icemann:

Error in my part. I always taught it was 2% to 5%.

Mr Trac i used a bicycle analogy to make people understand my point. Most people here didn't do intro to thermodynamics and cant even convert KWh to Joules. Please do explain to us like we are 5 year old.

yungboss:
ok Trac, thanks. I'll send you an email,the previous one is now defunct.

Trac:

Iceman,

It is far complicated than that and it isn't solely on thermodynamics. Sincerely, it's okay (with respect to first sentence). It's not possible to explain in any simple term for everyone. As you already understand, it requires system-thinking. One without an engineering background cannot have this perception and logical thought-process. I learnt that lesson here and I resorted in more times than one, making fundamental references on basic fundamental principles that could otherwise have been avoided. You can't win them all. As a defense, they'll term your published content "complicated." We are mostly (in NL) Nigerians by descent but not all of us are from Nigeria. My mentality is different from the typical Nigerian and that clash in culture will be there. In the United States, it is an insult to speak or convey principles to an adult in 5th-grader English. It is frowned-upon seriously. The news-media addresses the community in 5th-grader English and many don’t take it kindly (especially when there is soft music in the background).

I do not want to make scientific or technical related posts anymore. However, a few points I will share; in accordance to your request. It'll require deductive reasoning (which should not be a problem for the technically-minded).

-[1] - The cyclic processes is the primary/main reason why the heat-engine is inefficient. No heat engine will exceed the Carnot efficiency.
-[2] - The more the heatloss, the higher the consumption of the working fluid
-[3] - There is no such thing or principle called "fuel efficiency." That is nonsense made up for the masses and petrolheads by -- (I don't know).
-[4] - Efficiency has to do with system and not the working fluid.
-[5] - Working fluid is referenced as potential and potential-difference. Not fuel efficient or fuel efficiency.
-[6] - As of today (in mass production), nothing with a hot exhaust is an efficient system.
-[7] - The media is the link between the automotive industry and the masses.
-[8] - Horsepower and torque is mainstreamed as efficiency. Classical/Statistical thermodynamics explains otherwise.
-[9] - There is profit in inefficient vehicles. The oil companies work in tandem with engine manufacturers on engine design builds (upstream). It is not as we think. Major corporations will not relinquish a major profit avenue when demand is sky-high.
[10] - The turbine does not increase the efficiency of the system. A closed-system has interaction ONLY with its immediate surroundings.
[11] - The pump is setup as a turbocharger. It is not setup as a compensation to make up for an inefficient setup. It is a sub-system. It works after the fact. The irreversibilities would have been completed before the turbine is instantaneously handed its task increasingly/continuously. This is not public awareness because it is not the media's duty to educate the public. Goal is to make sales through perception-marketing.
[12] - During the generation of the babyboomers (that is the era of the counter-culture), an awareness was offered for engine economy and nobody cared. It was not a trend and was deemed un-pop. Baby-boomers will share deeper knowledge to this. It is a fact they regret to live by today.
[13] - The mindset of companies and corporations is that the masses feel entitled. They were born with nothing and feel entitled to all.
[14] - The news media is not a credible source for technical information. It is not rating-friendly. Washed-Out information is ideal for ratings.
[15] - Keep the masses dissatisfied - Charles Kettering, Vice President of General Motors:1925.

Man claims to have been on the moon; yet an engine for a motor vehicle cannot attained a 50% minimum efficiency or higher efficiency. Then there are asleep consumers that brag about their road-vehicles (that is non-special purpose) that struggle to achieve 8% efficiency on a good day. The worst thing is that many take time and money to lower the efficiency percentage. They deem others that value higher efficiencies are "boring" and "shameful. On the flip-side, the scientific and engineering community has a name for them. This is not to be confused as discrimination against motorsports/racing. That is special-purpose application.

Trac:

Thanks. I got it.

yungboss:
great discourse by Trac, your approach is perfect for Engineering-oriented subscribers, it is great "re-learning" for us all...
of the two broad aspects of Thermodynamics, you seem to focus more on the statistical approach, which is the more detailed (so to speak),I personally do enjoy the way you share knowledge here...
trying to recall from the past,
a heat engine is not 100% efficient, a closed system must have a "sink" (the atmosphere, through the exhaust in this case) for it to accomplish a cycle...
in the S.I. engines, about 50% of energy in the fuel is lost through the exhaust,some 25% or more is used up by the radiator and other sub-systems in the engine, 25% is actually available to generate power...
since the turbine would make use of the exhaust's gases, I thought this would translate to proper harness of the lost energy provided by the fuel, thereby increasing the thermal efficiency of the system. i may have "aged" out on details, kindly straighten this out wrt your statement "the irreversibilities would have been completed"

icemann:

If its more economical then my friend why haven't car companies adapting this technology in their cars?


So you want blog traffic by putting spin on a simple definition. Don't let me spoil your garri.

Ikenna351:

For anyone to say turbo engine is more economical to run than NA engine is laughable. Sometimes, you guys really need to drop those your books and get practical.

Back then in Awka, our Peugeot 504 GL propeller shaft failed and also damaged the input spline of the rear differential. While a mechanic was replacing them, a friend came, who was in 400 level, Mechanical Engineering. He pointed at a long pipe and asked me what it was. I told him it was Propeller Shaft. The guy said no, that i was wrong. That it wouldn't be the propeller shaft of the car. I asked why would he say so. He said the drawings of propeller shaft in his books all had fan on one end and bla bla bla. Even when he left, the mechanic who was silent and looked confused all those while the argument was going on asked me " So, is this what they teach you guys in Schools?"

Before, Peugeot turbo engines suffered from cracked cylinder heads, compared to their NA engines. I don't know if the problem has been corrected in their modern turbo engines.

Generally, cost of running turbo engine is higher than that of Naturally Aspirited engine, of the same number of cylinders.

Ikenna.

Ikenna351:

He said "more economical ", and not "more efficient ". They are two different things in automobile, as far as am concerned.

Ikenna

icemann:

And if it is driven by a belt it is called what?

gbonsalifus:

In that case they will be called superchargers not turbochargers

gbonsalifus:

Ikenna, a thing costs about $500 one time investment and saves u like 1 liter each time u fill ur fuel tank for 2 year. Wouldn't u say that's economical? Must u say something?

dgitrader: Is vectra b 1995 v6 model turbor charged??
Also if the 'S' button is turbo, what will that of manual stick shifts be like??

gbonsalifus:

Ikenna, a thing costs about $500 one time investment and saves u like 1 liter each time u fill ur fuel tank for 2 year. Wouldn't u say that's economical? Must u say something?

Trac:

The appreciation is [much] welcomed.

You've mixed it up. It is a closed-system not an open-system. Your error is based on the fact that you have taken the area of concentration (system) as an open-system. It is not an open-system but a closed-system or controlled-mass system. In a closed-system, mass is fixed and no mass crosses [across] its boundaries. Only heat goes through the boundaries (a very important and fundamental fact to note).

Re: 50%, 25%, 25%! It does not subscribe to the Carnot's equation of efficiency. Which is based on the lone criterion; that is the working fluid. The heat-exchanger and exhaust reference you have made has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Those are channels of heat-transfer (heat loss). A closed-system does not interface in the manner to which you stated. They are also sub-systems. They are sub-systems to keep the system to attain its intended objective. A Veyron has 12 heat-exchangers. Also, consider the M64/60T; the 911 air-cooled engine with its short exhaust channels. It sounds inappropriate from your open-system perspective. The main concern according to the Carnot’s efficiency principle has to do with the area of concentration; which is the closed-system. Anything else is to keep the system in continuous operation (that is auxiliary) and operating conditions.

The internal combustion engine is a Carnot Limited engine. A Carnot-limited engine with a hot exhaust. It will always be governed by the Carnot principle. The Carnot cycle unambiguously details that the efficiency cannot be higher than the highest temperature of the expansive medium minus the lowest temperature divided by the highest temperature.

That is E = [((Th – Tl) / (Th)) * 100]

We can practicalise our governing principle.

The highest temperature of the expansive medium or working fluid (Th) = 8
The lowest temperature of the expansive medium or working fluid (Tl) = 6

In substitution

E = [(( 8 – 6 ) / ( 8 ) * ( 100 )]
E= [(( 2/8 ) *( 100 )]
E = 25%

Another example with lower fluid temperature of 2

E = [(( 8 – 2 ) / ( 8 ) * ( 100 )]
E= [(( 6/8 ) *( 100 )]
E = 75%

Efficiency is higher as heat-loss is minimised.

As long as the expansive medium (working fluid/gas as it expands) operates between a high temperature and a low temperature, it will never exceed that efficiency (set up by Carnot). Never! Again, that is only in a perfect state; for it virtually possible. Meaning, it is best gotten of its reversiblilities (reversible process). When irreversibilites are factored in, the efficiency goes lower than what the governing Carnot efficiency theoretical value details. It is an intentional design. It is a general principle to all heat-engines. Remember, it is efficiency of the system not efficiency of the compressor. That's another episode entirely.

Reversible Process/Reversibility: it leaves no traces to its surroundings and reusuable. So it is reinstated to its original state at the end of its process. This is akin to the colloquially termed egg in the pingpong (table-tennis). This egg is struck against the bat to the negotiating portion of the table and the same process is repeated as the opposing player/s assert their position and return the egg in the same process in which it was initiated (striking the egg with the bat). This will continue till a side fails to return validly or the egg gets compromised.

Irreversible Process/Irreversibility: it leaves its traces everywhere (boundary surroundings). Thus, it cannot be restored to its initial state. In similitude, it is as taking an uncooked egg (raw egg in its shell) and striking it against the bat to the valid portion of the ping-pong table and expecting a corresponding transaction from your opponent. In the Carnot limited system we are discussing, the core is friction (as motion is opposed) and heat transfer. Friction in this case is appropriate but the heat-losses shouldn’t be.

From the expressed principle above, the less heat-loss through the system, higher overall efficiency. This will require the block be done completely different than what we have been accustomed to. As long as you can contain the heat within its boundaries, the higher the efficiency of that system will be. The compressor functions after all irreversibilites has been completed. It is not part of the initial surrounding. Above all, irreversibilities are gone and cannot be harnessed again for work.

The only way to use a compressor to increase the efficiency is not by turbocharging. It is totally different in its applied engineering and will give you no more than 40% efficiency. It's complicated that I can't discuss that. Partly because I am not learned on it and I don't have the resources and time or interest for it. It has nothing to do with the reactor I'm focusing on. As far as I know, it's not used in production vehicles and has never been. It is also standard industry practice; so nothing is mysterious about it. It can be used in the automotive application.

Ikenna351:

I still don't understand why someone who have different opinion cant state his/her opinion without throwing insult. Probably you are having a bad day. But next time you attack me in this manner with your last statement in the above quoted post for no just cause, I will embarrass you.

Thanks for the warning. But u understand right? And, No embarrassment online, feel free.

Ikenna

lourash: Nice and educative arguments... Makes me go back to my books

yungboss:
thanks for the clarification Trac,
of a truth, in a closed system masses do not transact with the surrounding only heat...
now I understand the cycle completes before the centrifugal pump (turbo) kicks in...(I think I need to go back to my books,lol)...