Science Project
Published on Nov 19, 2015
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Problem/purpose
Concluding whether a supercharger or a turbocharger is the better method of forced induction
Photo by aresauburn™
Hypothesis
I think that the turbocharger will be the better method of forced induction because they are smaller and look more efficient.
Photo by Benoit cars
Procedure
In my procedure I conducted research on the two forced inductions and then asked people who had them why they chose what they did. And then put the information I had gathered and found together and found my answer.
Photo by Tom Wolf | Photography
Background
for a 150 hp car to drive the supercharger the engine generates an additional 400 horsepower, a net gain of 250 hp. This is where the principal disadvantage of a supercharger becomes apparent; the engine must withstand the net power output of the engine plus the power to drive the supercharger. Another disadvantage of some superchargers is lower adiabatic efficiency as compared to turbochargers.
Photo by _bianconero
Background (continued)
In practical application the disparity between the two can be dramatic, with turbochargers often producing 15% to 30% more power based solely on the differences in adiabatic efficiency.By comparison, a turbocharger does not place a direct mechanical load on the engine (however, turbochargers place exhaust back pressure on engines, increasing pumping losses).[12] This is more efficient because it uses the otherwise wasted energy of the exhaust gas to drive the compressor.
Photo by Philipp Lücke
Results
The turbocharger is more efficient according to adiabatic power and is more economical, cheaper, and produces 15% to 30% more power Compared to the supercharger.
Photo by awadi
Conclusion
In my research I have concluded that turbochargers are more efficient and economical compared to the supercharger according to power, cost, and almost all aspects.
Photo by Kay Gaensler
