This engine is better in every way?

Idles at 69 rpm

Surely The sliding friction would cause more piston/cylinder wear to both power and compression sides, showing more oval-shaped wear rather than egg shaped Unless they're planning on adding a shaft bolted through the block running through the centreline of the "conrod" with a hydrostatic/hydrodynamic bearing.

And with the added weight of the pistonrod (what would you call it?) It would be limited to inline 4,6 and v8 configurations?

The sliding friction can be eliminated by adding a bearing on it ! Isn't it ?

The weakness issues is resolved by always putting this engine in a opposing piston configuration. This solves some issues with the fact that this is still loaded at an angle but with the opposing piston the 'twisting' of the two attached pistons would be minimal. The sliding friction is the bigger problem and there are no simple solutions, however, I would try to inject oil from the inside of the yoke rod. I do like the Bourke Engine, especially for small aircraft, as alternative to a radial engine.
P.s. I just watched the video posted a month later, and I should become an engineer as they did pretty much exactly what I said here

That does not look strong. That sloding part is going to be a disaster over time. The round bearings in a normal engine can be made very atrong.

The rod would have to be a built up unit which increased cost and complexity and you need pressurized lubrication between the sliding square and the rod, and then there is the increased weight. No way this is better.

Sorry bro.. I watch your video for my sleeping ASMR. You have a good voice.👍

The crank and connecting rod mechanism is not improvable, so stop trying.

La masse en mouvement est énorme.....

You had me at reducing the number of parts!

How about a Scotch yoke boxer?

Would this Conrod which had zero movements left to right make it possible for a carbon fiber con rod which is mainly limited by side to side movement.

every part of the video premise is a lie

Not in every way. The friction is higher.... But at least it makes a perfect sine...

Having higher friction with higher power makes the efficiency lower. Not just for the friction but your engine gets less trustworthy in terms of functioning. Im not fully agree with you but we can discuss

Yall made him break it down to atomic mirror smooth brains terms on investments XD IM DEAD

Lol😂

Laughed so hard when i saw this

Would it help if the yoke was not a rectangle and the sliding part circular ?

Take this thing up to 3 to 5k rpm and let’s see what happens. I imagine rotational mass would grenade this thing. Not to mention the weight itself would be double a convention ice engine. Maybe single cylinder use would be possible.

what if you put rollers in the sliding block?

Some type of roller bearing design in the scotch yoke would dramatically reduce sliding friction and beefing up the underside, thin part of the yoke would help much. However, with the increased friction area of the yoke, premature wear and knocking is inevitable.

What happens if you mirror image the rod and do a boxer style motor? Wouldn’t that resolve the weakness on the lower yoke?

As a mechanical engineer I see only geometrical abomination

@driving4answers could you please cover the free piston linear generator and if they exists linear piston generators of different geometries.

why does the block need to be a block at all? Can it not be two bearing back to back that simply roll along the slot back and forth?

The same thing can be accomplished by using a rod with a large big end and a filler with offsethole to fit the crankthe bearings in both cases is a bear.. maybe a roller bearing could be used..

You're doubling down on defending a scam or you don't understand what a sophisticated scam is. I believe you're vaccinated too. Sophisticated scammers employ all tools used by conventional businesses, except for one; the core value that drives an honest business is hazy or non-existent in an ssb scam business. Most importantly is that the creators of the ssb must have something real to show (new engine here), last but not least they are wittingly and actively supporting the aimlessness of the business __that is the absence of core value__and they don't care because it's what they do. I worked for a company that couldn't get more legitimate, it's involved in innovative technologies pertaining to innovation in renewable energy technologies, the company got support and funds from internationally well established groups and companies one of them was MICROSOFT! (you know Bill gates and his buddies in MS are avid tree huggers); the top boss of this company was an engineer too, he leads the team but he relies on me a lot in research and the development of the ideas technically and the preparation of the patents to be submitted in Switzerland, so we were close, we go for beer over dinners, thus I knew every move. All I can say is that it was despicable how these people function! I Learned a lot though.
I disagree with your analysis. You say in the new engine piston sideways friction is almost non-existent, wrong, you seem to overlook that the piston is still free to wiggle sideways anytime it wants during the combustion phase, you should realize that the only mechanical guide of the reciprocating vertical movement of the piston is the piston itself thus friction in my view is still very considerable if not the same although I don't have data on the exact friction and stress values impacting the cylinder, do you? You mentioned getting rid of the friction between the wrist-pin and the rod, NOT true, the friction has just moved downwards. C'mon man!

Insane how many people just go straight to the comments thinking they know every fault of the engine without even watching the video, most of the points made in comments are already adressed in the video.

Scotch yoke engines have been around decades. They're simply not worth the losses. Without significantly over-square bore, they limit stroke length. They also impart significant shock load into the crank throw, while also being fairly constrained in terms of crank throw cross-section (bad combination).

Where is the counterweight?

The heat generated by the friction in the sliding square will be greater and cause problems over time

These problems seem to be a particularity of the design of the example you showed... If you make the rail tighter, remove that stupid square and make just one circle run along the rail, it already reduces friction a lot because the contact area is smaller on a circle than in a square. You can also make the ends of the rail rounded (but don't let the circle touch the ends). You even showed another example that works like this in the video... in addition, the weakness in the lower part of the rail can be solved by placing another piston like the one on top, and that's it, you have the force being applied to triangles in both parts , and no force being applied to weak parts. This uses the same material to add another piston... makes the design economical and reduces the size of the complete engine.

Its like an optimized version of the Bourke's idea...

People gonna hate but I'd just get a ej. I love those motors and every problems has been fixable like on ANYCAR. I'd just get ej, they are self balanced

Nonsense - no need to ponder about it, this is no piston engine breakthrough. If it was better it would have been already around for ages...

Sorry mate I have to pull you up on 3 things.

No matter how you design the piston Rod there is always going to be a twisting Force on that piston due to the Fulcrum points on the connecting rod in conjunction with its line of travel, this is absurd but the only way to achieve no twisting force is to have the crank moving around the Fulcrum point of the big end bearing sort of like how a rotary engine works, however that is impossible on a piston engine.

And 2, the increased downward motion of the piston in conjunction with the crank does not cause any loss of power or inefficiency, it is just extra leverage which is converted into more torque.

Now due to the New design of the piston and connecting rod to being a single entity, you have now induced a twisting motion like a lever on that piston so now not only is it going to collide with one side that piston will be forced to twist in the cylinder causing friction on both sides of the wall 2 times in each rotation which will destroy that cylinder wall in little to no time

i have 7 weakpoints to say that it wont even make it to 3000 rpms and one of them wont even make it to 2000 rpms

this is inefficient XDDD

This entire premise is faulty: you just shift all the forces to the piston and cylinder wall, as well as the rod bearings.

Nothing is free in physics.

If you want to know why this is bad, look up, "spun bearing."

A worn cylinder can be resleaved, a piston head can be reringed and/or replaced -- a rod shooting a hole through your engine block and dumping a lb or metal into your oil pan and seizing your crank, notsomuch.

You can avoid sliding friction by simply adding a gear mechanism

Perhaps, instead of sliding sqare, there could be a rotating wheel...
Still, piston engiene is a thing of the past, turbine closed cycle supercritical CO2 will be future.

Such a great video, you my friend are a huge bonus to our community =)

If we must trust you that alfadan is not a scam then at least tell us your name?

Who are you?

But if you say you will do something, with no intention of actually doing it and collect Money from people „so you can do the thing“ that is a scam.

And honestly, i know they are still working on it, cause the CEO said so? No way you are that gullible.

I like your Videos, but like, what are you doing here?

Scotch Yoke still has piston skirt loads. Sliding bearing friction is roughly equal between these two systems.

This is the same thing as Baker vs Walschaerts valve gear. Walschaerts is theoretically better due to it's simplicity and easier construction, Baker is better in practice due to it removing sliding friction and awkward wear from the valve gear. (The reason Walschaerts was still more popular is because Baker wanted royalties for every design that used Baker valve gear.)

Could you adress what people are saying in the comments in another video?