Interesting but I have no clue what the hell they are talking about.

I just go by a simple theory thats been working for me pretty good. It cost allot of money right? Its got to be good then, HAHAHAHAHA

 

CC-Total area IS volume.I think you may be confusing volosity with volume.Inlet volume is as important as exit volume, whether it me on a S/C or N/A engine.Think of it as someone trying to suck as hard as he can through a stirring straw as apposed to a straw from a big gulp!

 

Sal,

So what you are saying in your engine analogy is that with the inlet on the top of the blower housing there is less surface area of the housing and thus the blower essentially loses the area of the inlet (let's say it's 80 square inches for argument's sake) x the clearance between the rotors and the case of the blower (let's say the rotor to case clearance is 0.2625 inches). These numbers would give us the 21 cubic inch volume loss between the current blower and the new blower design. So, since your new blower is introducing air into the case from the rear, leaving the "cylinder" of the blower housing intact with no "holes", then the blower is able to compress air against the entire blower housing - true?

And Mondo1 - total area IS NOT volume (area being a two dimensional measure and volume being a three dimensional measure). To use your analogy, you could have a stirring straw that is five feet long that may have the same internal surface area as the regular Big Gulp straw but the volume, or the straw's ability to flow liquid, would be significantly different between the two.

Dan

 

That is correct. The inlet on the stock Lightning blower takes away from the available area the rotors have to compress the incoming air.

 

Sal,

Using this picture I found doing a quick search:



I "think" I undersand where you are coming from. Maybe I got a little confused in what you were saying or how you were saying it. Do the screws use each other for sealing or the walls of the casing? I spoke to two engineering co-workers (both Mechanical) and they stated that the real gains would be from providing a laminar flow to the screws. This would be accomplished by entering from the end, as opposed to the top. Neither one of them stated how any gains from "more area to compress" when using a helical screw as used in the Eaton. Only the improved efficency from the laminar flow. The rear entry will prove better than a top entry where the air has to turn 90 degrees to start.

I think it important for everyone to realize the 50-75 horsepower gain stated is not from the blower itself but the improved efficeny of the blower, the improved flow of the intake that you provide, and I'm sure the added benefit of a computer chip that is used in conjuntion with the blower that provides changed air delivery curves.

BTW, we use a few screw machines for air compressors (1250+hp making 6000+CFM) at many of our mills. Wanna try bolting one of those up to your engine?

 

CC, Roots blowers do not use "screws", they use rotors. The rotors compress air against the housing and then out the exhaust port on the bottom.

Whipplechargers use screws where one has a male part of the screw and the other has a female part of the screw. The screw type chargers compress air between the screws and out the bottom.

 

My bad, it was typo. Been talking about screws, rotors, centrifugals etc. too much today.

I meant to say helical rotor as shown in the picture.

 

StruckinAz--Your right about area vs Volume. What I trying to clear up was inlet volume issue being essential to the s/c ability to utilize its total cfm capacity to its fullest potential.The "area" in discussion is the inlet opening (circumference) vs a smaller circumference. In this case the larger area IS more volume.See my point?

 

Mondo1,

After reading your post again I kind of figured we were talking about the same thing...I owe you a beer and what say we skip the straws with them?

Dan