STS - Q&A: Remote Turbochargers.

[Alastor187]

Originally Posted by Zgringo

I'd be more than happy to if you'll tell me just what your looking for.
Also I just got off the phone with the owner and one of the top boys at STS (Squires Turbo Systems) and they have agreed to come on here and answer any questions about there system and turbo'n you might have.
All someone needs to do is start a thread and get the ball rolling. I just don't want this to turn into a sales meeting but a scorce of information.

In one of your previous posts you stated that:

Originally Posted by Zgringo

Under controlled testing we installed different turbos on a engine with means of cooling the exhaust before it entered the turbo, in other words a cool exhaust. The difference between driving the turbo with hot exhaust and cooled exhaust was ZIP, nada.
The big difference was with cooler exhaust the turbos ran much cooler and the discharge air on the compressor was denser or more oxygen bearing air.

Thermodynamically it is known that for a given pressure ratio more power can be extracted from a turbine if the working fluid temperature is increased. This would indicate that more power could be extracted form the exhaust gas with higher EGTs without increasing back-pressure.

However, your testing would indicate that increased EGTs result in a zero net improvement in turbocharger performance, as the heat is transferred to the compressed air through hot compressor components.

I would interested in any data (or interpretation of the data) that you can provide in regards to how much heat is transferred to the compressed air from the exhaust gases. Is more heat transferred through the impeller shaft or compressor housing? For moderate levels of boost how much of a temperature increase is due to heat transfer versus the pressure change and compressor inefficiency?

Most discussions about turbochargers assumes that no heat is transferred from the exhaust gases to the incoming air. Your data would indicated that this is a very poor assumption, so anything you or STS could provide that might quantify this effect would be great.

TIA

[Zgringo]

Mr. Alastor187, I have a feeling this is going to be a great thread. I sent a eMail to Ben at STS and invited them to join us in this discussion and shed some light on remote turbo mounting.

At this point please bear with me as I don't have my Thesis right in front of me but have asked my sister to fax it to me, like right now. But I will tell you what I know off the top of my head.
I know for a fact the 2 identical compressors, one driven with a DC electric motor an the other by exhaust turbin the discharge air on the DC driven compressor was cooler than the exhaust driven turbine leading us to believe that the exhaust turbine transfered heat to the compressor.
The compressors were driven to 10# psi and the only difference being scorce of drive.
Another test was with compressed dry air and another with air with 20% water mist. In both tests 150lbs of compressed air was used and the one with moist air had much more power.
The exhaist in a 4 cycle engine has particals in it and these particals striking the turbine help increase the power of the turbine. This is the reason a turbo'd engine running a fat (rich) mixture develops more power. Under load is when a turbo is at it best. More particals in the exhaust.
Because most people see a turbo run harder with higher heat they think heat is what is making the power when in fact the heat is expanding air very quick and raising the pressure causing the particals to strike the turbin blades at a hi-velocity which in turn drives the turbine.
Believe it or not the interior bullistics for a gun work much the same to driving a turbo. Once the gun is fired the powder starts burning and expanding rapidly and building pressure. Depending on the powder and its burning rate determines when it no longer builds any more pressure. It was found a shotgun with a 14" barrel was perfect. Anything longer and the power of the load deminished.
Where as gasoline has a much slower burning rate and builds pressure for a longer period than gun powder.

[Polygon]

Guys, before this gets started it really does belong in the Forced Induction forum. Besides, there are a lot of people in there that will have some good insight as well.

[Alastor187]

Originally Posted by Polygon

Guys, before this gets started it really does belong in the Forced Induction forum. Besides, there are a lot of people in there that will have some good insight as well.

Thanks, I was not sure where to put it.

Originally Posted by Zgringo

I know for a fact the 2 identical compressors, one driven with a DC electric motor an the other by exhaust turbin the discharge air on the DC driven compressor was cooler than the exhaust driven turbine leading us to believe that the exhaust turbine transfered heat to the compressor.
The compressors were driven to 10# psi and the only difference being scorce of drive.

Do you have access to or remember the differences in the compressor discharge air temperatures? If so do you know what the EGTs were for the exhaust gas driven setup?

Originally Posted by Zgringo

Another test was with compressed dry air and another with air with 20% water mist. In both tests 150lbs of compressed air was used and the one with moist air had much more power.

How well does this type of procedure replicate real world turbocharger performance? In this type of procedure the pressure ratio is high and I am guessing that the volumetric flow rate is low, with respect to real applications. Or were both of the parameters realistic in your testing? Also, this leads me to wonder if you know what kind of pressures exist in the exhaust manifold of engine mounted turbocharger.

I would image that the water mist greatly increases the mass flow rate with respect to dry air, while only moderately increasing the volumetric flow rate. How likely is that water will exist in the liquid phase inside the exhaust manifold? As the density of water vapor is about three orders of magnitude lower than that of liquid water, how does this effect your results?

Originally Posted by Zgringo

The exhaist in a 4 cycle engine has particals in it and these particals striking the turbine help increase the power of the turbine. This is the reason a turbo'd engine running a fat (rich) mixture develops more power. Under load is when a turbo is at it best. More particals in the exhaust.

Basically you are saying that the change in momentum of these particles imparts energy to the turbine blades. The use of the word “particle” indicates to me that you are taking about relatively massive objects with respect to the exhaust gases. Correct?

Is this not what the exhaust gases are doing, imparting energy to the turbine blades as they pass through? While increasing the temperature of the gases makes them more energetic?

I thought that you also stated in another thread that a rich mixture helps to ensure that unburnt fuel is introduced into the exhaust manifold where it combusts due to the high temperature. This creates higher pressures and temperatures inside the manifold.

Originally Posted by Zgringo

Because most people see a turbo run harder with higher heat they think heat is what is making the power when in fact the heat is expanding air very quick and raising the pressure causing the particals to strike the turbin blades at a hi-velocity which in turn drives the turbine.

I am not trying to push the topic of high temperature exhaust gases out of total ignorance or stubbornness. I am just trying to understand everything and I am relying on what I have learned in thermodynamics. Unfortunately, my thermodynamics is orientated towards power plant design and not automotive applications.

Looking at a steam powered turbine with some fixed inlet and outlet pressures, more shaft work can be obtained if the steams temperature is increased. It seems reasonable to me that the same should be true of turbochargers.

However, you are indicating that a portion of that heat is passed to the compressor discharge air and negatively effects your net power gains. Also, you are indicating that hi-velocity particles in the exhaust gases are contributing a significant amount of the energy used by the turbocharger. Finally, you are stating that the particles obtain their high velocity via the high pressures. All these factors would make the problem much more complicated than a simple steam powered gas turbine.

[Zgringo]

I like your steam statement. Years ago we use to use a steam turbine in the cars for racing. I think the company who made them was Turbonics. The system consisted of a turbine, a electric valve, lines and a bottle to hold the water to make the steam.
Here's how it worked. The 3rd member of the car pinion gear had 2 ends on it. 1 end hooked to the driveshaft from the engine and the other to the turbine. In the supply line a electric operated valve was installed, and the line continued to the tank.

Now a pot of boiling water just sets and bubbles and the steam just drifts away.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but we would put a determined amount of water in the tank and put it in our oven in the house stove, raise the water temp. above 212F in a closed container and starts to build pressure. The more pressure it builds the higher the tempature of the water can go before it boils. What would happen if we raised the tempature to 350F? We'd have a bottle of very hot water that when released would turn into super steam, and according to Newtons law, " for every action, you have a equal and opposet reaction", we'd have a rocket. Why? because the PRESSURE at one end of the bottle is greater than at the other. So lets harness this pressure and direct it to the turbine. Now we have a turbine in the path of this super steam and because of the hi pressure and expanding water particals pushing against the turbine blades we have converted this steam into an energy to drive a generator, a compressor or a car as in the Turbonic's turbine.

What happens when we raise the temp. of the water to 450-550F? We've raised the pressure and when released much more pressure and the water particals are traveling much higher speed and turning the turbine even harder.

Now lets switch over to the car engine. Pull the headers off and wait till it's dark and start the engine.
What do you see? Anyone who's done this well tell you you'll see a orange flame coming out of the engine, and when rev'd up, a pretty blue flame if the mixture is close to being right. This hot mixture of gasoline and air particals are still burning and expanding just like the super steam, and if we contain it and use it to drive a turbine we have converted this hot expanding mixture of gasoline and air particals to drive a compressor.
You asked, what does all this testing have to do with real world Performance. We needed to know what was the key to making the turbine more powerful so as to drive a bigger compressor and provide more boost without melting down the engine.
You ever put a potato in a exhaust pipe? Think of the turbine as a potato, but rather then stalling the engine it allows the pressure to be released and spin's the turbine which drives the compressor.

[Hypsi87]

Then why is it with every turbocharged appication I have worked with from my GN to 3412 cat diesels have slower spoolup times and poor performance when a rich mixture is used and EGT's are cool?

On my GN for example. With my alcohol injection, when it starts to spray, my EGT's will drop about 200 degrees. Well if I have it spray too early, my EGT's drop and I have a laggy condition. I can see it in my 330 FT. times on my slips.

I am not trying to argue with you and I respect your thoughts findings but, I work in machine research and devlopment at CAT and every time we attempt to run cooler EGT's we have shittly turbocharger performance.

If heat did not affect the performance of a turbine, then why do they ues superheated steam to turn turbines for power generation? Why wouldn't they just use water flow?

[Zgringo]

Hypsi87, you asked some very good questions. I want to eliminate one right off the bat. They do make water turbine generators.
Next, super steam is expanding extreamly fast making mega amounts of energy (psi) be it against a turbine or pistonlike a steam engine. The higher the temp. the faster the expansion.
As for your car droping 200F when you spray, think what you've done. Remember heat expands the air making energy (PSI) and you still have the volume of air it just isn't expanding as fast, and if you were to size or if you had sized your turbine to the lower temp you would have higher boosts at higher temps cause the air would be expanding more, making more energy (PSI). Still with me?

[turboc3]

Sorry it took a long time to get on the thread.

Our experience is that heat does play a part in the equation, but the heat portion of the equation is dwarfed by the importance of the shape of the turbine housing.

The physics can be debated back and forth, but for customers it comes down to dyno numbers, track times and how much money/effort it took to get there.

The people who hate our system generally have never ridden in one of our vehicles.

Here's a link to videos of some of our faster customers. We hope that in the next couple of weeks, we'll have a customer with a GTO in the 9s.

http://www.ststurbo.com/fast_customers

Ben

[SaabJohan]

First some comments on a few quotes:

...we'd have a rocket. Why? because the PRESSURE at one end of the bottle is greater than at the other. So lets harness this pressure and direct it to the turbine....

Newtons third law states: "for every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction", but that alone won't explain the rocket. If you want an explanation of the rocket you should look at the thrust equations which will dictate that a force is created due to the massflow out of the bottle, and the velocity of that flow. This will create a force in the direction of the flow, and the reaction of that force will (try) to propell the bottle forward.

NOTE: Pressure alone has no energy.

Basically you are saying that the change in momentum of these particles imparts energy to the turbine blades. The use of the word “particle” indicates to me that you are taking about relatively massive objects with respect to the exhaust gases. Correct?

There are no particles in the gas flow. Or more correctly, there are suppsed to be no particles in the gas flow. Particles in a gas flow, soot, water drops and so on will cause erosion on the turbine. For a long life there must be no paricles in the flow.

Some general turbine info
One can say that there are two types pf turbines, impulse turbines and reaction turbines.
With an impulse turbine the energy transfer between the fluid and the wheel comes from the fluids change in the absolute velocity from turbine inlet to turbine outlet.
With a reaction turbine the turbine must be enclosed since there will be an expansion over the turbine wheel. The expansion will result in a heat loss, that heat is what can be converted into power.

On an internal combustion engine both impulse and reaction turbines can be used, the turbocharger turbine is however mainly a reaction turbine.

The engine exhaust is when it leaves the engine still very hot and has a high pressure. This energy can be contered into kinetic energy in a reaction turbine. In the reaction turbine we have a pressure in the inlet which is higher than in the outlet. The pressure difference is known as expansion ratio or turbine pressure ratio just like the pressure ratio on the compressor.

So when the gas goes from the higher pressure to the lower it will expand and lose heat. The more heat it loses the more power will the turbine produce. The heat lost depends on the pressure ratio over the turbine and the turbine inlet temperature. The higher the inlet temperature the more power the turbine will produce.

Steam turbines
A steam turbine is designed to use the heat released when water condenses. In theory the inlet and outlet temperature of a turbine can be assumed to be 100 degC. The expansion over the turbine forces the steam into liquid and thereby releasing 2260 kJ/kg, the same amount of energy needed to produce the steam in the first place. So if one assumes that we have a steam turbine where we have a flow of 1kg water per second, the turbine will produce 2.26 kW (or 3.07 hp) if it has an efficiency of 100%

Turbine reaction, inlet temperature and its effect on turbocharger performance
We have already stated that power output depends on turbine reaction (expansion ratio) and inlet temperature. Obviously the greater the power output is the shorter the spool up will be. So the faster we can reach a high reaction and temperature the faster out turbine should spool. The temperature can be increased by reducing the heat flow out of the exhaust manifold (isolate it, make it smaller), the turbine reaction can be increased by recing the volume of the exhaust manifold on which the turbocharger is mounted. If we also separates the exhaust pipes (twin scoll housings, multiple turbos) we can also reduce the pressure loss that occur during the blowdown and maximize turbine reaction for a fast response. Another important thing is that when using this small volume manifold is that the pressure inside tha manifold can during the exhaust scavenging be kept low and thereby improve volumetric efficiency of the engine.

Heat transfer from exhaust to intake air
The heatflow from the exhaust to the intake air can be considered to be almost non existant. In the exhaust stream there is a turbine, usually made of the poor conducting material inconel or similar poor conducting materials. The turbine is welded onto a partly hollow steel shaft. The means that the heat transfered to the shaft by the turbine will be forced out against the surface of the shaft which is cooled by the oil flow. Around the turbine there is also a heat shield to prevent exhaust heat going into the bearing housing. Heat can also be transfered from the turbine housing to the bearing housing but also that is made from a poor conducting material. The design of the bearing housing is also made in such a way that the heat is forced to the surface of the housing where it can be cooled by air or by water. Some racing turbochargers have also have air bleed ports to allow some cooling air to the turbine.
All this means that even if the exhaust is around 900 degC the compressor can be kept quite cold. In a typical centrifugal compressor the temperature, caused by compression will be 100-300 degC ranging from low pressure ratio, high efficiency to high pressure ratio, low efficiency. With that kind of temperatures there will only be a small difference in temperature between compressor and bearing housing, if any at all in the high boost cases, resulting in a very small heat transfer. In addition to this some of the compression heat is also lost due to the cooling effect on the compressor housing.
By logging airmass flow, inlet and outlet pressure and temperature of the compressor the increase in temperature by the exhaust heat can be calculated. Given that one has a compressor map where the compressor is tested without the exhaust turbine.

[Zgringo]

Saabjohan,
Once again your using theory or unfounded facts to attempt to prove a point.
Example:
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Basically you are saying that the change in momentum of these particles imparts energy to the turbine blades. The use of the word “particle” indicates to me that you are taking about relatively massive objects with respect to the exhaust gases. Correct?

There are no particles in the gas flow. Or more correctly, there are suppsed to be no particles in the gas flow. Particles in a gas flow, soot, water drops and so on will cause erosion on the turbine. For a long life there must be no paricles in the flow.

May I ask what a atom partical is? And can a atom be split? So what your saying is the exhaust from a engine is nothing. Just hot nothing or so on.

Quote:
The engine exhaust is when it leaves the engine still very hot and has a high pressure. This energy can be contered into kinetic energy in a reaction turbine. In the reaction turbine we have a pressure in the inlet which is higher than in the outlet. The pressure difference is known as expansion ratio or turbine pressure ratio just like the pressure ratio on the compressor.

So when the gas goes from the higher pressure to the lower it will expand and lose heat. The more heat it loses the more power will the turbine produce. The heat lost depends on the pressure ratio over the turbine and the turbine inlet temperature. The higher the inlet temperature the more power the turbine will produce.

Let's try this one. Your correct, the exhaust is very hot and at high pressure but also expanding very rapidly. When it reaches it's maximum expansion point what happens? Hold this though. Well come back to it in a minute.

Now lets take a turbine and place 2000F on on side of the blades and dry ice on the other side. What well happen? nothing.

Now let's take a turbine and use a compressor and apply 200# PSI to the inlet side of the turbine and nada to the exhaust side. What well happen? I'll be damn, we just converted air pressure into energy.

Now lets go back to the point where the exhaust gas has expanded to it's max. There is no more, the amount of pressure it has created thru expansion is all there is. This is the energy we have to work with.
The same principal works with a water turbine.
Pressure differential between inlet and outlet. The only difference being, on the engine the hot exhaust gas is expanding creating more pressure.
I suggest you go to STS web site and read as it seems you are wanting to learn and that is good. There site is posted just above your post.
When your finished ask Ben or Rick anything you want.

[SaabJohan]

Originally Posted by Zgringo

Saabjohan,
Once again your using theory or unfounded facts to attempt to prove a point.
Example:
Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Basically you are saying that the change in momentum of these particles imparts energy to the turbine blades. The use of the word “particle” indicates to me that you are taking about relatively massive objects with respect to the exhaust gases. Correct?

There are no particles in the gas flow. Or more correctly, there are suppsed to be no particles in the gas flow. Particles in a gas flow, soot, water drops and so on will cause erosion on the turbine. For a long life there must be no paricles in the flow.

May I ask what a atom partical is? And can a atom be split? So what your saying is the exhaust from a engine is nothing. Just hot nothing or so on.

Quote:
The engine exhaust is when it leaves the engine still very hot and has a high pressure. This energy can be contered into kinetic energy in a reaction turbine. In the reaction turbine we have a pressure in the inlet which is higher than in the outlet. The pressure difference is known as expansion ratio or turbine pressure ratio just like the pressure ratio on the compressor.

So when the gas goes from the higher pressure to the lower it will expand and lose heat. The more heat it loses the more power will the turbine produce. The heat lost depends on the pressure ratio over the turbine and the turbine inlet temperature. The higher the inlet temperature the more power the turbine will produce.

Let's try this one. Your correct, the exhaust is very hot and at high pressure but also expanding very rapidly. When it reaches it's maximum expansion point what happens? Hold this though. Well come back to it in a minute.

Now lets take a turbine and place 2000F on on side of the blades and dry ice on the other side. What well happen? nothing.

Now let's take a turbine and use a compressor and apply 200# PSI to the inlet side of the turbine and nada to the exhaust side. What well happen? I'll be damn, we just converted air pressure into energy.

Now lets go back to the point where the exhaust gas has expanded to it's max. There is no more, the amount of pressure it has created thru expansion is all there is. This is the energy we have to work with.
The same principal works with a water turbine.
Pressure differential between inlet and outlet. The only difference being, on the engine the hot exhaust gas is expanding creating more pressure.
I suggest you go to STS web site and read as it seems you are wanting to learn and that is good. There site is posted just above your post.
When your finished ask Ben or Rick anything you want.

1. Usually an particle in this context is defined as a small part at above atomic level. Soot is an example of a particle, CO2, H2O and N2 atoms aren't considered to be particles.

2. I don't think you have understood the difference between heat and temperature. Putting 2000 degF and dry ice on each side of a turbine will give a large temperature difference, there will however not be any larger amounts of heat involved. The heat will however be enough for a peltier element to convert it into electricity which in turn can propel a small electric motor. This technology is used in the uranium/plutonium batteries used by for example NASA in space.

Recommended reading
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/heat.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo0.html

3. I have read books about thermodynamics, mechanics, and turbomachines such as "The Radial Turbine" by Werner T. Von Der Nuell plus technical papers about turbocharging from for example NACA, Garrett, Holset and so on. When reading at the STS page it seams that those guys should try reading some of the above mentioned.

Recommended reading
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/powtrbth.html

[Zgringo]

Other than reading to gain all your knowledge, what type of degrees do you hold and what research have you performed to even suggest engineers should read your unfounded statements.
Your defination of a particle is something above atomic level.
As for not understanding the difference between heat and tempature, I understand both quite well, and if you don't think applying 2,000F creates heat then you have the problem. I could care less what heat does to a peltier element, were not trying to creat electric power, were talking turbo's.
As for the guys at STS to read old theory, their putting fact into play and rewriting old theory with new technology. There proof is on the dyno, not some unfounded theory.
Don't critize their itelligance, correct you ignorance.

[SaabJohan]

Originally Posted by Zgringo

Other than reading to gain all your knowledge, what type of degrees do you hold and what research have you performed to even suggest engineers should read your unfounded statements.
Your defination of a particle is something above atomic level.
As for not understanding the difference between heat and tempature, I understand both quite well, and if you don't think applying 2,000F creates heat then you have the problem. I could care less what heat does to a peltier element, were not trying to creat electric power, were talking turbo's.
As for the guys at STS to read old theory, their putting fact into play and rewriting old theory with new technology. There proof is on the dyno, not some unfounded theory.
Don't critize their itelligance, correct you ignorance.

As I have mentioned before (in another thread) I'm currently a college student and I have now about one and a half year left intil I have a masters in mechanical engineering.

Applying 2000 degF doesn't mean that there is much heat involved. For example heating a piece of say 1 kg nickel to 1093 degC (all from 0 degC, 2000 degF = 1093 degC) does involve less heat than for example heating 10 kg nickel to 150 degC or 2 kg water to 60 degC.

You and the guys at STS are both ignoring the thermodynamics of turbines, and try covering that fact up with statements about old theories and unfounded theories is just silly.

Let's say that we have an exhaust turbine with the following conditions:
m = 0.5kg/s
P1 = 3bar
P2 = 1bar
Cp = 1.0 kJ/(kg*K) (specific heat)
γ = 1.4 (ratio of specific heats)

During test 1 the turbine inlet temperature (T1) was 1200K and during test 2 900K. The output for the idealized turbine will then be as follow:

Test 1
T2 = T1*(P2/P1)^[(γ-1)/γ] = 1200*(1/3)^((1.4-1)/1,4) = 877K
P = m*Cp*(T1-T2) = 0.5*1,0*(1200-877) = 161.5 kW

Test 2
T2 = T1*(P2/P1)^[(γ-1)/γ] = 900*(1/3)^((1.4-1)/1,4) = 658K
P = m*Cp*(T1-T2) = 0.5*1,0*(900-658) = 121 kW

NOTE: (relations between heat, impulse caused by fluidparticles and turbine power)

M = F*r
M = m(r1*c1-r2*c2)

Y = P/m = u2*c2 - u1*c2
P = Δh*m but also P = m*Y and P = q*V*Y and therefore
Δh = Y = Cp*(T1-T2)

Where u = blade velocity, c = tangential component of blade velocity.

With a radial turbine one can approximate by Δh = U1*C1 as blade velocity is greatest at the inlet and the outlet flow is mainly axial.
Δh and Y are defined as "specific theoretical bladework", the amount of work extracted per massflow.
the specific bladework can also be written as:

Y = 1/2[(c2^2-c1^2)+(u2^2-u1^2)+(w1^2-w2^2)]

In the case of a reaction turbine, where the fluid undergoes a change in static pressure, the decreaseing pressure will result in an increase in velocity.
___________________________________________

The turbine which offers the most excess power (turbine power minus compressor power consumption) first will offer the best spool up. The time until a high turbine expansion ratio (defined as P2/P1) is reached is also important.

Turbines, pistons or a peltier element and an electric motor.... they all convert heat energy into kinetic energy.

EDIT: In the "test" equations I used [] instead of () as the latter was turned into smilies...

[Zgringo]

I have all that information Saabjohan, sorry to have put you research but your still trying to apply something you've never tried or you wouldn't be quoting formulas.
Once again i ask, have you ever tried to apply any of these formulas? Or are you just quoting numbers from a book?

"You and the guys at STS are both ignoring the thermodynamics of turbines, and try covering that fact up with statements about old theories and unfounded theories is just silly."

I can't speak for STS but I haven't ignored anything. Once the heat has expanded the exhaust to its maxium the only thing you have left is P1 an P2. If you size the turbine to these numbers guess what?
The old theory was, the closer the turbo was mounted to the exhaust port the more efficient the turbo. Tell that to the Cosworth Ford engine boys. The turbo is almost 5' from the exhaust port. Are they silly?
STS has sized the turbines properly for the application and have dyno reports to backup there results. Are they silly?
I've spent over 25 years in research and development for hi-altitude aircraft engine's, and the last 25 applying what i've learned not from figures but real applied applications. I'm I silly?
I remember in 1955-57 when Don "Big Daddy" Garlic went 9.07@172 MPH in his AA/F dragster, and engineers said and published that the dragster had reached it's limits and could never exceed that time and speed. Now that was silly. In later years said they'd never reach 300 MPH. Well it's all fact now and has blown their theory all to hell.
So you go out and tell all the drag racers that theory say's they can't do something,and the'll prove you wrong.
Go ino the Ford Cosworth engine shop and show them the figures and tell them your theory and tell them there applied technology won't work, there silly.

[SaabJohan]

ChampCar regulations do only allow one turbocharger, the placement is done thereafter.

Janota, Hallam, Brock, Dexter, "Prediction of diesel engine performance and metal temperature using digital computers", does for example show the effect of manifold shape on availible energy to the turbine. When the volume increase the energy availible drop as one should expect.