Originally posted by TommyBoy:
Originally posted by Pascal:
Originally posted by TommyBoy:
However lets not stray from the statment: That a turbo is not Rpm dependent!!!
You're right. A turbo is NOT directly RPM dependant. Did you just contradict yourself?
Dahhh, I was refering to the statment someone else made 
Doesn't that make any sense?
I got a better questions, does any thing you say make sence?? 
Also directly or indirectly a turbo is Rpm dependent!!!
If any one can prove me wrong, I will eat dirt!!!!
As far as this thread goes, I am done discussing this, this is like beating a dead horse 
!!!!
A turbo is not rpm dependant, nor is it purely exhaust gas volume dependant, it is exhaust ENERGY dependant. You can rev a turbo car while sitting still, all the way up to redline, and most cars won't make any boost at all, let lone full boost. You can also slowly creep up to redline in a given gear, and build very little (comparative to full boost) boost as well.
Exhaust energy has two main components, inertia (combination of mass and kinetic energy) and heat energy. As revs increase, the mass and kinetic energy of the exhaust can increase, but the heat energy doesn't necessarily increase much, and as most people know, the heat energy is where most of the energy to spin the turbine comes from.
So, back to the question, is a turbo rpm dependant? NO. rpm does have some effect on the turbo, but there is no direct relationship; A turbo can be at ANY rpm in its operating range at a given rpm of the engine, depending upon the conditions. Where a supercharger is mechanically coupled to the crankshaft, so that, at any given engine rpm, the supercharger will always be spinning at exactly the engine speed times whatever the effective drive ratio (assuming no belt slip) is.
So, Tommyboy, does this mean I can start calling you a dead horse?
