Yes, I'm not arguing that and did not write the article..I'm just saying that as I read it it was trying to move from the simple and understandable notion that that if you put in twice the air and fuel you'd expect the power to double, to the more accurate and technical representation which is that due to losses etc, you don't actually get that.

Feel free to read it differently, as I said they could have worded it better, it did not come across to me as stating a scientific fact, which is supported by the fact they immediately contradict it....YMMV