... which is true for my lungs, is an example, as for the air intakes in our engines, I found at each installation of cyclone air with double blades, of my manufacture, a gain of power and of immediate acceleration, from low revs, and each time in each gearshift to the gearbox ... each acceleration brings its inflow airflow automatically and very quickly...Ditto for the exhaust outlet, because I also installed cyclone air, to quickly extract the gas, in equilibrium intake / exhaust ...
if my plans and models serve a lot, then it's a progress ... I attach a photo of cyclone air double blades made on several planes ..
if you send me your mail I have a whole file on the fuel savers ... (10 months of work)
You can put us pictures of exhaust cyclone that you have mounted and some results encrypted (with and without exhaust cyclone)?
brings its inflow airflow automatically and very quickly
+1 with wirbelwind262, your "input" is a decrease in air flow. On the other hand, a "certain" turbulence under certain conditions can improve combustion. As close as possible to the combustion chamber (valve), the turbulence can be very powerful, upstream of the AMHA air filter it is totally insignificant. Between the two, the field of experimentation is vast ...
Higher up I asked you how you measure differences in performance (other than subjectively).
Bonsoir
nikolaj, the VSUs before and after the air filter are useless, it can disturb the air flow sensors and mess up the engine calculator. you do not need to put it everywhere, you will take your head unnecessarily.
.
You completely deceive yourself into thinking that adding pressure drops (because it's just that) all over the circuit can save anything.
A swirling flow does not accelerate, it loses energy by viscous friction, and therefore slows down.
And for those who would imagine that a swirling flow can improve the mixture of fuel injected (which is still the least absurd hypothesis): the intake plenum necessarily scatters any turbulence created upstream ...
.
AMHA the gain in consumption is relatively low, the measurement dispersions large and it is therefore very difficult to measure consumption in a way that holds up, especially with amateur means. So this profusion of "comparable" WITHOUT documented compared results etc ... I don't really see where you want to take us .... 
