Talk:Electric supercharger

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electric supercharger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electrical engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What's this article about? Is it that well-known fallacy the electric supercharger, is it about one specific brand of them (and thus the advert tag might be justified) or is it about "RAM brand" electric superchargers and thus justifying its original name? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally titled "RAM Supercharger" but I suspect the author was confusing the "e-RAM Supercharger" brand name with the generic name for all electric superchargers. I tried to rewrite the article in as neutral terms as I could, including notes about the relatively poor performance of these devices, but I'm not an auto-buff, so I had to rely on the online sources I could find. Given the number of such devices that one finds in an internet search, I believe the device has sufficient notability to rate its own article. Fair, unbiased sources would really help. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "relatively poor performance" I assume you mean "lying snake-oil supplied by conmen" 8-) I can't reference this reliably of course, because I've never heard anyone out of their teens talk seriously about an electric supercharger without knowing they were a con artist, and throughout some not insignificant time spent in engine test cells I've never seen any dumb enough to waste time on doing the measurements that would disprove these things to the technically-illiterate WP:AGF standards of Wikipedia editing.

For anyone with the semblance of a mechanical clue, the electric supercharger is a prime example of a machine that obviously "works", but equally obviously can't work well enough to be worth the trouble. We probably do warrant an article on them in principle, and just why the numbers don't pan out, but it ought to stay generic rather than brand-focussed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't BMW starting to use them now? The concept isn't snake-oil, but perhaps all existing aftermarket implementations are. I did see a review of a device on some forum, where it appeared to do absolutely nothing, but that's obviously not a usable source. The problem seems to be that a) they don't spin anywhere near fast enough to push in the right amount of air (e.g. ~3,000 rpm where maybe 10,000 rpm needed), and b) they don't actually force that air into the engine, using whatever valve system would be necessary. Would be interested to hear from an expert on the topic though, it sounds in principle like it should work with the right equipment, and sufficient power supply. Destynova (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinct difference between genuine electric superchargers, which as a concept are perfectly viable, and Max Power-type snake oil devices. The former are essentially a centrifugal supercharger driven by a large electric motor, the latter are an ebay con and usually nothing more than a cheap fan in a tube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.231.29.104 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BS

This article is the most obvious bunch of BS i've ever seen anyone post on wikipedia. I mean, come on, "el accumulators"? It's obvious that electric superchargers are as much of a scam as these magic bracelets being sold on TV... --Lexi Marie ^talk 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I have seen a working electric supercharger setup which works, what I know of it does not line up with this article at all. It really seems like most of the article is just something somebody randomly made up. As the last comment was from very long ago, I'll try editing out the parts that don't seem to have much to do with reality. --DustWolf (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States Patent 4,724,817 Cook February 16, 1988

United States Patent 4,724,817 Cook February 16, 1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3E8A:A100:C91A:A9C4:80D4:9079 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference update

First reference is dead, current link http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/0406tur-knight-turbo-electric-supercharger/ or wayback machine has it at eg https://web.archive.org/web/20090216084930/http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0406tur_knight_turbo_electric_supercharger/index.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.0.226 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Should the page title be renamed Electric compressor? The page itself dwelves on both electrically-driven superchargers and turbochargers.

Me (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advert?

BS

United States Patent 4,724,817 Cook February 16, 1988

reference update

Name