exactly the same thing.", they do the same thing differently. Ah ha, difference. Differentiation begs for different terminology. Science lovers should appreciate that, right? This is why "forced induction" is a much better term and one that the industry actually embraces for logical reasons.

My post above is called "The Laws of Thermodynamics" as they relate to internal combustion engines, and you're more than welcome to pick up a textbook or take a couple college courses (as I have done) to verify that what is written above is accurate, but I thought it might be a bit much to write out in a forum, sorry. It takes 78 pages here: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstre ... sequence=3

That's great. However, you are arguing theory at this point. This is the argumentative equivalent of name-dropping as if it gives you credibility. Theoretical arguments only go so far if you can't use the theory in an applied sense to prove or disprove something. I'm sure they apply to all we are talking about in some abstract way, but when you can't make applied arguments directly in response to mine, they are not substantive. You have yet to make an applied argument disproving anything I originally wrote as A) substantially different from what you are claiming and B) wrong in an applied sense. I've read what you wrote in response to my "wrong" information and there is barely anything that is actually disproved!
Dropping "The Laws of Thermodynamics" in the most abstract of ways does nothing to bolster your argument. It's like writing "The Laws of Thermodynamics" as an answer to a specific physic equation on an exam. Sorry, wrong answer.

To sum up:
The thermal efficiency of an engine is primarily determined by the difference between the inlet and exhaust temperatures. If your EGT is ambient temperature, then you have extracted all the energy from the combustion. Compression ratio cures all - you get more power AND more efficiency with higher compression ratios (see diesel and SkyActiv).

Okay... yet you failed to argue your point in calling me out: how is this proving what I wrote is wrong, especially in again, an applied sense? Your responses have done NOTHING to disprove my claims. You talk of compression ratios in an out-of-scope sense with analogies to Mazda's SkyActiv engines (not even forced induction, by the way, and deliberately so) without even addressing what I specifically wrote.

Here's some links to your beloved Wikipedia that are reasonably accurate to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_ratio (although this article really should address external compression ratio due to forced induction)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger (note the turbo supercharger terminology used)

Again, these are general topics that will not counter my original argument which you claimed was wrong. You want to claim I'm wrong, then you prove it. Don't talk theory here and try to have it prove me wrong in some cosmically abstract way. Talk facts and prove in an applied sense how my descriptions above are wrong.
It's pretty clear to me that what I wrote was a very brief, simplified version of what you wrote, but you got hung up on some of my technical terminology (that still work in my argumentative favor, by the way).

Also, maybe you might want to take a gander back to the LED conversion kit thread to see how applied arguments matter and not some general theory. We argued about light sources and lumens, yet you neglected the importance of the reflector which is how light is used in an applied sense.
http://www.kizashiclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0&start=20

If there was anything you should have learned in college is that there's theory and applied practice. Applied practice gets a lot of credibility in reflecting reality for obvious reasons. It's relevant in everything from science to politics. Just look at the difference between Das Kapital (theory) and North Korea (applied practice, according to them). Which would you point to as an example of Communism in the world and whether one should support it?

[Woodie]

To save space, I'm not going to quote KuroNekko's post, suffice it to say its pretty much all wrong.

You start out like this and then say the exact same thing KuroNekko said, in different words. The only difference I read was very minor, or simple semantics.

[KuroNekko]

To save space, I'm not going to quote KuroNekko's post, suffice it to say its pretty much all wrong.

You start out like this and then say the exact same thing KuroNekko said, in different words. The only difference I read was very minor, or simple semantics.

I'm glad someone else made the same observation I did.

[~tc~]

Ok, you want practical examples? Let's talk "turbos inherently have lag, and superchargers do not":
- the BMW bi-turbo system utilizing a small turbo to provide the initial low-lag kick, then another larger turbo to compensate for the inherent limitation on max compression
- variable geometry turbos that use inlet vanes to act as a small turbo with no lag, then opening up to act like a large turbo with big top end

Understanding the theory is important to recognize what limitations are truly inherent in the technology, and what are a result of bad (or at least compromised) design. You made incorrect statements that these limitations are inherent with the technology, for example lag when turbocharging, when they are not - they are a result of the choices the designer used in order to maximize other aspects.

I LOL at your insistence we are saying the same thing, and then arguing that "forced induction" is somehow different than "super charging", similarly to how you claim that light waves/photons coming out of an LED are somehow different than those coming out of halogen or HID lamps. Of course, light output depends hugely on the projector/reflector, but any good lamp will put the light source at the proper focus point to use the housing properly. If they don't, it's not a reflection (pun intended) on some mystical difference between LED and HID, but rather poor execution by the bulb manufacturer. As an example, look at the XB35 lamps with the return wire relocated to eliminate shadowing - the wire is inherent in the technology, but the impact "in reality" is not.

[sx4rocious]

my head hurts....

[~tc~]

So did mine in Thermodynamics class LOL

[KuroNekko]

Ok, you want practical examples? Let's talk "turbos inherently have lag, and superchargers do not":

To use quotation marks, you have to actually quote me. I never once wrote what is in your parentheses. Go check. This is indicative of your problem here: critical reading and comprehension. It's not only me who has noticed. It's probably why you boldly claimed that what I wrote was wrong and then ended up saying little if anything at all substantive to counter it. I've already told you this and so did Woodie. In fact, most people reading this would tell you that.

- the BMW bi-turbo system utilizing a small turbo to provide the initial low-lag kick, then another larger turbo to compensate for the inherent limitation on max compression
- variable geometry turbos that use inlet vanes to act as a small turbo with no lag, then opening up to act like a large turbo with big top end

First of all, I was already aware of BMW's bi-turbo implementation and the existence of twin-scroll turbos. While that's great that improvements are being made to enhance the turbocharger (well, it is about 100 years old), you are talking about rather new developments to certain factory designs. The majority of turbochargers in existence, and especially available in the aftermarket, use a simpler design that is susceptible to turbo lag.
Also, you may want to do some more research on BMW's turbo engines. They really aren't as great as the technology would sound in theory.

Understanding the theory is important to recognize what limitations are truly inherent in the technology, and what are a result of bad (or at least compromised) design. You made incorrect statements that these limitations are inherent with the technology, for example lag when turbocharging, when they are not - they are a result of the choices the designer used in order to maximize other aspects.

Yes, theory is important. I never questioned that. You know what I did actually question? Actual implementation. You also hold me as if I made absolute statements. I did not. I made generalized ones that actually hold true to the reality of most turbos. In the end, most turbos in existence/available have lag. This is of course due to design. You really think the guy who is looking for the turbo kit for his Kizashi or just about any comparable car is going to get his hands on one of these newly developed turbochargers? Again, despite theoretical understanding allowing for expanded possibilities, we are limited to what is actually available to us. This is what I mean by an applied sense.

I LOL at your insistence we are saying the same thing, and then arguing that "forced induction" is somehow different than "super charging", similarly to how you claim that light waves/photons coming out of an LED are somehow different than those coming out of halogen or HID lamps. Of course, light output depends hugely on the projector/reflector, but any good lamp will put the light source at the proper focus point to use the housing properly. If they don't, it's not a reflection (pun intended) on some mystical difference between LED and HID, but rather poor execution by the bulb manufacturer. As an example, look at the XB35 lamps with the return wire relocated to eliminate shadowing - the wire is inherent in the technology, but the impact "in reality" is not.

Again, reading comprehension is key here. Supercharging is a form of Forced Induction. It does not define it alone. Turbocharging is a form of Forced Induction. The reason I, and most of the auto industry, differentiate superchargers and turbochargers is that despite both utilizing compression, they get the source of compression differently. Superchargers are powered by a pulley and belt connected to the engine. Turbochargers are powered by exhaust pressure. See the difference? Hence, the differentiation in the name, yet the same categorization under "Forced Induction".
Is this such a hard concept to grasp? It's terminology based on technicalities.

I also find it funny you bring up the LED conversation as if it's in your argumentative favor. You argued light waves, I argued how HID and LED bulbs differ in different housings, which is something you doubted at first. You also seem to not understand the role of the LED bulb stem as a mount for the Surface Mounted Device LEDs (see the word "Mounted" in the there?). This mount is what alters the light reflection inside the projector to have it differ from HID and halogen bulbs. This is why a multi-reflector is better for LED bulbs.

You are also still comparing HID bulbs and the XB35's unique return wire to something that is actually incomparable by design as LED bulbs don't have their light source suspended in glass tubes like halogens and HIDs. They are mounted, not suspended.
You are not getting this and this is why you still write things like, "If they don't, it's not a reflection (pun intended) on some mystical difference between LED and HID, but rather poor execution by the bulb manufacturer. As an example, look at the XB35 lamps with the return wire relocated to eliminate shadowing - the wire is inherent in the technology, but the impact "in reality" is not."
It's not really a design flaw if that's the way it's got to be. LEDs need to be mounted. This subsequently affects the type of reflector they should go in.

I'm getting tired of arguing here. We have our differences in opinion and that's fine. However, you made the bold claim that what I wrote was "pretty much all wrong". This is considered an argumentative attack. However, when you then wrote the rest of your comment, you completely failed to show how mine was actually wrong at all. I told you this. Woodie told you this. Hell, go print this thread and show it to a random person with average to above average reading comprehension and logical reasoning abilities and they will tell you this.
This is why I've replied to this extent to explain this to you. I've also showed you the flaws of your supposed counterarguments which did just about nothing to support your claim that what I wrote was wrong.
There is nothing beyond this for me to explain that it's not really about your supposed superior understanding of forced induction (or "supercharging") but the fact that I'm still waiting to see how you can try to call me out as wrong and do so poorly in proving it.

[~tc~]

Understanding the theory is important to recognize what limitations are truly inherent in the technology, and what are a result of bad (or at least compromised) design. You made incorrect statements that these limitations are inherent with the technology,

I guess your superior reading comprehension missed this part.

To your argument about someone creating a turbo kit for the Kizashi (which already exists, BTW, from RoadRace so it is definitely possible), I would suggest that, no, indeed they are not bound to the limitations of existing designs - they can choose the turbo they desire, understanding it's strengths and weaknesses, optimizing one while minimizing the other... Just the same as if they were to fit a supercharger or nitrous (which you also made erroneous statements about - properly implemented, nitrous is safer for engines than either form of supercharging, and the only option that truly has no lag)

I brought up the LED/HID discussion because you have done the exact same thing there that you are accusing me of here - argue they are different with no proof or examples... Which is particularly sad because you're the IDEAL person to provide them since you have both bulbs and could swap them and show exactly this (so far unsupported) theory of yours. I contend that so long as the light source is placed in the same location, it doesn't matter which bulb. I agree that location has to be quite precise - optics are very unforgiving of even small error - but argue that high quality bulb manufacturers know this FAR better than any of us do, and will make that happen.

[KuroNekko]

Understanding the theory is important to recognize what limitations are truly inherent in the technology, and what are a result of bad (or at least compromised) design. You made incorrect statements that these limitations are inherent with the technology,

I guess your superior reading comprehension missed this part.

To your argument about someone creating a turbo kit for the Kizashi (which already exists, BTW, from RoadRace so it is definitely possible), I would suggest that, no, indeed they are not bound to the limitations of existing designs - they can choose the turbo they desire, understanding it's strengths and weaknesses, optimizing one while minimizing the other... Just the same as if they were to fit a supercharger or nitrous (which you also made erroneous statements about - properly implemented, nitrous is safer for engines than either form of supercharging, and the only option that truly has no lag)

I brought up the LED/HID discussion because you have done the exact same thing there that you are accusing me of here - argue they are different with no proof or examples... Which is particularly sad because you're the IDEAL person to provide them since you have both bulbs and could swap them and show exactly this (so far unsupported) theory of yours. I contend that so long as the light source is placed in the same location, it doesn't matter which bulb. I agree that location has to be quite precise - optics are very unforgiving of even small error - but argue that high quality bulb manufacturers know this FAR better than any of us do, and will make that happen.

To keep it short, you've again exemplified what I've claimed all along.
Your points about the RRM turbo, nitrous, and LED bulbs just show you really don't get what I've wrote nor my points.

I haven't demonstrated the LED light swap because quite frankly, I rather not waste my time on something I already know. How do I know? Because there is already quite a lot of literature out there on the topic from other people doing so in addition to technical explanations as to why plus the fact that the very company who made the product advises against LEDs in projector lenses. I've already stated this, by the way. I'll just leave it up to you to do your homework.

There are multitudes of examples to show you don't really get what I'm writing.
This is what I'm talking about with reading comprehension. Someone else also pointed this out which you conveniently neglected to address. It all actually works against you given you made accusations that I'm wrong yet can't prove it nor actually can even show you understand my position in the first place. To counter an argument, you first need to understand what was even said.

Regardless, I don't really care at this point anymore. Think what you will of my rather clear diction.