Guns aren't the only thing CNN knows nothing about. Turbo engines run on "own steam".

[M. Sage]

No, really. They think turbo engines run on their own steam, whatever that means:

F1 goes back to the future: Return of the turbo-charged 'teapot' - CNN.com

While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.

If the belt connected to the crankshaft powers the engine, what the hell is powering the belt!?

 

[Younggun]

Guns aren't the only thing CNN knows nothing about. Turbo engines run on "own s

Looks like somebody is trying to combine super chargers, turbos, steam engines, and stupid.


Heavy on the stupid.

 

[Coop45]

Wow! They have it all figured out! LOL! My belt just holds my breeches up!

 

[M. Sage]

And I want to know how a turbocharged engine is "better for the environment"? All a turbo does is stuff more air into the cylinders, so you can burn more fuel and get more power.

A turbo effectively is an effective increase in displacement, especially the way these cars are driven.

 

[stdreb27]

Most of those people working there, probably doesn't even know how to open the hood of their car let alone understand what an internal combustion engine actually is...

 

[Renegade]

I was disappointed they did not work turbojet and turboprop into that WTF article.

 

[Brains]

"Theoretically" one could say a supercharger is a parasitic power adder, because you expend energy to turn the blower even when you're not using it to increase volumetric efficiency. The truth is the parasitic losses in a modern twin screw Roots style blower with a bypass valve are low enough to be inconsequential. A turbocharger will spin quite freely when not under load, offering no negative effect on efficiently.

 

[Shorts]

Lol that's a good wake up article. Sent it to the gang on my truck forums. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to have some information to understand how their Cummins truck works. Finally! Where has CNN been all our lives?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I can't find the "belt" comment anywhere in the article, lol.....

 

[Renegade]

I can't find the "belt" comment anywhere in the article, lol.....

"August 13, 2013 -- Updated 0913 GMT (1713 HKT"

 

[TXARGUY]

Guns aren't the only thing CNN knows nothing about. Turbo engines run on "own s

This is what happens when you let your kids major in 15th century middle Ethiopian click language.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Looks like somebody is trying to combine super chargers, turbos, steam engines, and stupid.


Heavy on the stupid.

Actually more specifically stream turbines it seems. Wow CNN is retarded.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

Cnn= stuck on stupid!!!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

"August 13, 2013 -- Updated 0913 GMT (1713 HKT"

This didn't help me one bit, it's right underneath...."F1 goes back to the future with turbo-charged 'teapot'".

 

[stdreb27]

Guns aren't the only thing CNN knows nothing about. Turbo engines run on "own s

He's probably saying the article was corrected at that time...

 

[ZX9RCAM]

He's probably saying the article was corrected at that time...

Ah.....ok, thanks.

 

[TX69]

Cnn= stuck on stupid!!!

LOL Libtardery

 

[M. Sage]

"Theoretically" one could say a supercharger is a parasitic power adder, because you expend energy to turn the blower even when you're not using it to increase volumetric efficiency. The truth is the parasitic losses in a modern twin screw Roots style blower with a bypass valve are low enough to be inconsequential. A turbocharger will spin quite freely when not under load, offering no negative effect on efficiently.

You can't get something for nothing. Turbos do add a load in the form of higher backpressure. The increased load at the crank is from having to push harder to get exhaust out of the cylinders. At no or light load, you can just open the wastegate and recirculation valve (BOVs are so '90s...) and bypass the turbo entirely if you want.

 

[Brains]

You can't get something for nothing. Turbos do add a load in the form of higher backpressure. The increased load at the crank is from having to push harder to get exhaust out of the cylinders. At no or light load, you can just open the wastegate and recirculation valve (BOVs are so '90s...) and bypass the turbo entirely if you want.

Turbocharging does add load to the exhaust side, but only when increasing intake pressure. If you have pressure in the hot side at low load, your turbo is (way) too small and your net power gain is likely to be in the negative. The gate stays firmly closed at low load - if it were open, the turbine wouldn't spool as load increases. The gate only opens to bleed exhaust away from the turbo, keeping max boost under control and turbine/compressor wheel speed within safe limits. The blowoff valve in the intake is likewise shut, except when the throttle is suddenly snapped shut. This is to prevent the pressure spike from putting stress on the compressor wheel, shaft seals, etc. as well as to keep the turbo spinning as fast as possible as to not introduce turbo lag during the shift (manual transmission cars).

There is indeed a very small net loss of efficiency adding the turbo to the system at low engine load, but not enough to ever notice in a real world application. Certainly below conventional measurable limits on a properly designed and sized setup., and a lot less than say the catalytic converters add.

 

[M. Sage]

Turbocharging does add load to the exhaust side, but only when increasing intake pressure. If you have pressure in the hot side at low load, your turbo is (way) too small and your net power gain is likely to be in the negative. The gate stays firmly closed at low load - if it were open, the turbine wouldn't spool as load increases. The gate only opens to bleed exhaust away from the turbo, keeping max boost under control and turbine/compressor wheel speed within safe limits. The blowoff valve in the intake is likewise shut, except when the throttle is suddenly snapped shut. This is to prevent the pressure spike from putting stress on the compressor wheel, shaft seals, etc. as well as to keep the turbo spinning as fast as possible as to not introduce turbo lag during the shift (manual transmission cars).

There is indeed a very small net loss of efficiency adding the turbo to the system at low engine load, but not enough to ever notice in a real world application. Certainly below conventional measurable limits on a properly designed and sized setup., and a lot less than say the catalytic converters add.

Most of that can be said about modern supercharger systems (although, without the "exhaust" parts). I've been amazed at how much a lot of the common turbo systems out there actually will push out even at idle with a pressure-side hose off.

... a lot, but not all. There are some ridiculously laggy (for no good reason) systems out there.