OK. I endured through some of the video, too, and they are just as bad. Egregious, as was said. That alone should give one reason not to believe.
As one simple example...He says a compression ratio of 20:1 increases pressure from 14.7 psi to 294 psi. That's wrong. The compression ratio is a volume ratio...not a pressure ratio. (Yes, high rc improves therm efficiency, but he got that basic fact wrong. That speaks volumes.) Or another example. He states that the reason engines are so inefficient is because the fuel isn't burned and just goes out the exhaust. At stoich, the combustion efficiency of an SI engine is very high...well in the high 90% range...so not a lot of unburned fuel going out the tailpipe. For DI engines which burn lean, it is nearly 100%. The reason for "low" fuel-conversion efficiency is due to lower thermal-conversion efficiency, which has nothing to do with how much of the fuel is burned. It's more how the energy in the fuel is utilized. Things like heat loss through the chamber walls, or heat loss out the exhaust from limited expansion, etc. Then as someone else mentioned, there will be emissions. At stoich, there is H2O, CO2, and N2 (complete combustion, low temps). With dissociation at high temps, all kinds of stuff. So no...no butterflies coming out of there.
The videos reminded me of that famous statement by Wolfgang Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
As to the geometry, as Wai Cheng (MIT) summarized it during one class, there are very good reasons why the basic construction of current-day engines is the way it is.
Well...good luck to them.
