Electronic Supercharger

[FIND]

once again, this is NOT perpectual motion, just like a typical supercharger or turbocharger are not perpetual motion. the energy to run the electric motor is coming off the engine, from an alternator, then stored in batteries, then discharged into the motor to create the boost. now, the engine would produce more power than the system needed to run because.........you guessed it(actually you probably did not) the energy for this whole process is coming from the GASOLINE, so more air + more gas = more power, it is not science fiction, it is not defying laws of physics, it is the same damn thing as all other forced induction methods, the only difference is it uses electricity.

also, if designed properly it would not add any drag to the incoming air stream, why is that? because the air intake can be designed so that flow through the supercharger is only possible when the super charger is making boost. you have a few one way valves and the engine is either running entirely n/a or when the supercharger kicks on that valve will hold against the pressure made from the super charger and the valve on that part of the intake will open up to let air flow from the charger into the system. its not that complicated, just because you do not understand the supporting principles does not mean it defies Newton's laws, and FYI, we are sooooo far past Newton's laws. catch up man. physics and engineering have come a long way, an electric supercharger is no amazing feat. the issue with it is the batteries are expensive, and there are far better ways to get the job done.

Alright kid, you have probably taken a couple engineering courses and think you are brilliant. C'mon kid, I asked you to put up or shut up. You think it is possible, break out some math. You claim in your profile you were an engineering student, I am gonna assume you made it past at least some freshman level classes, you aught to know calculus and university level physics. Not much should be required beyond that. Since you are apparently not smart enough to understand what you are trying to argue against, I was using perpetual motion to describe the process here. I am not saying you need some kind of novelty desktop item that mimics perpetual motion.

The problem here is that you have loss of energy as mechanical energy is changed to electrical energy then back into mechanical energy then into air pressure. You cannot just keep adding air and fuel to an engine and get unlimited power first off, second off, for an electric motor to make the amount of torque it needs to push enough air to make up for the energy it is using to run, it needs more energy than you can make on it's boosted air. Next, I would take a look at supercharger design before you try and "educate" me about whether or not they are a restrictive element. A supercharger does not need to flow much air when it is not spinning, since they are only not spinning at an idle for a normal supercharger setup. Superchargers don't need to be designed to flow air efficiently at high RPM without the compressor running, because the compressor is running at high RPM.

Now yes, the energy from the whole process is coming from gasoline. A naturally aspirated engine uses part of that energy to draw in air and fuel, and part of that energy to pump exhaust out. Rotation is a side effect of this process. On a forced induction engine, even more of that energy is used for either pumping or rotation of the engine. Now, with a turbocharger it is ok, since most of the energy is waste energy in the form of heat and exhaust pressure, although there is some energy lost through this process as the engine has to do more work to pump air out to drive the exhaust supercharger (turbocharger for you kids). With a belt driven supercharger, there is a direct mechanical process where the rotation of the engine drives the pump in the supercharger, whether it be screws, a turbine, or whatever, so there is little lost energy in the process of transferring mechanical energy from the engine to the supercharger. The supercharger is subject to drag and needs to work to draw air in, so that is wasted energy, but the engine makes up for that because it is able to run at higher pressures. Go on, google it. Belt driven superchargers have a horrible amount of parasitic HP loss. They are able to overcome this due to the efficiency of the operation and the fact that the engine can sustain the torque required to drive them.

Now we get to electric superchargers. First we generate electricity off the rotating mass of the engine. This results in wasted energy in the form of friction, heat, and RF generated by running the alternator. Next we run that electricity up to the supercharger, very VERY slight energy loss to heat and RF generation. Then we have to spin a motor, more heat, friction and RF generation, so that we can pump air and still suffer from the same energy wasting sources of the mechanical superchargers. Now, lets go with an M90 with a reasonably mild pulley on an engine like a sploder's Any idea how much torque you need to pump 541 cfm of air at 5-7 psi? Hint, you may want to look into shop air compressors to get an idea. Well? Ok, now once you get that figured out, why don't you find a motor that delivers that much torque and see how much it takes to run said motor. Ok, what do you want to upsize that alternator to to run that monster? Now how much mechanical loss is there to run that alternator with a full current draw from that motor? Sure, you can run it on batteries, but then you have a limited supply of power and motors that are still going to get nice and toasty in a hurry. What are you gonna do about the heat that monster motor is going to make? Steam driven generator to supplement your electrical needs? Now, you want to tell me where you stand on the physics of all this? Or are you gonna hide behind the internet smart guy act and just try and call me a fool again because you are too lazy to work that gray matter that is driving your fingers to spit out these idiotic responses?

Finally we come to pre-compressed air superchargers. Well, really nothing wrong with them aside from the size of the tanks and the volumetric inefficiency of carrying the compressed air. Other than that, a good system. I actually like the regen braking systems though, would make a pre-compressed air supercharger system pretty practical in a way. Would even help slightly on the electric supercharger end, if you can deal with the other issues it has.

Next time you want to argue with me, I suggest you go back and finish that engineering degree before you think you know what you are talking about. Then again, if you did finish it, you wouldn't be arguing right now.

 

[jrowe6]

you know, when i spent the time to write a response to you i did all i could to be as civil about it as i could stand. and you come back at me like a jackass, reguritating the information others and myself have put forth as if it were your own.

2000streetrod has stated the problem with some numbers that your can see and understand.

as i previously stated, the problem is power demand, you need batteries/capacitors. lots of them. you do not need a 500 amp alternator, you just draw off a normal one till enough power is saved up then discharge it at a faster rate. yes, the numerous energy conversions waste energy, i already said that. all that means is that out of the options available it gives you the least increase in overall power over a protracted period of time.

that does not mean it does not work, is based on false theory, or goes against the principles of perpectual motion.

 

[FIND]

you know, when i spent the time to write a response to you i did all i could to be as civil about it as i could stand. and you come back at me like a jackass, reguritating the information others and myself have put forth as if it were your own.

2000streetrod has stated the problem with some numbers that your can see and understand.

as i previously stated, the problem is power demand, you need batteries/capacitors. lots of them. you do not need a 500 amp alternator, you just draw off a normal one till enough power is saved up then discharge it at a faster rate. yes, the numerous energy conversions waste energy, i already said that. all that means is that out of the options available it gives you the least increase in overall power over a protracted period of time.

that does not mean it does not work, is based on false theory, or goes against the principles of perpectual motion.

civil? Don't make me quote your smart-alecky punk kid responses. You come on here talking out your ass and trying to insult my intelligence arguing psuedo-science and making assumptions without any real knowledge of what you are talking about and you presume to say you were speaking civilly? I have tried to educate you, but you keep going off about things you just don't know anything about. I suggest you attempt to learn something and come back in a few years when you are mature enough to utilize that gray matter that is wasting space between your ears. Now, going to my response to the point you are failing at.

There are numerous other problems as well aside from energy demand. There is heat for one, actually for a major one, there is power storage, there is weight, there are inefficiencies in airflow, and there is heat. Yeah sure, you can save up electricity and they can give you a little burst of boost, but that is it. You will end up with a net loss unless you are just using them for quarter mile type applications and charging between runs. Even if you are using caps to save electricity for a later discharge so you can run a standard alternator, you are still wasting energy charging them. Only difference is you aren't running the supercharger the whole time and you aren't using as much energy all the time. There is still a net loss here. Here is a test for you. Compare your fuel mileage with all your lights on, your heat/ac blower on full, and your stereo on to your mileage with all of that stuff off. That should give you an idea of how much energy is wasted by running your alternator on a full duty cycle, even a small alternator. Then, compare that wasted energy over the time it would take to charge the capacitors for a 15 second burst of high enough voltage and current to run that supercharger. The volumetric efficiency gains of your engine are not enough to overcome the energy loss through charging. Try to see the big picture here and take into account all of the variables. That is the difference between real engineering and pseudoscience. The energy does not magically become free just because you are using less of it. The other problems with an electric supercharger aside, they will be just as inefficient running in 15 second bursts then charging for a while between on a smaller alternator as they would be running full time charging on a larger alternator.

Even aside from the energy demands, you have cooling needs and electrical storage needs. These are adding weight, and you need to do something with all that heat you generated running those electric motors. I don't know how much you have ever done with electric motors before, but even the most efficient ones generate a TON of heat. Employing an electric motor to drive a supercharger, unless the supercharger is 100% driven on energy independent of energy generated by the operation of the internal combustion engine it is supplying boost to will result in a NET LOSS of energy. The only way you could POSSIBLY run an electric supercharger without a net loss would be using pre-charged batteries, solar panels, or generators meant to recover waste energy, such as an exhaust driven generator, regenerative braking, or generators driven by the motion of your suspension.

Also, my question is, if you understand what 2000streetrod posted, then why are you still arguing with me? Now, I have, despite your ignorance and rudeness, given you thoughtful responses each time, attempting to address the issues you are overlooking and educate you a bit, or at least give you something to think about so that you can take the initiative and educate yourself some. I am going to ask that since I have at least shown you that much respect that you quit acting like a petulant child and attempt to justify your claims or educate yourself about what you are talking about, instead of coming in here with the half thought-out responses based on gut-feelings and whatever sense of intellectual superiority you seem to think you have. I know you are a young guy, and when I was your age, I thought I knew everything too, but you don't. Now please, for the last time, EDUCATE YOURSELF AND TRY AND LOOK AT ALL THE VARIABLES INVOLVED BEFORE YOU PRESUME TO TELL ME I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

 

[jrowe6]

There are numerous other problems as well aside from energy demand. There is heat for one, actually for a major one, there is power storage, there is weight, there are inefficiencies in airflow, and there is heat. Yeah sure, you can save up electricity and they can give you a little burst of boost, but that is it. You will end up with a net loss unless you are just using them for quarter mile type applications and charging between runs. Even if you are using caps to save electricity for a later discharge so you can run a standard alternator, you are still wasting energy charging them. Only difference is you aren't running the supercharger the whole time and you aren't using as much energy all the time. There is still a net loss here. Here is a test for you. Compare your fuel mileage with all your lights on, your heat/ac blower on full, and your stereo on to your mileage with all of that stuff off. That should give you an idea of how much energy is wasted by running your alternator on a full duty cycle, even a small alternator. Then, compare that wasted energy over the time it would take to charge the capacitors for a 15 second burst of high enough voltage and current to run that supercharger. The volumetric efficiency gains of your engine are not enough to overcome the energy loss through charging. Try to see the big picture here and take into account all of the variables. That is the difference between real engineering and pseudoscience. The energy does not magically become free just because you are using less of it. The other problems with an electric supercharger aside, they will be just as inefficient running in 15 second bursts then charging for a while between on a smaller alternator as they would be running full time charging on a larger alternator.

of course it will cost energy, and of course there will be energy lost. are you building the next prius or trying to find a way to have a boost button you can push to get more hp for a few seconds when you are getting on the highway or pulling away from an obnoxiously long red light?

if it can produce boost, and make an engine produce more power than normal, then it works. if you need 250 hp and you only have 200 you cant do what you want to do, if you had a 50 hp boost button you could have tho. and then when you are using less than 200 hp it can recharge.

it will only use as much power as you make it use bc it only works when you tell it to. the more you use it the more power it uses.

if you had NOS in your car would you run it all the time, even at idle? or would you only use it when you needed it? its pretty much the same thing. yea, when you use it your mpg will obviously suffer, just like any engine of any type with or without forced induction. if you want more power you use more fuel, plain and simple.



yea, you know what, i am young, and head strong, but i know damn well what im talking about. and you know what, i will never let some old dude talk me down like he knows every thing and i know nothing when i read what you have said and see nothing but bs an examples of your misunderstanding.

maybe i suck at explaining it, but i know it works, and i know how and why it works. the point is not how efficient it is, the point is it works. the point is it can increase tq/hp for a period of time. thats the point. no one cares if their 15 seconds of fun is efficient. you mash the gas on any car for 15 seconds and it guzzles down gas as fast as it can, all this does it make it guzzle more, and go faster.

there are a number of ways it could be used, and just as many different ways to implement it into all different types of engines for all different types of vehicles. dont shoot down ideas bc you havnt put enough thought into it to find ways to use it effectively. ingenuity is the name of the game dude.

 

[FIND]

of course it will cost energy, and of course there will be energy lost. are you building the next prius or trying to find a way to have a boost button you can push to get more hp for a few seconds when you are getting on the highway or pulling away from an obnoxiously long red light? at idle you won't generate enough current to charge you electric stupidcharger, and you will have power loss all the time that it is charging. Wanna take a guess how long it will take to charge your batteries and capacitors to run your supercharger for 15 seconds off power off your standard alternator assuming it is running at a full duty cycle? Wanna also guess at the horsepower lost to run your alternator at full like that, and how much more it will take as it starts heating up?

if it can produce boost, and make an engine produce more power than normal, then it works. if you need 250 hp and you only have 200 you cant do what you want to do, if you had a 50 hp boost button you could have tho. and then when you are using less than 200 hp it can recharge. You don't understand how engines work do you? You don't just have 200 HP all the time. Why don't you go find a dyno chart for someone's explorer and tell me how much horsepower you have at cruising RPMs. Then tell me how much horsepower you think it takes to propel your 4000 lb not much more aerodynamic than a brick explorer down the road at 65mph?

it will only use as much power as you make it use bc it only works when you tell it to. the more you use it the more power it uses.it will use a lot more power the whole time your vehicle is running than you get out of it for those 15 seconds, and it will need to charge a whole lot more than you can use it, this will cost your power

if you had NOS in your car would you run it all the time, even at idle? or would you only use it when you needed it? its pretty much the same thing. yea, when you use it your mpg will obviously suffer, just like any engine of any type with or without forced induction. if you want more power you use more fuel, plain and simple.No, that is completely different, there is no such thing as free energy, N20 is basically like pre-pressurized air, NOS is a brand name for a product Holley makes. I guess I figured out where you learned about cars. The fast and the furious = fail at knowledge

yea, you know what, i am young, and head strong, but i know damn well what im talking about. and you know what, i will never let some old dude talk me down like he knows every thing and i know nothing when i read what you have said and see nothing but bs an examples of your misunderstanding. No you do not know what you are talking about. I have asked you three times now to come forth with any figures to justify your inane ramblings and silly comments, all you do is keep going on like you are gonna have some free energy that will make your car go faster for short intervals

maybe i suck at explaining it, but i know it works, and i know how and why it works. the point is not how efficient it is, the point is it works. the point is it can increase tq/hp for a period of time. thats the point. no one cares if their 15 seconds of fun is efficient. you mash the gas on any car for 15 seconds and it guzzles down gas as fast as it can, all this does it make it guzzle more, and go faster.once again I ask, do you even know how an internal combustion engine works?

there are a number of ways it could be used, and just as many different ways to implement it into all different types of engines for all different types of vehicles. dont shoot down ideas bc you havnt put enough thought into it to find ways to use it effectively. ingenuity is the name of the game dude.No it doesn't work. Either come back with facts, or don't come at all. you will experience a net loss of horsepower no matter how you do it. If you don't want to be talked down to, quit coming back with the same stupid responses where you do nothing but repeat "I know it works" without being able to provide anything useful to add to the discussion. I am shooting down an idea that I have put a lot more thought into as you, as is obvious by the fact that you are COMPLETELY missing everything in the discussion but your 15 seconds of power.

There, I added responses in bold and just gave you a short dirty response since I am tired of arguing with a kid who apparently is to immature and stupid to put any rational thought into his responses. I gave you plenty of information, you chose to ignore that and instead proceed with blind faith in your gut feelings. If you want to be stupid, fine, I am done with you.

Now, before I go, I will repeat two of my statements for you:

Try to see the big picture here and take into account all of the variables. That is the difference between real engineering and pseudoscience.

I am going to ask that since I have at least shown you that much respect that you quit acting like a petulant child and attempt to justify your claims or educate yourself about what you are talking about, instead of coming in here with the half thought-out responses based on gut-feelings and whatever sense of intellectual superiority you seem to think you have. I know you are a young guy, and when I was your age, I thought I knew everything too, but you don't. Now please, for the last time, EDUCATE YOURSELF AND TRY AND LOOK AT ALL THE VARIABLES INVOLVED BEFORE YOU PRESUME TO TELL ME I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

ingenuity is the name of the game. pshaw. Next you will be telling me your intake tornado gave you +4mpg and +15HP. I told you the real, factual, reasoning why it won't work. If you can show good cause that any of my statements are untrue, please, by all means, astonish me with some facts and figures. I don't want to read another one of your posts where you just repeat, "dude I know what I am talking about and I am sure it works, I just don't have any proof or any logic that fits within the boundaries of physics and engineering."

maybe this is a better question. Why do you think no one uses them on the drag strip or anywhere else? Surely they would have caught on by now. I can build one for not much more money than I would have into a nitrous setup, and this would be a lot easier to tune for. Do you think that you have figured something out the combined brainpower of all the racers and engineers in this country have determined to be EPIC FAIL?

 

[2000StreetRod]

Related thread

Here's a link to a related thread I started a while back to prompt additional discussion.

Electric supercharger

I am no longer pursuing the idea at this time because I could not find space in the engine compartment for a second alternator, the electric motor to drive the supercharger and the centrifugal supercharger. Two advantages of an electrical supercharger utilizing a series (traction) type motor is rapid spin up and max boost at low engine speed.

Please refrain from name calling and personal attacks in your posts.

 

[kert0307]

There, I added responses in bold and just gave you a short dirty response since I am tired of arguing with a kid who apparently is to immature and stupid to put any rational thought into his responses. I gave you plenty of information, you chose to ignore that and instead proceed with blind faith in your gut feelings. If you want to be stupid, fine, I am done with you.

Easy there killer. If electric driven components are so bad, than way do so many people switch over to electric fans and some to electric water pumps?

From one engineer to another, you are the type I hate working with. Totally convinced of the "Engineer's Superiority" no ideas other than yours are good especially if it is from someone with "lesser" knowledge then you. Open up to new and different Ideas, or go bury yourself with the other dinosaurs in the dust of progress.

 

[FIND]

Easy there killer. If electric driven components are so bad, than way do so many people switch over to electric fans and some to electric water pumps?

From one engineer to another, you are the type I hate working with. Totally convinced of the "Engineer's Superiority" no ideas other than yours are good especially if it is from someone with "lesser" knowledge then you. Open up to new and different Ideas, or go bury yourself with the other dinosaurs in the dust of progress.

There is nothing wrong with electric driven components. The problem is that to use an electric supercharger, you are converting one form of energy to another, then back again, then to another to generate energy through a very inefficient process to begin with.

Now, electric fans are more efficient is because a mechanical fan is running constantly, even when it is not needed, even though a properly functioning fan clutch partially disengages the fan from the engine. These electrics only run when needed and don't require a lot of current to run. The efficiency of an electric fan is seen when driving on a highway or in cooler weather, where ambient air movement and temperature will cool the engine sufficiently, so the fan never, or almost never has to run. In town, there isn't much of a difference, since the fan runs much more often, therefore requires more current. An electric water pump is not really going to net you a lot of efficiency... The reasoning for switching to an electric water pump is a little different from switching to an electric fan.

I am not closed to ideas from someone of "lesser" knowledge, I am just trying to insert some reason into a discussion. My harshness was more of a reaction to someone insulting my intelligence when they didn't have a clue about what they were talking about. If someone told you that they wanted to make a spaceship entirely out of paper mache and rubber bands, would you tell them it is impossible? Would you be a dinosaur for telling them that it is impossible? If they told you, "I don't know if you paid for your education, but you better get your money back," when you told them that paper mache and rubber bands were insufficient to build a spaceship, would you feel they were justified in their comment? All I have been trying to say since post one is that an electric supercharger, at least with the electric motor and generator technology that is available in the present or near foreseeable future, you will have a net loss of power.

 

[kert0307]

Actually, from my calculations....

If you are running an explorer with a 4.0 @ 6500RPM with 85% pumping efficiency you get an air usage of 386 cfm air usage.

Say you want to go mild performance gains and want to go for 1 psi of boost. From Kennebell superchargers, 1 psi will yield 12-15psi.

http://www.kennebell.net/techinfo/general-info/jimbells-supercharged-perf-guide.pdf

1psi @ 386 CFM with a 90% efficient compressor, an 85% efficient alternator, and a 85% efficient electric motor, it takes about 7.68 hp from the engine.

So that actually equals a 5.32 hp gain. Granted, I'm sure that setup will be the most expensive way to gain 5.3 hp, but it is still a net gain.

 

[2000StreetRod]

HP not PSI

Actually, from my calculations. . .
Say you want to go mild performance gains and want to go for 1 psi of boost. From Kennebell superchargers, 1 psi will yield 12-15 psi. . .

The psi should be HP. Assuming your other formula is correct then

(12.0 to 15.0) - 7.68 = 4.32 to 7.32 hp gain

 

[Mbrooks420]

There's a reason I never get along with engineers.

An electric supercharger could add horsepower. What it couldn't add is efficiency.

 

[rickybobby]

i think the point find is trying to make is that with the weight of the added electrical storage capacity (batteries) you wont gain any acceleration and under normal conditoins you lose fuel economy

 

[Mbrooks420]

Certainly you would lose fuel economy. I think you could probably be able to overcome the weight of a few more batteries.

 

[BWTGUY]

No one who has one posts because they won't admit there that stupid. As an electrical engineer, you cannot get 30 or 40 HP for an engine without stealing it from somewhere. Hmmmm... not perpetual motion but closely related.. Save your money or if you really must buy one of these, get an (UGH) Jeep to put it on. It at least will not give FORD a bad name.

 

[Mbrooks420]

I don't think anyone ever said they were a good idea, or economically feasible. Just that it would be entirely possible to make more power with an electronic supercharger.

 

[luckyfrye]

no matter how its done theres going to be a sacrificial lamb somewhere in the mix turbo you get turbo lag and heated air into the intake unless an intercooler involved then you have the added complexity of the piping
superchargers you get parasitic drag from the belts, and here you the supposed holy grail of systems the electric supercharger ahh but here the kicker a separate battery bank and they say its like nitrous but the battery weigh more than a bottle and only for 15 second shot for the rest of the time your stuck hauling around a crap ton of extra stuff.

 

[SuRrEaLNJ]

yo but then vtec would kick in and wed be makin mad power dawg

Don't forget the blingin stickers, oh and some of those stick on fender vents

Seriously though withhout adding a 6" exhaust and some chrome spinner hubcaps you'd be waistin your time

 

[luckyfrye]

not going in that direction lol no spinners here and never will be they are an insult to all things 4x4 hell what bugs me the most is to see perfectly good trucks with 4x4 using low profile tires and massive rims, but hey here one point to all of us responsible modifiers suck as some insurance company's will not cover your car if you have modified the basic safety items in your car such as massive rims and low pro's without upgraded brakes in an a crash. I pray to god all those with the garish rims and ruining reliable running vehicles to have all the worst car luck.

 

[NJoffroader]

I friend of mine bought one on ebay back in like 2004 when we all got our trucks, he has a 98 s-10 and he thought it was the coolest thing, i think he paid somewhere around 60$ for it, and all it was is a small electric fan that went inside your intake tubing, and you wired a switch to it. it was completely useless and a waste of money, if he was driving slow or the truck was idling and you flipped the switch the truck would bogg down and stall from the air being pushed in. what a joke

 

[Carguy3J]

That's a valiant try, but I have my new sig line:






J/K!!!


What about gas? Oh yeah, you see it right, there's 2 of them on there... On... a... Mustang. DOH!

THE STORY

Actually; hear me out now, that COULD have some potential, with a LOT of refinement. No it wouldn't really make sense on the street, but it could be a cool, and functional drag strip only way of temporarily boosting a stock engine. Design the "system" to easily install/uninstall for some weekend fun.

1.) Of course, we need to address the safety issues. So, replace the plastic fuel tanks with a single small fuel cell, mounted somewhere safe. Plumb it with braided AN line. Design proper, safe mounts for the leaf blowers, and maybe put them somewhere else. Maybe a sealed box in the truck/hatch area? But, that introduces some airflow/plumbing issues. For now, well leave it up front, just tighten up the packaging, and improve the mounting.

2.) Practical matters. Ok, we all know how hard it is to get these to start when you want them to, so you'll need to have them already running, and warming up in pits, before you line up. That means we'll also need a remote throttle setup, to bring them up to WOT when we stage, and to throttle down at the end of the run. I imagine a remote kill switch would also be good idea (and possibly required).

3.) Tuning. Ok, I know what you're thinking. The article said it idled like crap, because the leaf blowers were cramming tons of unneeded (and unmetered) air into the airbox. No problem. Remember, we now have a remote throttle for starters. Second, we ARE only using this at the drag strip, so idle quality isn't a big issue. But, it's ok, because we'll fix that anyway. First, we need a waste gate/flow diverter. This could be controlled manually, via a cable; or we could have it setup as normally open, diverting leaf blower airflow to an external vent, until a microswitch triggers a relay at WOT, which in turn could trigger an airshifter, or perhaps a nitrous bottle remote opener, to move the diverter flap to a closed position. When in this closed position, the leaf blower airflow is then directed through the other side of the Y tubing, and BLOWS THROUGH THE MAF!!! Hah, tuning issue solved. Now, just tune it like you would for any blow-through forced induction.Of course, the other, less sophisticated method would be to use a boost referenced FMU (if appropriate to the vehicle), or simply write a tune w/ a fixed amount of WOT fuel enrichment, just for drag strip use. It should be fairly easy to determine max airflow/boost from these things, and add a fixed amount of fuel/reduced timing to compensate. Worst case, you'd run rich, if say a blower stalled, or didn't put out max airflow.

Ummmm, does anybody know just how much cfm these things can put out anyway? I'm talking the pro-landscaper, backpack-mounted beasts.

As for the aero issues of having 2 big lumps, and no hood: Well, old Neons have nothing on the Power Bulge that hood will need, but it's doable. A hand made fiberglass hood could be made to restore good aero. Remember, it's drag strip only,so line of sight isn't as important as for a street car.

What do you think??