Dave, Thank you for the explanation. I'm sure this reflects the promise from the long's point of view, but I think it leaves out some important aspects of the system, IMHO.
"The concept is quite simple, Michael. It's one of those great inventions where you
say, 'Why didn't I think of that?'"
I belive many have, but it has not been pursued because it has no advantages.
Firstly, no one debates the fact the turbocharging has its advantages...that's the problem. Most every heavy truck out there today already has some kind of forced air system; it's nothing new.
So, the issue here is, what does this system have that is an advantage over existing turbo or supercharging systems? The market place has answered: nothing.
Existing turbo systems are driven by existing exhaust gas pressure, with a small power loss due to exhaust gas restriction. They require little in the way of additional hardware; for this reason they are favored in less expensive passenger car applications.
Supercharged systems have a better responsive range, but require more expensive hardware and closer tolerences, but little additional beyond the unit itself. They are mechanicaly driven by the engine's rotation either by gearing or belt systems.
Now, an electricaly driven charging system requires significant hardware upgrades to the existing engine system.Aside from the new and larger manifold, and additional electric motor, driving an electric motor all the time requires a larger alternator (expensive, esp. on large trucks) , an upgraded battery, and upgraded wiring. Even in this day and age, constant load DC electric motors for harsh environments (vibration, 200+f* heat, airborn contaminants) are bulky and expensive. Additionaly, forced air upgrades to conventional systems require engine rebuilds for new pistons,cams and engine management systems.
So,why would anybody add an unproven, more failure prone and expensive system when cheaper and more reliable systems exist?
Beets me... |
