Necessity is the mother of all inventions.

mazda 2 stroke is what you want

desiels are much more efficient than gas engines, so thats not particularly suprising

you can download automatically produced subtitles as text

Waissi engine, proved a better movement. But dislike its piston shaft? Design as it could be less bulky

@@redvt9881 meh. nice sinusoidal motion, terrible bearing loads. that massive bearing means high speeds, high stress, and expensive. and the engine itself, its mechanical linkage... its no different to any other crank, eccentric, or other method. still has terrible mechanical advantage at TDC, still wastes all that combustion pressure in slamming bearings rather than make torque. only one i know of that does it differently is a "humphrey pump".

Yes, by being much bigger (lower power density) and slower. He touches on this around 33:12, when commenting that larger and slower engines with higher stroke-bore ratios would be even more efficient. What is impressive here is not the thermal efficiency of 50+ % as such , but the fact that these levels were achieved in very high power density F1 engines and with synthetic limitations due to regulations. Context is everything.

@@allanallansson9532what are your thoughts on using a hybrid system on gasoline cars : the engine is used as a generator for maximum efficiency whilst using a smaller battery to just power an electric motor ( the battery will be charging discharging most of the time so it would be much better to use a different kind than the ones already in Teslas for eg) On the fuel side i'm hopeful that we can use better sources for ethanol like hemp and algae to replace fossil fuels and thus u get carbon neutral ICE engines.

@@JABRONIANGELOR its rather pointless. works if the end goal is to make a reasonably slow car get decent mileage, but not if all out power and economy are desired. sure, little motor, run at peak efficiency... great. the generator isnt as efficient as youre led to believe. try to make it simple... drop a magnet in a copper pipe. it creates a current in the pipe, that current creates an opposing magnet field... replace the pipe with a coil. or cut a slot in it. with no resistance across the coil or slot, there is no current flow, and the magnet falls freely. short the coil, short the gap, we get maximum current, maximum reaction. more work required to push the magnet. ok. so now picture the generator as no more than the pipe/coil... with a resistor across it. when that resistance is EQUAL to the coils resistance... you will get HALF the power in each "side" of the circuit. it takes two units to push the magnet through teh coil, for every ONE unit dissipated in both the resistor, and the generator. thats when the generator is maxed out, working at full load. it cant deliver anymore current, or voltage. as that resistance changes, so does the amount of power flowing through the circuit. if its larger than the generator? its fine. make it ten times larger, and for every unit of work done in the resistor, the "load"... 1/10th is performed on the generator, and 1&1/10 units of work is required to push the magnet. a battery is NOT a resistor. it needs certain voltages to charge, to discharge. a generator held at the charge voltage of a battery is limited in the current it can deliver by that voltage. if it tries to raise the voltage, more current flows instead... until the generator stalls. every genset has an engine twice the rating of the generator itself... WHY? because generators are actually only "efficient" when they are barely loaded. that is, you can make most of the "work" appear in the load. and thats the exact opposite of an ICE... they run better under load as throttles open wide and air flow is unimpeded... takes power to move air, shift it from one place to another... a cubic meter weighs just 1.2kg. but when a 4L engine at 6000RPM can consume 12M3 per minute, that alone is 14.4KG of air that just got moved. if the intake was say, 100CM2, or 10x10... it would be moving at 1.2km/minute.... you have to accelerate 14.4kg from a standstill to 72km/h every minute. that alone requires power. it seems unrelated? thats because people often fail to appreciate just how much power is required to simply MOVE air! back to the generator... as the machine gets smaller, more portable, it starts to run closer and closer to its REAL efficiency, delivering maximum current and voltage into an equal load... and that is always 50%! anyway. the hybrid may be efficient when its barely charging its batteries electrically (ignore the power lost in batteries and inverters and rectifiers...) yet the engine isnt so efficient, when the batteries are taking a heavy charge, the generator isnt as efficient, yet the engine is... the only way they get away with it is that for the brief moment one usually accelerates, the heavy discharge on the batteries can give quite a lot of force to the wheels, but it cant SUSTAIN that power level for very long... and the rest of the time, the sort of cars that run hybrid are usually driven by "hyper-milers" and "dawdlers"... we dont REALLY need "250 RWHP"... lol at ads for cars from 70 years ago.... "21.6hp"...

F1 has a lot of regulations and limitations

@@JABRONIANGELOR such a system has its advantages, but gas(chemical potential energy) -> heat -> mechanical energy is simpler than gas -> heat -> mechanical energy -> electricity -> mechanical energy. so it ends up being a quedstion of wether the extra conversion losses or the efficiency gains from more stable rpm is more impactful

"not that hard" "homogeneous charge compression ignition" sure buddy

@@playyourturntodieatvgperson if only sarcasm held actual power or knowledge to expand on =)

Think cost, not efficiency. How about Calif. and Texas running on 100% solar and wind?

time to go back to nuclear

Combined cycle electric power plants reach 60% thermal efficiency

No, it is ( 60 % - 65 % )

But will you rely all the time on batteries that have a limited lifespan ?