I will admit to my wrong teachings. I will be honest, I am a bit confused. Shadetree, I've read over your links. Physics has always intrigued me. It is clear now how much kinetic energy is needed to create any sizable pressure. Since the mass of the molecules are a constant, then in order to increase the kinetic energy stored in each molecule, we must increase speed. So, as each molecule increases in speed, so does its "punch" (when the molecule transfers its energy to another mass). The problem is, that each molecule needs to have enough kinetic energy stored so that it compresses the air molecules in which it collides with. According to Shadetree's articles, the molecules will have to travel about 300mph in order to store enough energy to compress the air. So, basically we need to either increase the speed of the molecules to upwards of 300mph (which we are not capable of doing) or increase the mass of each molecule (which we cannot do) so that the molecules will have enough kinetic energy to compress the air in which it collides with, effectively creating static pressure, which will result higher cylinder pressure, which will then allow more fuel to be added, which will make more power.
Sorry for the threadjacking, but something is false somewhere. Because one of my bike magazines (got to dig through the pile to find it) shows a dyno proven 8hp increase. And this isn't because of other mods done to the bike. I clearly remember two dyno graphs. One showing the bike on a dyno running upto redline, giving a base line. Then, applying a rather large fan (like an airboat) to replicate highway speeds. It infact showed an 8hp peak increase. Now, my thinking was, this 1300cc engine is turning 12,000rpm max. Its volumetric efficiency is probably around 90% seeing as it makes 180ish hp. So, during one minute, the engine should be consuming roughly 247 cubic feet of air at 12,000rpm. Now, a Lima 2.3L turning at 5,000rpm with around 70% VE would be consuming about 142 cubic feet per minute. So, my thought process went to conclude that even if the displacement of the 2.3L was greater, the smaller 'busa engine was actually using more air. So, if highway speeds were enough to support an engine requiring 247 cubic feet of air to the tune of 8 additional horsepower, then the ram-air feeding an engine requiring 100 cubic feet of air less should surely see results. I am no way saying I was right to think that, this was just my thought process. This leads me to believe that either my thinking was terribly off, or that the original information presented to me was incorrect. By that, I mean the busa did not actually make 8 more horsepower to begin with. I know the magazine article did not produce the dyno graph. It was supplied from Suzuki Motor Co. and they just printed it. So, maybe there's error in the manufacture's test (because adding 8hp is going to sell many o' busa) But a dyno graph is a dyno graph and it never lies. I would hope Suzuki (or anyone) would not have tampered and givin false information.
On behalf of the lengthy debate... touche
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and 
shady
