It's what the guy in the video says. 0.38+0.38*1.05 = ~0.78, which is what the graph shows at 4000 RPM. Obviously the +105% is relative to the base. Which is just a roundabout way of saying double the efficiency, twice the useful work with the same energy input.
Maybe you meant my original 10-20%. I didn't even get to the graph, I just know how many videos on YouTube push something as a game-changer when it's not. I had also seen a critique video about the MIT one he references.
It's what the guy in the video says. 0.38+0.38*1.05 = ~0.78, which is what the graph shows at 4000 RPM. Obviously the +105% is relative to the base. Which is just a roundabout way of saying double the efficiency, twice the useful work with the same energy input.
Maybe you meant my original 10-20%. I didn't even get to the graph, I just know how many videos on YouTube push something as a game-changer when it's not. I had also seen a critique video about the MIT one he references.
twice the useful work with the same energy input.
Which isn’t “In actuality this will probably just give a 5-10%” as you assumed above.
> twice the useful work with the same energy input.
Which isn’t “In actuality this will probably just give a 5-10%” as you assumed above.
(post is archived)