4 ms·
I apologize for that. This is pretty far from my area of expertice. I guess a more appropriate titled would be "more efficient than a traditional combustion e
by DanielN 16y ago
I apologize for that. This is pretty far from my area of expertice. I guess a more appropriate titled would be "more efficient than a traditional combustion engine".
Either way thanks for improving my understanding of the system.
- bradleyland 16y ago"More efficient than an otto-cycle, reciprocating, piston-in-sleeve, internal combusion engine" probably would have put you over the title length limit anyway :)
- rbanffy 16y agoBe fair. It's probably more efficient than Wankel engines too.
- Bud 16y agoWankel Rotary Engine! (at 1:07 of this clip) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTDUxaji6NI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTDUxaji6NI
- Gaussian 16y agoAch. You beat me to the Wankel reference. I do feel like we've seen this movie before. The problem with rotary engines, usually, is that their round shape and operation, though efficient, can make sealing difficult. So they can be plagued by emissions issues when it comes to the wear-and-tear of everyday use. But it would be sweet if this engine licked all of that.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]