Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchocalypse
Well I'll be darned 
I gotta say, the thing I like the most about your posts is that you explain the theoretical side of things and then follow it up with an example that agrees with what the textbook says. |
Thanks
That is how I teach (It's my profession) 
it adds credibility and separates the wannabe's from the ones who actually have done it
I like many others get sick and tired in forum world of reading crack pot theories or regurgitated information by overnight wonders who have never done anything of the sort. My idea is to understand the theory and then apply it myself, THEN talk about it. And back it up ........... odd concept I know to some lol.
You asked an excellent and insightful question before and I hope I explained it, back when I was doing tests on the standard ports and collecting data on everything I personally saw near a linear rise to the point where there was divergence between TIP and MIP (turbine inlet pressure and manifold inlet pressure) *read turbo becoming too small* so then I experimented with 1.00 to 1.15 and to finally 1.32 A/R turbine housings then to the point of the turbo itself being too small. So that is a critical point and lots of good engineering writing on the subject explains balance of gas flows between turbine to compressor. Second "mapping" considerations which lots dont talk about is excess fuel ratio's and spark timing, and tertiary considerations are the charge temperature and knock limitation of the fuel you use relative to the CR you choose to implement (inter related issues to a point).
But if all things are appropriate for the target goal then sky is the limit, so long as you do not exceed thermal capacity of critical engine components or mechanical strength, and it is advantageous to keep rpm low and vastly increase pressure as this is far far less stressful.
Wanted to keep it simple though, but hopefully this explains the "theory" is sound and proven in reality too