Bill Burr - GasHole 

shhhhh... don't get informed.

Hey I understood that reference

Lol

Great reference!

Meta AF

Here's a hint: If it has anything to do with "cars that run on water", or "free energy being suppressed by The Man", it's probably bullshit! :)

I don't think it's necessarily untrue. Man's figured out how to split the atom. Send a message instantaneously from one side of the earth to the other. Print the entire Bible on a particle the size of a grain of salt... but suddenly improving in the area of energy is just too hard?

Alternatives are bought and suppressed

@@devilsoffspring5519 physics, at least from what we know, doesn't allow for "free energy". That isnt the case with cars running on water.

Ghandi was paid by the CIA and fbi.

once a year

your life sucks almost worse than mine....

You SIR, believe in Santa Claus.

Your name/pic is great

Was your childhood that bad?

That is insane. You fucker.

Yappadappaduh that’s not the lost book genius the lost book is 5he plans on how to achieve it

This is an old docmentary, and for many decades the book was out of print, and before the internet was in vogue it was a very rare piece of literature. Only due to popular demand has it gone back into print.

@@smh9902 dude do you know where the reference in the beginning of video “like a boss” comes from ?

Shat ap tard.

Finally a comment by someone with some brain cells 🙏

Friend of mine had a 1970 datsun with 200,000 miles. It got 30 mpg. Fast forward to now, what's avg mpg on avg car?

@@jupitercyclops6521 I call BS on 30mpg unless it was little and he drove like a hypermiler. Also the laws of thermodynamics haven't improved in our favor since then.

@@jupitercyclops6521 30 mpg back in 1970 was NOT the average, rather an outlier. The average fuel for today's cars is 24.9 mpg. That includes SUV's and light trucks, which are a hell of a lot heavier than a 1970 Datsun. Any 4 cylinder car of today gets at least 35 mpg on the highway.

This is from 2011, but he does still have some conspiracy theorist in him

If only he would pick at interesting ones instead of ones people taking chemistry and physics in high school can debunk.

This is an old podcast, he recently let Nia go off on the straight pride parade calling the organizers white supremacists, hes all but cucked now

@@PeaceManBro Yeah I guess I should have guessed. He wan't a career in Hollywood so there's only one way to get that.

No theory here, just conspiracy

Charles Davis doesn't want you to know that some patents are NOT public information - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act

@John Smith maybe they don

@John Smith actually I'm in physics class still learning I just find these things interesting I don't like that underhanded comment tho

If they tried to develop this technology they would be killed. Seeing that's trillions of dollars are on the line.

The food pyramid was taught in high school. Etc. etc. .

Andrew M look up the six stroke engine

Yes, 1000mpg seems impossible, 100mpg also seems very unlikely(for a normal size/shape car at least) Current engines are up to 38% efficient, lower ones around 25%, so presumably 100mpg would be getting close to needing a 100% efficient combustion engine.I can't see why the USSR in the past, or others now wouldn't want to improve efficiency(as compared to gas companies killing improvements), the USA isn't the only country.Something like 'who killed the electric car' was a lot more realistic, from memory.

@@DoubleMonoLR speed would play a part too?

they made a Chrysler that ran on peanut oil and other things like perfume.

@@zaienabraham6341 yeah it was a turbine engine. The fuel economy sucked though.

I don't know anything about this conspiracy but it's not unreasonable to think that a corporation as large as shell could pay off the government or hide something if they wanted to, God knows they haven't shown themselves to have any morals so far

Andrew, YOU KNOW... THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GOOD POINT YOU HAVE THERE. PERSONALLY I DON'T CARE ENOUGH TO RESEARCH IT. I AM INTERESTED IN SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY BILL MENTIONED BUT I AM HAVING TROUBLE LOCATING IT FOR FREE. PERSONALLY I REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT ALL THIS WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT. I TRAVEL BY MOTORCYCLE MOST OF THE TIME SO FUEL IS NOT REALLY A CONCERN FOR ME. IT ONLY COSTS $9 TO FILL UP MY TANK AND I ONLY HAVE TO FILL IT UP EVERY 200 MILES.

@@thejasonknightfiascoband5099 Even if you don't care about all this stuff, you SHOULD care about all the fumes a car releases. You're breathing that stuff in every time you go for a ride. Think about it the next time you're riding behind a car. As the engine runs the exhaust is coming right at you and you're breathing it in. It could be the reason some people get cancer. Breathing all that sh*t in. Maybe we need to start wearing gas masks at all times

The U.S. government has long sought to control the release of new technologies that might threaten the national defense and economic stability of the country. - Invention Secrecy Act of 1951

Not skipping ahead prick... im watching the whole vid😁

Those damn neutrinos!

allenpalin what’s the name of song in the beginning?

Not as nice as Miss Colostomy Bag.

@IJNonsense look at the description.

It's odorless bahaha😂 Now methane,there's a smell that can change your day lmao!

You are thinking of unburned hydrocarbons... Me too!

@Todd Foret Smells like victory :)

Well this is the most bland response ever, that doesn't really say anything

@@dLzzzgaming No, it says everything. Gasoline has a set amount of energy. You can only get 100% efficiency (not really, nothing in the universe is 100% efficient), and there is only so much energy in Gasoline. It costs energy to move a car (mass) over distance. The measurement is called delta V. It's not possible to get 1000mpg. Modern engines are 38% efficient, older ones were 28%. A modern engine gets like 50mpg at most. Do the math.

@@dLzzzgaming Sorry bro, I know it's hard to have autism but you can pull through it. "It's like saying "You can only go so fast" when talkikng about the max speed humans could achieve." It's not like saying that at all. Speed has nothing to do with it. It's basic knowledge that gas has a set amount of energy. It shouldn't have to be said.

Gas is one of the most energy dense fuels known to man. They could get alot more out of it bit it would cut into their profits.

@@dLzzzgaming is it the right approach to insult people if u want to convince them to have a proper discussion?

Ships have good milage though...

@@tseuren123 Maybe a speedboat or a jetski. Container ships burn 1 gallon of fuel before they travel 100 feet. The Emma Maersk uses 1660 gallons of fuel per hour, it would have to being very fast to have better efficiency than the worst automobiles.

@@MorphingReality .... yea but accounting for size and how much load it carries a boat is far more efficient than trucks.

@@tseuren123 Its more cost efficient for sure, that's a separate but connected domain

@@MorphingReality as I already pointed out, also more fuel efficient... just google it lol especially with new coatings and stuff that can reduce up to 40% of fuel intake by creating less resistence underwater.

Who's nailin palin.... Always a classic, always a classic.

Porn is for degenerates

@@i-never-look-at-replies-lol how do you know is porn? :V

curco escopetaloca vein bcuz he’s a degenerate

lol

Yeah, space and time can't bend! Matter can't spontaneously appear! You can't send instantaneous transmissions, physically impossible!

How do you separate the hydrogen from the oxygen? I'm not saying it can't be done? I'm asking you how it's done? You seemed to skip a pretty important step like it was common knowledge. How is it done?

Tone trent, electrolysis.

@@garyrahn2172 Interesting. Thanks

Geet engines have potential

Germans did that in WW2 with their ME-163. Did not end well for the pilots.

Lol moores law is bullshit anyway, not even a law and it seems that silicone finfets can barely get any denser than what they have been for the last 3 years

@@anchorbubba troll harder

I'm a mechanical engineer and subject matter expert in this field of specialization. Everything here is true and so much more. I have all the original documents from Shell, Cummins, The US Army, SAE, and so much more. Let me tell you something, the thermal efficiency of a standard poppet valve engine is NOT 25% efficient. Its more like 5% efficient. Most engines and fuel systems currently in production are designed for one specific fuel type/source. This greatly limits fuel flexibility and has been a major hindrance to the viability of alternative, renewable, and green fuels. Furthermore, long chained liquid fuels reduce the efficiency of engine systems because the heat from the combustion of the fuel is required to overcome the latent heat loss to evaporate and chemically break down the fuel before oxygen from the intake charge can bond with the hydrogen, oxygen, and various other combustible elements found in liquid fuels. When using liquid fuels, including direct injected liquids, no matter how well atomized the fuel is the liquid droplets are still a stratified charge that will sap heat from the engine via latent heat loss via evaporation and chemical breakdown before oxidation/combustion of the fuel can occur. This inherently means that all liquid fuel systems use a stratified charge, and can never become a true homogeneous charge. Because liquid state fuels in a stratified charge carry sound, shock, and impact waves more readily, this makes stratified charges far more susceptible to detonation and “engine knock” conditions when higher compression ratio's are used. This has been one of the primary limiting factors for engine efficiency since the beginning of the internal combustion engine. Gaseous fuels such as methane and propane have exceptionally higher octane ratings in both RON and MON. This is partially due to the fact that gaseous fuels readily and naturally homogenize with intake air and partially because of their shorter and simpler molecular structure. These true homogeneous charges allow engines using gaseous fuels to run much higher compression ratio's, which greatly increases the efficiency, power to weight ratio, and performance of the engine. Gaseous fuels such as propane and methane also have higher energy density's by weight because the fuel does not need to waste its own energy to break itself down to continue the propagation of the flamefront. This is why methane has the highest energy density by weight of any common hydrocarbon as it is one of the shortest and simplest hydrocarbons. By observing the various types and lengths of hydrocarbons we recognize a general pattern, that the shorter and simpler a hydrocarbon is, on average, the higher its octane rating and energy density by weight will be. In effect, the shorter and simpler the hydrocarbon is, the more energy per atom of hydrogen and carbon burned can be extracted. And thats JUST the god damned fuel delivery system. The throttle plate induces artificial pumping losses and creates an artificial load by reducing the volumetric efficiency of the engine at any condition other than WOT. This greatly decreases fuel efficiency, but is "necessary" because unless extra liquid is injected into the engine if it runs lean the fuel will detonate and destroy conventional engines. BUT engines capable of withstanding the forces of detonation,l thus achieving true constant volume combustion, have been designed. Most conventional engines have 4 strokes per cycle, which doubles the internal friction per power stroke compared to a two stroke cycle. Furthermore, the valvetrain is where most engine friction comes from. Not to mention that the 2 fold symmetry of wiggling connecting rods means that conventional ICE's are incapable of running in detonation as it will cause the con-rod to bend and the skirts to fold in on themselves. Engines of the 2 stroke per cycle variety typically rely on the underside of the piston, which in such designs are open to the crankcase, to act as a supercharger to force exhaust gases out of and fresh fuel/air mixture into the combustion chamber when the piston reaches the bottom most portion of its stroke and cycle. Some 2 stroke per cycle engines, especially larger industrial engines, one such example being the Detroit Diesel Series 71, instead rely on a supercharger or turbocharger bolted to the engine to provide this scavenging force rather than pressurizing the crankcase. However, these engines fail to exploit a benefit of relying on an external supercharger and/or turbocharger because they still only use one side of the piston to convert chemical energy in the form of combustible fuels into mechanical energy. The reason why they are unable to do so is because conventional connecting rod engines can not isolate the bottom of piston from the crankcase oil. Furthermore, 2 stroke cycle engines despite their higher power to weigh ratio's and greater overall efficiency have recently fallen out of favor due to recent NOX emissions standards. In response to this, industry as a whole has, with few minor exceptions, not pursued innovating new mechanisms to solve these challenges, instead choosing to rely almost exclusively on computer controls, electronics, catalytic converters, and various other accoutrements to reduce emissions and attempt to increase power output of conventional 4 strokes per cycle engines and has done so with limited success from an engineering perspective. However this approach, though traditionally considered to be financially safe by accountants, has resulted in engines that are of much greater complexity, cost, are considerably more difficult to maintain, and are less adaptable for a wider scope of uses. As a result, conventional engine of the current era are highly specialized machines, and the performance gains in efficiency, power output, power to weight and displacement ratio have been relatively marginal at best. To this day even the most efficient conventional piston engines have a mere 50% thermal efficiency, and these high (by conventional standards) efficiency engines have abysmal power to weight ratio's. It is for these reasons that a new generation of engines are needed. Engines boasting higher power to weight ratio's, higher efficiency, less moving parts, less internal friction, and simpler more robust and easier to maintain designs will be necessary in the 21st century and beyond. Previous attempts at commercializing scotch-yoke type engines have failed for a plethora of reasons. One of those reasons is that though they have higher power to weight ratio's and efficiency than conventional engines, the performance increase was not sufficient to justify switching to a new designs in prior years. This is all just scratching the surface.

this. IF electricity was free, and you had enough battery power, you could get *some* usable distance out of a car "powered by water" but the thousands of miles per gallon claims are based on theoretical numbers. a dude i knew in highschool did his electrolysis in the garage, and had a hydrogen powered car that he commuted to work daily. no clue what the electricity cost was, but he said it wasn't worth the effort for the average person.

There are some buses here in Baltimore that use hydrogen,but not by burning it It's forced through a specific metal grate that extracts the electrons from the hydrogen atoms They've been in service here since the year 2005 to reduce air pollution from fossil fuels #OldHatTechnologies

@@moosestubbings1853 yeah, reverse electrolysis or whatever that's called where you generate electricity by creating water is much more efficient than doing the opposite to burn hydrogen.

@@jasonfifi nikola tesla. Electricity is everywhere

Which also consumes more energy than it produces

I do know many accounts of 20%ish fuel mileage increases with hydrogen generator devices though.

But they are still influenced by big oil companies

Themajorcurtains team up and agree on agreements like price. That's why gas, for exmple, seems so expensive yet they're almost all identical in price

@@edwardhosmer5726 The USSR was not. Especially in the 1950s. Nothing to be gained when their biggest issues included lack of petrol.

Close.

I hope so. Patrick Kuby and Allen as one of his goons.

What are you saying so what's the max mpgs then?

@@edwardwonghaupepelutivrusk9270 again it depends but for a normal car 100 will be the limit

with high end energy recovery (engine braking and turbo harvesting) we are hitting just over 50% thermal efficiency @ about 1000bhp in F1 with "almost" pump gas, if they could do 1000mi in a gallon they would be ;) and the entire fact they are talking about volumes tells me this is 100% BS, anyone in the science and engineering side would be talking weight due to thermal expansion.

hydrogen

no friction = car never looses it's energy and doesn't need fuel to run at constant speed. so i don't understand what you are talking about

I like how you named the variables but didn't show any of the math.

If you disregard friction you could make 100kg travel a light year by just gently tapping it with your pinkie. Acceleration takes energy input, the rest is friction. Having said that, in real world terms 1000mpg in a regular sized gasoline powered car is indeed completely preposterous

Yeah, fucking hell!

I voted for Dewey and the country hasn't been same since Truman messed it up

I'm a mechanical engineer and subject matter expert in this field of specialization. Everything here is true and so much more. I have all the original documents from Shell, Cummins, The US Army, SAE, and so much more. Let me tell you something, the thermal efficiency of a standard poppet valve engine is NOT 25% efficient. Its more like 5% efficient. Most engines and fuel systems currently in production are designed for one specific fuel type/source. This greatly limits fuel flexibility and has been a major hindrance to the viability of alternative, renewable, and green fuels. Furthermore, long chained liquid fuels reduce the efficiency of engine systems because the heat from the combustion of the fuel is required to overcome the latent heat loss to evaporate and chemically break down the fuel before oxygen from the intake charge can bond with the hydrogen, oxygen, and various other combustible elements found in liquid fuels. When using liquid fuels, including direct injected liquids, no matter how well atomized the fuel is the liquid droplets are still a stratified charge that will sap heat from the engine via latent heat loss via evaporation and chemical breakdown before oxidation/combustion of the fuel can occur. This inherently means that all liquid fuel systems use a stratified charge, and can never become a true homogeneous charge. Because liquid state fuels in a stratified charge carry sound, shock, and impact waves more readily, this makes stratified charges far more susceptible to detonation and “engine knock” conditions when higher compression ratio's are used. This has been one of the primary limiting factors for engine efficiency since the beginning of the internal combustion engine. Gaseous fuels such as methane and propane have exceptionally higher octane ratings in both RON and MON. This is partially due to the fact that gaseous fuels readily and naturally homogenize with intake air and partially because of their shorter and simpler molecular structure. These true homogeneous charges allow engines using gaseous fuels to run much higher compression ratio's, which greatly increases the efficiency, power to weight ratio, and performance of the engine. Gaseous fuels such as propane and methane also have higher energy density's by weight because the fuel does not need to waste its own energy to break itself down to continue the propagation of the flamefront. This is why methane has the highest energy density by weight of any common hydrocarbon as it is one of the shortest and simplest hydrocarbons. By observing the various types and lengths of hydrocarbons we recognize a general pattern, that the shorter and simpler a hydrocarbon is, on average, the higher its octane rating and energy density by weight will be. In effect, the shorter and simpler the hydrocarbon is, the more energy per atom of hydrogen and carbon burned can be extracted. And thats JUST the god damned fuel delivery system. The throttle plate induces artificial pumping losses and creates an artificial load by reducing the volumetric efficiency of the engine at any condition other than WOT. This greatly decreases fuel efficiency, but is "necessary" because unless extra liquid is injected into the engine if it runs lean the fuel will detonate and destroy conventional engines. BUT engines capable of withstanding the forces of detonation,l thus achieving true constant volume combustion, have been designed. Most conventional engines have 4 strokes per cycle, which doubles the internal friction per power stroke compared to a two stroke cycle. Furthermore, the valvetrain is where most engine friction comes from. Not to mention that the 2 fold symmetry of wiggling connecting rods means that conventional ICE's are incapable of running in detonation as it will cause the con-rod to bend and the skirts to fold in on themselves. Engines of the 2 stroke per cycle variety typically rely on the underside of the piston, which in such designs are open to the crankcase, to act as a supercharger to force exhaust gases out of and fresh fuel/air mixture into the combustion chamber when the piston reaches the bottom most portion of its stroke and cycle. Some 2 stroke per cycle engines, especially larger industrial engines, one such example being the Detroit Diesel Series 71, instead rely on a supercharger or turbocharger bolted to the engine to provide this scavenging force rather than pressurizing the crankcase. However, these engines fail to exploit a benefit of relying on an external supercharger and/or turbocharger because they still only use one side of the piston to convert chemical energy in the form of combustible fuels into mechanical energy. The reason why they are unable to do so is because conventional connecting rod engines can not isolate the bottom of piston from the crankcase oil. Furthermore, 2 stroke cycle engines despite their higher power to weigh ratio's and greater overall efficiency have recently fallen out of favor due to recent NOX emissions standards. In response to this, industry as a whole has, with few minor exceptions, not pursued innovating new mechanisms to solve these challenges, instead choosing to rely almost exclusively on computer controls, electronics, catalytic converters, and various other accoutrements to reduce emissions and attempt to increase power output of conventional 4 strokes per cycle engines and has done so with limited success from an engineering perspective. However this approach, though traditionally considered to be financially safe by accountants, has resulted in engines that are of much greater complexity, cost, are considerably more difficult to maintain, and are less adaptable for a wider scope of uses. As a result, conventional engine of the current era are highly specialized machines, and the performance gains in efficiency, power output, power to weight and displacement ratio have been relatively marginal at best. To this day even the most efficient conventional piston engines have a mere 50% thermal efficiency, and these high (by conventional standards) efficiency engines have abysmal power to weight ratio's. It is for these reasons that a new generation of engines are needed. Engines boasting higher power to weight ratio's, higher efficiency, less moving parts, less internal friction, and simpler more robust and easier to maintain designs will be necessary in the 21st century and beyond. Previous attempts at commercializing scotch-yoke type engines have failed for a plethora of reasons. One of those reasons is that though they have higher power to weight ratio's and efficiency than conventional engines, the performance increase was not sufficient to justify switching to a new designs in prior years. This is all just scratching the surface.

stainless steel with a current through it produces hydrogen. It works.

They do have hydrogen cell cars. Hydrogen is half of water 🤷🏻‍♂️

Apply heat

@@leonpacuret4882 Yeah... Water totally ignites at the same temperature of petroleum. That's why when you shoot water barrels they explode.

Your playing too many video games

Fracture the Hydrogen from the Oxygen?

Do you mean conservation or conversion, because it makes a difference

@@crimsonking6246 true could be both

I'm a mechanical engineer and subject matter expert in this field of specialization. Everything here is true and so much more. I have all the original documents from Shell, Cummins, The US Army, SAE, and so much more. Let me tell you something, the thermal efficiency of a standard poppet valve engine is NOT 25% efficient. Its more like 5% efficient. Most engines and fuel systems currently in production are designed for one specific fuel type/source. This greatly limits fuel flexibility and has been a major hindrance to the viability of alternative, renewable, and green fuels. Furthermore, long chained liquid fuels reduce the efficiency of engine systems because the heat from the combustion of the fuel is required to overcome the latent heat loss to evaporate and chemically break down the fuel before oxygen from the intake charge can bond with the hydrogen, oxygen, and various other combustible elements found in liquid fuels. When using liquid fuels, including direct injected liquids, no matter how well atomized the fuel is the liquid droplets are still a stratified charge that will sap heat from the engine via latent heat loss via evaporation and chemical breakdown before oxidation/combustion of the fuel can occur. This inherently means that all liquid fuel systems use a stratified charge, and can never become a true homogeneous charge. Because liquid state fuels in a stratified charge carry sound, shock, and impact waves more readily, this makes stratified charges far more susceptible to detonation and “engine knock” conditions when higher compression ratio's are used. This has been one of the primary limiting factors for engine efficiency since the beginning of the internal combustion engine. Gaseous fuels such as methane and propane have exceptionally higher octane ratings in both RON and MON. This is partially due to the fact that gaseous fuels readily and naturally homogenize with intake air and partially because of their shorter and simpler molecular structure. These true homogeneous charges allow engines using gaseous fuels to run much higher compression ratio's, which greatly increases the efficiency, power to weight ratio, and performance of the engine. Gaseous fuels such as propane and methane also have higher energy density's by weight because the fuel does not need to waste its own energy to break itself down to continue the propagation of the flamefront. This is why methane has the highest energy density by weight of any common hydrocarbon as it is one of the shortest and simplest hydrocarbons. By observing the various types and lengths of hydrocarbons we recognize a general pattern, that the shorter and simpler a hydrocarbon is, on average, the higher its octane rating and energy density by weight will be. In effect, the shorter and simpler the hydrocarbon is, the more energy per atom of hydrogen and carbon burned can be extracted. And thats JUST the god damned fuel delivery system. The throttle plate induces artificial pumping losses and creates an artificial load by reducing the volumetric efficiency of the engine at any condition other than WOT. This greatly decreases fuel efficiency, but is "necessary" because unless extra liquid is injected into the engine if it runs lean the fuel will detonate and destroy conventional engines. BUT engines capable of withstanding the forces of detonation,l thus achieving true constant volume combustion, have been designed. Most conventional engines have 4 strokes per cycle, which doubles the internal friction per power stroke compared to a two stroke cycle. Furthermore, the valvetrain is where most engine friction comes from. Not to mention that the 2 fold symmetry of wiggling connecting rods means that conventional ICE's are incapable of running in detonation as it will cause the con-rod to bend and the skirts to fold in on themselves. Engines of the 2 stroke per cycle variety typically rely on the underside of the piston, which in such designs are open to the crankcase, to act as a supercharger to force exhaust gases out of and fresh fuel/air mixture into the combustion chamber when the piston reaches the bottom most portion of its stroke and cycle. Some 2 stroke per cycle engines, especially larger industrial engines, one such example being the Detroit Diesel Series 71, instead rely on a supercharger or turbocharger bolted to the engine to provide this scavenging force rather than pressurizing the crankcase. However, these engines fail to exploit a benefit of relying on an external supercharger and/or turbocharger because they still only use one side of the piston to convert chemical energy in the form of combustible fuels into mechanical energy. The reason why they are unable to do so is because conventional connecting rod engines can not isolate the bottom of piston from the crankcase oil. Furthermore, 2 stroke cycle engines despite their higher power to weigh ratio's and greater overall efficiency have recently fallen out of favor due to recent NOX emissions standards. In response to this, industry as a whole has, with few minor exceptions, not pursued innovating new mechanisms to solve these challenges, instead choosing to rely almost exclusively on computer controls, electronics, catalytic converters, and various other accoutrements to reduce emissions and attempt to increase power output of conventional 4 strokes per cycle engines and has done so with limited success from an engineering perspective. However this approach, though traditionally considered to be financially safe by accountants, has resulted in engines that are of much greater complexity, cost, are considerably more difficult to maintain, and are less adaptable for a wider scope of uses. As a result, conventional engine of the current era are highly specialized machines, and the performance gains in efficiency, power output, power to weight and displacement ratio have been relatively marginal at best. To this day even the most efficient conventional piston engines have a mere 50% thermal efficiency, and these high (by conventional standards) efficiency engines have abysmal power to weight ratio's. It is for these reasons that a new generation of engines are needed. Engines boasting higher power to weight ratio's, higher efficiency, less moving parts, less internal friction, and simpler more robust and easier to maintain designs will be necessary in the 21st century and beyond. Previous attempts at commercializing scotch-yoke type engines have failed for a plethora of reasons. One of those reasons is that though they have higher power to weight ratio's and efficiency than conventional engines, the performance increase was not sufficient to justify switching to a new designs in prior years. This is all just scratching the surface.

@@smh9902 where did you copy paste that from ?

@@bigredinfinity3126 That is all me. All my words. I'm an actual SME.

Yea fuckin finally. That scientist from shell was talking about cars with 1000 miles per gallon in the God damn 70s. Blow me, with the it hasn't aged well bs. The masses are always behind 30 to 50 years in available technology. Yeah you know why these electric cars are now starting to come out en mass? Because our atmosphere is fucked with all the pollution and co2, and we are dealing with extreme weather and global destruction. Today it was in the 90s in ALASKA. Why do you think Elon Musk is getting people used to the idea about traveling to another planet. Because we fucked it up so bad and raped the resources that now they feel the need to act like they give a shit and give us electric cars. I guarentee you they could have been out decades ago, but that shit hurts the money they can make by slowly dishing stuff out. Tired of giving these evil pricks the benefit of the doubt because people don't want to believe their fellow humans are evil incarnate. At worst, we should have cars that get hundreds of miles to the gallon but again, that effects profit by giving out to much to soon. These pricks chose green paper over their future generations of species being able to live in a decent world. They chose creating phony wars as reason to go to middle east and steal their oil and their opium fields. When is a billion dollars enough for one person. It would be enough if we weren't led by a small group of satanic sociopaths.

@@TheAjcarbo1224 let me guess. you're an idiot who believes the conspiracy from one or two guys who have zero evidence. Show me the 1000 mpg engine. You can't. It'll never exist. And you think engines haven't advanced rapidly? Look at modern horsepower figures. Get your head of your ass. Btw I didn't read your rant. Just the first two sentences. Don't care. Blow me

yeah with car and even oil companies investing in electrics and hybrids it makes the old conspiracies look borderline retarded.

cool to think about.

@@Thatsaspicymemeball ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T2RC9DgbJtM.html

Yes. It's because plastic can be molded, which makes it a convenient way of making large numbers of things for sale at an affordable price.

@@devilsoffspring5519 Metal can be cast as well.

@@vinigretzky97 Yes it can, but it requires higher temperatures (more energy) and more expensive tooling to cast metal. That's why your computer keyboard is made of plastic and not cast stainless steel. Plastic is cost-effective for making many consumer products and can be recycled. Metals, not anywhere near as cost effective. Metals are also recyclable but cannot be worked with as easily and cheaply as plastics can. So, your computer monitor frame, your food containers in the fridge, and numerous other products are plastic and not metal. No, kids, it's not a "conspiracy". It's product design & engineering, optimized for good cost-effectiveness. Plastic is used where possible, metal is used where necessary. For example: Engine blocks are made of metal (usually aluminum these days.) Dashboards are made of plastic, because it works fine, and is cheaper. It's probably also safer as well.

Well i know nothing about cars but technically whats being discussed is gas efficiency (mpg) not high end performance (racing).

@@pinchevilla4268 one is just another side of the other.

Pinche Villa; vehicle fuel efficiency, top level performance, and brake specific fuel consumption are all based in how much energy is in a given amount of fuel (gas, alcohol, nitromethane, etc), as well as the atmosphere (oxygen) it’s mixed with. Bill’s great but he’s minimizing massive gains in engine efficiency over the time period he’s complaining about. It’s painfully inaccurate. Funny, but inaccurate. Running on water and a thousand miles a gallon or even 149 as this vid claims is absolutely, almost unbelievably, ridiculous to those who understand the underlying physics and engines. Totally not trying to condescend here or make it sound like I know it all, but I know enough to say what I’m saying... and I don’t “believe” as Bill rants.

@@orbitaljellyfish808 👍gotcha. Thanks for trying to explain

That's all we need is hydrogen bombs driving around at 60 miles an hour!!!!

If people are truly free, then people are free to be poor.

no we don't we want Hemis

I want a 4age

By definition of efficiency, advances in technology would dictate an increase in power as well as a scaling fuel economy to some extent. Would it not?

this is from 2011. not the best comment buddy.

@@tmass1 your argument is feeble. Come up with something more competitive will ya?

Peanut oil GOOGLE HEMP ENGINE HEMRY FORD 0 EMISSIONS! HEMP FUEL!

Honda V-TEC, lol

Alright. I pick 1 and 2. Where's my 100 mpg lambo at? Shit, can't find one that breaks 15... Realistically, I think it's more like performance or price, pick one, and you're just fucked on economy to various degrees no matter what.

Yup and the energy to separate H & O needs to come from somewhere... alas fossil fuels are the most energy dense fuel/$ available and conversion makes no sense.

The ones that achieved 150 MPG in the 40's were modified family cars.

He isn't as smart as carlin

Bingo bango, you nailed it right there.

RIP to my man Bill after he married that bitch

RIP

When he starts talking sports I tune out... don’t care

@@dickcastle Are you brain dead? His hockey talk is awesome.

@@blackjack67576 you have to brain dead to act like sports are the most important thing In the world

1970 HONDA CIVIC - 50MPG -80HP MOTOR 2019 HONDA CIVIC - 50MPG 240HP MOTOR THEY FOCUSED ON HORSEPOWER THE LAST 50 YEARS NOT GAS MILEAGE!!!!!!!!!!

@@thecloneguyz They didn’t start selling the Civic until 1972 and it had 50 hp and was tiny and had a combined highway city mpg of 45 mpg. The best small motorcycles or scooters get 100 mpg, so no a car is not going to get 150 mpg.

Izzy must have deleted it.

kris loist did the other guy delete his video?

Izzy is an AllenPalin wannabe!

1970 HONDA CIVIC - 50MPG -80HP MOTOR 2019 HONDA CIVIC - 50MPG 240HP MOTOR THEY FOCUSED ON HORSEPOWER THE LAST 50 YEARS NOT GAS MILEAGE!!!!!!!!!!

Mass-hole.

truly truly

the message is anything but "underlying" in this video, bill is screaming it in your ears

@@Stormsolid and yet while reading the videos comments, the point still hasn't landed.

@@xPadge112x bcos bill is a comedian with no scientific knowledge and if you've studied chemistry in highschool you'd know how wrong he is.

grupil what’d they say at the end?

Nobody uses that big squishy thing between their ears anymore. They just listen and believe! Never mind the fact gasoline only has an energy density of 45 megaJoules per kilogram, I've made an engine that can get a million miles from a single drop! I worked at [Gas company] don'cha know.

Also, it doesn't matter if the car is absolutely weightless. It has a coefficient of drag through air.

Same here, both were recommended to me.

Lol

Like a boss

@@deiosp13 16k views on this video, no love on my comment, ol jealous asses lol