Electric Supercharger Info
01-15-2004 | 06:11 PM
#76
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
We are READY!!! I installed an ESC-550 on the Altima 4-cyl and ran 8 psi boost on the dyno. The baseline run was 105 wheel hp a month ago, and the addition of a header and exhaust raised that to 115 yesterday. Running 8 psi we jumped to 208.3hp on this bone stock Altima KA24DE, doubling the stock engines hp.
Genom's unit will be ready tomorrow, so stay tuned. There will be an RX8 with the ESC-550 in a VERY short time.
Genom's unit will be ready tomorrow, so stay tuned. There will be an RX8 with the ESC-550 in a VERY short time.
Last edited by atsturbo; 01-15-2004 at 06:42 PM.
01-15-2004 | 06:29 PM
#77
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 25
From: Houston
Originally posted by atsturbo
The baseline run was 115 wheel hp a month ago, and the addition of a header and exhaust raised that to 115 yesterday.
The baseline run was 115 wheel hp a month ago, and the addition of a header and exhaust raised that to 115 yesterday.
01-28-2004 | 05:03 PM
#79
Int-X 293WHP 242TQ :)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, NE
Originally posted by atsturbo
We are READY!!! I installed an ESC-550 on the Altima 4-cyl and ran 8 psi boost on the dyno. The baseline run was 105 wheel hp a month ago, and the addition of a header and exhaust raised that to 115 yesterday. Running 8 psi we jumped to 208.3hp on this bone stock Altima KA24DE, doubling the stock engines hp.
Genom's unit will be ready tomorrow, so stay tuned. There will be an RX8 with the ESC-550 in a VERY short time.
We are READY!!! I installed an ESC-550 on the Altima 4-cyl and ran 8 psi boost on the dyno. The baseline run was 105 wheel hp a month ago, and the addition of a header and exhaust raised that to 115 yesterday. Running 8 psi we jumped to 208.3hp on this bone stock Altima KA24DE, doubling the stock engines hp.
Genom's unit will be ready tomorrow, so stay tuned. There will be an RX8 with the ESC-550 in a VERY short time.
01-28-2004 | 05:38 PM
#80
Not so Super right now
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,493
Likes: 0
From: Beyond that there swamp.
I have the ESC, and am working on it. But like ats mentioned before, late feb at the earliest before anything happens. Mounting is only part of it, then there is all the tuning involved. There'll be more as it progresses. THis weekend I am going down to the Keys and am gonna be fishing all day long and partying all night long, so wont be much work done :D
06-12-2004 | 04:04 PM
#85
Registered
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,966
Likes: 4
From: Boulder County, Colorado
I'll bet ECU tuning is the hold up... just as it has been for EVERY other FI vendor that's working on things. Genom's just smart enough to not air out the problems with development process, then wind up having to spend more time answering questions and stupid "boom" comments on the forums than working on the finished result. :D
06-12-2004 | 04:17 PM
#86
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Geoff Knight here. Actually, Genom had an unforseen personal situation come up and the installation was set back a few months. We have installed about a dozen ESC-550's on other vehicles with engines as large as 4.0 with good success. The beauly of the ESC is that there is no need for part throttle tuning which is where the majority of turbo and belt driven supercharger tuning issues reside. WOT is a simple mixture related situation, and a simple additional injector would solve that issue (we suggest that on 99% of the installations). The timing issue, if it is a problem, could be handled easily by a piggyback and I believe one is available (E-Manage, etc). Running a safe 5 psi will only result in a 55 degree delta rise, so a simple water-alcohol injection has been added to several detonation prone high compression vehicles with the ESC that had no ignition controls available.
Turbo Magazine did a three page article in the June, 04 issue, and
you will see a complete multiple page article done by Street Concepts Magazine in the Aug, 04 issue. They give an in depth step-by-step installation in their project Ranger, and that vehicle saw a jump from 122 wheel hp to 228 wheel hp @ 6 psi.
Turbo Magazine did a three page article in the June, 04 issue, and
you will see a complete multiple page article done by Street Concepts Magazine in the Aug, 04 issue. They give an in depth step-by-step installation in their project Ranger, and that vehicle saw a jump from 122 wheel hp to 228 wheel hp @ 6 psi.
07-14-2004 | 08:35 PM
#88
Mazda Mole
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
any updates?
I am really liking this solution the more I read about it. I wonder if how much quicker will the recharge be if I use 4-6 batcaps instead of drycell batteries.
BTW ebay is selling the ESC550 for $1395
I am really liking this solution the more I read about it. I wonder if how much quicker will the recharge be if I use 4-6 batcaps instead of drycell batteries.
BTW ebay is selling the ESC550 for $1395
07-14-2004 | 08:45 PM
#89
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
The Batcap 800 battery is great. I sponsored a truck in a mag named Street Concepts Mag a few months back, and we used four Batcap 800's and two Megacap 150's. 10-12 runs at 24V worked great, with a 6-minute recharge per 15 second dyno run. BTW, the Ranger 2.5 jumped from 122 to 228 wheel hp @ 6 psi on Street Concepts in-house dyno.
I am trying to reach 100 units sold in one year, so the Ebay items are sold by me at a loss to generate sales and reach our goal. We have sold or sponsored 62 units since Sept/03. I shipped two ESC-550's to a company that does RX8s a few weeks back. We should have some results soon.
I am trying to reach 100 units sold in one year, so the Ebay items are sold by me at a loss to generate sales and reach our goal. We have sold or sponsored 62 units since Sept/03. I shipped two ESC-550's to a company that does RX8s a few weeks back. We should have some results soon.
07-14-2004 | 08:54 PM
#90
Mazda Mole
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Any of the members that getting it?
I am an electrical dummy, so bare with me.
The max voltage you can get by connecting batteries in series is 24V? Can you connect 8 batterys in series to get 96V then the current draw will be less? Will that translate to longer play time?
Also is the install clean? I assume you remove the stock airbox, place the ESC there and run a cone intake in front of the radiator right?
I am an electrical dummy, so bare with me.
The max voltage you can get by connecting batteries in series is 24V? Can you connect 8 batterys in series to get 96V then the current draw will be less? Will that translate to longer play time?
Also is the install clean? I assume you remove the stock airbox, place the ESC there and run a cone intake in front of the radiator right?
07-15-2004 | 10:15 AM
#92
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: Belgique
Originally Posted by atsturbo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Geoff Knight, the designer & inventor of the ESC-400 electric supercharger. I am writing to thank you for visiting my website, and to give additional info on my patented supercharger. Many people will be sceptical, as I dont blame them at all. I would be sceptical as well.
I developed a program to determine hp requirements for my ESC and tried like crazy to get enough power for more boost and CFM. But when faced with the limitation of electrical energy in batteries I settled for a smaller desing for 4 & 6 cyl engines. As I state in my FAQ's, it is foolish for someone with a car that has a quality production supercharger kit available to go with my ESC. But lets say you own a car with a small V6 or 4-cyl and no kits available. This supercharger design will allow you to mount it anywhere in any position--even in the trunk if you want!!! The 15 second bursts are just like NOS users are used to, and if the alternator is upgraded to a 200+amp unit the system can be regenerative at a 10:1 ratio. That means if you race two 15 second runs it will recharge in (15 + 15 X 10 X 85% efficiency = 353 seconds) or six minutes. That is much better than NOS as you MUST get the tank filled and the cost is $45 per bottle. My customers with NOS go through 3-4 bottles/week. Do the math--that is a LOT of $$$. Just so you know my credentials, I am on Vortech's referral list for custom supercharger design, I do R&D for Paxton, Ford Motorsports, as well as many custom desigs you see every day but dont know I designed them. I have been involved with turbos since 1976.
As for the criticism of my welding, people wanted tig welded manifolds for a mig welded price. While mig is strong, it is obviously not as visually appealing. Another problem with the Probe guys were countless copies of my kits sold as my kits on ebay and through the Probetalk discussion boards. They used junkyard turbos and intercoolers with compression bent pipes from a muffler shop. All of mine were mandrel-bent. Bad news travels much faster than good. I still hold the record at 787 flywheel hp from a Probe GT V6 bored and stroked to 3.2 with twin T3T04E hybrids. Noone ever mentions that, though.
Please feel free to contact me with your questions. I am truly open to any questions, advice, criticism, etc.
Geoff Knight--TKTurbos--atsturbo@aol.com
BOOSTHEAD.COM--786-243-2000
This is Geoff Knight, the designer & inventor of the ESC-400 electric supercharger. I am writing to thank you for visiting my website, and to give additional info on my patented supercharger. Many people will be sceptical, as I dont blame them at all. I would be sceptical as well.
I developed a program to determine hp requirements for my ESC and tried like crazy to get enough power for more boost and CFM. But when faced with the limitation of electrical energy in batteries I settled for a smaller desing for 4 & 6 cyl engines. As I state in my FAQ's, it is foolish for someone with a car that has a quality production supercharger kit available to go with my ESC. But lets say you own a car with a small V6 or 4-cyl and no kits available. This supercharger design will allow you to mount it anywhere in any position--even in the trunk if you want!!! The 15 second bursts are just like NOS users are used to, and if the alternator is upgraded to a 200+amp unit the system can be regenerative at a 10:1 ratio. That means if you race two 15 second runs it will recharge in (15 + 15 X 10 X 85% efficiency = 353 seconds) or six minutes. That is much better than NOS as you MUST get the tank filled and the cost is $45 per bottle. My customers with NOS go through 3-4 bottles/week. Do the math--that is a LOT of $$$. Just so you know my credentials, I am on Vortech's referral list for custom supercharger design, I do R&D for Paxton, Ford Motorsports, as well as many custom desigs you see every day but dont know I designed them. I have been involved with turbos since 1976.
As for the criticism of my welding, people wanted tig welded manifolds for a mig welded price. While mig is strong, it is obviously not as visually appealing. Another problem with the Probe guys were countless copies of my kits sold as my kits on ebay and through the Probetalk discussion boards. They used junkyard turbos and intercoolers with compression bent pipes from a muffler shop. All of mine were mandrel-bent. Bad news travels much faster than good. I still hold the record at 787 flywheel hp from a Probe GT V6 bored and stroked to 3.2 with twin T3T04E hybrids. Noone ever mentions that, though.
Please feel free to contact me with your questions. I am truly open to any questions, advice, criticism, etc.
Geoff Knight--TKTurbos--atsturbo@aol.com
BOOSTHEAD.COM--786-243-2000
However, I'm very surprised by the power (15 kW) that is needed to drive the 400 S/C. I'm comparing it to some calculations I've made and to centrifugal compressor based e-chargers that have been evaluated by Visteon. They all come with electric motors of about 2 to 3 kW for engines displacing up to 2.0l.
Therefore my questions. On which grounds did you opt for the Eaton way i.l.o. a centrifugal compressor? And why such a large power requirement?
By the way, the segregation between the vehicle electric system and your e-charger power source is definitely the right option : Visteon found out that you must havea 42 Volts vehicle electrical system otherwise the e-charger would drain too much power and put the whole 12V system at risk.
Last edited by IKnowNot'ing; 07-15-2004 at 10:17 AM.
07-30-2004 | 08:12 AM
#93
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Esc-200
Originally Posted by Magic8
Also, is there future plans for a smaller unit? I mean is there something more compact than the eaton m46 (I think thats right?!) As it is it's a pretty nice product.
07-30-2004 | 08:31 AM
#94
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Esc
Originally Posted by IKnowNot'ing
After a big dispapointment with Turbodyne (I won't even mention all the cooling fan-based bollocks), I'm quite glad to see that someone out there has done it : a true e-charger that you can actually buy.
However, I'm very surprised by the power (15 kW) that is needed to drive the 400 S/C. I'm comparing it to some calculations I've made and to centrifugal compressor based e-chargers that have been evaluated by Visteon. They all come with electric motors of about 2 to 3 kW for engines displacing up to 2.0l.
Therefore my questions. On which grounds did you opt for the Eaton way i.l.o. a centrifugal compressor? And why such a large power requirement?
By the way, the segregation between the vehicle electric system and your e-charger power source is definitely the right option : Visteon found out that you must havea 42 Volts vehicle electrical system otherwise the e-charger would drain too much power and put the whole 12V system at risk.
However, I'm very surprised by the power (15 kW) that is needed to drive the 400 S/C. I'm comparing it to some calculations I've made and to centrifugal compressor based e-chargers that have been evaluated by Visteon. They all come with electric motors of about 2 to 3 kW for engines displacing up to 2.0l.
Therefore my questions. On which grounds did you opt for the Eaton way i.l.o. a centrifugal compressor? And why such a large power requirement?
By the way, the segregation between the vehicle electric system and your e-charger power source is definitely the right option : Visteon found out that you must havea 42 Volts vehicle electrical system otherwise the e-charger would drain too much power and put the whole 12V system at risk.
Visteon's 'Torque Enhancement System' used a 2KW 50,000 rpm brushless design with a turbo comp wheel for a max 4-5 psi. If you follow the formula you will see that unit would not support a 2 liter engine, and Visteon admitted the unit would produce no boost at all at 5000 rpm on a 2.0 liter. It only supported a 1.1 liter engine to 6K rpm.
To determine boost, CFM, and the electrical power needed, we developed*several formulas:
1--1HP = 746 watts at 100% efficiency. Electric motors are on average 70% efficient, so 1000 watts = 1 hp is a great starting point.
2--CFM X PSI divided by 175* = hp required to make boost.
3--CID X RPM X .5 divided by 1780= CFM
4--boost pressure + 14.7 divided by 14.7 = pressure ratio X .85*= density ratio
5--density ratio X CFM = boosted CFM
*note: centrifugal units have a higher efficiency resulting in a 200-210 divisor. Standard roots units have a 150 value. Seriously ported units are 175. Screw-type are 190-200.
*
First lets look at a 2.5 V6--150 CID X 7000 RPM X .5 divided by 1780 = 294 CFM
*
(7 psi + 14.7*/ 14.7) X .85 = 1.25 X 294 CFM = 368.9 CFM
*
(368 X 7 psi)/ 175= 14.72 hp Roots
(368 X 7 psi)/ 200= 12.88 hp Centrifugal
*
14.72 HP X 1000 watts = 14,720 watts (@ 24V = 613 AMPS)
12.88 HP X 1000 watts = 12,880 watts (@ 24V = 536 AMPS)
Just for kicks lets reverse that for the Visteon unit:
2000 watts= 2.5hp (this is being generous, but brushless/slotless motors are 90% efficient)
2.5hp X 210 (efficiency number) = 525
525 = 5 psi X 105 CFM. 105 cfm divided by 1.2 density ratio is 87.5 CFM
(87.5 X 3560)/6000 rpm = 52 CID engine (850cc)
07-30-2004 | 09:27 AM
#95
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
From: Belgique
Originally Posted by atsturbo
We have added a 2nd generation design using a centrifugal unit that has a maximum 5-6 psi and more compact size. To make things simple I will share with you my formula for power requirements to turn a supercharger. This will allow those who wish to know to calculate the power loss from their engine powered units as well.
Visteon's 'Torque Enhancement System' used a 2KW 50,000 rpm brushless design with a turbo comp wheel for a max 4-5 psi. If you follow the formula you will see that unit would not support a 2 liter engine, and Visteon admitted the unit would produce no boost at all at 5000 rpm on a 2.0 liter. It only supported a )
Visteon's 'Torque Enhancement System' used a 2KW 50,000 rpm brushless design with a turbo comp wheel for a max 4-5 psi. If you follow the formula you will see that unit would not support a 2 liter engine, and Visteon admitted the unit would produce no boost at all at 5000 rpm on a 2.0 liter. It only supported a )
I'm interested in your ESC-200. I'll PM you...
07-30-2004 | 10:06 PM
#96
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Houston
I have two of the ESC-500's and I just purchased a new car so I can play with them on my RX-8.
No promises. No time table.
I fits inside the front bumper so I will probably plumb it through the air box with 2.5 to 3" aluminum tubing with a bypass for normal driving. In this config - the ESC will not be visible at all.
No promises. No time table.
I fits inside the front bumper so I will probably plumb it through the air box with 2.5 to 3" aluminum tubing with a bypass for normal driving. In this config - the ESC will not be visible at all.
07-30-2004 | 10:44 PM
#97
Mazda Mole
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 498
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by 1stRX8
I fits inside the front bumper so I will probably plumb it through the air box with 2.5 to 3" aluminum tubing with a bypass for normal driving. In this config - the ESC will not be visible at all.
I'm also interested in ESC-200, keep us updated.
08-01-2004 | 07:47 AM
#98
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale, AZ
Originally Posted by atsturbo
A crank driven SC at 15 psi takes 75-100 hp to turn it.
Idea- Electrical Axial Flow supercharger! Now everybody's happy. :p
08-01-2004 | 01:20 PM
#99
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Drewstein,
What he is saying is that you would have 75-100hp addl' if you were stuffing the engine with 15psi and miraculously had no drag from turning a huge air pump. The only measurment that means anything is the crank hp after all the accessories including the SC are turning. So, If your engine dyno's at 530hp, then yes it could be making 600hp total or more. But you can only brag about the available hp at the crank.
It takes power to make power, no free lunch today.
What he is saying is that you would have 75-100hp addl' if you were stuffing the engine with 15psi and miraculously had no drag from turning a huge air pump. The only measurment that means anything is the crank hp after all the accessories including the SC are turning. So, If your engine dyno's at 530hp, then yes it could be making 600hp total or more. But you can only brag about the available hp at the crank.
It takes power to make power, no free lunch today.
08-05-2004 | 09:06 AM
#100
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale, AZ
Originally Posted by 1stRX8
Drewstein,
What he is saying is that you would have 75-100hp addl' if you were stuffing the engine with 15psi and miraculously had no drag from turning a huge air pump. The only measurment that means anything is the crank hp after all the accessories including the SC are turning.
What he is saying is that you would have 75-100hp addl' if you were stuffing the engine with 15psi and miraculously had no drag from turning a huge air pump. The only measurment that means anything is the crank hp after all the accessories including the SC are turning.
