Effective NA Power Mods

[justatroll]

Originally Posted by IceFyre13th

I want in.....I love engineering gobbly gook

Subject: Bussard ramjet speed limit
Since I haven't seen anybody else demolish the myth about the 0.17c speed limit on Bussard ramjets, here goes. The article in Asimov's was not the first recognition of the problem; contrary to what was said in the article, this problem has been known for years, but has not been trumpeted out loud because there is a straightforward fix.
It is reasonably obvious to anyone who does a real analysis of the Bussard ramjet instead of relying on analogy from "ordinary" jets. (In the following, all velocities etc. are with respect to the ship.) The purported speed limit works as follows: thrust from the expulsion of fusion-engine exhaust is counterbalanced by intake drag from fast-moving incoming fuel hitting the ramscoop field, so net momentum transfer to the gas stream works out to be zero.
With some simplifying assumptions, the speed limit equals the engine exhaust velocity; it is easy to set an upper bound on this based on the reactions involved. The mistake is to assume that the kinetic energy of the incoming fuel is necessarily converted to heat or some other useless form. WRONG!
Suppose instead we decelerate the incoming protons against an electric field. The momentum IS transferred, but the energy is stored as potential energy. We use that stored energy to further accelerate the outgoing exhaust by letting the protons fall down the other side of the same electric-field potential hill. Other variations are possible, but the principle remains the same: use the kinetic energy rather than wasting it.
There is still some momentum transfer, because the same amount of kinetic energy does not mean the same amount of momentum at different velocities. The exhaust acceleration is less effective at producing momentum because it is applied to already fast-moving material. But this is a lesser effect; barring losses, there is always a nonzero net momentum transfer to the gas stream (unless relativity introduces some subtle complication at extreme velocities; not my specialty).
Of course there WILL be losses, and integrating this with a ramscoop may be a lot of fun, but those are problems of technology, not fundamental physics. In any event, the ramscoop is the EASY part of a Bussard ramjet, by current thinking: the HARD part is getting a decent reaction rate out of a fusion reaction burning ordinary hydrogen.
Building a ramscoop is a formidable engineering problem, but a fast proton-proton reactor involves nasty difficulties of fundamental physics. It may be necessary to go to an internal energy source, either ordinary fusion (the "ram-augmented rocket" scheme) or antimatter. The latter is the more interesting: antimatter-heated rockets have rather (!) high performance themselves, and adding "free" reaction mass makes it even better. To sum up: the near-c Bussard ramjet is not impossible, it's just complicated, difficult, and not quite the way it was visualized.

I can tell that Dr. Bussard himself didnt write that.

"the HARD part is getting a decent reaction rate out of a fusion reaction burning ordinary hydrogen."

Chances are that IF you stumble across interstellar Hydrogen (and suck it up with a magnetic funnel), it will not be just "ordinary hydrogen" (protium) , but it's more energetic brother - deuterium.

Duh!

(My "other hot rod" actually IS a spacecraft - shhhhhh )

[stevo_12v]

Originally Posted by DSLeach

I'm hoping to get in the neighborhood of 225 - 230 crank HP (180 - 185 whp) out of the mods outlined above. Is that a reasonable expectation? Am I leaving much HP on the table?

Thanks in advance for any input you can provide.

Possibly doable, depends how much money you want to sink into the engine.
My results, on pump gas(Shell V-Power). Engine is bone stock; unopened. Just a bunch of bolt-ons and tune.

(~130 hp) Baseline - STOCK 86(not my car btw, but bone stock 86)
Its the light-blue dotted line - ignore the solid line


(201.9 hp) Current dyno(last week)


I'm going to switch out my 3in HKS Single back to my 2.5in HKS Spec-L. Car response feels a tiny bit sluggish, and the exhaust is ridiculously loud. Possibly free up some hp too(HOPEFULLY).

[steve99]

Originally Posted by stevo_12v

Possibly doable, depends how much money you want to sink into the engine.
My results, on pump gas(Shell V-Power). Engine is bone stock; unopened. Just a bunch of bolt-ons and tune.

(~130 hp) Baseline - STOCK 86(not my car btw, but bone stock 86)
Its the light-blue dotted line - ignore the solid line


(201.9 hp) Current dyno(last week)


I'm going to switch out my 3in HKS Single back to my 2.5in HKS Spec-L. Car response feels a tiny bit sluggish, and the exhaust is ridiculously loud. Possibly free up some hp too(HOPEFULLY).

So your saying a stock 86 on this dyno does 130hp and your car with bolt-ons on Petrol (pump 98 ron which is equitant to about USA91) does 201.9, lest call it 202


so were talking 72 hp gain over the stock 130hp now that's 55% gain over stock car with simple boltons on Petrol.




The best ive seen is about 20% gain and that's on E85 with bolt-ons. compared to bone stock on petrol, bolt -ons on 98 petrol its about 12% or so, your gains seem somewhat unbelievable.


you should be blowing off turbo and SC cars running 7-9 psi with that increase.




even sprintex in Australia are only claiming 41% more power


http://www.sprintex.com.au/frsbrz/

[Jajanken86]

Glad I'm not the only one thinking 130 is a bit low

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[stevo_12v]

I got bolt-ons on my bolt-ons

[RichardsFRS]

The shit thing here is to make good power from bolt ons you have to go E85. Thats okay, if you can find it everywhere. There's not a lot of E85s near me. I think there were 7 in total on a list i found

[Lynxis]

I gotta say, that 130 baseline is way too low. I suspect that car probably has a problem that is robbing power. I've seen a few cars baseline particularly low (usually 120-140) then they go to catless headers and tune and start getting regular numbers like 180-200. Either the dyno operators are playing with the correction factors to make gains seem bigger than they are or I suspect these cars have messed up cats/tune that is robbing power.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by steve99

so were talking 72 hp gain over the stock 130hp now that's 55% gain over stock car with simple boltons on Petrol.

I would say a simple bolton is something like header-exhaust-tune. He is far from this ...

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

I would say a simple bolton is something like header-exhaust-tune. He is far from this ...

Read the list of mods again. There is very little there that actually impacts the engine performance.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by stevo_12v

I got bolt-ons on my bolt-ons

That MAP sensor placement makes me curious.

[justatroll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Read the list of mods again. There is very little there that actually impacts the engine performance.

except a crank pulley that is HEAVIER than stock

[Lantana frs]

On a real hot day with the ac on, 130 sounds about right. Lol

[justatroll]

Originally Posted by Lantana frs

On a real hot day with the ac on, 130 sounds about right. Lol

And dont forget the headlights which sap more power from the engine than you could gain from some of the more popular mods.

And I will call BS on the >200 wheel-hp without FI or E85.



In stock form, our car generates 200 hp at the crank and ~175 hp at the wheels.
That is a 12.5% drivetrain loss.

If you wanted to get 200 hp at the wheels, you would need 225 hp at the crank.
That is 112.5 hp/liter which is pretty much in the top 10 hp/liter for ANY production car.
And it is almost the same as a Porsche 911 GTS which costs ~$110,000 (113 hp/liter)

If there was ANY way that the toyota engineers could get world class performance from mere "bolt-ons" and no E85 required, wouldnt they have done that??

[86Boyz]

Mod between the steering wheel and the seat.