Quote:
Originally Posted by wwest40
*** Take the Mazda CX-7 DISI (Direct Injection Spark Ignition) turbocharged I4, for instance. Wouldn't you agree that keeping the non-boost compression ratio at the DFI "standard" of 12:1 instead of the current ~10:1 would be a good idea...?? Then use the delayed intake valve closing technique to (gradually??) lower the effective compression ratio as boost comes up..??
Transition, "smooth" transition, from Otto mode to Miller cycle mode..??
Or how about DFI with a native cylinder compression ratio of 15-16:1 and running in Atkinson cycle for an effective ratio of 12:1 and then a reduction to as low as 8:1 as boost rises (still maintaining 12:1 "net") with even higher throttle openings...??
Not that I think any of this would be viable absent an engine driven, via an e/CVT, positive displacement SuperCharger. An e/CVT would allow the SC to provide "boost" in accordance with engine throttling, no need for a throttle plate.
|
You seem to lack knowledge of the real world, logical application of any of the things you're theorizing about. Had you presented these loosely drawn together conclusions to any place other than an internet forum, you'd have been ignored completely by now. I'm not trying to be mean here, rather honest. You
really and I can't stress this enough, need to learn what comparison means, and actually gain a working knowledge of the things of which you speak, rather than attempting to apply sophomoric logic to that which you don't fully understand.
Intellect is a good thing, and
I'm not saying you're short of it. Proper terminology is definitely a thing that displays intellect. Using proper terminology properly displays experience.
Given some experience, you might have some really good contributions to the mechanical world, and the physical engineering and design aspects of many fields. Without proper use of terminology, you only serve to confuse yourself and others, which will eventually lead to people ignoring you on the whole.