superchargers???

[Charles]

why do you say a blower wont function at 16000rpms??? this is exactly what the manufacture said it will do. think about the typical camro vet build 6500-7000rpms on a charger running a 2:1 or ushally a 2.5:1 ratio. ???? see why i wana run a 4:1 ratio cuz it can be done granted most SC dont do well at that rpms but my truck also never see that kinda rpms so im no worred. i dont ever like going above 3300

I thought you were citing an impractical example just to show an extreme situation for argument's sake. If the unit is designed for that range, then yes, it will work as designed.

 

[rossypho]

so im sure everyone has seen the blowemax in the recent power tec mag.

somethign i found out, its a cog roots 14-71 blower (that was a 9.1l (it was a 9l somethign blower) but instead of the blower spinning the trubo. they hooked 2 75mm turbos and made those feed that gigantic blower (had a intercooler before the intake of the blower) its rumored at 2000hp (the owner said he ownt stop till he hits that, but has yet to hit the dyno)
this had only brought to my attention that the 6-71 and 8-71 should be around the 4/5l rang i can use half the sized turbos if i wanted to run a simulor set up. but i dont wana blower the sc using the turbos. im still trying to reasearch the mods or try and find a build thread on this truck, its and empire truck (yes same guys who make the procharged kit)

the reading i did on PC (procharged) they arrgued that it simulor to compound set up and would make as much power as the turbo on a basic compound set up. yet they kept the guys with PC said no do to the fact that the SC is the atmosiric and that means it will only push was the PC power output would equal. i dont know much on compunds so please inliten me on this.

what if i was say a 4.0whipple or a 7-61 blower to a say 70mm .95 a/r ratio with a say 90/100mm turbo hooke with it. the SC only feeding the 70 and the bigger one feeding just the intake manifold. then it would still have the max power of the biggest turbo that does have the intake feed by the SC. i would have both turbos downt the back side near the tranny just like the LS truck guys do. fed like a basic compound or a twin style like they would run but the small turbo intake fed to the SC and a new intake for the bigger on?

 

[Charles]

so im sure everyone has seen the blowemax in the recent power tec mag.

somethign i found out, its a cog roots 14-71 blower (that was a 9.1l (it was a 9l somethign blower) but instead of the blower spinning the trubo. they hooked 2 75mm turbos and made those feed that gigantic blower (had a intercooler before the intake of the blower) its rumored at 2000hp (the owner said he ownt stop till he hits that, but has yet to hit the dyno)
this had only brought to my attention that the 6-71 and 8-71 should be around the 4/5l rang i can use half the sized turbos if i wanted to run a simulor set up. but i dont wana blower the sc using the turbos. im still trying to reasearch the mods or try and find a build thread on this truck, its and empire truck (yes same guys who make the procharged kit)

If you want to make power, then step away from the straight rotor blowers. That's just not the way. Efficiency seems to be eluding your thought process right now.

I haven't seen the article you're talking about, but it's good to hear they had success with that truck. I don't know if they used any of it, but I did have a number of conversations with them about that truck when it was just a concept, and actually gave a lot of advice that it seems like they may have followed there. I haven't talked to them in a long while, but hopefully I didn't steer them wrong on that one. If it's making that kind of power then it must have worked reasonably well, regardless of whether or not any of my ideas were used.

the reading i did on PC (procharged) they arrgued that it simulor to compound set up and would make as much power as the turbo on a basic compound set up. yet they kept the guys with PC said no do to the fact that the SC is the atmosiric and that means it will only push was the PC power output would equal. i dont know much on compunds so please inliten me on this.

The second stage is merely for pressure increases and load sharing. The volume of air the system can flow is still precisely governed by the volume the first stage will flow. This is why I said it would be foolish to place a positive displacement unit ahead of the turbo. The blower would move the same air volume independent of anything the turbo was doing, and down low the turbo would be doing nothing, and up top the turbo would only be heating the air and pulling a vacuum on the blower discharge.

what if i was say a 4.0whipple or a 7-61 blower to a say 70mm .95 a/r ratio with a say 90/100mm turbo hooke with it. the SC only feeding the 70 and the bigger one feeding just the intake manifold. then it would still have the max power of the biggest turbo that does have the intake feed by the SC. i would have both turbos downt the back side near the tranny just like the LS truck guys do. fed like a basic compound or a twin style like they would run but the small turbo intake fed to the SC and a new intake for the bigger on?

At some point you're going to need to turn your concept around backward. You can run a 200mm charger AFTER the supercharger if you want.... and you're not going to accomplish even one thing more than what the supercharger would do by itself. Running TWO turbochargers AFTER the supercharger is retarded to the second power, lol.

You would just have the biggest vacuum cleaner ever.

LOL

 

[faster6.0]

Turbo feeds the blower

 

[IdahoF350]

Ross,
Are you like 16-18 years old? You just don't seem to be comprehending the information and what people here are telling you. I've had these kinds of discussions with UTI/Wyotech students too. There's a lot of fantasy in your posts, and not much else.

Please don't be insulted, because that's not my intent. I'm going to share an anecdote from my youth with you:

When I was just a teenager with a wet dream for horsepower, I thought I knew a lot and approached a company about providing me with an example of one of their new race parts. The fella on the phone did his best to politely ask me how many times I'd broken or blown up. I assured him that at that time I hadn't because I was so diligent in my research and planning and because I had chosen excellent mentors (this was back in the days before we had the Internet). His response is one I still remember to this day, he responded that I wasn't ready for his part yet because I didn't know enough to put it to proper use. He went on to say that I should get back to him some day in the future when I had broken and blown up a few dozen times. His reasoning was that you haven't learned the limit of the parts until you break them, and you have to break them a few times to begin to understand why they are breaking. Even then you'll think you have it fixed and then you'll break something else and start the process again. It took me a couple years to realize how profound his advice was, and I owe a lot of successes to understanding this as a concept.

 

[Hotrodtractor]

Ross,
Are you like 16-18 years old? You just don't seem to be comprehending the information and what people here are telling you. I've had these kinds of discussions with UTI/Wyotech students too. There's a lot of fantasy in your posts, and not much else.

Please don't be insulted, because that's not my intent. I'm going to share an anecdote from my youth with you:

When I was just a teenager with a wet dream for horsepower, I thought I knew a lot and approached a company about providing me with an example of one of their new race parts. The fella on the phone did his best to politely ask me how many times I'd broken or blown up. I assured him that at that time I hadn't because I was so diligent in my research and planning and because I had chosen excellent mentors (this was back in the days before we had the Internet). His response is one I still remember to this day, he responded that I wasn't ready for his part yet because I didn't know enough to put it to proper use. He went on to say that I should get back to him some day in the future when I had broken and blown up a few dozen times. His reasoning was that you haven't learned the limit of the parts until you break them, and you have to break them a few times to begin to understand why they are breaking. Even then you'll think you have it fixed and then you'll break something else and start the process again. It took me a couple years to realize how profound his advice was, and I owe a lot of successes to understanding this as a concept.

There is some awesomeness posted ^^^^^^ right there.

 

[rossypho]

i am trying to comprehend but i keep hearing the same thing. but no other solution is given. im just trying to think of everything, right now it is just a dream. as i sit in afganistan no matter how many parts i buy no matter how many motors i buy i cant try anythign out. im here asking questions on theory. its all just theory right now.

in a year ill have my prokect truck (i hope if i can find a decent one) ill get a whipple 4.0 and try it out both feed a turbo and then a turbo feeding it. ( the cummins guys are using a 2.3 feeding stock) and the blowermax is using a 9.1 or 9.8 what ever roots being fed by2 75's

so maybe ill try feeding a 4.0 whipple with 2 67's see how it pans out. maybe ill find a decent priced 6-71 or 8-71 and try it for the sacks of trying a roots style vs the whipple. just to compair it on dyno. again i want to experiment, yeah ill break a lot but its all about the fun

 

[IdahoF350]

There is some awesomeness posted ^^^^^^ right there.

I'm totally gonna take that as a compliment. Thanks!

Ross:
Seriously, I'm almost 40 now. I started working on cars for summer and weekend cash when I was 13. By the time I was 16 I was working in a restoration shop restoring Mustangs, everything from 6-cylinder coupes to real Shelby GT-350s! After high school I got into building cars for performance use and moved away from the resto world. That was when the above anecdote happened, about 20 years ago.

I finally started breaking parts after that. I figured I wanted more I should try for it. Many a head gasket, piston, rod, crank, block, clutch, transmission, axle (you get the point) gave its life in my pursuit of speed! I figured it out in a couple years of applying myself, and then I ended up with some pretty fast rides for a while. Now I have a family and my priorities have changed, but it doesn't mean I don't do a little side work to stay in the game.

Anyhow, I don't think there is enough research that can be done on the Internet for a project like you envision. My experience was that past a certain point those mentors stop telling you what you need to know and the truly knowledgable folks online will do you no differently. Its almost like you're being setup to fail.

The only way a guy can build something like this in his garage is he has to have the background and the experiences of trial and error and failure to ever hope to achieve success. Could I make this work? Absolutely. Can you? I seriously doubt it right now. Maybe in 5-10 years, or if you want to spend yourself broke, 2 or 3.

Be safe in Afghanistan. Don't give up on having something "different". Good things take time, great things take devotion.

 

[Hotrodtractor]

I'm totally gonna take that as a compliment. Thanks!

Take it as a compliment - it was clearly a post made by someone that had experienced an important life lesson and didn't just read about it on the net.

The entire concept of putting a turbocharger with a supercharger is something that has been done in various different configurations and setups for years - Just because one person has done it one particular way doesn't mean it performed optimally nor does it mean that it sucked either.

I am on the inclination that a turbo or turbos blowing into a supercharger the preferred design method for lots of reason - most of which is shear air flow capabilities. Try to find some actual technical documentation and direction out there to help you down your path - there are many good books that break down the pros and cons of both of these systems separately - that information is laid out well and is intended to educate - perhaps some of them could be gotten as PDF files so they could be read and stored easily. The guys posting on forums are usually pretty good - but you need to start at the basics and work your way up through everything before you should start just throwing around concept ideas and think you are headed that way

Charles is a pretty good dude to listen to and take advice from most days - I'd read what he typed and really work towards understanding his view point - it doesn't mean that you need to agree with him - just understand what he is saying.

Jason

 

[faster6.0]

I've got a 6/71 Detroit motor that has a blower an turbo from the factory, turbo feeding blower

 

[Lubbockguy1979]

Ross,


When I was just a teenager with a wet dream for horsepower, I thought I knew a lot and approached a company about providing me with an example of one of their new race parts. The fella on the phone did his best to politely ask me how many times I'd broken or blown up. I assured him that at that time I hadn't because I was so diligent in my research and planning and because I had chosen excellent mentors (this was back in the days before we had the Internet). His response is one I still remember to this day, he responded that I wasn't ready for his part yet because I didn't know enough to put it to proper use. He went on to say that I should get back to him some day in the future when I had broken and blown up a few dozen times. His reasoning was that you haven't learned the limit of the parts until you break them, and you have to break them a few times to begin to understand why they are breaking. Even then you'll think you have it fixed and then you'll break something else and start the process again.

This is why I don't have any vehicles with 10 bolt axles, 700r4/4l60e trannies or ifs.

 

[rossypho]

heres the thing i understand with power come breaking. drive train is first, suspention to keep you form fliping and breaks to stop you. i just want something that will have crazy boost.

like i said im going to find a cheap 6.0 and work on getting a 4.0 whipple and making it fit. then just feed that feed the intake. and see how it proforms with a stock injectors and fuel. dyno it and then throw a stock turbo at it. both ways. turbo feeding the SC and then the SC feeding the turbo with a duno sheet and see whats more effective. maybe try out different turbos and such and maybe try adding bigger injectors and more fuel just to see what is capable. once i figure out what i like. im going to throw it into the f350. till then, stakcs is my first thing. then its the ssbc brakes are next on my list. then ill look into the tranny, i hear the older 4r100 (or what ever its called. 7.3 tranny) is a better tranny for building a hp/tq monster, also way cheaper. but again time will only tell with the project truck. agian as of right now my GTO hopes havent been shot just i am not going down this path no more so its all about a project truck so i have somethign to turn wrenchs on.

 

[Charles]

heres the thing i understand with power come breaking. drive train is first, suspention to keep you form fliping and breaks to stop you. i just want something that will have crazy boost.

like i said im going to find a cheap 6.0 and work on getting a 4.0 whipple and making it fit. then just feed that feed the intake. and see how it proforms with a stock injectors and fuel. dyno it and then throw a stock turbo at it. both ways. turbo feeding the SC and then the SC feeding the turbo with a duno sheet and see whats more effective. maybe try out different turbos and such and maybe try adding bigger injectors and more fuel just to see what is capable. once i figure out what i like. im going to throw it into the f350. till then, stakcs is my first thing. then its the ssbc brakes are next on my list. then ill look into the tranny, i hear the older 4r100 (or what ever its called. 7.3 tranny) is a better tranny for building a hp/tq monster, also way cheaper. but again time will only tell with the project truck. agian as of right now my GTO hopes havent been shot just i am not going down this path no more so its all about a project truck so i have somethign to turn wrenchs on.

Unless you have lebbentybillion dollars, and lebbentybillion free hours every day, you will have to actually apply KNOWN physical properties to concepts as opposed to trial and erroring your way through life.

Even if you had the money, and the time, you will have only a fraction of the results to show for your expended resources if you persist in ****ing up everything just for the sake of saying you did it, instead of applying relatively simple physical concepts to the hypotheses beforehand.

Nobody needs to stick a positive displacement blower ahead of a turbocharger to see what would happen. The blower is going to move ____ CFM. Period. The turbo is going to move whatever lbs/min that yields at the given atmospheric conditions with varying amounts of pressure, flow and temperature, and accomplish NOTHING above what the supercharger was already doing, aside from maybe..... maybe taking some of the parasitic loss away from the supercharger drive and shifting it to the turbine's parasitic load. The only possible gain would be a turbocharger perfectly matched to one sweet spot of engine rpm (perfectly related to blower rpm via the belt) at one sweet spot of power output where the gains in drive efficiency of the turbine over the belt could be realized.

And you already discounted this gain in the fact that you want to utilize a supercharger as opposed to multistage turbine-driven system in the first place, so this isn't your goal anyway.

I'm not one to dash a person's own desire to try cool stuff, but this is the equivalent of spreading dogsh*t on your steak just to see how it tastes. It's an experiment that simply needant be executed in order to tally the results given existing data on the subject.

But that's just me. I won't crash the party again. Not being a debbie downer, just trying to save worthless wastes of resources that could be spent doing things with positive returns.

 

[IdahoF350]

I think Charles and I are very much on the same page here, and this will be my last words on this subject too.

Before I took a step back from the industry to clear my head and get some perspective, this is the kind of project that would come my way: unrealistic expectations from bad combinations. When someone would come my way with something like this, I would either refuse the project or quote an outlandish price to shoot it down. Where an outlandish price would usually stop this dead in its tracks, a refusal would sometimes get the person to rethink their approach and listen to reason.

A 4.0 Lysholm is enough to make 750hp on a 6.0L. I can engineer a proper mounting system, produce a suitable exhaust solution, and can even cool the charge air sufficiently for towing purposes and then tune the truck for proper drivability. To execute this properly I would put the cost of the project in the range of $25,000 minimum to well in excess of $30,000 depending on cost variables for some items like the supercharger and charge coolers, and that's having the skills and resources to do it without trial and error or multiple revisions.

Don't think for a second that those numbers are a joke, I've done more expensive projects that had less lofty goals. A certain 500+whp 4-cylinder turbo car that had to pass IM240 ran just at $57,000 at completion for the entire project, $40k of which was spent on the engine package itself. Bottom 11 second fwd street cars with all the trimmings including good drivability and creature comforts like A/C and cruise control don't come cheap.

Think about what I'm saying here. Think about what I've said up to this point. Look long and hard at what Charles is saying too. The best advice possible is right in front of you on a computer screen, and it cost you nothing. Try to learn something from it. You'll thank us later.

 

[rossypho]

ok so i understand you dont want to post no more but i dont really care about the it cost x it blah many hot rodders have proved you can go a long way with used or non kit parts and make thing work in your garage.

research has shown whipple 4.0 produce 2500cfm can go to 18000rpm and 16000 max continous rpm so this means a 4 to 1 ratio pully at the crank will work. (that means having a pully custom made, unless emire diesel has this pully avalable and will sell it off there procharger kit) this will result in my truck never being able to out rev the SC.
more research involved lead to learn why you should run turbos. Sc max proformace is from 5-15psi of boost. using the SC and turbo set up if you match the turbo cfm and the SC cfm when the turbo is boosting this should inreturn a nutral pressure in the supercharger, aka meaning that the SC no longer take a million hp to spin. this should maximise the power output of the totaly setup, instead of running a bypass. but this means makeing a propersized turbo. so i need to figure out a single turbo set up that push's 2500cfm or do somethign like the blowermax did, get 2 turbos that produce 1250cfm. (idea is to mount the turbos to each cylinder head back by the transmission, just like chevy siverados do) and then feed to the SC from a rear fed set up. so both turbos will join into a ypipe that will be fed up to the SC. this is not the profered method but i can get 4.0whipple SC new without a kits for 2500$ dollors with a snout that to my sizeing (so it will reach to the belt) and get a sized pully i want (still looking into the size for the psi i want to make, again probably have a custom one made to make it fit the sized rib belt thats on the 6.0) then make a custome intake manifold like i taked about earlier (this is the main reason why i want to run turbo feeding the SC, making it the easest way for me to mount the SC to the block) ill be doing something like this

i knwo you think theres no way it possible to make a custome unit. im going to start working on aluminium casting. pretty easy, youtube it. theres a guy who shows you everythign from making a furnice to how to make molds of engines to cast. dude makes his own little engine for compressors and things (very simple) in his garage. ill probably mold my units form wood, and then mount the SC to that to see the fitting and get it right before trying to make the mold and all. hopefully everthign goes right. and work well for me

now the research begines with turbo sizing and at 2500cfm what injector sizing shoudl i go with, and how to modify the fuel system to feed that id needed?? this is the question ^ since everyone no longer wants to talk about the SC please help me out on feeding the fuel to cfm. lets talk about mod away from turbos and SC please

 

[SSpeeDEMONSS]

You're an idiot.

Garrett

encrypted with an enigma machine

 

[Twinturbostroker]

Some people just have to learn the hard way.......

 

[Dzchey21]

Some people just have to learn the hard way.......

I sure did...

Compounded turbos ftw...

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[IdahoF350]

You're an idiot.

Garrett

encrypted with an enigma machine

This made me laugh.

ok so i understand you dont want to post no more but i dont really care about the it cost x it blah many hot rodders have proved you can go a long way with used or non kit parts and make thing work in your garage.

research has shown whipple 4.0 produce 2500cfm can go to 18000rpm and 16000 max continous rpm so this means a 4 to 1 ratio pully at the crank will work. (that means having a pully custom made, unless emire diesel has this pully avalable and will sell it off there procharger kit) this will result in my truck never being able to out rev the SC.
more research involved lead to learn why you should run turbos. Sc max proformace is from 5-15psi of boost. using the SC and turbo set up if you match the turbo cfm and the SC cfm when the turbo is boosting this should inreturn a nutral pressure in the supercharger, aka meaning that the SC no longer take a million hp to spin. this should maximise the power output of the totaly setup, instead of running a bypass. but this means makeing a propersized turbo. so i need to figure out a single turbo set up that push's 2500cfm or do somethign like the blowermax did, get 2 turbos that produce 1250cfm. (idea is to mount the turbos to each cylinder head back by the transmission, just like chevy siverados do) and then feed to the SC from a rear fed set up. so both turbos will join into a ypipe that will be fed up to the SC. this is not the profered method but i can get 4.0whipple SC new without a kits for 2500$ dollors with a snout that to my sizeing (so it will reach to the belt) and get a sized pully i want (still looking into the size for the psi i want to make, again probably have a custom one made to make it fit the sized rib belt thats on the 6.0) then make a custome intake manifold like i taked about earlier (this is the main reason why i want to run turbo feeding the SC, making it the easest way for me to mount the SC to the block) ill be doing something like this

i knwo you think theres no way it possible to make a custome unit. im going to start working on aluminium casting. pretty easy, youtube it. theres a guy who shows you everythign from making a furnice to how to make molds of engines to cast. dude makes his own little engine for compressors and things (very simple) in his garage. ill probably mold my units form wood, and then mount the SC to that to see the fitting and get it right before trying to make the mold and all. hopefully everthign goes right. and work well for me

now the research begines with turbo sizing and at 2500cfm what injector sizing shoudl i go with, and how to modify the fuel system to feed that id needed?? this is the question ^ since everyone no longer wants to talk about the SC please help me out on feeding the fuel to cfm. lets talk about mod away from turbos and SC please

So let me get this straight: your hypothesis is that by using a turbo between the supercharger and the engine you can reduce the boost pressure from the supercharger and in turn reduce the parasitic load on the engine?

If that is your hypothesis, go back and read the last post by Garrett again.

You have it all screwed up in your noggin. The only way you would be able to draw enough air out of the 4.0 Lysholm to keep the discharge pressure at 15 psi or so would be to have a turbo that precisely follows the output of the supercharger. No such turbo exists. You could perhaps acheive what you desire by feeding the 4.0L into a 3.0L with exactly the same pulley ratio, but what purpose would that serve?

You don't say: I'll just toss a turbo that flows 2500cfm in there. That's a HUGE turbo! You'd need a turbo with a compressor having a 100mm or larger inducer to flow 2500cfm, and that will be next to impossible to pair with a turbine section that will spool it and not be a restriction right after it spools. Thing is, you're dropping multiple atmospheres on the inlet, so the flow will be based on that, say 4 atmospheres (45psi), on a turbo that flows 625cfm at 1 atmosphere, 4x625cfm becomes 2500cfm! You continue to not understand because you don't have the knowledge, background, or experience to pull this off.

Another thing: you think even if your cockamamie idea worked that the stock style serpentine belt would work? First of all, the balancer's pulley diameter is only about 7". 4:1 means a blower pulley 1/4 the size of the crank pulley! There is not enough belt width at 10 ribs, even if you accomplished 300 degrees of belt wrap on the supercharger, to manage a 4:1 drive ratio with less than a 4" blower pulley without burning up belts and that rules out the stock balancer pulley location for drive purposes. The ONLY way you will get belts to live is a 35mm or wider cog drive system in front of the current accessory drive.

Don't lecture me (us collectively) on what Hot Rodders have done in their garages and how that entitles you to try to prove us all wrong. You have no freaking clue what I've done, in my garage, in my shop, at the drag strip, on road courses, in the dirt or on the salt over the last 25 years, and I've put power down on all of them. I'm telling you: your butt can't cash the checks you're trying to write. Don't wast your time trying to figure out fueling, you haven't figured out you're not smart enough to listen to people who are trying to help you. Until you pull your sphincter up over your eyes and ears and carefully read what is written to understand it completely and listen to sage advice, your going to slammed by guys with experience.

I'd say I'm sorry about being so harsh with you, but I'm not. You need to quit playing make believe thinking you're some sort of Gale Banks/Vic Edelbrock Sr/Smokey Yunic/John Lingenfelter hot rodding high performance savant. Those guys earned their reputations because they failed and tried again, and you're not that good. Not yet. I've been at this long enough to know I still have more to prove to get a fraction of the respect guys like those command, and in my circles, people gladly pay me to do what I do. I have met Smokey Yunic and John Lingenfelter long ago when I was too young to respect them properly, and no matter what people think of Banks, he is very much in the same league. Those guys are industry giants for a reason, you should just buy their parts and learn for a decade or two.

I am SO done with this! Unsubscribing now.

 

[Charles]

An excerpt from my last post where I explicitly addressed everything now suggested in the OP's last post in a single paragraph, and in greater breadth, seeing as he is ignoring the fact that even a "perfectly" matched turbo will only be "perfectly" matched at ONE throttle/rpm/load point... and NOWHERE else, as the blower is mechanically tied to engine rpm whereas the turbo is not, and will vary with changes in throttle, rpm and load.

What I addressed already, from my previous post before the OP's latest:

Nobody needs to stick a positive displacement blower ahead of a turbocharger to see what would happen. The blower is going to move ____ CFM. Period. The turbo is going to move whatever lbs/min that yields at the given atmospheric conditions with varying amounts of pressure, flow and temperature, and accomplish NOTHING above what the supercharger was already doing, aside from maybe..... maybe taking some of the parasitic loss away from the supercharger drive and shifting it to the turbine's parasitic load. The only possible gain would be a turbocharger perfectly matched to one sweet spot of engine rpm (perfectly related to blower rpm via the belt) at one sweet spot of power output where the gains in drive efficiency of the turbine over the belt could be realized.

And you already discounted this gain in the fact that you want to utilize a supercharger as opposed to multistage turbine-driven system in the first place, so this isn't your goal anyway.

So we're placing a mechanically driven unit in the scheme, with increased parasitic losses compared to a turbine-driven stage.... and then we hope to get some of that back by shifting the load back over to a turbine driven stage via a second stage turbocharger that ends up running as a single charger, making 99% of the pressure ratio on it's own anyway, and hopefully not sucking a vacuum through a two rotor flame thrower first.

So basically, we would consider it a success if we could just get back close to the amount of loss we had before we added in a bunch more loss and heat with a blower out front and sucking drive off the crank by having the blower basically do nothing but spin and pump exactly as much volume as the turbocharger compressor is moving by itself?

So why did we add the blower again?

Exactly.


Whereas if you would place the positive displacement unit AFTER the turbocharger, just like the ENGINE... (which is positive displacement...obviously) then the blower displacement would become your engine displacement in terms of turbocharger sizing. You could spin a much larger turbo, much sooner than if the blower weren't there, yet the blower could NEVER get in the way of the turbo, and the turbo could NEVER get in the way of the blower, as they would operate INDEPENDENTLY of one another.

Focker out...