Better source showing boost vs power

http://powerlab.mech.okayama-u.ac.jp/~esd/comodia2004/A6_1_022.pdf

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

If you were to read and understand these articles it is very clear that they do not say or imply that more boost = more power. However, it's clear that you are interested in the subject. Engineering may be something you wish to go into someday. Personally, I love it and oops!, better get back to it!
Good luck!

__________________
'82 300SD - 361K mi - "Blue"

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

listen, look, .........and duck.

I have only to learn the lingo and make pretty pictures. Instead of saying "more boost = more power" they say things like "By increasing the amount of intake air, combustion has been improved and as a result the sharp heat release has been obtained and thermal efficiency has improved. By increasing the amount of air and by increasing Pmax, brake thermal efficiency has been improved." and add charts.

looks like you need a refresher course. Re-read the last article I posted then re-read your thermodynamics book.

If you say "More boost = more power" or "By increasing the amount of intake air, combustion has been improved and as a result the sharp heat release has been obtained and thermal efficiency has improved. By increasing the amount of air and by increasing Pmax, brake thermal efficiency has been improved." its the same and its true as well. Q. E. D.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

Sorry for my tone. I'm a little grouch today because I didn't get much sleep. I also know I'm right and I'm getting sick of defending my position.

That stated, I also didn't do a proper job of stating the case.

An increase in thermal efficiency does not always mean an increase in power. Operating an engine at different RPMs while producing the same power will likley have different thermal efficiencies due to a change in fuel requirements.

Under the conditions of the test of the last paper I posted, they kept fuel quantity and rpm constant and changed boost and injector pressures. When boost went up so did thermal efficency in all cases. Since RPM and fuel were held constant, the only way that thermal efficiency can increase is for power output to increase.

Unless you can attack the methodology or techniques of this report I maintain "more boost = more power".

I have done computer simulations and found an experiment that backs up theory, can we accept this as fact now?

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

you win. How can I possibly hope to defend basic thermodynamic principles against such mighty logic? Again, good luck!

__________________
'82 300SD - 361K mi - "Blue"

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

listen, look, .........and duck.

There is no basic thermodynamic principal under attack.

Basic Thermodynamic principals predict an increase in thermal efficiency with more boost. Its the exact same thing that happens when you up the compression ratio. With a higher compresion ratio you get better thermal efficiency than you do with a lower compresion ratio for the same amount of fuel used. Just like increasing the compression ratio you encounter diminishing returns when increasing the boost. Its the exact same phenomenon.

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

Well actually if you are getting 100% fuel burn and you increase boost you will generally actually have a decrease in effeciency. You ask how can this be??? Its called pumping losses. Besides that often times increasing boost pressure will actually decrease the lbs/mass of air through the engine because of a loss of effeciency in the compressor from having to run at a greater pressure ratio. I have seen all of this dyno proven on diesels.

Okay I'll admidt that if you push the turbo to the extreems of the compressor map the work required to get this boost may offset the gains. However to cause a reduction in mass flow through the engine, the compressor has to have a major drop in efficiency between the 2 operating points. Most likely it would be opperating in the surge limit area.

__________________
green 85 300SD 200K miles "Das Schlepper Frog" With a OM603 TBO360 turbo ( To be intercooled someday )( Kalifornistani emissons )
white 79 300SD 200K'ish miles "Farfegnugen" (RIP - cracked crank)
desert storm primer 63 T-bird "The Undead" (long term hibernation)

http://ecomodder.com/forum/fe-graphs/sig692a.png

I'd like to see more of Antti M.'s W115 OM617(-84)Turbo Intercooler. It looks like a pretty good project!

I found a cool turbo calculator HERE that you can tune to see if a turbo is up to spec for the airflow needs of an engine. (The link is already set up for an OM617 W/O Intercooler.)

The compressor map shows a GT22 will more than keep up with an OM617. That's more than I can say for the KKK K26 map...

EDIT: Note that altitude is set for Denver (5280 feet)

this is a genius thread, including the turbo work that started it.