You can see that Ferrari were very crazy in their waste gate design. They used a butterfly valve...

We can do that with the MGUH! Let's just use a God damned butterfly vale in there! We need as much flow as we can get through there!
If the "Emergency Mode" runs the same intake pressure as normal mode, the AFR will be similar. Airflow will increase due to increased scavenge but trapped mass will not change significantly. In this scenario the recip is no more an "air motor" than it would usually be at the same boost. What has changed is the exhaust pumping work will be reduced along the lines mentioned in my previous post.Tommy Cookers wrote:surely ?? .....gruntguru wrote:Removing the exhaust backpressure ie going from about 2.5-3.0 Bar abs to 1.0 abs will reduce pumping MEP by 1.5 to 2.0 bar, resulting in a similar increase in BMEP. If BMEP is 36 bar, that would be a 4%-5% power increase.
VE and scavenge ratio will also increase but won't produce any power increase.
if the exhaust pressure is dropped from eg 3 bar to 1 bar by wastegate engagement the boost must similarly be dropped to maintain massflow and AFR (at whatever optimally efficient value was already in use)
when the boost is so dropped there will be little or no gain in crankshaft power though the supercharging power will much less (helpful in this electric supercharging mode) and this required 'turbo' rpm will be less, helpful as the turbine is now a burden
electric driving of the 'turbo' (fully or partially) will anyway be a normal, frequently used, mode and at some times it will pay to forgo mgu-h generation
so, is there such an abnormal '1 shot' electric mode that will give this notional greatest (temporary) total power/acceleration ?
if boost is kept high (electrically driven) with exhaust dropped to ambient by wastegate the ICE acts somewhat as an air motor but the inevitable extra air massflow (by raising of the AFR above the optimal efficiency value) will degrade ICE efficiency
You are overcomplicating this. Whatever pressure drop exists across the intake valve, will be the same under NA and boosted conditions.PlatinumZealot wrote:Using the egine as an air motor is a nice idea but it will work only in part because a four stroke engine's valve timing is different. You can only get propulsion from the compressed air on the intake stroke.... Then you have to do some fluid dynamics calculstions to see if the air will push with sufficient force on a piston moving down at high speeds.
Yes it is an electric supercharger, but don't think in terms of a boost increase. Think of the compressor running at the same pressure but driven by the MGUH instead of the turbine. No backpressure on the engine means less pumping energy for the piston to push the exhaust gas out.ringo wrote:I am not understanding the air motor talk.
I was thinking more allong the lines that the compressor will be like an electric super charger. Boost will increase and fuel will be injected to match. I figure as much that there will be limitations with the linear equation for mass flow below 10500rpm, but there is still some advantage to be had with the electric supercharging.
From my experience of work on MGUH design I believe there isn't enough length in there, the packaging doesn't appear to work and I've never seen any data to suggest it is in the middle, only rumour.wuzak wrote:Having not seen the actualy unit we cannot be sure, but rumours suggest that the MGU sits between turbo and compressor on the Ferrari.
This shows how long a mid mounted MGUH turbo would need to be and would push the Turbine housing too far back. Honeywell supply the rest of the turbo so I doubt Marelli are driving the packaging.wuzak wrote:Magneti Marelli showed a MGU fitted between turbine and compressor a couple of years ago. MM supply the MGUs to Ferrari.
http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/147452 ... inline.jpg
Are you sure? It doesn't explain the twin inlets from the airbox as seen below. Do you have any pictures?wuzak wrote:The compressor inlet would be similar to the Renault concept from before last season.
http://twwhlspls.com/wp-content/uploads ... _f1_04.jpg
Part of the rumpur was that he compressor was in the vee, but this would either make it small or cause the whole unit to be too high. So you may be right on the MGUH position.Facts Only wrote:From my experience of work on MGUH design I believe there isn't enough length in there, the packaging doesn't appear to work and I've never seen any data to suggest it is in the middle, only rumour.wuzak wrote:Having not seen the actualy unit we cannot be sure, but rumours suggest that the MGU sits between turbo and compressor on the Ferrari.
The high outlet of the compressor also suggests an effort to clear something right in front of the wheel, if the MGUH isn't there a front entry compressor would be better for efficiency but they haven't done this.
I'd suggest that the twin inlets straddle the outlet and then go to a inlet area similar to the Renault's.Facts Only wrote:From my experience of work on MGUH design I believe there isn't enough length in there, the packaging doesn't appear to work and I've never seen any data to suggest it is in the middle, only rumour.wuzak wrote:Having not seen the actualy unit we cannot be sure, but rumours suggest that the MGU sits between turbo and compressor on the Ferrari.
The high outlet of the compressor also suggests an effort to clear something right in front of the wheel, if the MGUH isn't there a front entry compressor would be better for efficiency but they haven't done this.
wuzak wrote:Are you sure? It doesn't explain the twin inlets from the airbox as seen below. Do you have any pictures?wuzak wrote:The compressor inlet would be similar to the Renault concept from before last season.
http://twwhlspls.com/wp-content/uploads ... _f1_04.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JP53BWY.jpg