....Sounds like a Obama answer
Did you not say this is more efficient(better energy conversion)? I gathered "it is" from all the jargon. I'm curious if you could use two BSFC comparisons as reference points to contrast a "traditional setup" and your setup in similar "state of tune"....
Also please expound on "energy conversion" for this context if I'm missing it. I think you are saying you get more of the GEU converted to torque but I'm not sure I follow completely........ watts are watts, joules are joules.
Confused on MN
If that's the case, then where is my Nobel!!!
Seriously I would like to see Obama try and answer that one... Talk about a dear in the headlights!
Simply put, more power, ie torque, on the same Mass of fuel, equates to lower BSFC, yes.
Undertanding joules/ Kg is important in gathering a total amount of energy / induction cycle capability. What is realy important in this scenario is the calculated magnitude of velocity of the fuel/ Air Mass containing a given amount of Kinetic energy. Then a given amount of force can be determined, Force applied over an area is pressure, pressure results in an application of force, force exerted over a distance equals work and so on and so forth...
The interaction then of this accelerated mass as to create a direct pathway is the key, not just to attain the pressure and call it a day... Kinetic energy has to be "transfered" and the more direct that transfer, the more efficient the end outcome will be.
Imagine the force of the accelerated mass that is the gases in a traditional chamber all exerting their force, as they collide in the chamber, and on each other. The chamber shape exerts the force from side to side as much as up and down. Yes some of that force, through gasious interaction, will reach the piston but it loses K.E. along the pathway because it is less direct. More direct the application of force, the better the transfer. If the pathway only results in the gases bouncing around and hitting each other, and the chamber walls, then eventualy heat will be generated, or more accurately remain in the chamber, and be transfered by atomic interaction not resulting in work, because the K.E. in the gases is not being transfered as K.E. into the Piston because it has not moved in realtion to the gases. It is more complex than that as we go down the atomic structure past the electrons and such, which is realy where the energy is being stored... Energy, even K.E., is a fluid transition that "Flows" from one object to another in my opinion. Look at a newtons cradle as an example. I have a deeper theory than this but that is for another discussion.
If there is a proper interaction of atoms and piston surface area, the temp in the gases will drop because the enegry is being converted. This will automaticaly lead to reduced temps throughout the engine in the form of radiant and water temp... Imagine no more over-heating!! This can lead to reduced cooling system volumes... LESS WEIGHT!! See where the path to efficency leads people?
All of this begins then with how fast the mixture can burn or the pressure wave can travel. You need 100% light off within very few degrees of crankshaft rotation, that is how temps are controled and enegry is transfered. You get a faster rise in temp and faster energy conversion. Closer you get to achieving that the better the convesion can be for a given rod/stroke ratio and piston dwell time. Shorter dwell time works better in this scenario because in order for a force exertion to result in work, movement must occur, the faster the movement capability, the more work is created... Also the time needed in this scenario results in less pumping losses as cylinder pressures can not try and force the piston against its upward stroke to TDC. Again, an energy savings... or gain in energy efficiency, as it relates to where the power to accelerate the piston to TDC comes from, which is the piston next door.
You will find that, in these scenarios, little gains here and there really add up.
Also as I stated earlier the energy being absorbed by the atoms as bonds are being formed as the temp in the chamber rises and masses are accelerated is a certain quantity needed for that molecular attatchment to occur. If the chamber, and homoginization and distribution are not correct then the atoms are not where they need to be to form the right molecular chains. Then when the energy level in the chamber drops below a certain point the molecules stay in the formation they are in (CO, NO, etc) and then they give off energy to what ever is around them and what ever can absorb the energy, like Lead or Nitrogen(these things also reduce the overall energy available in the system for this to occur) or even the chamber and cylinder walls... The other end of this can be seen in fuel burning in the pipe, that produces really high CO levels. The gases can not phase properly. This is the main reason why our 2-strokes have awefull emissions! It is a periferal flaw, not an inherent one. That is what is essential to keep in mind from an emissions standpoint.
I has nothing to do with "when" the mixture is presented to the chamber, As Ski-Doo and their drive for DI would have you beleive, but simply how it is burned in the chamber. Their system is a emissions system, not a power system.
That is in essence what I have been trying to get accross form the begining of this thread. I just was trying to say it in more understood terms and concepts.
Now to try and answer your initial question, If temps are lower and energy conversion is better, then damage from heat related issues become less even over a period of time. That is not to say force exertion failures do not then become a concern because the engine needs to be able to handle the number (RPM) of higher stress loads over time.
Trying to acertain that is nearly impossible from a hypothetical standpoint, that is all I was tryng to get at.
