Wing mirrors on cars

Interests you enough to reply. Or do you just have 'reply Tourettes' ?

Learn to quote context or f*ck off.

Why ?

So I know what you're referring to.

So I know what you're referring to.

I am referring to the "doesn't interest me"[1] nothing else; no wing mirrors, no tyres, no turbochargers

You quoted nothing before "doesn't interest me", so I couldn't see what didn't interest me. Learn to use a newsreader then come back.

Do the arithmetic. I did.

A 2-litre 4-stroke running at one atmosphere boost, 6000 RPM is a round

I'm sure that's not the most you could get from its exhaust.

Andy

Unlike Boltar you have the references. I'd never heard of that.

And it gives us some useful numbers. They are able to recover 20% of the engine output from waste energy in the exhaust.

But there definitely are aircraft turbochargers in the modern sense. See my earlier reference.

Andy

It really doesn't matter what (supposedly) doesn't interest you, merely that it interests you enough to post an (ironic) "Doesn't interest me" post.

We know one beneficial effect of a turbo is noise reduction. Against the arguments about a turbo taking power away from the pistons it is necessary to wonder what effect the silencer box has on an engine. Rather than "waste" the energy in a silencer, it is bound to be better to extract it in mechanical form.

There doesn't seem to be any definitive information about what a silencer actually does but a quick scan suggests about 5% is taken off maximum power and that back pressure is actually beneficial/benign at lower outputs. Which suggests there is useful potential.

Yes, I realise now that I have looked deeper into aircraft specs.

If you can't tell me what you're talking about and referring to, I can't be bothered with you. Learn the basics of newsgroups then come back to play with the adults.

I am referring to you 'saying' "doesn't interest me", nothing else.

Similar to your "can't be bothered with you" and yet you continue to answer.

Oh and I am not replying to your "play with the adults" so have snipped that . Get the idea?

So lets see it then.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a turbine compressing intake air and a turbine directly driving the crank.

Your basic error is that the turbine doesn't compress intake air.

The turbine extracts mechanical energy from the exhaust and delivers it by turning a shaft. In one case the shaft drives the crank, in the other the shaft drives a compressor. How does the turbine know the difference?

In F1 engines the turbine is connected to a system that both charges and compounds (by electrical connection). It is reckoned they are approaching 50% efficiency so I get the impression they have a fairly good idea about what they are doing.

Right, the boost pressure is merely a marketing gimmick.

It doesn't, the laws of physics do. The compressed air doesn't help push the pistons around, it simply allows more fuel to be burnt per stroke.

In fact the compressed air opposes the pistons movement on the compression Nut this whole thread is turned into bollocks by dr6092's misapprehension of the fact that most piston engines of the aircraft variety do not use exhaust recovery to drive a turbine that drives the crank.

And that this is in any case not what is called 'turbo-charging' or 'turbo supercharging'

In short he is a bear of little brain who has discovered an obscure feature of a couple of US engines used briefly in the 1950s and thinks he knows all there is to know about superchargers and turbochargers.

Frankly I wouldn't waste any more time, you are right, and he doesn't understand to the extent that he's not even wrong.

You responded to something I said yet failed to give the context as to what I said it in reply to. Learn to use the internet properly or f*ck off.