every pixel is important here

"Underrated" 2.91M subscribers lol

@@ivanbrasla Considering some car reviewers' channels which have way more subscribers, it's pretty underrated

I second this nomination

Burn = resource forever gone from multiple uses. Electric = > 90% recyclable battery materials, plus several sustainable non-polluting alternative sources. So, just curious, can opposing piston engines be scaled up to drive ocean-going shippers? Then again, what justifies the burning, that makes “efficiency” go infinitely negative?

@@Crunch_dGH Practical considerations. Ocean-going shippers can't reasonably use electricity, the mass-power density is too low. Besides, the lithium required is uneconomical. If we take something like the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin, that carries 16 000 m³ of fuel oil. This is a modern, large container ship carrying 18 kTEU, with a 63 MW turbocharged diesel engine. As a diesel engine, it is multi-fuel, and can burn anything from heavy fuel oil to methanol to LNG or even hydrogen. As a neat solution for the sake of comparison, we can take standard European automotive diesel fuel, with a density of 845 kg/m³ and 43 MJ/kg of specific energy. Taking into account the fact that marine two-stroke diesel engines such as the one on the Benjamin Franklin have an efficiency around 50%, we can calculate that the useful energy stored on the Benjamin Franklin in the form of diesel oil is 16000 m³ · 845 kg/m³ · 43 MJ/kg *0.5 = 291 TJ, for a weight 13 520 tonnes. To store that same amount in lithium-ion, which we optimistically give a specific energy of 1080 kJ/kg (300 Wh/kg, realistically current consumer technology hits around 265 Wh/kg or a bit under 1 MJ/kg), with 100% charge/discharge efficiency (realistically 80-90%), it will take 296 444 tonnes of lithium-ion batteries to give that same energy. Now, that's 13 520 tonnes versus 296 444 tonnes. But perhaps we are willing to go with the larger tonnage, since it's green. There are, however, several issues with this. Firstly, the need for space. Converting this to an equivalent of cargo containers required to carry the batteries, each heavy tested 20-foot container can carry a maximum net load of 28 tonnes. That gives us a 9 623 TEU equivalent space, over half of the cargo capacity on the Benjamin Franklin, simply for batteries, by volume. By a more reasonable calculation, we havea density of around 2.5 MJ/l for pure lithium-ion batteries, which means 116 400 m³ of volume, or optimistically 2 700 TEU, still 15% of the cargo volume and many, many times the current fuel tank volume. The second issue I see is the economics. With current (quite low) battery prices, those 296 444 tonnes of batteries are $10.67B USD. Nearly eleven billion dollars. Total construction contracts on ships of these sizes are usually in the $2-3B USD range, with ship materials accounting for maybe $300M USD and the rest being labour, design, and profit. For the energy supply materials alone to be four to six times that is unacceptable. From a purely theoretical, ideal standpoint, storing one MJ of energy takes around 20 g of elemental lithium metal as part of that kilogram of battery (yes, seriously, 2% by weight). That's 5 280 tonnes purely in lithium metal, or $227M USD at current market price. That alone is worth all the steel in a ship of this size. The third issue is that a ship of this size is not enough. The deadweight tonnage of the Benjamin Franklin is 185 000 DWT. That's effectively the maximum permissible weight capacity of the ship, including all cargo, fuel oil, the mass of the ship itself, fresh water, ballast water, provisions, possible passengers and crew. She will never surpass this weight without finding herself at the bottom of the sea. She can't lift 296 444 tonnes of batteries. In fact, 296 444 tonnes of batteries is well over twice the weight of the ship itself, the pure empty displacement. This is one of the largest cargo ships ever put to sea. She couldn't carry the batteries required to fuel herself, or even half of that. It doesn't really matter whether you can make more efficient diesel engines fit large marine vessels. Because you can never make all-electric power systems fit large, long-range marine vessels. This is why we use diesel engines, because diesel is the most efficient, environmentally-friendly choice, and as it is multi-fuel, it can be easily fueled with renewable fuels, such as Neste Renewable Diesel. This is by far the better solution to marine vessels. There is no competition, in a free market, electric marine propulsion will not take off until lithium is as common as sand and batteries can store at least ten times what they store currently.

He is 300 years old, duh. That is why he knows so much...

He is an alchemist...only role playing as an engineer 😄

Seeing as how he has a Miata, be could also be 65.

@@JoshuaTootell Or 85.

Asking: "How old are you? Jason: "yes"

Oh yeah, high vacuum and the engine is trying to suck air in when it’s very difficult

What about a diesel engine

true although it also can depend on the style of comparison..At idle it is using rather little fuel. An instant fuel usage gauge will show, like on my car, 35mpg at 40mph, but 3mpg under full throttle.

@@grandrapids57 wow

@@thepurdychannel8866 they don't have a throttle plate to close for a piston to pull a vacuum against afaik.

Right? His whiteboard skills are top tier

Agreed!

could you image some PPT instead..omg

Indeed

Wish my profs had the whiteboard skills he has tbh

Jason, I watched an episode of Autoline last year where discussed about plasma ignition. Any thoughts?

Depends if its an old v8 it will continue polluting. If its an old 4 cylinder, keep it till it dies. Also not all new cars take so much carbon to produce. Simple cars like VW Up or Smart ForTwo dont create huge carbon footprint during production

@@creatineenjoyer7345 I live in Europe, V8s aren't particularly popular, to the point that I don't know anyone who has owned a V8 car. And while a VW Up doesn't create huge emmisions in the manufacturing process, it's a very tiny and impractical car, so immediately doesn't fit my use cases

Answered here (starts at 9 mins 30 secs), however a video dedicated to the subject could be interesting! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLiYp8yBysy6qoE.html

I'm fairly certain that question was answered in one of his videos in the EV series he made a while ago. Feel like I can remember that at least.

I've always liked you Polish guys with your LPG conversions, very smart i think. Greets from Germany :)

Not only Poland but in Brazil also there is a lot of cars running on LPG, cool to know that are other countries that also use it in cars

In Poland you can have LPG/GAS car that run's fine using only gas and no LPG and runs fine using LPG and no gas. RCCI works different, it requres BOTH gas and diesel fuel to run.

@@volodumurkalunyak4651 absolutely right. In fact, you can't start cold engine on LPG, so you need to have at least a little bit of petrol for first few minutes of operation. But you are correct, car is driving on one of 2 in the same time. My point was that as it was explained in the video as it would be a big drawback, more complexity of the fuel system, more inconvinient for people to fill up 2 tabks on petrol station. Both points are true, but from owner experience, it's doable :) 13% of car owners in Poland are proof that it's also doable on bigger scale.

Is this technology under development currently to be used in future engines or is it available as a aftermarket system for older cars? Greets from Germany :)

They said that at 120km/h it burns 3l of diesel and 1.5l of LPG. Probably in Germany you would like to use CNG instead of LPG, but I think there is no difference from installation standpoint.

@@Cabalerio Sounds very interesting. So LPG is injected in addition to the diesel? No we also have LPG here, I think more than CNG... But who knows how long they will continue the tax advantages on LPG. If they stop it one day it wouldn't make sense anymore to use LPG. They did the same with E85 a few years ago... Tax advantages were stopped and there was no E85 anymore

@@peterm3861 LPG/CNG and Diesel hybrid systems have been around for decades. It's just not very common. The engine runs on Diesel at low loads and then as load increases LPG/CNG is added to the intake. A small amount of Diesel continues to be injected to initiate the combustion, otherwise the LPG/CNG on its own will either not burn at all or knock.

Yeah I heard about this technology about 15 years ago. I didn’t think many people did it. I think some people in Australia had their 4x4s converted for it. LPG really died down there in the last decade.

Yep, you can use a CVT and one of those.. ez fixed rpm

Yup, pretty sure that's what mazda uses already.

HCCI is mostly used in industrial applications with a constant rpm.

@@ritwikreddy5670 What is a hybrid but a mobile industrial generator?

Engine speed is one factor in determining actuator positions in an engine, but there are so many other inputs and outputs in a modern combustion engine, it will make your head spin. For HCCI to work well, you really need an exact charge temperature when the charge is reaching TDC. That is a function of ambient temperature, ambient pressure, coolant temperature, valve lift and timing (dynamic compression ratio and valve overlap), amount of air going into the cylinder (it is not trivial to get a constant load, especially if you're allowed to be at different altitudes), amount of fuel injected... If you want to turbocharge to get more efficiency or better consistency of load at various altitudes, now you have even more things to control that all affect your charge temperature, valve overlap now has an even more massive impact on in-cylinder temps too, and those cylinder temps affect your combustion timing, which affect your exhaust temps, which feed back into the in-cylinder temps. If you want to make HCCI really work properly, you'd need a stationary engine that never changes in altitude, in a temperature and humidity controlled room, that never has to warm up, and is calibrated perfectly for those conditions. There's a reason that the closest thing to this in a road car of any kind is Mazda's SPCCI tech.

Could make for decent generators but not much else.

@@HankBizzle Fine for a hybrid range extender, or possibly in conjunction with a CVT.

@@HankBizzle That would qualify them for use as range extenders to charge batteries in vehicles with an electric drive train

1) Not a significant difference, but enough not to be negligible. 2) They would become more efficient/kWh, but far less efficient/fuel consumed, since ethanol has lower energy density than gasoline.

Ain’t that the truth.

60hp gang

God no, 150ps minimum

@@R3Cat I’ve a 155ps (allegedly) Puma and I still have to change down to get up the hills on some motorways.

I drove 1108cc for 10 years 👌

Not sure if /s or not, but i think he already does. There is a video where he talks about this i'm sure

Except electric motors are far superior. And keeping jobs is no reason to keep an inferior technology, or we would still riding horses.

Facts

I have noticed that it's not just Porsche being interested in this either as there are loads of companies joining in with the Siemens carbon capturing project like Porsche have as the byproducts of carbon captur is the synthetic fuel and hydrogen. There have been other experiments where both hydrogen and and a green fuel has been created by sunlight.

This is going to be hotter than hydrogen.

Carbon Capture & Synthetic Fuels is the future of ICE on the Fuel End of the Equation.

@@kamenriderblade2099 good thing about that: most efuels coming up are fully backwards compatible, so no issues like pure ethanol.

Yes he should make that vid

It's a popular modification in the performance diesel world. Companies make LPG injection kits for all the American diesel truck brands

There is a company near me that sells generators that can run on either or both fuel at the same time. Natural gas is already hooked up to most businesses for heating anyway and its cheaper and cleaner than diesel, but its good to have a tank of diesel for backup! Running together works really well though.

They do this in marine Diesels as well. First with LPG and LNG, and now they're looking into AMMONIA as the low-reactivity component. They could be running on something like 80% ammonia and 20% crude oil which would cut down on CO2 emissions significantly. The ammonia would be injected into the intake ports, and the petroleum (doesn't matter whether it's light or heavy, sweet or sour) would be injected in the exact same way as if the engine were a pure Diesel engine. This would not only cut CO2 emissions, but it would make exhaust gas scrubbers much cheaper to run. An issue with this would be the potential increase in NOx emissions caused by the oxidation of ammonia, but we already have SCR systems (DEF systems) that go a long way to reducing NOx which helps avoid the use of EGR.

it will not go away until we can have mini nuclear plants running our vehicles.

If it gets banned then yes it will go away soon.

They've been illegal on cars for over three decades and it's getting hard to find new motorcycles with carburetors these days. Even some dirt bikes have fuel injection. Carburetors won't completely disappear as long as small engines such as in lawn mowers are ICEs, but they have pretty much disappeared from the streets.

@@chitlitlah I do know small engine as a whole may be vanishing though in favor of battery electric tools. even Lawnmowers now can be had with batteries that last them several hours, and they tend to be easier for the end user (IE, no having to pull start. just turn it on and go). where I live I very much see such a transition happening.

@@cpufreak101 Yeah. I bought a two-stroke weed wacker, but since I only used it about once a year, the fuel went bad and it stopped running well after a few uses. I probably could've fixed it, but instead I bought an electric one and haven't had that issue. It can sit for several years and then be ready to go as long as the battery is charged. Same with an electric chainsaw I had until it got stolen. My lawnmower is still an ICE though, as I use it more often, but they're getting less common as battery tech gets better. Anyway, point is carburetors are still around but not very common. Internal combustion engines will be around for a few more decades at least, especially in automobiles, but they're slowly going away as well. I hope they don't go away completely because electric vehicles aren't nearly as fun.

The Super Capitalist - I agree 100% at least until battery technology and production can catch up. Seems to me it should be doable to get an arrangement that could approach 100 mpg equivalent with today's technology.

ICEs like Rotary Engines haven’t been developed enough but they have great potential!

Exactly! We can have ICEs run constantly at their peak efficiency, and maybe even use super capacitors instead of batteries to store the power.

@@aquamaggerasim4993 I really like rotaries for PHEVs. It seems like all their weak points are countered by the strengths of PHEVs and you can also get a great sounding engine in a small form factor.

@@TheGIGACapitalist rotary and plugin sounds like a great idea🤔 but rotaries need to become a bit more fuel efficient first i guess

I think the gains that Toyota see in their mild hybrid vehicles Atkinson cycle range compared to straight Otto cycle is remarkable. ~50% less fuel usage and better drivability. Excellent efficiency gains for very little extra outlay.

@@MrBenHaynes All true, but I think you misunderstand what I meant. Atkinson cycle engines have only 60% the maximum full load hp of a similarly sized otto cycle engine. I was just chuckling to myself when he said pretty much useless at 40% full load when the Atkinson cycle at 100% load is only producing 60% of the hp

@@phamnuwen9442 ... but then there's the complexity, the loss of space due to the battery, and the extra expense. I wonder how it compares over a number of years? A mild hybrid makes no sense for the driving I do, which is mostly rural.

What about the possibility of synthetic fuels? They're definitely worth considering far more than they currently are

​@@pauldavies7469 Unless they're carbon neutral and get heavily subsidized, cost is higher than fossil oil. They make ethanol in Brazil where there's lots of sugar cane. If somebody came up with a cheap fuel cell that ran on liquid synth fuel that would kill ICE. Gaseous hydrogen won't cut it. The best current idea I've seen is the Mazda MX-30 which has a small (cheap) battery and a range extender. They use a rotary engine, which is smaller and cheaper than pistons. Running at constant RPM, it will have better efficiency. If it's only used for long trips, the longevity problems don't matter.

@@jamesvandamme7786 see Porsche's E-Fuels. They are carbon neutral. Like literally everything including EVs, cost will come down over time though yes at the start they will be expensive but that's no reason not to do it and use them. Fossil fuels need to go but there are alternatives! Love your idea of putting EVs against hybrids and Hydrogen powered vehicles

Here ya go! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9OIhrCov7vNc4k.html

Itl be a combination of them i think. Other industries are far more damaging than average joes car. Unless they're trying to stop people from going to work? Have a look at Refrigerant gases for example, absolutely horrific the c02 rating on them. I'm a Refrigeration engineer and can save 20 years allowance of c02 for my driving by fixing ONE refrigerant leak

Future ICE might be "Opposed Engine" fueled by Hydrogen. Do you have an idea what Opposed Engine is?

@@ameserich Yes. It's really funny you mentioned that because I have been thinking about an idea for just that - an opposed-piston, hydrogen engine.

i worked with fuell cells, its not the future

@@RahulPatel-fp3ju you dont use pistons for hydrogen. Hydrogen makes the metal britle, it's really small so it escapes the rings and valve seals and its really light, so even if it has a lot of power per mass it doesn't per volume. It dosent smell and it burns transparent wich makes more probable for accidents. Fuel cells are better for hydrogen but have many problems as well

Marvelous Guzzleine!

@@SentientSingularity "goes bad" sure, but will still run for at least a decade. Maybe not good, and may make the vehicle look like a mosquito fogger, but in the apocalypse I doubt either will matter. Then of course any gasoline engine can run on alcohol, and that was getting made long before the industrial revolution and will continue being made till the sun explodes and takes us all out.

Oh yeah!

Facts

Barter town was powered by pigshit🤣

Ehm,why not? We are all in in touchscreens for example

@@UnipornFrumm A perfect example of why new tech shouldn't be universally hailed as great simply for it being different. They are terrible to use in almost all cases when you actualyl want to drive the car. Great for marketing but junk once you're past that.

@@UnipornFrumm no we aren't. Plenty of people still use flip phones and blackberry style phones.

@@Xander1Sheridan verry few

@@UnipornFrumm yes we are all in for touch screen on mobile devices. But the mouse and keyboard still lives on for certain applications.

Because their exhaust is very harmful, and because electric motors are much better in practically every way. Ass soon as batteries get good enough and cheap enough, ICE is dead. And that's not that far away.

Facts

Synthetic fuels from Porsche might come in handy

Whiteboards don't destroy the environment. That's the difference.

You know that the people who buy EVs also support wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric power?

@@MrUnexistential you know they don't have any power over where there electricity come from?

@@MrUnexistential In sweden we closed a perfectly running nuclear reactor at new years eve that had 20+ years of life left in it, with the explanation "We built more MW of wind power than the reactor made last year, its fine". So a few weeks after they closed it, we had -10 degrees celsius in the south and -25 in the north of the country, and no wind. They cranked up an old oil power plant and imported polish coal-power. This was all made possible by the same people who thinks the electric cars are the rescue, whatever source you charge them off

@@MrUnexistential Not from what I've seen living here in CA, most EVs and Hybrid vehicles have all kinds of stickers plastered on them, most of which who seem to want to ban just about everything. I'm not not knocking the EV trend, but there is no magic bullet.

As an EV supporter, this is one of my main argument to defend clean and reliable energy sources. Going electric allows to centralise all the emissions to the power plant, which can be replaced by low carbon emission, effectively getting rid of all emissions. That's why I support electric heating vs gas or domestic fuel heating, etc.

Still burning and burning is what gives off emissions.

Prex is right + INEOS told it'll be very very expensive to produce.

@@marfrandema1884 Ineos?

@@Plexipal Much less though. And how do you expect to get the resources for batteries for literally everything? Cars, trucks, planes, boats, helicopters, and the other gadgets that use batteries? The people that think there's no problem with resources for batteries also though that we would've run out of oil in 2015 of something. Elon's plan to get Lithium out of sand in the backyard of the factory is ridiculous anyway.

Yes Mercedes F1 fuel supplier. They said it's not commercially viable, same thing happens with hydrogen.

Manufacturing is a constant cost which is expected to drop a lot in the future, so it is not a big deal if they currently use somewhat more resources. For example let's suppose that less than 1% of all electric cars that will be made until 2030 were made before 2020. It doesn't really matter if they use 2-3 times more resources than what the technology will allow in the future. And since batteries are progressing at the significantly higher rate than Ice vehicle efficiencies you'd expect that electric cars will use less resources than ICE vehicles. Is recycling really a challenge? Just make it mandatory for the manufacturer. They can then price the car with the cost of it.

Plug-In Hybrids are the best of Both Worlds IMO. I've check various studies and having a bit of both, especially one axle powered by ICE and the other axle powered by Battery + EM (Electric Motor) can give you the best results, especially on cost factors to end consumers.

@@grekiki if you make make recycling mandatory for the manufacturer then it will make EVs even more expensive.

Cradle to cradle, EV beats ICE everytime

@@user-yn5sk5ru5g except in cost, convenience, & vehicle weight. That's why I still prefer Plug-In Hybrids.

Worse for the environment then gasoline, but fantastic for boost.

@@jaydunbar7538 it's better, look at South America

@@dragospahontu What is good on ethanol? Burning food while people starwing to death

@@jonasstahl9826 there is food for everyone, calm down

the switchgrass revolution

And would require specialized pumps to be installed, fine for a long term theory but terrible in short term practicality. If that had been brought up decades ago maybe, but at this point no gas station chain is going to invest in that knowing that electric gets better every day.

LPG and Diesel? You sure? Doesn’t LPG have a lower ignition point than diesel (but similar to gas)? LNG and diesel have similar ignition points and both fuels can be used interchangeably (or mixed) in Diesel engines.

@@ianchandley lpg injection has been around for diesels for quite some time. Improves engine efficiency

And by quite some time I mean since day 1

Yes but ethanol is mostly made of corn. And that requires massive amounts of land. So what'll happen is people will either: A. Chop up more of the already dying forests or B. Make fuel instead of food. This fuel brings massive ethical questions with it. And while it is more CO2 neutral it is not entirely CO2 neutral in creation and still carries other emissions with it.

@@mrawesomelemons In fact all the possibilities brings problems with it. As you said there's this problem with ethanol but all the other possibilities there's problems too: gasoline, electric, diesel etc. But it bothers me people trying to sell electric cars as the ultimate solution for all ecological problems and wanting to ban internal combustion engines. In fact the solution would be a little bit of everything because as long there's humans on earth there's gonna be problems too. In Brazil we use sugar cane to make ethanol and this fuel is commonly more used than gasoline but there's still enough sugar cane to go to people's tables and remains some unused canes still, but I don't know how it would be in a worldwide scale.

@@luiz_mootta you are so right. There is no solution for everything. You need a mixture of many different technologies... But politics are selling battery electric as the solution for everything

@@mrawesomelemons gotta have that high fructose corn syrup

@@luiz_mootta exactly true

Thank you, I’m glad I’m not the only one who had this understanding

Evs will never become a thing like smartphones never became a thing,i mean who needs a verry powerfull computer in your poket when you can have a pc and wire phone,never run out of battery !

@@UnipornFrumm You are completely missing the point (intentionally, is my guess). There are millions of drivers who do not live in locations where they can install charging stations nor are they within walking distance of one. Moreover, EVs are terrible choices in extreme heat and cold. Last but not least, their terrible range and lack of instant charging capability means they are highly compromised when it comes to making long trips. EVs are not the magical vehicles you make them out to be.

100+year tortoise and hare race. ICE liquid fuels still have physics on their side. Electric cars have politics on their side. You can only cheat nature so long, time will tell if electric tech can catch liquid fuel fast enough.

@@adamhulu6171 exactly, politics won’t save the world.....

Exactly - need that high BSFC!

@@EngineeringExplained I recall Mercedes did some early tests on the most efficient way to drive, and found that short shifting at WOT was the most efficient.

@@kevink2315 if you find something on that can you link it? That subject seems so interesting

@@Maroco918 A lot of hyper milers use this trick a lot. The three big things you have to manage is 1: WOT is the least restricted 2: Low RPM has the least friction 3: Speed = Drag = Energy loss This is results in the technique called Pulse and Glide/Burn and Coast. You accelerate at around 80% throttle, and keep the RPMs as low as you can via shifting early. Once you reach your target speed, coast on no power and drop speed by about 5 mph. Accelerate and repeat. Works best with hybrids since they automatically shut off the engine when there's no throttle. There's a bit of questionable driving technique involved if you want to avoid engine braking.

Yes, accelerating with your foot to the floor (or more specifically at peak efficiency which is usually around peak torque) is the most efficient operating range... However, If you travel at a constant speed once you hit the speed limit, then you will use MORE fuel over the journey because you spend longer at a faster speed, and that higher speed has higher aero drag and rolling resistance. Though for cruising speed this is not always the case, as at low speeds you can under load your engine meaning you aren't utilizing it's power output efficiently, so driving at a constant 55-65mph is usually most efficient, unless you do as others have suggested and use pulse and glide to make use of that peak efficiency in short bursts. This can increase clutch, gearbox, and starter motor wear, depending on how you achieve it. You can also lose power steering and brakes.

Unfortunately, not everyone feels that way :( We are in the minority here

Those "old" ICE cars still produce emissions which still warms the planet, however with an "ICE" additional tax in place, ICE cars do still have a future

@@marcoimanuel5489 so does growing rice, emissions from data centres, transport, aviation and over population. Refrigeration is also a massive contributer to c02 emissions, I can save my c02 allowance for 20 years motoring in one refrigerant leak

This is clearly the most reasonable view for everyone. If commuter cars become EVs and sports cars remain ICE, nobody will be unhappy and there will be no enviromental damage, considering sports cars are probably 5% of cars, if not even less

And the fact that small planes still use leaded fuel hahaha.

That was a great moment in King Kong: "There's one thing we haven't thought of--the aeroplane!"

Airplanes have jet engines not piston engines like cars

@@UnipornFrumm Not all planes have jet engines

@@UnipornFrumm Uh not all planes. Propeller planes have some form of reciprocating engine. There are many configurations like radial, rotary, V, H, and Wenkel. They all of pistons just like car engines. They need leaded fuel so that knocking doesn't occur at the higher elevations with lower atmospheric pressure.

Don't worry, combustion cars will still be there for the enthusiasts who like vibrations, noise, and manually changing gears (and there's nothing wrong with that). Like once horses were the main means of transportation, overtaken by internal combustion engines, but enthusiasts still ride horses today.

True

Like a small scale Deltic engine!? ;)

It's crazy that we have all this knowledge about aerodynamics and ICE efficiency and manufacturers are pumping out heavier and heavier less aerodynamic and less efficient SUVS. Cars should be lighter and have far better aero but they're going the other way

@@chappy2121 because the Soccer Moms want it, in Germany we cal it the Hausfrauenpanzer (Housewife's Tank) because "tHeY aRe So TaLl, I cAn SeE bEtTeR, aNd iTs So SaFe bEcAuSe iTs hEaVy AF aNd ObLiTeRaTeS fOoKiN EvErYtHiNg It CrAsHeS wHiTh"

@@rbn_hmrs541 right rofl

@@rbn_hmrs541 brilliant I'll remember that one 🤣🤣🤣

General Aviation aircraft still using them.

Ik right smh

But Porsche's synthetic fuels might come in handy

Facts

He isn’t ...

@@sking2173 it's a running joke that's not running out anytime soon.

Energy density of fossile fuel is absolutely unmatched

Would be the smartest direction. Like almost all trains.

@@ben079329 nuclear fuel would like to object.

Exactly! Ice should be used as power generators. They can be greatly reduced in size and tuned for maximum efficiency because of a very narrow and consistent rev range.

Bs

Especially if they are literally next to each other at the pump.

I wouldn't mind too, but remember there are Americans and Karens in the world, so that's unfortunately a no.

@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 Where i come from they are so that wouldn't be a problem

If the same pump island have both fuels then it would be better. Big rigs in the US are already doing it with urea (aka purified piss) and diesel. Shoutout to JJ The Trucker for his information

@@cheesemons In Europe and Australia it's also the case for normal car gas stations.

Done! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z9OIhrCov7vNc4k.html

And that video is now over two years old. Battery volumes are going up improving the scale for recycling, and the newest batteries are being designed to simplify recycling.

Perhaps like plastic, it can be recycled but it's cheaper not to

Yeh but most people with LPG run on LPG most of the time and rarely fill the petrol tank. The method in the video requires 2 fuel fill up every time.

It's ok, no one uses LPG

@@tubester4567 some installations use fuel and LPG at the same time, but is like 20% gasoline 80% LPG, or even less fuel. Its when you use direct injection. Maybe in this method you use most gasoline and a bit of oil or something...

Hybrid Cars are the future . Rotary Engines and Solid state battery!

I've driven an electric car for 7 years. It has been a much better experience than any of the 8 gas cars I've owned. I'd be surprised if any cars intended for general transportation are *not* electric by 2040. There will probably still be some combustion engines for specialized applications, but only a small number.

Why not have hybrids and plug-in hybrids? I agree with you that it’s easier to live with an ICE engine in certain circumstances. But for folks that commute 50 miles per day and don’t do much else on a typical weekday can certainly do just fine and NEVER have to go to a public charging stations. Then you’re looking at coming home and putting your plug in hybrid or Tesla or whatever to charge overnight. That’s not a pain. Additionally, not having to get oil changes and such would be quite nice. I’m looking forward to a bunch of plug-in hybrids coming in the future. Would be hard to justify a 350 mile range Tesla for certain activities that I do now and again (road trips, camping, hunting, etc).

@@markusstrobl1067 FFS why to move around that heavy battery if I can carry just a tank of hydrogen for example. Batteries contain way too much Cobalt as well.

@@aquamaggerasim4993 Hydrogen is a non-starter. Has to be refrigerated, will always leak out of any tank, and costs as much as gasoline to make. BEV is the future.

We have an extremely efficient solution for energy storage already. They are called batteries. Those are like 98% efficient. The problem with EVs is that we don't have are enough smart people in the world to understand how to use them properly. 90% or more of all driving is done in short drives, which are perfect for EVs. But long drives require a change in habits. Charging only takes 30 mins to an hour and can be done while you are doing something else. Not difficult at all, especially with larger batteries. But telling people that they need to take random breaks when driving isn't something that many can understand.

yes that is very much true. atleast the unburnt fuel part is.

They are too complex to build. Adding a few more cylinder is much simpler than adding a second crankshaft ore some leveragesystem

@@jonasstahl9826 it seems that it’s less complex. A lot less parts?

@@coldarcluck5320 Damn you are right I forgot the valves🤦‍♂️

The problem is you only have indirect control over it. Since nothing is triggering the combustion event except fixed mechanical events it takes really precise cylinder temperature control. But what COULD end up actually making it practical is freevalve style systems where you have full valve event control. If you have a very high static compression ratio, valve events can be used to bleed off a little bit of cylinder pressure and ultimately give you variable compression. This MIGHT give just enough control to make HCCI viable in the varying load/RPM/temperature of an automotive application. The problem is though, if you're bleeding air off to adjust compression, you're bleeding out a mixed fuel/air charge and it would lead to a lot of potential unburnt hydrocarbon emissions. Catalysts take care of this but still, unburnt fuel out will then drop your efficiency.

They wont get completely eliminated. We still have steam engines and horses, just wont be the norm. In 20 years from now EV's will be the norm new gas vehicles almost obsolete and the ones that are left on the road will be junk in just a few years there after. I feel that this is a conservative estimate most likely things will happen even faster.

@@jasonmillner6416 You think that's going to happen globally?

@@chapter4travels of course. China has the boldest environmental regulation plan on the planet when it comes to automotives. 3rd world countries will lag behind the first world obviously. the hope tho is that the 3rd world countries can skip a step and go straight to the new energy infrastructure.

Heck, we still use steam turbines in power generation and in naval propulsion.

@@jasonmillner6416 You actually believe the propaganda China puts out? Hahahahahaha

So we shouldn't strive to improve? Energy density for batteries is constantly improving. ICE should do the same.

@@kamilb8232 Absolutely! There still is a lot of potential left - but most ICE-appreciating people are somehow focussed on "old is good" and similar shenenigannery.

you should wright a scientific paper on it

Well, in a way yes - if you assume that ICE tech is dying off soon. But I think that ICE is still going to be around in a meaningful way at least a decade or two. So it's important to develop it.

energy density in batteries is barely improving. and the longievity certainly is not improving either

Some luxury brand is probably working on it already

But you’re making a bold assumption that battery technology isn’t going to improve from what we have today, which is clearly false. It’s a very gradual progress, but hey if battery had 100+ years to mature and develop like the combustion engine, then your point is moot?

@@ThomasAlex battery tech has improved for over 100 years already. Batteries are 1800s tech, like ICEs.

Greatly explained. Airplanes and Ships also need power density in order to be viable

@@ThomasAlex At the historical pace of battery development, it'll take about 300 years for usable battery density in these applications. So no, in that long a time frame we can't say for sure about anything and it doesn't matter to us anyway, since we and everyone we know will be long dead and forgotten.

100% agree with you.

The problem with hydrogen is the infrastructure to support it is much more expensive to build than the already existing grid for electric cars, not enough companies willing to put in the huge funding for that. I think the few hydrogen cars out there e.g mirai, use the hydrogen to create electricity for the motors, which is likely more efficient and less dangerous than combustion of the hydrogen. So if hydrogen does get more popular it likely won't be in the form of a combustion engine

@Game tuner A way for what exactly? It's not gonna be as efficient, that's simply the nature of combustion you're naturally gonna lose energy in several forms. Right now majority of consumers just want transport, combustion or not doesn't matter to them

@Game tuner Who exactly? The switching being done is substantially more to EV's or simply other standard combustion cars. The toyota mirai and hyundai nexo are really the only two on the market, and both of those are FCEV's and not in large numbers. There's not even a thousand hydrogen stations globally right now

​@Game tuner Who cares about Musk or a 50% target, what makes you think hydrogen combustion is a more viable alternative to FCEV's let alone standard EV's?

Mercedes Formula one power units have 50% thermal efficiency

The pumping losses of a piston engine, somthing you cannot get around, forbid any meaningful efficiencies.

Kresna Budiman - Thanks for mentioning this, I haven't even heard of the WDE design. Sounds like it's got worse sealing problems than a wankle though, but potential.

The wave disc died. Great in theory at the time, with a model built, but zero emissions have taken over.

@@rolliebca ahh yes thanks for mentioning the sealing problem... Haven't thought of that for years, might be one of the reasons it has no further development

well it depends, engines put out les co2 without exhaust systems

Great in theory, not great when you have to spend €2000 repairing a system worth more than the car itself, all while the car runs and drives perfectly

Rotary Engine is the best and still has a lot of potential ! If you use it working on Nitrogen or Hydrogen for example.

Are you payd by VW or something? 😂

@@UnipornFrumm I wish

Right

@@christopherayala4619 it’s a little to easy to say that if course... But I’m sick of the approach of over engineering for a problematic fuel instead of choosing a better fuel. I bet Bio renewable CNG and synthetic fuels are great solutions!

@@nathanwabre facts

As a person that worked in the Biofuel industry for years I can say that it's never going to scale to mainstream. Its a great concept but producing that level of bio-mass in a sustainable way in not remotely feasible. Sadly the way to make it pencil out economically is to cut down rain forests to grow palm oil. The algae based alternatives have been dying in test tubes for 20 years, you can make a few gallons but not 10,000 per batch. Don't even get me started on switch grass based or corn based Ethanol.... just feed the corn to the cows and eat them. Big Oil produces many many thousands of times the amount of fuel that Bio does and to switch from one to the other wholesale would wreck the food supply and create swaths of global mono-cultures that come with even bigger headaches than climate change. Just imagine a single plant blight knocking out half of the worlds engines. Yup i really wished it was a better idea too....

Thats exactly what I was thinking, Biodiesel Has Advantages of Much lower CO HC and Particulate Emissions as well as No Sulphur Emissions At all Only trade off is 5-15% higher Nox Emissions Another issue is that Biodiesel (depending on the feedstock used) can have A lower Viscosity than Normal Diesel Most diesels today run at 30,000 PSI injection pressure, but with Biodiesel that can drop a couple thousand Another issue is that the Diesel engine has grown up with Dino Diesel, so its a little hard to find a compatible Biodiesel engine made by Manufacturers that don't want to spend the money making a B100 Compatible engine One way to combat the Nox issue to to include Water injection, It dramatically reduces Intake and Exhaust temperatures, Promotes efficiency, and Reduces Nox by 5-9% Another benefit is that it doesn't use any Limited resources, Biodiesle is made from vegetable oil, an alcohol (ethanol is perfect for this case since you can make it with just yeast and sugar, and An acid like Sodium or Potassium Hydroxide

Right

Porsche's e fuels might come in handy