Hi Oggers.
I've already explained why I used the words crank, piston and cylinder in my first post - because I thought it would be easier for people like you to understand the thermodynamic concept ask by the OP if I talked about the Otto Cycle. I used those words to try and explain the concept to most readers on this forum, but I never said anything other than the fact that the main reason for thermodynamic efficiency increase in high compression is reduced heat waste to the fluid. All of the false arguments were introduced by you.
I'd really like to hear Oggers explain how ignition timing, or valve timing, or mixtures, or flame fronts, or pumping losses, or any other of his false arguments explain why a high compression turbine engine is more efficient than a low compression turbine.
I'm listening.
It's about the total fluid heat change from start to finish (once the fluid is returned to atmospheric pressure). It is lower in a high compression engine.
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I'm still listening. You really are choosing to avoid this.
Luc,
Why don't you read all my posts, rather than glaze over the last one?
The point regarding adding heat to the fluid is the total heat added to the fluid over the entire cycle (ie, once the fluid is returned to atmospheric pressure).
I'll say it again, for either a piston or turbine pressure, then higher the compression ratio or pressure ratio, the less overall energy will have been absorbed by the fluid
by the time it has returned to atmospheric pressure.
Higher compression/pressure ratio means for a given fuel flow, less heat exchange has occurred to the exhaust gas
by the end of the cycle. It allows more energy to be extracted as useful work.