Quote Originally Posted by pneumatic
The book is 100's of pages, it has a ridiculous amount of research and work put into it. There's a lot more air cooled engines in the world than just the VW engine you know.

If you want a source that you can't pick holes in, then look at the Bosch Automotive Handbook, a well known resource in the industry. It too agrees with the 1/3 rule (but expands the ranges to 30-35%).

Look, I think the X4 looks really interesting. I am not denying that. It looks smaller and lighter, but by how much is yet to be seen. And your X4 is a radial engine, so to get a better idea of size you really need to compare it with the complexity and size of a radial conventional engine;

I think Shane's comments are great, and his opinion is encouraging for the success of your motor. But it still does nothing to prove your efficiency claim. That is after all, what I have been asking for more information on all along.
I have proven to all parties I have presented to that the thermal calculation is wrong. I have proven it in actual tests. I know it is hard to accept. When I first started presenting to a panel at QUT they thought I was mad. After the presentation they sent me a letter that stated that I could increase thermal efficiency of this engine to over 50%.

I thought it was opvious that a guy who has a patent on a heat exchanger would claim such high thermal losses. He is incorrect. At the time of writing his book it was probably accepted in the industry as being correct. Today a better knowledge of engines is known. I see it time and time again, people quoting from old information. The Universities and Tafe colleges still quote 100 year old theories. It has been taught for so long it must be right? It does relate to a certain extent to conventional engines but not all engines. For example: A rotary engine has far more thermal loss that a conventional engine but is has better mechanical efficiency because it doesn't have to stop/start a piston. So late model rotary engines are getting reasonable efficiencies these days. What would it do if the thermal losses could be brought in line with a conventional engine?

Our engine is no more radial than a V8 or VR6 engine. I don't mind you calling our X4 version a radial but it's not really a radial as such. Any engine acually has the cylinders radially from the crank.

As far as Shanes comments, The engine is injecting around half the fuel of a comparable engine and he has driven the trike on many occasions. He has told you how it feels to drive. My feelings is I would describe it like a steam train. Acceleration is almost consistant from a standing start to max revs. It feels very unusual and has an almost regular turbo boost feel to it, but it performs better down low.