[Christ]

The volume of exhaust flow isn't any different than the Otto engine w/ the same initial displacement as the intake cycle of the Atkinson engine. The volume of gasses is the same.

To answer your question: No, the energy from pulsing exhaust gasses isn't better used than to create more power with less spent energy. The idea of turbocharging has been openly displayed in earlier posts. Given that the actual volume of gas exiting both engines is the same (for comparative purposes), the only difference is that the Atkinson engine has already spent more heat from the expansion of gasses than the Otto engine has. That said, the Atkinson engine already has both a performance and an efficiency advantage over the Otto engine. Being that turbochargers generally exaggerate common efficiency of engines, the Atkinson only stands to benefit from the turbo by a ratio linear with it's advantage over the Otto engine, based on the second "stroke" length of the Atkinson engine in reference as a percentage to the first, i.e. 115% stroke means the Atkinson has a displayed advantage of 15% over the Otto.

What this means for practical application - While an Otto cycle engine has a marginal advantage in complexity and cost of manufacture, the Atkinson engine still proves to be numerically more efficient in an exponential fashion when compared to the Otto. Turbochargers, as suspected, compound the VE advantage that would normally be seen in the Atkinson engine, as do they compound the VE of either engine upon installation.

Unless you can come up with something that hasn't already been discussed, this thread will have reached the end of it's useful life, and I will no longer entertain the same argument without basis for it's existence.