TJC
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tony
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2020
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 3,925
- Reaction score
- 9,829
- Location
- North Carolina
- Vehicle(s)
- 93 Miata, 05 Ranger 4x4, 20 Ranger 4x4, 23 CX-5
- Thread starter
- #31
Sponsored
Sponsored
jblc
Well-Known Member
Also, just noticed. There's no countermass in that engine, since it's just 1 cylinder. It seems it'd shake the car like crazy.
Just another point to it potentially being a scam
Just another point to it potentially being a scam
Jason B
Well-Known Member
Every few years we hear of a 'Revolutionary new engine that will change the world'. But they are usually just a concept or a rehash of and old idea, that works in theory, but not in real life situations.
In this case, it's still burning a fuel to create electrical power. Its real-life efficiency remains to be seen.
Dr. Albert Einstein has a famous quote: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”
In this case, it's still burning a fuel to create electrical power. Its real-life efficiency remains to be seen.
Dr. Albert Einstein has a famous quote: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”
P. A. Schilke
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Phil
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Threads
- 149
- Messages
- 7,083
- Reaction score
- 37,187
- Location
- GV Arizona
- Vehicle(s)
- 2019 Ranger FX4 Lariat 4x4, 2020 Lincoln Nautilus, 2005 Alfa Motorhome
- Occupation
- Engineer Retired
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
1950 Popular Mechanics
Best,
Phil
Best,
Phil
TJC
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tony
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2020
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 3,925
- Reaction score
- 9,829
- Location
- North Carolina
- Vehicle(s)
- 93 Miata, 05 Ranger 4x4, 20 Ranger 4x4, 23 CX-5
- Thread starter
- #35
I call the process "polishing the stone". Ideas germinate and wait until key technology catches up to make that idea a reality. Sometimes it takes centuries for that tech to arrive in a practical form.
Look at the piston engine, started out as Steam, & the Stirling, which were woefully inefficient ECE technology , then a key technology arrives and the concepts blossom into the ICE engine. That evolution is still ongoing.
Of course the water gets muddied by politics and and human greed, but somehow we muddle through it all.
Another example is flight. Da Vinci's drawings in the late 15th early 16th centuries... the dream was there, but key technology had to catch up.... and it took 400 years to realize the vision!
The final example is a little more present day(1960), but I am sure just as crazy to us as flight was to a 16th century peasant... the Dyson's Sphere. The idea may never reach fruition. but the seed has been sown, and awaits many technological advances before becoming reality.
Before you poo-pah the Dyson's Sphere as impossible (in my mind nothing is impossible, it just hasn't been done yet), I believe we are far further away from this feat than you do. I'm one of those who do not believe that the US actually landed on the moon in 1969. There is at the present, no way that a human being could survive the 25,000 mile transit through the Van Allen Radiation belts surrounding the earth. The radiation levels are simply (massively) too intense. Ask yourself why the Int'l Space Station is parked in a low earth orbit of only 250 miles. The answer is the Van Allen Belts, which begin in earnest at 1000 miles out.
Look at the piston engine, started out as Steam, & the Stirling, which were woefully inefficient ECE technology , then a key technology arrives and the concepts blossom into the ICE engine. That evolution is still ongoing.
Of course the water gets muddied by politics and and human greed, but somehow we muddle through it all.
Another example is flight. Da Vinci's drawings in the late 15th early 16th centuries... the dream was there, but key technology had to catch up.... and it took 400 years to realize the vision!
The final example is a little more present day(1960), but I am sure just as crazy to us as flight was to a 16th century peasant... the Dyson's Sphere. The idea may never reach fruition. but the seed has been sown, and awaits many technological advances before becoming reality.
Before you poo-pah the Dyson's Sphere as impossible (in my mind nothing is impossible, it just hasn't been done yet), I believe we are far further away from this feat than you do. I'm one of those who do not believe that the US actually landed on the moon in 1969. There is at the present, no way that a human being could survive the 25,000 mile transit through the Van Allen Radiation belts surrounding the earth. The radiation levels are simply (massively) too intense. Ask yourself why the Int'l Space Station is parked in a low earth orbit of only 250 miles. The answer is the Van Allen Belts, which begin in earnest at 1000 miles out.
Last edited:
Jason B
Well-Known Member
A thing called science debunks your myth humans can't survive the VA belts. It took me 3 seconds to find this:
"NASA had to create a radiation barrier within the spacecraft and figure out a trajectory that avoided the thickest, most radioactive part of the belts while traveling as fast as possible. Scientists determined that if the speed of the Apollo spacecraft was about 25,000 kilometers per hour, it would take a spacecraft about 52.8 minutes to pass through the belts. Scientists found that the radiation dose received during that amount of time would be, at most, 11.4 rads and that’s without the protection of a spacecraft. And since a lethal radiation dose for a human is 300 rads in one hour, NASA deemed the missions a go. After all that, it turned out, that during the Apollo missions, the average radiation doses on the skin of the astronauts came out to be 0.38 rad."
TJC
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tony
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2020
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 3,925
- Reaction score
- 9,829
- Location
- North Carolina
- Vehicle(s)
- 93 Miata, 05 Ranger 4x4, 20 Ranger 4x4, 23 CX-5
- Thread starter
- #37
Yes, science is a wonderful thing. Kinda like statistics. You can make them say anything. If NASA and the Internet says so, it must be real.
Shielding against radioactivity requires very heavy and dense materials such as lead. There was no such shielding on the Apollo spacecraft or on the ISS. (Aluminum won't do.)
Believe what you will. I am not attempting to change yours or anyone else's mind. I only gave my opinion. Let me wallow in my ignorance.
Shielding against radioactivity requires very heavy and dense materials such as lead. There was no such shielding on the Apollo spacecraft or on the ISS. (Aluminum won't do.)
Believe what you will. I am not attempting to change yours or anyone else's mind. I only gave my opinion. Let me wallow in my ignorance.
Cinci36
Well-Known Member
VW,with their polo, smaller than a golf, expermented with a diesel generator motor, 2 cylinder to do nothing but charge the batteries of an electric car, when they were low, they shelved it. Why i dont know, but they did try it in the late 90s. Maybe battery technology.
WOADKIL
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Wil
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2021
- Threads
- 46
- Messages
- 583
- Reaction score
- 1,723
- Location
- Cyber Orange County, CA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Ranger XLT Supercrew Cab FX4
- Occupation
- RETIRED ENGINEER
Been aroundsince at least 1940:
And, there has ben no mention (unless I missed it) about how efficient that this system can be.
In November 1970, GM paid $50 million, ($348,886,033 in 2021 dollars), for initial licenses to produce their version of the Wankel rotary engine, and GM President Ed Cole initially projected its release in three years. Was gonna save the world until longevity and poor efficiency killed it..
As a result of the poor efficiency, the Wankel engine with peripheral exhaust port has a larger amount of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) released into the exhaust.[65][66] The exhaust is, however, relatively low in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, because the combustion is slow, and temperatures are lower than in other engines,
Great engine for racing because it excelled in power to weight ratio.
WIKI LINK
And, there has ben no mention (unless I missed it) about how efficient that this system can be.
In November 1970, GM paid $50 million, ($348,886,033 in 2021 dollars), for initial licenses to produce their version of the Wankel rotary engine, and GM President Ed Cole initially projected its release in three years. Was gonna save the world until longevity and poor efficiency killed it..
As a result of the poor efficiency, the Wankel engine with peripheral exhaust port has a larger amount of unburnt hydrocarbons (HC) released into the exhaust.[65][66] The exhaust is, however, relatively low in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, because the combustion is slow, and temperatures are lower than in other engines,
Great engine for racing because it excelled in power to weight ratio.
WIKI LINK
TJC
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Tony
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2020
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 3,925
- Reaction score
- 9,829
- Location
- North Carolina
- Vehicle(s)
- 93 Miata, 05 Ranger 4x4, 20 Ranger 4x4, 23 CX-5
- Thread starter
- #40
I believe that I read it was over double that of the typical ICE engine - somewhere around 35%-40% on the early prototypes. Still looking for current info. .
An Israeli firm says a super-efficient engine it has created could drastically reduce fuel consumption and help power an auto industry revolution as manufacturers search for environmentally sound alternatives.
Industry analysts, however, question the reinvented internal combustion engine's chances of success at a time when purely electric car technology is advancing and attracting investors.
The invention from Israeli-based Aquarius Engines is currently being discussed by France's Peugeot, the firm said.
Aquarius says the cost of the engine will be as low as $100 (92 euros).
According to the firm, the engine can allow cars to travel more than 1,600 kilometres (990 miles) on a single tank of fuel, more than double current distances.
Such efficiency is vital as countries seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions—a main cause of climate change. Car engines are a major source of CO2 emissions.
Aquarius's technology works by stripping back the traditional engine under the bonnet.
It replaces the combustion engine with its multiple pistons thrusting up and down with a single piston that goes side-to-side.
It has fewer than 20 parts and a single action, the company said.
In tests by the German engineering company FEV, the Aquarius engine's efficiency was more than double that of traditional engines.
Shaul Yakobi, inventor and co-founder of Aquarius Engines, poses next to a single piston combustion engine invented by the firm to drastically reduce fuel consumption
"It is the highest efficiency you will probably meet," co-founder Gal Fridman told AFP at the company's offices near the Israeli commercial capital of Tel Aviv.
"It has the lowest emissions and the highest power-to-weight ratio."
A Peugeot spokesman said: "We are discussing with them, as with many other start-ups, without obligation or a specific project."
For Peugeot and others, the engine could help them compete with the growing popularity of electric cars, John German, senior fellow at the International Council on Clean Transportation, said.
He said the engine would work best as part of a plug-in hybrid system, with manufacturers looking at "the idea of putting a smaller, inexpensive, range extender" alongside a battery and motor.
But he said Aquarius's radical design, and the changes it would require to manufacturing lines, might make companies in a risk-averse industry hesitant.
TEL AVIV, Israel, Aug. 9, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Aquarius Engines (TASE: AQUA) have revealed that they signed a research and development deal with the United States Army via the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) in March 2020, which has now been extended by an additional five years until July 2027.
Aquarius Engines invented, developed, and manufacture lightweight super-efficient linear engines based on the company's proprietary technology, that can operate on a range of alternative fuels, including hydrogen, methanol, ethanol-E85 and LPG.
Aquarius Engines boasts 41 registered patents in the US and abroad and another 36 patents pending.
------------------ Best I could find at the moment ------------
An Israeli firm says a super-efficient engine it has created could drastically reduce fuel consumption and help power an auto industry revolution as manufacturers search for environmentally sound alternatives.
Industry analysts, however, question the reinvented internal combustion engine's chances of success at a time when purely electric car technology is advancing and attracting investors.
The invention from Israeli-based Aquarius Engines is currently being discussed by France's Peugeot, the firm said.
Aquarius says the cost of the engine will be as low as $100 (92 euros).
According to the firm, the engine can allow cars to travel more than 1,600 kilometres (990 miles) on a single tank of fuel, more than double current distances.
Such efficiency is vital as countries seek to reduce carbon dioxide emissions—a main cause of climate change. Car engines are a major source of CO2 emissions.
Aquarius's technology works by stripping back the traditional engine under the bonnet.
It replaces the combustion engine with its multiple pistons thrusting up and down with a single piston that goes side-to-side.
It has fewer than 20 parts and a single action, the company said.
In tests by the German engineering company FEV, the Aquarius engine's efficiency was more than double that of traditional engines.
Shaul Yakobi, inventor and co-founder of Aquarius Engines, poses next to a single piston combustion engine invented by the firm to drastically reduce fuel consumption
"It is the highest efficiency you will probably meet," co-founder Gal Fridman told AFP at the company's offices near the Israeli commercial capital of Tel Aviv.
"It has the lowest emissions and the highest power-to-weight ratio."
A Peugeot spokesman said: "We are discussing with them, as with many other start-ups, without obligation or a specific project."
For Peugeot and others, the engine could help them compete with the growing popularity of electric cars, John German, senior fellow at the International Council on Clean Transportation, said.
He said the engine would work best as part of a plug-in hybrid system, with manufacturers looking at "the idea of putting a smaller, inexpensive, range extender" alongside a battery and motor.
But he said Aquarius's radical design, and the changes it would require to manufacturing lines, might make companies in a risk-averse industry hesitant.
Last edited:
TomSim
Well-Known Member
what about the smallest air cooled honda generator, mounted on the top you your trunk, powering an invertor. One electric motor on each wheel, a bank of batteries of course, Houstan, we have ignition//however, an automaker would never mass produce this as they wouldn't make any money on service/repair etc...
Grumpaw
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Steve
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2021
- Threads
- 84
- Messages
- 5,860
- Reaction score
- 29,196
- Location
- Fishersville, Va.
- Vehicle(s)
- Previous 2021 Ranger, Now 2019 Ford Expedition
- Occupation
- Navy Vet., Retired Police Sgt., Grumpy Old Senior Citizen
I have developed an engine that only has 3 moving parts and runs on plain water....
It is only in the development stage and I need $$$$$ to bring it to full development.
I need you members to send me $$$$$, at least $1000.oo each so I can start....once I reach $1,000,000.oo I'll be able to construct a prototype out of clay and old Campbell soup cans.
Let me know if you can help !!!
It is only in the development stage and I need $$$$$ to bring it to full development.
I need you members to send me $$$$$, at least $1000.oo each so I can start....once I reach $1,000,000.oo I'll be able to construct a prototype out of clay and old Campbell soup cans.
Let me know if you can help !!!
Jason B
Well-Known Member
That wouldn't work anyway. "The smallest air-cooled Honda generator" puts out only about 800 watts/ 1HP, barely enough to get the truck moving.
JesseS
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Jesse
- Joined
- May 26, 2021
- Threads
- 19
- Messages
- 1,755
- Reaction score
- 4,824
- Location
- NorCal (Roseville)
- Vehicle(s)
- 2021 Ranger XLT FX4, Jayco 26' Class A
- Occupation
- Retired, work is a four letter word.
Shielding for Nuclear Radiation (U235) needs to be robust due to the energy levels of the particles emitted. The radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) varies from low to medium, and does not require dense material for shielding due to being mostly cosmic radiation (solar wind) and charged particles. Due to the short transit time and low levels of radiation Astronauts would be safe with the shielding provided by the spacecraft, but sensitive electronic equipment would need additional shielding. Opinions vary (I was trained in radiation exposure prevention), I have a neighbor who swears the earth is flat.
Stevedbvik1
Well-Known Member
Checks in the mail
Sponsored
