Not sure if thats what it is still named that or if it has been changed to something different now that Garrett has sold the design back to the original inventor.

Anyways long story short, it is a turbo that is actually driven by hydraulic pressure from a fluid as opposed to exhaust gas.

There is still going to be some minor draw backs like parasitic loss of power from the engine driven fluid pump.

The plus side is the effiency is supposed to be much better and make up for the power loss easily. Another plus is no more worry about heat dispertion, costly exhaust manifolds, and/ or charger placement.

Please post your opinions/ comments... curious to see what others think?


[Modified by twkdCD595, 7:41 AM 9/30/2002]

 

Actually sorry, little mistake cause I guess it would actually classified as a hydrualically driven supercharger.

Either way... Y0 iT bE oFF tHe HeEZy F0 ShEEzY! (hehehe... sorry too much sugar in my corn flakes got me slap happy)


[Modified by twkdCD595, 8:00 AM 9/30/2002]

 

Strange thing to bump but what not, not one ever replied.

Fluids are not a product of an engine combusting fuel, only exhaust fumes are.... Its going from liquid to gas... not liquid to some other liquid that runs a hydra charger. Exhaust will always be an output of cars that run on gasoline, unlike this "liquid" you mention

 

It would be a nice idea to have the hydraulic pump driven by exhaust gas, and in turn have the turbo/SC driven by the fluid pressure...LOL In a sense, you only need a simple exhaust-driven hydraulic pump that goes inline with the exhaust to make this work, but then the fluids inside the pump would probably boil to death from the heat

 

how would this work? where do the fluids come from?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by flip1199 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how would this work? where do the fluids come from?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Like your power steering, how does it work? Power steering fluid driven by the PS pump!

 

This makes VNT much easier imo. Use an adjustable nozzel to aim water at a turbine (a non vnt turbine) and see how well you can controll shaft rpm.

Honestly if Garrett sold it back to the developer it's probably a crapshot. :/

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BSP-DC2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Strange thing to bump but what not, not one ever replied.

Fluids are not a product of an engine combusting fuel, only exhaust fumes are.... Its going from liquid to gas... not liquid to some other liquid that runs a hydra charger. Exhaust will always be an output of cars that run on gasoline, unlike this "liquid" you mention</TD></TR></TABLE>

water is a biproduct of combustion. Sooo technically, Fluid [i]IS[i/] produced from gasoline engines.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tactic$ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">water is a biproduct of combustion. Sooo technically, Fluid [i]IS[i/] produced from gasoline engines. </TD></TR></TABLE>

not enough to ever be put to use in anyway

 

Pros: Variable flow pump may act as a "boost controller" for this design.
Cons: It still draws engine power to create boost. Nothing is more efficient than a turbocharger.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by beepy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Pros: Variable flow pump may act as a "boost controller" for this design.
Cons: It still draws engine power to create boost. Nothing is more efficient than a turbocharger.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It removes the exhaust restriction... I'd be curious to see how the losses from driving the pump compare to the losses from having the wheel and housing as an exhaust restriction. Not to mention the turbo will run pretty frickin' cool, and you could put it pretty much anywhere.

 

might as well just use a supercharger

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 2k.civic.si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">might as well just use a supercharger</TD></TR></TABLE>

Exactly. Why try to reinvent the wheel. I would think that the energy required to generate high enough hydraulic pressure to spin a supercharger fast enough to not only overcome the parasitic loss but to also make additional power would be huge. Kind of sounds like an oxymoron.

 

as an Engineering major, i say K.I.S.S.

 

http://www.honeywell.com/media...c=131
Here's an old press release
Glenn

 

Did anyone look at the original date of this thread?

9/30/2002

 

I picked this up during my patent searches years ago. It is an idea with great potential. The hydraulic turbine will only be a little over an inch in diameter and about 1/4 inch thick. It blew my mind, so I ran it by a turbine expert and he concurred. This concept has some real potential, and a problem or two...

 

hmmmmm intawesting my fwiendssss.. vewy intawesting

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by USE2B16A &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Did anyone look at the original date of this thread?

9/30/2002 </TD></TR></TABLE>

WTF, I didn't even notice that

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by twkdCD595 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There is still going to be some minor draw backs like parasitic loss of power from the engine driven fluid pump.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Half of which is offset by using the piston as an expander on the intake stroke.

*sigh*

 

some car company played with a oil pressure driven charger a while back. can't remember who.