Car that runs on air. Is this for real???

[nat whilk II]

The concept is not new.

See! See! The pressure drops as the air is expended! Terry was right-on!

nat whilk ii

[meccajay]

This is all very silly . First thing everyone must understand (I see a few people might not), is that there is no energy produced by that vehicle, it requires external energy to compress the air. So, as others have said, the compressed air is not an energy source but a storage medium for energy obtained elsewhere.

You mean, like this?



Or this?




Please don't misunderstand. I dont mean to challenge your knowledge, and indeed I understand that these technologies "harness" the earths water and air power more than say produce it, but the fact remains there are possibilities with using compressed air as a power source. Especially since we a humans are still didling around with, and dependant on fuel combution engine technology, long after it's effectiveness within our modern society has come and gone. We come so far with computer technology, and robotics, and space travel, yet as soon as someone thinks outside the box on combustion engine alternatives, they get squashed by big oil's interests.

We must develope this, even if it is a failure as you say. From it we will learn and move forward. The air car may effectively be a stone wheel, but the stone wheel moved us in the right direction.

The air car and all it's progressive cousin's must see the light of day! *steps off mini-soapbox*

[Philter]

 

but the fact remains there are possibilities with using compressed air as a power source.

 

 

The power source is whatever is used to COMPRESS the air. Air itself doesn't impart any power.

 

 

Especially since we a humans are still didling around with, and dependant on fuel combution engine technology, long after it's effectiveness within our modern society has come and gone.

 

 

External combustion engines like the one in question predate internal combustion engines by a number of years (eg steam engines.)

 

Check out the comments following the interview from the link I posted above.

[John Sayers]

There's about 5 companies working on lithium ion battery packs for cars, which is the type of batteries The Tesla uses, but they actually strung together thousands of laptop batteries for their pack, which is very costly. As soon as one of those companies comes up with a usable battery pack for cars, that can be mass produced, you'll see electric cars like The Chevy Volt go into production. Not sure what Knobs is saying about air cars, they obviously do work.

 

 

I gather that Tesla claim that their battery is recyclable, they last around 100k miles and can be returned and swapped with a new set. Tesla then recycles all the material and creates a new set of batteries.

[Hush]

I was thinking about the problem Terry mentioned about the loss of preasure as the air was used. What if you used a piston, (could be as simple as spring loaded) that as the air left, the chamber shrank keeping the preasure the same?

[John Sayers]

I was thinking about the problem Terry mentioned about the loss of preasure as the air was used. What if you used a piston, (could be as simple as spring loaded) that as the air left, the chamber shrank keeping the preasure the same?

 

 

because you'd need energy driving the piston, where does that come from?

[John S. Shinal]

because you'd need energy driving the piston, where does that come from?

 

You'd need a LOT of energy to move the piston also, remembering it's tremendously compressed, and does not like it.

 

There's a HUGE safety issue here also. Pinhole leaks in highpressure steam plants will instantly amputate a mechanic's limb, and this is no different at all. Plus, as Terry noted you have to allow for the some venting so you don't overpressurize it catastrophically. Even if it doesn't release in an instant pressure pulse, but rather a sort of "deflagration" it's still pretty deadly.

 

I can't wait for someone to blame Big Oil for this lack of success...

[Hush]

because you'd need energy driving the piston, where does that come from?

 

 

As you fill the tank with air it is expanding the piston. The energy is stored in the spring tension. As the air leaves the storage The chamber is compressed down to keep the same preasure.

[John Sayers]

As you fill the tank with air it is expanding the piston

 

 

you need additional energy to do this, i.e to push against the spring possibly exceeding the chamber's pressure rating. When the tank is full it would have the air pressure PLUS the spring pressure, as the spring releases the total pressure would still go down.

[John S. Shinal]

 

As you fill the tank with air it is expanding the piston. The energy is stored in the spring tension. As the air leaves the storage The chamber is compressed down to keep the same preasure.

 

 

Even a very small piston at the pressure they quoted means tens of tons of pressure on the spring. Remember, this all has to be lightweight in order to be feasible.

 

Additionally the expanding gas cools the chamber, reducing the pressure further. It's really a vicious cycle.

[MrKnobs]

Please don't misunderstand. I dont mean to challenge your knowledge, and indeed I understand that these technologies "harness" the earths water and air power more than say produce it, but the fact remains there are possibilities with using compressed air as a power source. Especially since we a humans are still didling around with, and dependant on fuel combution engine technology, long after it's effectiveness within our modern society has come and gone. We come so far with computer technology, and robotics, and space travel, yet as soon as someone thinks outside the box on combustion engine alternatives, they get squashed by big oil's interests.

 

My ideas are always open to discussion and challenge. I'm frequently wrong and always appreciate being corrected when I am.

 

Big oil isn't squashing anything. Renewable energy is becoming more popular as the price of oil increases - which is why you see wind generators and photovoltaics popping up everywhere.

 

I like your optimism, but, as always, the numbers tell the story. There is no substitute for quantitative thinking.

 

I don't know if you read my post on the previous page, but I ran the numbers out for wind generators - using real numbers and costs as this is an area I sometimes work in.

 

My analysis showed that with electric companies selling energy at 11 cents/kWh that $5,000 wind generator would have to operate at peak output for 20,000 hours just to pay back its cost - not counting the lease of the land it's on. That's 833 DAYS, almost three years of non-stop peak operation, which requires a steady 24mph wind. Obviously, even in a prime area such as the hilltops in my beloved west Texas you aren't going to get a constant 24mph wind every day, so maybe that figure is more like six years.

 

Probably the larger wind generators have a quicker return on investment but I suspect it's not on the order of ten times quicker.

 

So you see, at this point generation using wind is still largely speculative, given the still relatively cheap cost of natural gas.

 

As far as hydroelectric, there are only so many rivers to dam and we've done most of the big ones already - at least in the US. Worse, dams cause tremendous ecological damage and even extinctions of certain animals, since they replace a rapid flowing river that occasionally floods with basically a big lake with a drain.

 

We must develope this, even if it is a failure as you say. From it we will learn and move forward. The air car may effectively be a stone wheel, but the stone wheel moved us in the right direction.

 

No, we don't need to develop it, and here's why.

 

Air cars aren't some new breakthrough technology that we don't understand well enough to assess. Every aspect of their technology is already well understood. Consider, as others have said, that external combustion engines were invented and tested long before the internal combustion engine was invented. Compressed air engines are no different from steam engines except that they are inherently worse since steam has a very high expansion ratio and actually works. Both engines work the same way, by pushing pistons with gas pressure.

 

There's simply nothing new to learn by designing a compressed air engine, except to be reminded of why it's not a great idea.

 

The air car and all it's progressive cousin's must see the light of day! *steps off mini-soapbox*

 

Well, if you strongly believe that, then by all means go to the guy's website and click the link "INVESTORS." I'm certain he'll be happy to take your money, especially since, according to some of the links in this thread, he has a history of scamming investors.

 

Now, lest you think me a negative person, what WILL work is nuclear energy. The people who understand this have already driven up the price of uranium to formerly unseen levels, given that other countries are planning dozens of new reactors and all of those will need fuel in excess of the current supply.

 

Terry D.

[meccajay]

My ideas are always open to discussion and challenge. I'm frequently wrong and always appreciate being corrected when I am. .

No you're probably right.. And I'm probably wrong. It's obviously not my field. All Im saying is that were stuck in this gas/diesel/fossil fuel-combustion engine quagmire, and were sinking fast! And I do understand that these "new" technologies discussed aren't neccesarily new to the world of physics or transportation engineering. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, were giving up on it too early.

By that I mean, to use natural resources(other than fossil fuel) for conversion to power; air(wind), water, sun etc. Is working! It works everyday. It's messy at times with regard to the environment as you mentioned with the use of dams. It's not as effective at other times as with solar panels and wind generators. Overall I'd say this is technology that works to some degree, and there's probably more where that came from. What we really need to do is find a way to properly develop new engine technology for transportation. To do that we have to fail several times before we succeed...much like the space program. It took many billions of dollars wasted, many blown up rockets, and several dead astronauts to get into space consistantly in the early days of space travel. Now were still just on the cusp of space frontier..why? One reason is were still using combustion fossil fuel-engine technology.

Ok, I'm getting way over my head here..

My point is that it's going to take billions of dollars and many years to get to the point were onto the next thing. We have to go deeper into the exploration of air/water/sun power, among many other technologies to get there. Yes the 'next thing' will include efficient nuclear power as you mentioned, but it should also include a cost effective, modern way to power our cars & trucks.

[Zygs Malone]

posted by Knobs:

So you see, at this point generation using wind is still largely speculative, given the still relatively cheap cost of natural gas.

 

 

This is not true. Wind generation of electrical energy is a booming business, and in some parts of the world wind generation of electrical energy is close to the cost of other means of production. Denmark for instance produces 20 % of it's power from wind.

 

Lots more fact and figures on the subject in this book, The Clean Tech revolution-http://www.thecleantechrevolution.com/

 

 

The cost of onshore wind power has decreased by more than 80 percent since the early 1980s to roughly 7

[MrKnobs]

 

from here- http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Wind/2008.htm Almost all types of renewable energy businesses are drawing huge investments because they work, and people are making a lot of money in those businesses. Check that book out. I think you'll be surprised how big those businesses are, and how fast they're growing.

 

 

You left out this paragraph from your reference above:

 

 

In most markets, however, due to subsidies for conventional energy sources, the growth of wind power still depends on economic incentives. For example, the dearth of wind power installations in the United States in 2002 and 2004, when the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind was allowed to lapse, underscores the importance of extending the PTC for wind that is set to expire at the end of 2008. ( See data .)

 

 

Wind power at the moment is only profitable (at least in the US) due to subsidies. Also, as I pointed out in my analysis, whether or not wind power is profitable depends on doing a life cycle cost analysis over the total life of the wind generator, and also making assumptions regarding the price of conventional (fossil fuel) energy over a long period.

 

In other words, the profitability of generating electric power by wind turbine is speculative, as I said.

 

I think you'll find that in Europe the price of natural gas is higher, and there are in-place government subsidies for alternative energy sources that far exceed those in the US.

 

Not that it's a bad idea to subsidize wind power, just saying it's not quite competitive at current natural gas prices.

 

Terry D.

[2180]

This may help,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

What will happen is what must happen. As the price of oil continues to climb, alternative energy will make gains and more oil will be pumped from areas and sources that weren't economically viable at $30/bbl but are now at $100/bbl. But mostly what will happen is that people will drive lighter vehicles and people will drive a lot less, particularly poor people.


So, why aren't the big oil companies using their profits to change to another energy source and invest in alternatives? They sure don't want to be left-out, or maybe it's all a sham? Yes, the poor are always stuck, sorta like me, with the scam that makes us poor!


On the plus side, that will ease congestion on the highways and reduce the amount of pollution generated by vehicles. I think we're already beginning to see that happen as gasoline approaches $4/gallon.

That has always been a great idea, until you factor in the growth of the population, just like the way California tries to stop pollution, but for every gain they make, it's lost in the numbers.

It always comes down to efficiency and cost. If it was very cheap and pollution free to produce electricity, AND batteries were inexpensive, lasted a long time, and had a higher capacity to weight ratio, everyone would already be driving electric cars as they have some fantastic advantages over fueled vehicles, primarily their constant torque at all speeds (no gear box needed), their low heat and fume emission, quiet operation, and simplicity of the motor.There's about 5 companies working on lithium ion battery packs for cars, which is the type of batteries The Tesla uses, but they actually strung together thousands of laptop batteries for their pack, which is very costly. As soon as one of those companies comes up with a usable battery pack for cars, that can be mass produced, you'll see electric cars like The Chevy Volt go into production.

There is a big problem with storage of electrical energy, no doubt, but the really big thing is the nuclear power from the sun and if we focus on that, then, all we can do is use it for the gazillions of watts of energy it gives us. Also, stringing together batteries can be a real hassle when a cell goes bad and infects other cells and then you have to try and find the problem before the $30,000 battery pack goes totally bad.

If we spend time on silly ideas, like the air car and not look toward the future, we may as well just sit around and get stoned, but if we also just go-on being lied-to by the billionaires whom could care a {censored} if you starve and die, and we don't fight in them some way, then maybe we can't argue the point of being used, if thats all there is to it.

[John Sayers]

If we spend time on silly ideas, like the air car and not look toward the future, we may as well just sit around and get stoned, but if we also just go-on being lied-to by the billionaires whom could care a {censored} if you starve and die, and we don't fight in them some way, then maybe we can't argue the point of being used, if thats all there is to it.

 

 

Silly Ideas! Tell that to all the people who have pioneered every break through in history. Don't you think Ford would marvel at the advancements made in the modern car? The Air Car may be just a simple form today, but who knows what tomorrow might bring. It has all the right ingredients, it's cheap, non polluting and uses air.

 

If we believe in it, maybe we'll get it. Has nothing to do with billionaires.

 

By the way it's, "who couldn't care a {censored}". {censored} isn't worth caring for.

[Zygs Malone]

 

You left out this paragraph from your reference above: Wind power at the moment is only profitable (at least in the US) due to subsidies. Also, as I pointed out in my analysis, whether or not wind power is profitable depends on doing a life cycle cost analysis over the total life of the wind generator, and also making assumptions regarding the price of conventional (fossil fuel) energy over a long period. In other words, the profitability of generating electric power by wind turbine is speculative, as I said. I think you'll find that in Europe the price of natural gas is higher, and there are in-place government subsidies for alternative energy sources that far exceed those in the US. Not that it's a bad idea to subsidize wind power, just saying it's not quite competitive at current natural gas prices. Terry D.

 

 

Wind power is profitable everywhere it's used, subsidies or not, and they should get those subsidies, but the subsidies are just to help bring the profits in line with the profits from conventional means of production, and to help the industry grow, and of course wind power has the added advantage of being pollution free.

 

The Wind Power Industry is booming, and growing phenomenally every year. Any subsidies it's getting are only likely to increase at this point. The business is not speculative at all, it's a good investment for anyone with the money to get into it.

[2180]

I'm not getting pissy with anyone here, but I really think the air car is silly, silly, silly, just how on earth can you up-scale something like that to work for the big-rig over the road type haulers. Those guys driving our products to the grocery store are being put out-of-business because of the cost of diesel fuel and when the shelves are empty, then, being nice to the rich is going to end.

Follow the money, thats where all the problems come from that everyone else has to live with farther down the economic line. The un-godly profits these people are raking-in are not going back to basic infrastructure enough to keep the energy costs down. Maybe there is more to-it than that and it's always complex, but I just don't see it, nor are the politicians even talking about it, coincidence?:poke:

[MrKnobs]

 

Wind power is profitable everywhere it's used, subsidies or not, and they should get those subsidies, but the subsidies are just to help bring the profits in line with the profits from conventional means of production, and to help the industry grow, and of course wind power has the added advantage of being pollution free.

 

 

I'm sorry, but none of your statements above are true.

 

Wind power is not profitable anywhere without subsidies at this point. Please read this comprehensive article calculating the real costs and problems associated with wind power to get a balanced view:

 

http://www.vlrc.org/articles/3.html

 

In particular, read the section entitled, "Income taxes, tax breaks and subsidies for

[Lee Flier]

Wind power is not profitable anywhere without subsidies at this point... If suddenly all government subsidies for wind power were to cease, and all hidden costs of wind generation were required of the wind farm owners, every single wind farm in the US would close down in very short order.

True... now, ever done similar homework regarding oil and gas subsidies?

And then factor in the amount of money spent by the military to protect our oil interests... talk about "hidden costs!"

[Philter]

 

Silly Ideas! Tell that to all the people who have pioneered every break through in history. Don't you think Ford would marvel at the advancements made in the modern car? The Air Car may be just a simple form today, but who knows what tomorrow might bring. It has all the right ingredients, it's cheap, non polluting and uses air.

 

 

The air car is only as non-polluting as the energy source used to charge it.

 

In the US chances are that's coal, so it's hard to claim that it's non-polluting.

[Philter]

As myself and others have also already stated in this thread, an air car is hardly a "break through." External combustion engines have been around longer than internal ones. It's not fun to discuss stuff like this when people repeatedly make claims that have already been refuted. If you want to argue in support of it you need to address the points people make.

[Philter]

True... now, ever done similar homework regarding oil and gas subsidies? And then factor in the amount of money spent by the military to protect our oil interests... talk about "hidden costs!"

 

This is a good point. I think it's an even better point if you examine the question in terms of net energy gains instead of dollars.

 

Over the next decade I think we're going to see a lot of the artifice built up around the economy disappear, and what we will be left looking at is what activities are actually productive.

 

The only reason the economy has been able to blow such enormous bubbles in housing and finance is because of the extra energy laying around from easy sources. As these easy sources deplete, a lot of this extraneous stuff is going to be stripped away by necessity. What do we really need to live? That question is going to become a lot more important in the near future.

 

I imagine using a military to defend petroleum production will continue as long as we have a net gain of energy from that activity. Likewise I believe if windmills or solar power or even ethanol result in a net energy gain, we will be seeing a lot more of whichever works in the future... regardless of the nominal dollar price "profit" fixed to those activities now. There is so much distortion in the economy right now that it's impossible to tell what's really working. The way we will eventually be able to tell is through EROEI (energy return on energy invested.) This is what fundamentally supports every economy in the world, underneath all the fluff and bull{censored} built up on top of it.

[John Sayers]

Here's a very good article on compressed air technology and it's application.

http://pesn.com/2006/05/11/9500269_Engineair_Compressed-Air_Motor/

Here's some interesting extracts.

It has never been possible to use internal-combustion power tools or vehicles underground due to the risk of explosions and air contamination in a closed space. Therefore, the mining industry has had to rely on compressed-air power for the past century; 10% to 30% of electricity is used to generate compressed air in this and other industries. Billions of dollars per year are poured into obtaining equipment such as air power tools, and further billions of dollars are spent to pay for electricity usage to compress air.

Di Pietro says that he has been contacted by an independent small carmaker in the United States who expressed interest in the technology as an ideal fit for what they were trying to do. This caller stated that his company was dissatisfied with lithium-ion batteries. In addition to taking eight hours to recharge, they would need to be replaced in only three to four years, at a considerable cost amounting to the price of a whole new motor vehicle.

When air is compressed, the molecules rub together, creating heat. When the compressed air performs expansion into the engine, the air becomes cold. So when running, instead of heating up, the dipietro motor gets colder. Much colder. So instead of having excess heat that must be dissipated as in an internal combustion engine, the dipietro motor becomes like a sponge absorbing heat. Heat is energy, and we can harness this energy for free from the atmosphere or from the sunlight. It seems that another efficiency is available nearly for free here, a serendipitous bonus for good design. If the exhaust air is circulated into the passenger compartment, the motor itself would function as an air-conditioning unit. No environmentally-questionable freon would be required. And of course the weight of a refrigeration system would also be eliminated from the car, along with the need to consume energy for cooling the passenger compartment.

 

[MrKnobs]

True... now, ever done similar homework regarding oil and gas subsidies? And then factor in the amount of money spent by the military to protect our oil interests... talk about "hidden costs!"

 

Ouch, the war in Iraq.

 

I learned recently that we fly in gasoline to our forces at a cost of $42/gallon.

 

This in a country where it costs about $2/bbl to extract oil from the ground.

 

I guess we flunked War 101. If you aren't going to loot a country, why attack and occupy it?

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. Just to clarify one last time on the "air car" topic: no one is saying you can't make a car that runs on compressed air cylinders. I (and others) are asking, "What's the use of it (given the energy to compress the air is made elsewhere along with any pollution), how far can it be made to go on a full charge, and what sort of performance is it going to have given that less pressure/force is available every minute the cylinders discharge?" You know, curmudgeonly practical stuff.

 

P.P.S. I drive a propane vehicle at work. It sucks, and the primary reason it sucks is because of the reduction in gas pressure as the tank empties. The net result is everyone either uses it with gasoline or they top off the tank when it's half empty. The very same problem is going to be a big issue with the compressed air car. One cup of gasoline has the same energy in it as a stick of dynamite, and is sufficient to knock a building down if properly aerosolized and ignited. That's going to be very hard to match with compressed air.