It's stupid, I know, but...

SuperMag

2K+
VIP
Everyone knows that a supercharger is a big pump that forces air in. But I was wondering... what if you had a big pump that sucked exhaust gases out? Would it be possible to generate a bigger vacuum than would otherwise occur? And given the expanded nature of exhaust gas, how huge would this pump have to be? Enquiring minds want to know! :D
 
hrmmm...
turbo with a reversed turbine? have it flowing into the turbo, flow out and......
wait, no, gotta KISS
normal turbo, exhaust flowing regularly into/out of it, but feed the exhaust gases out of the turbo into the intake side of it and let it flow out of the pressurized side of the turbo
sounds almost too simple... that means there is a big problem somewhere
 
A belt driven turbine which overspeeds the exhaust side and creates an exhaust vacuum?

Actually it might hurt more than it helped. Lowering the pressure in the exhaust manifold might suck too much of the incoming mixture into the exhaust and reduce not increase the cylinder fill. It would be a very interesting experiment
 
I have thought about this for a long time. I think the small pieces of carbon would eat up the tight clearences of a blower.
Plus a alumunim blower might not last long with that much heat. It wold for sure have a different exh note.

Now I have a wild thought: Take a V8-71 Detroit Deisel (Two-stroke) and somehow lower the compression to about 12 to 1 and convert it to gasoline or alchol. Of course one would have to make a ignition system too. Wouldn't this make a lot of horsepower? And wouldn't the massive construction keep it it from breaking stuff? like cranks and rods? I always did like a two-stroke.
 
StrangeRanger":36nru0v2 said:
A belt driven turbine which overspeeds the exhaust side and creates an exhaust vacuum?

Actually it might hurt more than it helped. Lowering the pressure in the exhaust manifold might suck too much of the incoming mixture into the exhaust and reduce not increase the cylinder fill.

Good observation... so you'd have to come up with a cam profile that prevented this, viz. no overlap. In which case it would only serve to more efficiently evacuate the cylinder at the exhaust event. So some kind of forced induction would still probably be needed to see any real gain... maybe in conjunction with solenoid actuated valves? (Hrmmm, considers 80BM's suggestion of a 2-stroke in such a context...)
 
StrangeRanger":1ludr524 said:
A belt driven turbine which overspeeds the exhaust side and creates an exhaust vacuum?

For a drag only kinda thing, you could avoid using engine power to do it. A bottle of compressed gas (CO2?)could be used to spool a turbine for the few seconds necessary to make a pass.

Then again why use the turbine, it'll have spool time. You could spray the high velocity gas in such a way as to create a vaccum. Kinda like a sandblasting gun does, only on larger scale.

I guess the real question is now how to do it, but would it do any good?
 
asa67_stang":3fkpiu71 said:
hrmmm...
turbo with a reversed turbine? have it flowing into the turbo, flow out and......
wait, no, gotta KISS
normal turbo, exhaust flowing regularly into/out of it, but feed the exhaust gases out of the turbo into the intake side of it and let it flow out of the pressurized side of the turbo
sounds almost too simple... that means there is a big problem somewhere

I think it's HEAT :) . The compressor, heating already hot exhaust gasses would prolly provide almost instaneous meltdown as it futher heats the exhaust via compression.
 
Acrually, it would be like mounting a big fan on a sailboat to force wind into the sails. :roll: It wouldn't work because when you close the exhaust/intake loop there's no external energy source.
 
StrangeRanger":2xxyil3a said:
Actually, it would be like mounting a big fan on a sailboat to force wind into the sails. :roll:
Hey, it works for Bugs Bunny! :lol:

Actually, thinking about stuff like this is kinda fun. Sorta like the "Guns in Space" and "Guns Underwater" threads that pop up on the firearms forums every now and again... :lol:
 
Guns in the zero-g environment of space would get interesting. Since momentum is conserved, recoil becomes a propulsive force where M*V of the bullet going forwards would equal M*V of the gun and shooter going backwards. Trajectories would at least be flat :wink:

But what happens with all the particle beam weapons we see of Star Trek, etc.? In that case it would be M of the particle beam * C = M*V of the gun and shooter. But mass increases as V approaches C, so M*C is going to be a BIG number. That death ray had better be mounted to one very heavy starship.
 
But now you are not taking into account(for the guns at least, I don't know about death rays) the biggest contributor to felt recoil. This is the expanding gasses escaping from the muzzle after the bullet has left the barrel. Depending on the individual gun, this can add up to 65% or more of the felt recoil, esp. with big guns like a 50BMG. Thats why muzzle brakes are so effective at reducing recoil for people who care about it.
 
Slantsickness":2drtr110 said:
But now you are not taking into account(for the guns at least, I don't know about death rays) the biggest contributor to felt recoil. This is the expanding gasses escaping from the muzzle after the bullet has left the barrel.
Good catch, SS. That's why the formula for determining felt recoil includes the weight of the powder charge (among other things; don't have it in front of me right now)...

Guns in space trivia: I recall reading somewhere that part of the equipment pack of the Apollo moon astronauts included a sidearm. But not for the purpose of defending against aliens; the recoil generated by a 1911 45ACP fired downward into the surface of the moon would generate sufficient recoil to launch the shooter 15' off the ground... Don't know that this was ever tested, though (too bad).
 
Does that add up?
The moon has what, 1/6th gravity?
Say a fully loaded astronaut, suit and all weighs 350# on earth, that'd be be 58# there. I have a friend who weighs all of 105# and he has no problem being thrown when firing a 1911. That'd be firing out, not down. No direct connections here, just doesn't feel right by the seat-of-my-pants meter.
 
Adam,
Gunpowder, much like water-proof cannon fuse, makes its own oxygen as it burns. (There's a scientific term for this, but I forget what it is.)

Heath,
Well, lessee. Assuming my previous statement concerning the equipment carried by an astronaut is BS (it may well be; I don't remember the source), let's figure if it's at least possible...

A web search reveals that the Apollo era space weighs 29# on the moon. For sake of argument, lets say Neil Armstrong weighed 26.5# (160# on Earth). So that's a total payload of 55.5 lbs. against the moon's gravity. If we consider a previous statement that the total felt recoil is 65% due to expanding propellant gases, and the rest is due to the opposition to the mass of the bullet, my best calculation indicates the following...

230 gr. bullet/7000grs in a pound= bullet weight of .0329lb.
.0329*950fps=31.21lbs/ft/sec
31.21*1.65=51.5lbs/ft/sec

...which is close. An astronaut who was a little lighter, or one who firewalled his .45ACP loads could very well become "air"borne on the moon...
 
OK this has been edited to correct my oversight. it turns out that the 6 fold error in the value of g was self-cancelling - it was on both sides of the momentum balance. The height to which the Astronaut would be propelled increased by a factor of six.

Technically, you can't work with weights, you have to use masses. M=W/g where g is the acceleration due to gravity. On Earth this is 32.17 ft/sec^2, on the moon it would be about 5.4 ft/sec^2

The complete momentum balance is:

M*V(bullet) + M*V(powder) = M*V(gun and shooter)

Assuming that the mean velocity of handgun powder is around 2500 ft/sec. then the numbers are:

[(230 gr./7000gr/lb)/32.17 ft/sec^2 x 850 ft/sec] + [(6 gr./7000gr/lb.)/32.17 ft/sec^2 x 2500 ft/sec = [(160+175 lbs.)/32.17 ft/sec^2] x V(gun and shooter)

or

0.868 + .066 lb.-sec. = 10.413 lb-sec^2/ft x V ft/sec^2 (gun and shooter)

(lb.-sec. is the correct momentum unit in the Imperial system, and lb-sec^2/ft. is, unbelievably, the correct mass unit.) Note that the value for g used is the value for the environment in which the weights are taken.

Solving for V:

(0.934 lb-sec)/(10.413 lb-sec^2/ft.) = .0898 ft/sec.

Plugging that velocity into ½ M*V^2 to get the kinetic energy of the shooter and gun

KE = ½ (335/32.17) x .0898^2 = 0.042 ft-lbs.

Since KE the kinetic energy added equals PE, the potential energy gained then

½ M*V^2 = M*g*H where H is the height to which the astronaut would be propelled, assuming that his body dissipated none of the energy. In this case H is dependent on the local value of g, the greater the gravitational force, the lesser the height

0.250 ft-lbs = (335 lbs/32.17 ft-sec^2) x 5.4 ft/sec^2 x H

H = .0044 ft or about .05"

You're still going to need that .378 Weatherby...... :wink:
 
Wouldn't the weight (or mass) of the bullet be 1/6th it normal amount also?
My thinkng though it might be totally, wrong is that if the weight of man and his suit are reduced by 1/6th then ALL items in the calculation woud be reduced also.
 
I knew if I made an awkward enough attempt at it SR'd be along to fix it... :lol:

FWIW, Pistol powder expands at well over 5000 fps; you can load .224 caliber bullets in .308 caliber sabots and launch said projectiles in excess of 4000fps using such common pistol powders as Unique and 231 (ask me how I know). My velocities come from chronographing my pin loads, which are 230gr lead bullets pushed by 6.0 grains of 231 (950 fps).

But looking at your equations, it appears that you got your masses by dividing earth weights by lunar gravity. That doesn't work, as mass is a constant... as a result, when I recalculate the masses by dividing earth weight by earth gravity, I get V=0.1059 ft/sec.

But were you lose me is where you switch to kinetic energy... the KEs are not equal on both sides of the equation, as KE is a function of the square of the velocity. Shouldn't we be looking at the equal and opposite reactions, i.e. the momentums and how that is applied to the weight? Or am I missing something?
 
Back
Top