You wrote:
"you’re just getting your panties twisted because your “physics” and your fantasies have been brought to light and it’s not exactly what you thought."
----------------------------------------------
Excuse me. . .But where did you post the physics
describing the test results referenced?
From a scientific perspective, you have not
even qualified your statements yet. . . .
Science includes the documentation of verifiable data.
Physics includes quantifying said science / data
via the appropriate math.
Please repost your conclusions based on the
applied physics you referenced above.
This means you need to go back to the beginning
and fully characterize the engines.
What it looks like right now is you’re getting way out over your skies, as you’re making statements based on a couple of tests, without first ‘fully’ characterizing the cars / engines / system.
Characterization of all engines would include compression ratios, bore and stroke ratios, cylinder head flow, cylinder head mcsa, header pipe sizes as well as mcsa, exhaust pipe size, as well as mcsa._And More!
From the dyno you 'at least' need to supply the peak hp, peak hp rpm, along with peak torque, peak torque rpm, as well as BSFC.
Hot-Rodding today, for the most part, deals with putting a supercharger or nitrous on the engine. Then if they like to brag about how much hp they made with the sbe, before the sbe vented the block. . .
One really does not have to understand much about an IC Engine to do that. So, up on Facebook they don’t deal with such things. . .
Here we do!
By the way. . . Facebook is where everyone goes who has a +1,000 rwHP car and describes those cars with no quantifiable data. . . Just Opinions!
Change the license plate frame and. . .
One now has a +1,000 rwHP car..LOL
If you want a Dyno Queen, simply bring a
hair dryer to the dyno session. . LOL
Come back with data which fully characterizes the car / engine / system.
Not unsubstantiated data, and / or unqualified opinions. . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, when was the last time you went to
an NHRA Division or National Event.
Were those cars running mufflers or cats. . NO!
If they could produce the same fwHP with mufflers or cats,
then why are they not running them?
NHRA has had to close down track after track
because of noise complaints.
Take your solution to the head of NHRA Tech.
See if you can convince him that a modified 700 fwHp car can run the same exhaust system that it did when unmodified, when it only put out half of that HP. . .
An increase in mass flow / In_Flow is required to improve HP.
And increase in mass flow will bring with it an increase in mass charge.
And what goes in, must come out, less how much
of the mass charge is burned during the 'burn angle'.
This means that if we improve cylinder fill via an increase in, In-Flow, we will be dealing with more mass flow at the exhaust valve, or Out_Flow.
And that calculation is 'exactly' how we determine the exhaust port flow required, relative to the intake port flow, when fitting a camshaft to an engine.
After the exhaust gas passes through the exhaust valve, the exhaust system must not be reduced down below the required mcsa (minimum circular square area). Pinch the mcsa a bit too much and the engine will never reach its potential HP.
Too small an mcsa along with too large an overlap triangle and
the engine will suffer from exhaust to intake reversion.
The size of the mcsa is proportional to several variables.
Most importantly would be. . . mass flow, temperature and pressure.
Cheers