This is a strange, specific question to ask, but I can't think of a better place to ask it other than leddit. Seeing as I don't have an account, here goes.
On my birthday, I got a novelty model clip-together kit for a V6 engine from my sister. It's a piece of shit but I built it, let it run for a minute or two, left it in a corner and forgot about it. It's about 20cm on its long axis for scale.
I got to thinking about it afterwards and I had a look at some of the design and engineering principles behind IC engines from sheer boredom, and I started to wonder what would happen if I tried to build an engine of a similar size for an RC car or something just for the hell of it.
I don't know the first thing about engines other than the theory I picked up after building the model. I have access to a CNC machine to cut the components for me from stainless steel, but I honestly don't know if the idea is even feasible, which is why I'm asking here.
Is there anything completely obvious that would stop an engine from being 20cm in diameter from running properly if it was built the same way as a full-sized engine? Why do people not build them and put them in RC cars?

Are we really just Boltzmann brains floating in space, or is it just a retarded theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferase
"Luciferase is a generic term for the class of oxidative enzymes that produce bioluminescence, and is usually distinguished from a photoprotein. "

Been a lot of commotion about this online. Discuss.

Are you smarter than an undergrad studying the immune system?

>dude we can never know the truth of mathematical statements
>except for this one lol
wtf is wrong with logicians?

Who broke the chromatography column?

What if the global average temperature in 1850 was 0.5 degrees centigrade higher than we think based on the limited sources from that era, whereby between a couple dozen to a couple hundred weather stations measure localized temperature across the couple dozen-couple hundred locations across 510,000,000 km2?

How could we ever know for certain?

>[...] reported that some normal adults, apparently cured of childhood hydrocephaly, had no more than 5 % of the volume of normal brain tissue [...]

Can somebody explain this?
Were that saying that we only use 10% of our brains right in a way after all?

Or is there something off with the measurements or their interpretations? Does it mean we have a lot more capacity if some can function well and have 100+ IQ with such small volumes of brain?

>Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

Can't post the sources here so you need to DuckDuckGo them.

i have 8 boxes set in 2 groups of 4
if i randomly place a ball in 2 boxes, what is the probability that i place a ball in 2 boxes in the same group?

How are climate "scientists" able to predict the average temperature across 510,000,000 km2 in 2100 within 1 degree centigrade?