Posted on 04/29/2016 10:51:22 AM PDT by DJ Taylor
Aquarius’s new take on internal combustion engines will be the big leap forward that vehicles need, says company founder.
The notoriously conservative car business – autos, after all, are still largely powered by the internal combustion engine, developed nearly 150 years ago – is in for big changes, according to Gal Fridman, chief marketing officer and co-founder of Aquarius Engines.
“Our enhanced engine design uses energy much more efficiently, and eliminates the valves and rods that cause energy loss,” he said. “If a car equipped with a modern standard internal combustion engine can go about 600 kilometers on a tank of gas, ours can more than double that.”
Founded in 2014 by Fridman, CTO Shaul Yaakoby and CEO Ariel Gorfung, Aquarius is the latest challenger to the hegemony of the internal combustion engine – the piston-driven machine that generates energy to turn wheels and open and close valves, providing the power that enables a several-ton hunk of steel, aluminum, and plastic to move.
Developed over a number of years in the mid-1800s, the internal combustion engine was first patented in 1860, and was in commercial production by the early 1900s.
“Over the years there have been incremental changes in IC engines, with the most recent innovation the development of the turbo engine, which uses air to pressure and power,” said Fridman. “But those have been very incremental, nothing like our take on engine technology in the Aquarius engine.”
Instead of the 4, 6, or 8 pistons that thrust up and down to turn the valves that move the wheels, the Aquarius engine features a horizontal-moving cylinder that generates energy to power two electric generators that power the car. The result is a much smaller engine without the thousands of complicated and hard-to-replace parts in standard engines; a small, efficient power-generating machine with fewer parts to wear out, and fewer parts to distribute energy to – meaning that there is less chance for the energy to dissipate, said Fridman.
“The Aquarius converts the piston’s movement into energy, which is immediately transferred to the electric generators instead of being dissipated to different components, like in standard IC engines. As a result, we can be twice as efficient, retaining double the energy and enabling drivers to travel as much as 1,300 kilometers on a single tank of gas, under ideal conditions. And the cars will not be more expensive than the ones currently on the market.”
More power and efficiency – and radically lower fuel costs – would no doubt be welcome by consumers. But would the industry – including the hundreds of thousands of garages, the tens of thousands of parts makers, the thousands of dealers, and the hundreds of manufacturers who are all part of the internal combustion ecosystem? And, according to Fridman, just setting up a new production facility for vehicles with slight variations on internal combustion engines could cost between $1 and $ 2 billion; how much would it cost to build a new infrastructure for an entire industry?
Many more billions, obviously – but according to Fridman, that will not be an impediment to the adoption of Aquarius engines. “If it were strictly up to industry, there might be some hesitation – but in this case, it is not up to industry, but to government, which has mandated a sharp drop in emissions for vehicles by 2020.”
No
It’ll also grow hair, reduce under-the-eye bags, whiten teeth and help you lose 30lbs.
“but does the author know anything about which he writes?”
Doesn’t sound like it.
Seems this is a hybrid akin to a diesel electric locomotive. Less moving drive-train parts...but energy conversion losses. Not sure what is so revolutionary about this one...and the author does nothing to explain how the valves are eliminated.
“This is not a new idea. At least 40 years old”
I have a variation on my own drawing board. Normally if I’m thinking something up, it has already been done.
Also consider this: they gave a lyrical, inspiring name to their invention, but it's in English.
Typically, Israelis give their big projects Hebrew names, that come out in English like "Kippat Barzel" or "Tzuk Eitan." When translated into English, they don't sound so lyrical ("Iron Dome" and "Cast Lead").
The more I read about this, the more I'm thinking "fundraising project."
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to have an idea that’s (a) a good idea, and (b) hasn’t already been thought of.
Tell us more about Maya...
Eastern European, I'm thinking. Maybe Russian, or second-generation Russian immigrant parents.
“So, ah, a lawnmower engine pushing a generator? That better be one BIG piston because the power needed to push a car around will require a pretty damn heavy gen.”
Either the author really doesn’t understand IC engines, or he’s a very poor author attempting to describe what makes this idea/concept so different or unique. Wonder if it’s just a very scaled down version of a diesel electric locomotive, but using a gasoline engine.
Total fakery. Look at that and think about how it might turn a wheel. What is the 90 degree fitting floating in air?
Plus there is the red flag of an extra step in energy conversion. The engine converts fuel to motion, converts the motion to electrical energy, then converts it back to motion to drive the wheels.
That’s why its described as a “new take” on internal combustion engines.
(IIRC) The Top Gear guys did a stunt where they just put a gasoline powered generator in the back of an electric car and used it to power everything without a lot of batteries. Got good mileage up to the point where the exhaust from the generator nearly killed them.
That’s basically what a hybrid is—a small gas engine that continuously recharges an electric car as it’s running.
Yes, you’re correct. I guess the part about new infrastructure left me thinking they were implying that it replaced the IC engine.
That actually can work out, because you gain back more from running the engine under precisely optimum speed and power conditions for every load, using sensors and computers to make small adjustments to engine timing.
The advantage diminishes for smaller engines. For big engines, like on locomotives, it works out well. That's why Diesel-electric locomotives have been the norm for more than fifty years.
They are actually claiming the "optimal operating point" advantage in some of the stories that have been written about their engine.
I'm thinking "scam," or - more charitably - an outlet for wealthy wishful thinkers who lack a high degree of technical knowledge.
Why would this one be an exception?
Actually the RX-9 is in the works with an 16x wankel engine
http://www.motoring.com.au/mazda-rotary-details-firm-46719/
The Tucker automobile, for one.
Wankels worked, but they were assailed because they were not as intuitive as reciprocating engines, and quickly lost popularity because few people understood them.
"Where are you going to get it worked on if you have a problem?" Is a serious enough question to keep something from gaining traction.
To save a little time, their engine is a horizontally mounted single cylinder (lawnmower engine) that turns an electrical generator, the current from which runs everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
