Kiborti vs Conforti on electric pressure

[Bruce Augenstein <Bruce.Augenstein@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As is usual with such strings, there has been a lousy signal to noise ratio,
but maybe these two folks can email various thoughts and comments to each
other, and work something out.

It's quite clear (to me) that Mr. Kiborti is a reasonably thoughtful person,
and actually knows stuff. It's been clear for a long time that Mr. Conforti
knows stuff, as well (some of which no other person on the planet may know),
but hey, we're *all* ignorant about a lot more stuff than we're
knowledgeable on. Would Einstein instinctively grasp the need for the
extremely late apex on the carousel at Mont Tremblant?

In this particular case, I currently believe that Mr. Kiborti knows what
he's talking about, and Mr. Conforti hasn't thought it through yet. One key
problem is that Mr. Kiborti's abominable posts make you think he has a
single tooth and plays a banjo, but if you read for content, he has some
interesting things to say. It's clear he absolutely gets it re gearing, for
example, though others have instantly reverted to teenage ridicule, much
like most of the respondents on the supercharging thread.

The primary sticking point is in regard to energy conversion, conservation
and efficiency, I think, but to try and equate watts and amps to cfm, and
then equate something in that result to a fuel/air-driven powerplant is
sheer folly. There simply isn't any correlation. As a for instance, the
whole-house fan I installed in my attic is rated at 7000 cfm, and is powered
by a 1/3 horsepower electric motor. There are a bunch of manufacturers out
there who make auxiliary electrically-driven radiator fans, which tend to be
rated anywhere from 600 - 1200 cfm, and most of which include a 20 or 30 amp
fuse in the kit. They simply aren't using a lot of power to flow a lot of
air. Capiche?

Many of the items that Mr. Kiborti discusses make sense when collectively
looked at, such as the very significant drop in cfm when pressure is raised
to the stated .35 psi over ambient, and the stated power gains at the
stipulated pressure, although they seem just a little bit high. (3% makes
absolute sense when looked at through the SAE Standard J1349 lens, but 4%
seems high.)

I personally would like to see *all* the details, but my understanding is as
follows:

Both engines showed a significant (over 3%) gain when tested on a Dynojet,
with back to back passes made with and without the device. That is to say,
each engine was tested with a completely stock intake, and then with the
device installed (or vice versa). Furthermore, this was a more or less
immediate process (same hour).

Max pressure gain was .35 psi, measured somewhere in the airbox, downstream
from the device, with engine(s) at full throttle at max. rpm. (If this is
true, Mr. Conforti's objection that airbox measurements are meaningless is
unfounded.)

Of course, the devil is in the details, such as airflow restriction (if the
device was left in place without electrical power for the "before" runs),
and heat dissipation (if the motor is in the airstream). There may very well
be many practical problems, as well, such as packaging concerns and
cost/benefit. However, I don't see anything theoretical that makes Mr.
Kiborti's device the equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

In short, this subject is worth additional scrutiny, if Messrs. Conforti and
Kiborti have the time and patience. The rest of us might wait and see.

Bruce

------------------------------