>>16725771
Wouldn't the benefit be less pronounced when fully gasified fuel gas would naturally mix and dispers with air without any technique of aggressive shearing and vacuum evaporate to break liquid/air barriers?
I think the real explanation to the fuel efficiency is the improvement in the engine cycle, the rarification of air served as equivalent in reducing the intake stroke length in miller cycle. One can modify the crank to physically has a shorter in intake stroke than power stroke, adjust the valve timing so that air is either shut off early or reject back out later so the equivalent intake stroke is reduced, or the most simple of them all is put restriction on intake so the intake is always starved thus less air.
The compression ratio for compression is therefore less than the expansion ratio of the power stroke. In the diagram it is shown that the intake stroke is much shorter and begin left of the otto. This reduces the work done to compress the air.
In addition, less pressure left by the time exhaust valve open, which is wasted to exhaust pipe as pulse, which explains the noise reduction.
Less work is generated, but a lot more work compares to the work put in than before.