The supercharger Hooker designed included the innovation of camber (called circular arc inducers) introduced on the leading edge of the impeller, plus he reduced the height of the impeller by approx 20% which had the effect of increasing the velocity of the air in the outwards direction near the edge of the impeller. He thought air entering the supercharger was being restricted due to its casing shape, which had been done to reduce engine length, Hooker thought it an undue compromise so redesigned the 90° intake elbow to give a smoother transition and turned the carburetor 180° without increasing engine length unduly. The angle of the diffuser vanes were altered to better match the air flow thrown off the tip of the spinning impeller, plus the gear ratio to give the desired impeller tip speed. The changes introduced are sufficient for me to call it designed by Hooker, after all, supercharger principle is fairly basic, it's the detail that sets one apart from the other.
ust a case of competent engineers having a professional disagreement?
Quite possible given a reading of wiki and Rolls Royce item.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Arnold_Griffith
Rolls Royce article,
Strangely, Griffith did not propose the turbojet engine and was unsupportive of Frank Whittle, describing his assumptions as over-optimistic and finding fault with his calculations. Some have accused Griffith of lack of intellectual honesty and while it may be true that Griffith’s response delayed the development of the gas turbine, his reason was almost certainly due to his pursuit of perfectionist solutions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070927...iew.jsp?id=116