Purpose of the video
This animation is a design-to-function visualization. It illustrates the positioning and timing of a floating piston positioned above a conventional crankshaft piston in an extended block. The video simplifies in‑cylinder flow to focus on the mechanism and goals; it is not a full CFD or a performance claim by itself.

1. Architecture. An extended cylinder block houses a floating piston above the main (crank‑driven) piston.
2. Pressure‑driven motion. During the firing event, in‑cylinder pressure acts on both pistons in the same direction. The floating piston is initially decoupled from the crank to validate natural, pressure‑driven co‑motion; production intent adds two rods for stabilization and energy capture.
3. Internal charging. By occupying part of the chamber volume at calibrated times, the floating piston creates an internal, every‑cycle charging effect (pressure‑wave/gas‑spring behavior) without external compressors.
4. Valve strategy. Fluid‑motion control is shared between piston geometry/timing and conventional valvetrain. The design targets strong scavenging without the classic two‑stroke charge‑short‑circuiting losses.

Simplified in the video

• Streamlines and eddies are schematic, not resolved turbulence.
• Heat transfer, wall wetting, chemical kinetics, and knock limits are not depicted.
• Friction and blow‑by are omitted for clarity.

How we validate

• Detailed behavior is tested in ANSYS/CONVERGE CFD (mesh, chemistry, turbulence, wall models).
• Hardware proof uses an instrumented single‑cylinder rig (fast in‑cylinder pressure, torque, emissions bench).
• We publish p–θ, rate‑of‑heat‑release, IMEP/BMEP/BSFC, PRR, and an uncertainty budget.

• Two pistons, one pressure field. Pressure accelerates both pistons in the same direction during the power event; the crank sees torque from the main piston and, once linked, a small net contribution from the floating piston.
• Every‑cycle gas exchange. The floating piston’s timing improves charge preparation and scavenging each cycle, without relying solely on high RPM.
• Friction pathway. For a given brake load, operating at lower mean piston speed targets FMEP reduction versus a high‑RPM conventional approach.
• Compression relocation. Part of the compression work is performed during the return of the power event in the upper pocket, consolidating processes that a conventional engine performs in a separate stroke.

These are mechanism‑level claims; performance magnitudes are established by test against a matched single‑piston baseline.

Numbers are illustrative only; labs will determine actual values.
Assume a cycle releases energy equivalent to 150 J of ideal work: a conventional engine spends portions on compression and friction/pumping across multiple strokes. In our layout, four processes occur within one cycle across two compartments, which can:

• reduce friction associated with additional stroke traversals (illustratively, recover ~10 J), and
• relocate compression work so part of it is recovered via higher pressure on the working side (illustratively, recover ~70% of a 20 J compression allocation).
  The point is not the exact numbers; it’s that process consolidation and pressure‑wave charging create a pathway to higher useful work per cycle—to be confirmed in hardware.

High initial piston speed improves scavenging in classic guidance but raises friction and breathing penalties. Our approach seeks similar or better air utilization via pressure‑field timing and geometry, so the engine does not depend on extreme piston speeds to achieve charge motion.

• The overlay shows standard definitions: torque measures ability to do work; power is rate of doing work.
• Our internal models and CFD explore duty points where the indicated work per cycle and work rate increase due to pressure‑wave charging and friction pathways.
• Any figures shown in the video are scenario‑specific and will be replaced by measured IMEP/BMEP/BSFC/PCP/PRR once hardware data is available.

The visualization explains how the floating piston couples pressure to useful work and why we expect efficiency gains: better charge handling each cycle and less reliance on high RPM, all within conventional physics and measured by conventional engine metrics