WTF? IS this fo'-real?
- Thread starter LinuxRacr
- Start date
Looks like it...6hp is a VERY powerful electrical system, notice that it has its own batteries and only enough juice for 15 seconds, then it has to recharge (I wonder how long that takes!?). Hmmm, $3000 for a 15 seconds of boost? Count me out. You still have to deal with all the other stuff, like forged internals, engine management, etc...
- :
- 2003.5 Titanium Gray MSP #1699
Even if it is real, temporary hp is
.
These guys have been working on this thing for quite awhile now.... sorta disappointed to see what it finally materialized to....
from a marketing position.....its not....
from a marketing position.....its not....
7
70
Thomas Knight products strike again...(piss)
7
70
Did you see the ad?
- :
- 2003.5 Titanium Gray MSP #1699
"Trust and believe in Him & have eternal life."
:wtf: is that doing on that ad? Are they going for subliminal Christian evangelism?
:wtf: is that doing on that ad? Are they going for subliminal Christian evangelism?
7
70
Black Majik MSP said:"Trust and believe in Him & have eternal life."
:wtf: is that doing on that ad? Are they going for subliminal Christian evangelism?
I saw that too and just about died laughing...
Apparently the blower is divine, or was created from divine inspiration.
Although, it shouldn't take divine intervention to keep you away from this thing.
its about as devine as a kick in the face...that thing sux0rs
ok...lets back up for one sec (just for fun).
What would the cost be to a typical NOS kit that would supply 75 HP (wait...is that HP or WHP)?
then....(for you NOS users) how much does the average person spend on NOS a month?
then...if we assume that this blower works..... how would this compare to the setup costs of NOS PLUS the average cost of NOS over 1 year?
There may be some merits to those that simply do not have the room to add a SC or TC to their platform....
What would the cost be to a typical NOS kit that would supply 75 HP (wait...is that HP or WHP)?
then....(for you NOS users) how much does the average person spend on NOS a month?
then...if we assume that this blower works..... how would this compare to the setup costs of NOS PLUS the average cost of NOS over 1 year?
There may be some merits to those that simply do not have the room to add a SC or TC to their platform....
TKTurbo here (BOOSTHEAD.COM) I have seen you discussing my supercharger and wanted to at least clear some thnings up.
Some of you may not 'believe' in anything, but in my case I believe that God is the ONLY real thing that counts and should be given credit for ALL I do. I am not ashamed of God, Jesus Christ, or the fact that I AM a Christian.
My system--it is not a specific kit for any car--makes MORE power per psi than a turbo or supercharger--there is absolutely NO argument if you understand physics. Both turbos and crank driven superchargers are parasitic. Both use power--exhaust backpressure or crank power to turn the turbine or compressor. For example a stock 2.0 turning 6000 rpm making 8 psi boost would take 12-15hp with a belt driven SC, and a turbo would have between 16 and 24 psi backpressure in the exhaust which results in a 12-15hp turbocharger shaft hp to compress the air.
The difference in power made by either is the fact that a centrifugal design has greater adiabatic efficiency (AE). That means cooler boost 'pressure' is available. Cooler is denser and that makes more power. If a roots type SC is properly ported it makes extremely high AE and will run even hp up to about 9-10 psi when a turbo becomes more efficient from a hp-to-turn-it aspect.
My design does not have to run the full 15, 20, or even 30psi it can make. I suggest people run a BOV to release the extra boost and that is how boost will be controlled 'till the electronic speed controllers are avaiable to digitally give speed control.
The dyno graphs ARE accurate--EXACTLY what they should show. If you look at them closely you will see the hp gained at lower rpm to be greater than at high rpm. Why? Because an engines volumetric efficiency (VE) is lower at low rpm, so if extra air is forced into the motor the VE automatically goes up a greater percent. A turbo is creating backpressure reducing the VE until higher rpm are reached. A crank driven SC is using torque to turn the SC below 5250rpm and hp to turn it over 5250 (the way we measure hp & tq the numbers are divided and meet at 5250 rpm)
I encourage educated questions, criticisms, and thoughts on this awesome new technology. You will see the industry accept this and then start to adapt the concept to many applications (motorcycles, atv's watercraft, snowmobiles, etc)
I have been approached by many large corporations since I released this in Sept, 2003. They all see the future and want to get their support products lined up before the truth finally gets out and people buy these faster than I can produce them. I dont mind your scepticism, but at least keep an open mind as to the technology.
Some of you may not 'believe' in anything, but in my case I believe that God is the ONLY real thing that counts and should be given credit for ALL I do. I am not ashamed of God, Jesus Christ, or the fact that I AM a Christian.
My system--it is not a specific kit for any car--makes MORE power per psi than a turbo or supercharger--there is absolutely NO argument if you understand physics. Both turbos and crank driven superchargers are parasitic. Both use power--exhaust backpressure or crank power to turn the turbine or compressor. For example a stock 2.0 turning 6000 rpm making 8 psi boost would take 12-15hp with a belt driven SC, and a turbo would have between 16 and 24 psi backpressure in the exhaust which results in a 12-15hp turbocharger shaft hp to compress the air.
The difference in power made by either is the fact that a centrifugal design has greater adiabatic efficiency (AE). That means cooler boost 'pressure' is available. Cooler is denser and that makes more power. If a roots type SC is properly ported it makes extremely high AE and will run even hp up to about 9-10 psi when a turbo becomes more efficient from a hp-to-turn-it aspect.
My design does not have to run the full 15, 20, or even 30psi it can make. I suggest people run a BOV to release the extra boost and that is how boost will be controlled 'till the electronic speed controllers are avaiable to digitally give speed control.
The dyno graphs ARE accurate--EXACTLY what they should show. If you look at them closely you will see the hp gained at lower rpm to be greater than at high rpm. Why? Because an engines volumetric efficiency (VE) is lower at low rpm, so if extra air is forced into the motor the VE automatically goes up a greater percent. A turbo is creating backpressure reducing the VE until higher rpm are reached. A crank driven SC is using torque to turn the SC below 5250rpm and hp to turn it over 5250 (the way we measure hp & tq the numbers are divided and meet at 5250 rpm)
I encourage educated questions, criticisms, and thoughts on this awesome new technology. You will see the industry accept this and then start to adapt the concept to many applications (motorcycles, atv's watercraft, snowmobiles, etc)
I have been approached by many large corporations since I released this in Sept, 2003. They all see the future and want to get their support products lined up before the truth finally gets out and people buy these faster than I can produce them. I dont mind your scepticism, but at least keep an open mind as to the technology.
7
70
So it runs on it's own power supply?
Or does it use some of the cars present power supply?
Or does it use some of the cars present power supply?
