hairdryer...lol

dunno if this has been asked before...but COULD you hook up a hair dryer??? lol...take out the heating coils, though...what would it do?

a hair dyer? lol.. well now id imagine it would force a vary slight bit of extra air into the manifold.. so little that it probly wouldnt even be noticed.

what about a bunch of hair dryers?

ha (mostly joking, maybe a little bit serious)

ehhh... the flow of a even a 2.0l engine is probably 2 times that of the larger of hairdryers. luckey you where being sort of seriosu about the actual hair dryer, i was fixing ot set some "v8 Muscel" people striaght...

i bet with a like.... 10 horsepower motor with a blower on it you could get decent boost.. but is 200 bcuks realy worth it? hey..it could be.. hm..

for those few who actualy know math:
cfm for a 2.0l running at 1000 rpm-any ideas?

get your finger out of your arses.
who can be so poor to use a hair dryer on an engine
get the smallest v8 and youll flog its ass

^stfu^ I AM so poor I can't afford a fucking oil change, okay?! I've got a POS hairdryer an thought "that'd be funny as hell if I stuck that on my 'scort and it actually DID benefit the engine. If you have nothing to contribute to a thread of mine, just stfu an keep it to yourself.

lol.. cant even afford an oil change? ya.. you and i got the same financal prob then.. any boost is good if you can get it[hell i spent the last of my money on plugs, wires, oil, and a filter to get it ready fro the winter]... Regardless, it will give you a little something, maby not noticable, but something. Give it a wirl and tells me if it works, ill have to pick up a nice little 10 horse power referbished electric motor(ie cheap) and give it a try if you notice anything new. Why not?

I'll let you know what happens. How much power comes OUT of the transformer plug???

Obviously you didnt read my post about flow. i dont know exactly what size your escourt's motor is but ill sa a 2.0l I-4. every 2 rotations the engine will take in and displace then exert its rated displacement. so at 1000RPM (around idle) your engine will be displacing 1000 l/min of air. at 6000RPM (geustimatin redline) it will be about 6000 l/min.
lets say your hairdryer blows air at 30km/hr in high. thats 500m/min. lets say it has a 7cm exaust. thats 3500 l/min. and thats being lienient. so at about 3500RPM your hair dryer is flowing about what your engine is requireing. above that your engine is having to suck air through an impeller. and below 3500RPM that impeller isnt going to be spinning fast enough to hold very many PSI. its worth a try but your torque curve will drop off at about the time your engine really has to start sucking. and im not even taking into account plumbing friction and airfilter restrictions. however if you get 4 in there and run them off of a deep cycle battery that only draws from the altinator when you want it to and 130v inverter. and have the intake selectable, hairdryers or naturally asperated and you may or may not provide more than adiquite flow for the engine. however if yoou have some spair change and are bored enough to do it...it cant hurt...

hey im defently bored enough.. *looks at spare motors of no use or value.* wouldnt be able to hold the psi no.. but if the motors powerful enough ti will assit in bringing some air in, at low rpms.. front drive cars, you dont see them race to much so 6000 rpm? na.. hell i think thats in my red line if i rember.

my moms cavilier was FWD 2.4l and redlined at 6,600 or that is where the ECU started kicking it back, i had it up to 7,000 a few times (it was auto so it wasnt by downshifting). my moms new '04 nissan frontier is a 2.4l and has a 6,200rpm redline i beleive, im not sure ive had it up to 6,000 (its manual) and it was still pushing but i had begun to drop out of hte power band so i shifted up.

There is a large difference between flowing air and compressing air.

30km/h from a 7 cm in diameter exhaust is equal to 32 litres per second. An engine consumes around 4 m^3 per kWh. So an engine producing say 50 hp require an airflow of about 41 litres per second. A hairdryer will not be able to compress the air.

^^ i only sound sort of smart, listen to him...he is smart...lol

ok....so my engine...at 6k RPM, without intake restriction, would pull intake air at a rate of 211.92cfm. So...If I could push air at a rate of 250-300cfm into the intake, it would help out. NOT COMPRESS, allow the engine to breath as it is supposed to and maybe a little more.

*EDIT* - Upon researching, I have found that a typical hairdryer puts out at least 600cfm. Remember, I'm looking for FLOW, NOT pressure.

i cant wait to go to a car show and see some kid with a civic and individual throttle bodies with a hairdryer on each one. i dont know if i would laugh, cry, or just not be able to talk for a while.

Though i do live in the US, please keep things Metric... IMO the US is long due for a measurement change. after going through chem. 1 i confuse friends while tlaking in kelvin heat measurements and all that good stuff.... anyway. 600cfm? are you sure? thats alot of air.

600 CFM would be around 283 liters per second. Whether or not these figures are accurate, I have no idea but they seem a little unrealistic, however flow isn't going to help you without pressure. If the air isn't pressurised you won't be able to fit much more air into the cylinders and you won't create much more power.

ok....so my engine...at 6k RPM, without intake restriction, would pull intake air at a rate of 211.92cfm. So...If I could push air at a rate of 250-300cfm into the intake, it would help out. NOT COMPRESS, allow the engine to breath as it is supposed to and maybe a little more.

*EDIT* - Upon researching, I have found that a typical hairdryer puts out at least 600cfm. Remember, I'm looking for FLOW, NOT pressure.
You can't do that without compressing the air, and anyone that have used a handpump to fill your bicycles tires with air knows that the higher the pressure gets the harder it is to pump the air.

lol...fuck it...just fuck it. These forums are full of nothing but a bunch of edotistical mechanics. If it's not their way it's not right. There is NO fucking encouragement on these boards for people to go out on their on and try things, then come back and report how it went.
I know how the responses are gonna go...I've seen tons of times before: "We just know what works and what doesn't, so we try to save you time." "No need to get pissed off cause you were proven wrong."
I don't get pissed off when proven wrong, I admit defeat, but you people dont even fucking listen or give half a shit. Would any of you care that I custom made a CAI for my Escort, out of a Pringles can? I'll probably get laughed at for that one, but you know what? It WORKS! There is no CAI made for the 2.0L SPI, only some crap short ram. An intake is an intake, regardless of what it is made out of, but do people care? fuck no, it has to be name brand.
Do electric s/c's work? I could feel the difference. I got one on a free trial, to see how well they actually did work....I felt a HUGE difference. On a little 4-banger, anything more is good. I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but its in a thread in the last 10 pages or so of this forum.
Fuck it. These forums suck ass, all egotistical an shit. I'll do my own shit, think up my own ideas, and say fuck everyone else...it's helped for the past 3 years, why wouldn't it work now.

WOAH WOAH WOAH, none of that. we are just telling you what from our calulations will help out. it wont really harm it. GOOSEFRABA

as for the statement about only boost will help the enigne. Flow is 100% more important than boost. if his hair dryer really does flow more than the enigne can supply then there will be a small pressure boost (untill the impeller in the HD cant push any more) and the engine wont have to suck its own air. resulting in a nice HP boost. not like boost (which in order to boost you must cheate more air flow than the engine can handle but anyway) which supplys more air than the engine can handle resulting in lots of extra oxygen. FLOW IS VERY IMPORTANT!!

i say try it. but dont expect more than 0.1bar boost if that. so no need to guage.
but be aware of power inverter costs and my reccomendation an extra battery and isolation kit...

Please, by all means go ahead and try it, if it works I would be more than happy to eat my words.

Might keep in mind that the HP your loseing to the alternator prolly exceeds what you would gain by using a hairdryer. If you really want to make your 'scort to go realy fast, I suggest pushing it off a really high cliff. If that seems too extreme however you could always get a bunch of hampsters, hampster wheels, and some Duct tape and go wild.

P.S. I hope you took the Pringles out of the can first, I forgot to do that when I was working on my 90' accord and now it smells like vinegar and salt everywhere I go. :lol2:

P.S.S. Good for you! Every modding community needs people willing to find the cheepest solutions possible for problems to keep all those big companies in check. I say good Jorb!

the hairdryer wasnt exactly intened to put on 300 extra horse power like alot of people seem to be forgeting here... little 4 banger? more is more. anythint hat can help and is cheap, is some great shit.. instead of spending money for a power inverter... run down to princess auto and pick up a nice little DC motor.. far as the alternator taking horsepower? its going to spin, and produce power regardless....
yall idiots.. i came to these forms thinking i might be able to learn somethin but all you guys seem to do is shoot people and there ideas down.. (well not all of you, somegood guys ont histhing.) Escorts rule.

actually the altinator only supplies as much power as is needed at the time. so if 10amps are needed 10amps are supplied, if 100amps are needed 100amps are supplied. the more amps needed the more torque it takes to turn the altinator. if the hair dryer motor makes maximum flow at 600w (alot of the wattage is reduced now that it has no heat coil) all things 100% efficent (ehh...not) it will pull about 50amps 12v DC and about 43 on 14v (around the average car voltage) which is why i reccomended an extra battery and a battery isolator and switch, so he can run it untill the voltage drops down too much, kill the hair dryer, letthe battery's recharge and then flip them back on... or use it for raceing/passing/extra hp needed situations.

if only automanufactures where smart enough to run an altinator off of exaust flow...

got the hairdryer, switch, and some wiring. Gonna get some more wiring, and a relay, then I'll be all set to go. Will let ya guys know what happens.

To let you know how its gonna be setup. It will be pulling from my CAI (custom). It will be using a 2p3t switch. One setting is off...completely. Throw the switch one way and the relay gets tripped when my runner control is activated at 3000 rpm. Throw the switch the opposite direction, and it's just on. I will let you guys know how it goes and what happens. Will probably relocate my CAI while I'm at it...

glad to see you're doing something :D
reality > theory

But I don't really think that anyone was trying to shut you down, or anything, they were just trying to help :/

You have no idea how cool an hairdryer hooked up to your intake would look if it was covered in LEDs. Serious dude, do it!

Flow is 100% more important than boost.

Smartest thing stated in this thread. Thats why bigger turbos make more power at lower pressure. If this wasn't the case, then why are turbos upgraded? Why can't a SR20 just use the stock T25? Because it can only flow about 28lbs(enough to support about 250whp). That just so happens to be at 15psi.

As for the hairdryer.LMFAO I used it to see how well my intercooler worked.lol It works pretty well too.

...if only automanufactures where smart enough to run an altinator off of exaust flow...

But then insted of drawing power off the engine wouldn't you be increasing the resistance of air flow through the engine, resulting in power loss? I mean no matter how much you want to, power isn't made, its converted. In this case you would be converting the mechanical energy the engine SHOULD be producing into electrical energy. I guess what it really comes down to is if exhaust is more efficient than straight off the block.

a turbine un the exaust flow wouldnt give near the reduction in power as turning an altinator with a belt.... why do you think turbos are so more efficent? they run off of wasted energy, exaust pressure and heat... the exaust gasses are still expanding as they leave the cylender. if they arent the engine is already working near 100% efficency and there would be no reason to boost in the first place because exaust tempatures would be near equal to intake tempatures. once the exaust vualve is closed the exaust gasses have something to expand agianst.
if turbos ran purely off of the cylender pushing the turbine turbos as we know them would never spool and the turbos that whould be designed to create boost would be so innefficent you might as well use a belt drive supercharger.

But then insted of drawing power off the engine wouldn't you be increasing the resistance of air flow through the engine, resulting in power loss? I mean no matter how much you want to, power isn't made, its converted. In this case you would be converting the mechanical energy the engine SHOULD be producing into electrical energy. I guess what it really comes down to is if exhaust is more efficient than straight off the block.
Have you never heard about compound machines?
Back in the days of the steam engine the steam was sometimes lead to a second cylinder after it has done its work in the first. Today, look at almost any gas turbine and you will find that it has several turbines in stages. Does the second turbine run off the power of the first turbine? Of course it doesn't, as long the temperature and pressure is higher than atmospheric power can be extracted from it. But as temperature and pressure drop it gets more and more difficult to extract power from it and using a second piston or turbine does cause a slight reduction in power from the first one.

When using engine exhaust to power a turbine you can extract much more power from the turbine than the power the engine is losing. For examples so did studies done by NACA on the late 1940 indicate that turbine power could be 9 to 21% of engine power while the power lost was no more than 1%. This power increase is also without consuming more fuel than earlier which means that mileage increase.

Further I will also add to the pressure vs. flow discussion that the flow always depend on a pressure difference, and a higher pressure means that the air got a higher density and it's the mass flow we are interrested in. But if a compressor are working outside its operating range it can choke, which means that the massflow of air will not increase, just the pressure due to that the temperature of the air are increasing, this also means that the compressor are consuming more power to run but also that the engine might get into trouble with for example detonations. For a turbocharger this also means, especially if the turbine is also outside its operating range that exhaust pressure will become very high, which reduce the flow through the engine but can also give problems with detonations since there can be exhausts left in the cylinder. Pumping losses during the exhaust stroke does also increase.

@ CBFryman: As I understand it a turbo is parasitic to the power produced by the engine, but its power drain is replaced and exceeded by the increase of air flow into the engine. If you were to stick an alternator in the path of the exhaust flow like you suggested, you would be restricting the exhaust. I can understand however if someone combined a tubro, with an alternator so that the spining turbine also spun the magnets in an alternator around. I might have misunderstood you but it sounded like you were talking about an alternator right in the path of the exhaust. I was just saying that I would think that the power loss from an engine with an exhaust spun turbine before using the turbine to add air to the intake, would be greater than that of a belt driven load equivelent to that of your average alternator.

@ SaabJohan: Im not even gonna pretend to know what your talking about. If you know you sh*t then cool, all I was saying is that an alternator in exhaust flow is a load in 2 ways: the restriction of exhaust, and the load of the alternator itself. I guess at high speeds it wouldn't matter too much, but I would think that at low speeds it would.

theo nly real problem with putting an altinator spun but a turbine in the exaust path would be that enigne revs would have to increase if htere was ever a demand for more power as a turbine can never be completely sealed all the way around the turbo housing. so if all of the usdden you needed 80amps and your engine was at idle making minimal exaust flow, then some of the power would have to be sucked from the battery.

what sabb was saying (in normal people terms, damn your colledge degrees) is that a turbine can only extract as much energy as the engine looses from exaust heat. and since all energy is interchangeable (law of concervation of matter and energy) if the engine is loosing say 12kW of power from exaust heat (i dont feel like making up a real world example and then converting BTU's into Joules and Joules/sec into watts etc etc etc) then with a 12v electrical system 1000 amps is the most power the turbine could prodice at and given time at 100% turbine and altinator efficency. but if the turbine and altinator is only 10% efficent then 100amps could be provided and thats right around a high ampere OEM altinator rating. but as i said before, if demaned increased exaust flow would have to increase.

@ CBFryman: Ok so why don't car makers use intake altinators? There has to be SOME reason right? I mean if it was so efficiant I would figure someone would have done it by now. Other than maybe cost, but even then if its more efficient you would think it would be on all those 70+ mpg highway cars.

car manufactorershave a tendancy to do whats cheap... then do whats effective..

@ CBFryman: Ok so why don't car makers use intake altinators? There has to be SOME reason right? I mean if it was so efficiant I would figure someone would have done it by now. Other than maybe cost, but even then if its more efficient you would think it would be on all those 70+ mpg highway cars.
A few engines does however have a turbine hooked up to the crankshaft which do increase the power somewhat without increase fuel consumption.

For example Scania and Volvo uses it on their truck diesels, but it was tested already back at the WW2 airplane engines, but they didn't have materials which where good enough to survive the exhaust heat without risking a failure over time.

@ CBFryman: Ok so why don't car makers use intake altinators? There has to be SOME reason right? I mean if it was so efficiant I would figure someone would have done it by now. Other than maybe cost, but even then if its more efficient you would think it would be on all those 70+ mpg highway cars.

intake altinator, who said anything about intake altinators, all tat would do is starve the engine of air. we are talking about a turbine in the exaust, where there is heat and expanding gasses to extract energy from...geez

intake altinator, who said anything about intake altinators, all tat would do is starve the engine of air. we are talking about a turbine in the exaust, where there is heat and expanding gasses to extract energy from...geez
:banghead:
Ok, Ok I meant EXHAUST altinator, and I still don't buy the "cause its cheep" explination. I have never even heard of an exhaust altinator before and with all those rice burners running around and companies like Scion trying to mass produce "custom" cars to the point that everyone looks like they are right outta 2 Fast 2 Furious, you would think it would have popped up SOMEWHERE.

it wouldnt be for performance, it would be for efficency. reasons why it hasnt hapened? well here are a few:
-Cost, parts for something like this do not exist to my knowledge, therefor everything would have to be machiened specifically for one car. to add 20hp to the fly would add $1000 to the cost of the car.
-Reliability Issues, yes these can be over come with proper engineering but still....electronics donot like heat jsut as engines do not like heat. putting the altinator close to the exaust could cause premature failure.
-the idea hasnt come to mind, I CALL PATENT RIGHTS!!!
-the altinators they have now are working perfectly fine, and untill there is a popular demand for higher efficency no auto manufactuer is going to put man hours into designing and building one of these things... it was just an idea i threw out there. get over it.

give me a junked turbo and ill give anything a shot once.. lol. simple idea realy.. just use the turbine that usualy forces a greater amount of air into the engine to spin an electromagnet..(alls you do is replace the belt with a shaft leading to the turbine mounted into the exuast) onlything you gotta deal with-as pointed out- is heat transfer.

there is an old beater for sale donw the street for 400, i can prolly get it for 300. it has a blown head gasket.

Old Beater with Blwon head gaket: $300
Replacing a blown Head Gaket: $130
Junk Yard Turbo off of an old Mercedes Diesel or Toyota MR-2: $150
Junk Yard Altinator: $30
Fabricating a Turbo Exaust: $200
All the fixens to attach altinator to Turbo Turbine: $40
Running an altinator off of the exaust: Priceless

I though the hairdryer idea fell in line with some blowers sold on eBay and did some research and here's a response I got:



Hello Albert,

Thank you for your understanding response.

Actually, there are three electric boost devices available that are "real."

1) Thomas Knight Supercharger: (Roots blower belt driven with three 5hp starter motors, utilizing a 75lb battery supply to provide 15,000 Watts of energy to provide short bursts of boost for drag racing applications). Costly, heavy, and not useful for daily driving... great idea, just reaches the cost point (including ECU and fuel system changes) and weight penalty that makes one think that a traditional belt driven compressor would be the better choice.

2) Turbodyne Electric Turbocharger: Turbodyne uses a true turbocharger driven by a high power electric motor that produces 3psi, but only up to a flow rate of 100 cfm. After that, the pressure drops off dramatically. By 200 CFM, the total pressure is 1PSI... By 300 CFM, virtually no pressure is generated. Again, air-flow becomes the limiting factor. This electric Turbo requires additional batteries as a power-supply, and costs over $2000 as well.

3) The e-RAM Electric Supercharger: 791 Watts of electrical energy driving an axial-flow blower at 25,300 rpm producing 1psi of NET boost to an intake (offsetting intake vacuum and adding pressure). At 3.6" ID, even with the motor in the center, the resulting flow when not activated is equal to a 3" diameter intake tube, so no restriction is created at part throttle conditions.

We welcome the opportunity to add another positive dyno result to our record. We want nothing but the truth, as we want to make sure that our customer base continues to be satisfied with results that are based on realistic expectations. We make every effort to separate ourselves from the countless companies that promise ridiculous results from ridiculous products.

We did have a dyno on a 90's 300zx several years ago (the one on our site with one e-RAM on each intake tube leading to each throttle-body), and got around 8HP through the rpm range.

FYI: From our experience, there are several things that can negatively effect performance gains realized from the e-RAM.

1) Most importantly is the mounting configuration. For Nissans that use Mass-Air-Flow (MAF) sensors on the intake, we have found that mounting the e-RAM-INLINE unit between the MAF and the throttle-body keeps the MAF from being adversely effected by the thrust and turbulence generated by the e-RAM unit. Older Nissans with Air-Flow-Meters (AFM) do not have this issue, and the e-RAM can be mounted directly on the AFM with no issues.
2) The crankcase breather tube connection on the intake must be plugged, as this is a vent which will allow all pressure generated to escape. The remaining breather tube from the crankcase should have a mini air-filter mounted to it to keep the oil fumes from getting all over the engine compartment.
3) The battery and charging system must be in good condition, as the e-RAM draws all of its high current directly from the battery, and a weak battery will experience a larger voltage drop when a heavy load is placed upon it, lowering the speed of the e-RAM unit, and thus reducing effective boost from the unit. The alternator only charges the battery based on voltage drop, so as long as the battery is healthy, and the alternator provides the usual 14+V to the battery, the e-RAM will perform fine.
4) Incorrect installations

The only thing that seems to be an issue on the 90s 300ZX is finding a way to fit the e-RAM on the intake in a way that will allow for good results without having to place one on each intake tube (cost vs. HP issue).

Please let us know if the 90s 300zx uses an MAF or AFM. As this will make a big difference on how we approach mounting an e-RAM to the intake.

Thanks again,

Regards,

Mike Kibort
e-Racing Motorsports, LLC.
www.electricsupercharger.com/

"Prove it at the track"

As for the turbo being used for driving the alternator it would work fine except below 3,000 or under no load conditions. How about using the powersteering pump which is only used 40% time to drive a hydralic motor driving the alternator all the time the motor is running?

Mr. SaabJohan your right about the compounded engines. Pratt & Whitney built a compounded R3350 engine that was both turbocharged and had a turbine power recovery system hooked up on it. The biggest problem was keeping the exhaust gases hot till they went through the turbines. This was handled by wraping the pipes running from the engine to the turbines with installation. It worked fine till the development of the R4360 engine which replaced it.
As for the turbine engines or turbo jets some have 3 turbines driving 3 different axiel flow compressors at different power ranges. As air is compressed it requires more power to increase the flow along with the increase in pressure. On these engines 3 turbines drive 3 compressors with 13 stages of compression. The 9th stage is used for cabin heat and A/C plus de-iceing with the balance used for combustion to drive the turbines. Very efficient. The J33 was the only jet engine with 1 turbine and 1 compressor section. From the J47 on all had multi stage compressors.

actually there have been many (very many) turbine engines both for propulsion and as APUs that only have one compressor and one turbine section. i have had the privelage (ha) of rebuilding 2. i think one was a german or maybe russian engine MK5 Viper maybe i dont really rembember.
this is irrelevant. sorry

actually there have been many (very many) turbine engines both for propulsion and as APUs that only have one compressor and one turbine section. i have had the privelage (ha) of rebuilding 2. i think one was a german or maybe russian engine MK5 Viper maybe i dont really rembember.
this is irrelevant. sorry

Very true if you want to go on the world market of mfg's. Ah yes only one compressor or turbine section, as far as I know they all only one of each, I might be wrong but never came across one. We were talking about stages of compression and stages on the turbines not sections. Thanks and your right they have been used in APU's, TurboProp aircraft, helicoptors and even tried in cars and trucks, and one time at Indy but outlawed. Joe Lennerd (sp) lead the entire race only to shut down on the last lap to lose with a turbine powered car.

oh stages, i thought you were talking about sections (# of shafts) well i know of a few APU's that use a centrifugal compressor with one turbine section . i rebuilt one that had a two stage centrifugal comp with only one turbine stage. there was only one compressor wheel but it had blades on both sides.they should use those on centrifugal superchargers.