Well, that's a lot of book learnin' but the more important state of matter is going from a liquid state -drops or atomized- to a vapor state. The mass doesn't change, but fuel expands 600 times, so if you have a lot of fuel reaching a vapor state in the manifold, you have to account for that volume in your flow assumptions. You would probably never build one or have anything to do with one, but some interesting reading comes from exploring the vapor cycle engine. You may have heard of this engine from references to the late Smokey Yunick.
Building a wet flow manifold presents some very difficult challenges since, as has been observed, you have to account for differences in mass and trying to keep a homogenized mixture. We know inertia makes that a nearly impossible task and this is where an intimate knowledge of the science and being able to animate the dynamics in your mind distinguish porting pros from pikers.
It has been said that the late Dale Earnheardt could "see the air." Yes, I know that isn't possible without a tattletail marker, but I believe you can have an intuitive sense for being able to dynamically process what the air is doing and will do. Maybe you don't have to be right all the time, but maybe a high percentage is good enough and you can then back that up with evidence of your results. This is where those pro porters come in. We have a hand full here who I believe can look at a port and come up with some pretty accurate conclusions on how it will perform.
The one thing I question is that if it is common knowledge of the deficiencies of some designs, then why don't the manufacturers incorporate revisions in their molds to correct the things that are not right?
