Hi Oggers.
Wrong again. The "unswept volume" is the combustion chamber (or at least part of it depending how semantic you want to be). It is the swept volume x the volumetric efficiency that determines the number of molecules you get in - not the "unswept volume".
Sorry mate, that was a typo, you are correct - I'll fix it up.
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 still listening for a response to this, and have been listening for the last 3 pages of this post, and to the PM I sent and which you ignored.
Are you still debunking the simple concept I explained on page 1? Here it is for you to ignore again:
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.