Air-Powered Cars 317
Azanian writes: "Here is an interesting article about a French-designed 'compressed-air' powered car being unveiled in Johannesburg (South Africa) later this week. The first of these 'alternative-energy' zero-emission cars are scheduled to roll of the production line in June 2001." It ain't a hover car, but it looks interesting (a full day's driving on 3 hours of air compression,
with dramatically less power consumption). Sounds almost too good. Course the auto companies keep this out of our hands like they do with the engine powered by water *grin*.
Oversimplified AND misconceived. (Score:2)
For an internal-combustion engine, T2 is the temperature of the exhaust, not the outside air. It's the temperature at which heat is rejected. This can be mighty hot, but ICE's get decent efficiency compared to steam turbines anyway. This shows you the advantage of the high T1 allowed by internal combustion.
--
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
Re:Too small, Americans need an air powered SUV (Score:2)
Every mother who hauls her lazy brats to school every morning. My mum would love this, and so would my sister.
The car that runs on water... urban legend... (Score:2)
Another tale of supression of a carberator.
In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence.
Basically, two points:
1) It is not impossible or expensive to build one's own engine. And if it were quite superior, it would be difficult to hide that fact.
2) If this poor person is recieving death threats about his compressed air engine, have those threats been investigated? Or is it meerly said to back up and exagerate the claim. Basically, it seems like this car would not be able to travel as far as stated, as long as stated, as well as it is stated.
I'm skeptical that a "better" engine like this can just pop out of nowhere. Unless, of course, it isn't completely better (i.e. less milage, less speed, less efficiency than is hyped.) Finally, for the ultimate in fuel efficiency for city travel, use a moped, or a bus. I'd bet the efficiency would be far greater than any system moving a car around could produce.
-Ben
Re:And lo, the mechanic speaks. (Score:2)
Job one every morning was to drain all the water out of the air tanks. You pull a cord which opens a valve and lets the air in the tank blow out the water that settles in the bottom. You wouldn't believe all the muck that is in the air that winds up in that water. If the tanks aren't drained for a few days they will spray out a grey goo that's just nasty.
My point is that low maintenance will only be moved from the engine to the compressor (another high maintenance item) and the associated holding tanks. Probably not as bad as an engine like you say, but still not trivial.
Re:With rocket boost (Score:3)
That a lot of these cars will get stuck on the roof?
Re:Another link (Score:2)
Dolt. It's solar power. Why *shouldn't* we subsidize it?
Screw air cars! (Score:3)
Zero Emission? (Score:3)
Better technology (Score:5)
If you want an air-powered car, I think they guys at TriTec Power [tritechno.com] have a better solution with their power unit that can be adapted for just about any vehicle. It doesn't run on air per se, but it can run on any expanding gas. Steam (made by combusting diesel, gas, hydrogen, whatever), compressed air, liquid nitrogen... anything. Just imagine how much farther you could go with a tank of liquid nitrogen in your trunk expanding. I don't know the figures for N2, but for our old friend H20, it expands by a factor of 1700 times going from liquid to gas. That's nearly 6x what you'd get compressing a gas to 300 atmospheres.
For the record, assuming their claims of 200km per "tank" and 130km/h, I'd be right there getting one if they came here. Just think how damned quiet it could be. Yeah.
The downsides of an air powered car: (Score:5)
2) Can't steer, car just flys around the room
3) High internal pressure means that exiting car too rapidly causes "explosive decompression"
4) After car has run for several hours, outer surface gets all wrinkly
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:On-vehicle filters (Score:2)
Sure, but it can take a decade or more to get new advances into most of the vehicles on the road. Much quicker to get things installed in power plants.
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:3)
The total loss would still be the same, it would
just be smaller per time unit.
Re:On-vehicle filters (Score:3)
While there would be no guarantee that a few hundred polution sources would be any more sensibly regulated than many million cars are, at least correcting regulatory screw-ups would be a lot easier.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:3)
The idea of a compressed air car is nice ... also remarkably similar to the flywheel design. The latter is used in trains (occasionally), and in smaller vehicles - quarry trains, tow-motors - where the environment is closed. There was quite a bit of work done in the sixties about sticking flywheels into buses (AEC, England). A small, highly efficient diesel, regenerative braking, and hydraulic motors at the wheels. Unfortunately, the design group noted that t-boning (i.e. getting hit by a truck at 90 degrees) a vehicle so equipped would have the flywheel perform standard gyroscopic physics, ripping itself from the vehicle and punching through any nearby buildings. Armouring the sucker to prevent this pretty much did away with all the efficiencies. (increased weight and size)
Compressed air vehicles have, in the past, been scrapped at the drawing board for exactly the same reason - storing that much energy in an extremely volatile format is just plain dangerous. 200 klicks seems rather low compared to other designs (standard IC is closer to 500 K), but still would tend to rip most things to pieces if punctured (if you've never taken a high-powered rifle to a compressed gas cylinder in the middle of a field, you've missed out on an adrenaline inducing experience!).
On a slight tangent, I'm a little surprised by the latest 'hybrid' vehicles done by Toyota and Honda. They're essentially different from the designs the hobbyists use. These modern things use 50+ HP IC engines, running at variable speeds, bringing in the batteries only when needed (acceleration, up hills, etc). The older design was a 5-20 HP IC engine (it takes only around 8 HP to cruise on the level), running at a constant (i.e. peak efficiency) speed, feeding into the batteries, and the vehicle itself was purely electric driven. Also allowing regenerative braking. I've yet to read _why_ this fundamental change was made - the only reason I can come up with is psychological - people would get upset when they learn their lawn tractor has a bigger engine than their car.
Re:Electrics, eat your hearts out! (Score:2)
One word (Score:2)
POP!
Actually I guess it would be more like BOOM. With gasoline, in an accident, you need many things for a catastrophe: 1) massively rupture the fuel tank 2) provide activation energy (a spark) 3) provide a pressurized chamber to fill with gas, creating an explosion
With an air powered car, the entire catastrophe scenario is summed up in a single event: crack the fuel tank, even a little. KAPOW! all the energy that car is carrying goes off in a single burst.
Now imagine a packed, 7 lane freeway of bumper to bumper traffic made up of air powered cars (like we have here in DC). Now imagine a semi rolls over onto one, causing it to explode. The explosion tears through the neighboring cars, causing them to explode. Causing the neighboring ones to explode. Causing the neighboring ones to explode. Causing...
well, you get the idea.
Ever seen that experiment where they put a million ping pong balls on a million mousetraps, and then throw another ping pong ball in the room?
fun stuff.
Compressed French, Cars, and Time (Score:2)
To those concerned about people driving around with big tanks of compressed gas: people already do. A lot of vehicles (mostly small trucks and buses, but also some cars) are power by compressed natural gas -- which is, of course, pretty dangerous even when its not compressed.
(Someone once showed me a way to take out a whole city using this technology. I hope there was a flaw in his scheme.)
I have to mention Stirling's Draka Stories [uchronia.net]. Despite its appallingly revisionist social philosophy ("Slaveholders are people too!"), this is worth reading for its speculation as to how the industrial revolution might have occurred slightly earlier than in our timeline. One of the factors is the development of pneumatic power. Stirling envisions cities with compressed air mains, much like our gas and electric mains.
__________
Re:Light as a feather! (Score:2)
Re:Hydro != zero emissions (Score:2)
---
Re:Completeness != efficiency (Score:2)
--
Re:I'd like to believe this, but I don't. (Score:4)
There is one thing to keep in mind - we've all been spoilt by e-Press e-Releases. This company already has two factories making these things, and the African government has already bought a budle of 'em. They'll be there before the year's end, by the sounds of it. This is obviously *not* vapourware.
Anothing thing to keep in mind is the industry that we're talking about. The "computer" industry is still very immature, and it acts that way - look at Rambus, look at Intel, look at Microsoft. For most other industries, to even *try* to bullshit your customers(especially governments) would spell instant death. And don't think that governments don't know exactly what's going on
The BBC could be mis-reporting that these vehicles will get 10hrs at 80km/h off one fill-up, but I doubt it.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
This means FREE TRANSPORT!!! (Score:2)
Bogus (Score:3)
This car doesn't run on compressed air. It runs on gasoline or diesel fuel. The compressed air tank is used to provide supercharging for an internal combustion engine of unusual design. [zeropollution.com] It's a highly supercharged lean-burn engine, but that's not "zero pollution". There are no reports of third-party tests of the engine, although prototype vehicles are pictured. (You'd think that if it worked they'd at least drive it to a service station that has smog-measurement equipment.) It's not clear why this arrangement is supposed to be better than an ordinary supercharger.
Nor does the factory [zeropollution.com] exist. They're still trying to get financing. They claim to be able to build a factory for $8 million, which is very low for an auto plant.
Something is bogus here.
I had one of these as a kid! (Score:2)
Those were very cool - and I remember at the time wondering if they could make real cars like that. I forgot about it until just now :)
I can't remember what they were called or who made them. Anyone?
Re:Another link (Score:2)
That is what steel shutters are for. In Germany nearly every window has a roll-up, metal shutter than can be lowered like a window-blind to protect the glass for harsh weather, or drop the ambient light to zero when one wants to sleep the day away.
There is absolutely no reason one couldn't protect photovoltaic roof cells in exactly the same manner for minimal cost. Hell, if no one in the USA makes such shutters, have them shipped over from the EU.
Couple them to motors and, if you want to get fancy, connect a barometer inline with a trigger to close the shutters should the baromentric pressur drop suddenly within a short time. Not a perfect automated defense, but pretty good should you be on vacation. If you're at home and a storm approach, push a button, shutters closed, roof protected.
learn not to burn (Score:2)
Still, unlike the movies, automobiles rarely explode. Mostly they burn if your luck is really bad.
Re:Man on the ground .. (Score:2)
Why the engine and a link to redrok. (Score:2)
Actually it was commented on.
It seems us Americans like stomping on the peddle and having the car move. So, to give the car 'pick up' they gave it a bigger engine. Was one of the only complaints. (and with global warming...the driving around in the cold won't matter!)
> storing that much energy in an extremely volatile format is just plain dangerous.
As oppsed to pinto?
Perhaps with the cheaper carbon-fiber technology, the safty issues have been addressed.
This gent has links to the concept of air powered cars.
www.redrok.com [redrok.com]
the air car link [redrok.com]
Re:Bogus (Score:2)
Whether the first factory exists isn't clear from the web site, but since the only factory picture shown is an architectural rendering, I doubt it.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
Although I agree that thinking no emissions are created is obviously wrong. A clear point can be made (maybe by someone with more concrete knowledge) that your average NorthAmerican powerplant (all sources on whole) will convert energy (whatever type) to electricity far more efficiently than the many poorly maintained cars/trucks on the roads.
It wouldnt mean zero-energy consumption for all travel (remember: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change its form) but it would mean a better controlled system where citizens could force ever increasing rates of efficiency from an overall more efficient system (at present im sure).
Tell your friends/neighbours/co-workers to:
Exploding Tanks. (Score:2)
The following is parodied in response to a previous post that someone made about air tank ruptures:
OK, I want to know how many of you have ever seen the results of a gasoline explosion? Talk about cars blowing up like they do in the movies. GASOLINE at those kinds of pressures is DANGERIOUS. And they want gas stations? What are they going to have, big cans of gas out in the open? Oh yeah, I want huge amounts of combustible liquid underground, right in my neibourhood.Oh yes, gasoline is undeniably evil and dangerous as all hell to have around. But in my experience, even when it does get free, it's not *that* likely to catch fire. In other words, the only energy released when you gas tank leaks is the energy that was used to put the gasoline in the tank. It still retains its chemical energy. The more subtle dangers of leaked gasoline (ie. pollution) are less immediate in the case of a gasoline leak.
A tank of compressed air only provides energy as a function of the pressure at which it is stored relative to the pressure of the atmosphere to which it will be allowed to escape when its work is done. If your tank ruptures, you lose that stored energy. Period. And that stored energy will often cause the more rapid release of further stored energy. How? When the tank fissures, the force of the escaping air will help to push the sides of the crack apart the way a cushion of air suspends a hovercraft. A chain reaction ensues: as the hole gets bigger, the air releases more force as it passes through the hole, and therefore the hole continues to grow.
Naturally, when a cylinder of compressed gas fails, the results can be quite spectacular. Rarely are things this catastrophic with spilled liquid fuels.
I work for a marine electronics company. Many large marine engines are started either with a smaller engine, or with a large and sudden injection of compressed air into a cylinder, since a conventional starter motor wouldn't be practical at the sizes we're talking about. I was in the engine room of a fairly small tanker; the engine was a SEMT Pielstick, about 300L in displacement. The engine wasn't running, but they were preparing to start it, so they had the electric-powered compressors (which run off either diesel gensets or shore power) running to charge the starting tank. Then, a weld on the side of the tank failed.
While no one was killed, the results were catastrophic: the end of the tank, which was by that point charged to about 170PSI, was propelled across the engine room and actually managed to perforate a hull plate into a ballast tank. The hull plate was over 1" thick steel. Fortunately, the ship was loaded so the ballast tank was empty.
Given that this was in the engine room of an American-flagged tanker (*not* a Russian submarine!), and a well-maintained one at that, I'm not sure how I feel about sharing the road with a fleet of aging cars with aging compressed gas cylinders on board.
I've also seen a cast iron acetylene tank, uncapped without being secured, knocked over and with the regulator and valve broken off. Sure, someone was being careless; sadly, this sort of stuff happens. 3 square inches or so of leak, tank that weighs 75lbs, and is full of gas at a pressure of (let's guess, I don't know for sure) 130 PSI...
3 square inches x 130 pounds per square inch of force = 390 pounds of thrust. On the back of a tank that weighs about 75 lbs. For one thing, it's airborne. Secondly, it continues to accelerate until it either hits something or exhausts its supply of compressed gas. Did I mention that it was a cast iron cylinder?
Fortunately, it didn't catch fire. But it did take out a big piece of a cinderblock wall.
I think that's my problem. With gasoline, *if* it leaks, and *if* it gets ignited, you're in mortal peril.
But with compressed gases, *if* it leaks, you're in mortal peril.
Another link (Score:4)
I am a sleeping giant (Score:2)
Any one remember seeing this one around?:
The Sleeping Giant
I am a high pressure, compressed gas cylinder.
I stand 57 inches tall.
I am 9 inches in diameter.
I weigh in at 155 pounds when filled.
I am pressurized at 2,200 pounds per square inch (psi).
I have a wall thickness of about 1/4 inch.
I wear a regulator and hose when at work.
I wear a label to identify the gas I am holding. My color is not the answer.
I transform miscellaneous stacks of material into glistening ships and many other things - when properly used.
I transform glistening ships and many other things into miscellaneous stacks of material - when allowed to unleash my fury unchecked, I can be ruthless and deadly in the hands of the careless and uninformed.
I am too frequently left standing alone on my small base without other visible means of support - my cap removed by an unthinking worker.
I am ready to be toppled over - when my naked valve can be damaged or even snapped off - and all my power unleashed through an opening no larger than a lead pencil.
I am still proud of my capabilities - here are a few of them:
I have on rare occasions been known to jet away - faster than any dragster.
I might smash my way through brick walls.
I might even fly through the air.
I may spin, ricochet, crash and slash through anything in my path.
You can be my master, but only under these terms:
Full or empty - see to it that my cap is on, straight and snug.
Never -repeat- never leave me standing alone. Secure me so that I cannot fall.
--
Quick! Patent this! (Score:2)
Um, did they forget about the power needed to compress the air? Unless they've found a way to build air compressors using room-temperature superconductors and friction-free materials, this is still a net loss of energy. We'd of course have to build a lot more power plants which, given the phobia that many people have regarding nukular (which reminds me of a Simpson's episode...) power, would use just as much fossil fuel as we currently do. Probably wouldn't do much about air pollution either except localize it to the power plant (instead of internal combustion engines spreading it around).
Nice try. Perhaps an on-board cold fusion generator could compress the air? Might not work but it'll get you on the news.
--
Re:Charging for air (Score:2)
----------
If you are interested in future energies (Score:2)
Phillip.
Why stop there? (Score:2)
Heck, I'm sure you could drain a few miles worth of air from that Ford SUV with the Firestone tires, and the owner wouldn;t know the difference...
Another article... (Score:2)
Notice how much uglier it is from the back side...
My 'Air-powered' Car experience (Score:2)
The idea was to use reverse electrosis to product energy (that is, hydrogen gas plus oxygen plus spark -> water and lots of energy). So you have to store oxygen and hydrogen on board for this to work. So far, not too unreasonable (though r.e. has long be discounted as a possible fuel source).
The hydrogen tank, since it's very flammable, couldn't be stored in hazardous places in the car, so they had suggested redesigning the car as to use up the trunk space for the H2 tank, moving the chassis up off the group a bit, and having the space underneath the car for where you could put your "groceries or babies or stuff".
They suggested a similar thing with the oxygen tank but had a better suggestion - instead of having oxygen onboard, it could be pulled from the air and separated out from the nitrogen, then used in their engine. To do the separation of oxygen from nitrogen in air, they suggested a distillation column be installed on the car. I did a quick calculation and found out that they would need at least an 80ft tall column to be able to achieve this.
So this group is proposing a car design that is 80ft tall, but you stuff all your possessions underneath it as you go along.
Needless to say, they didn't get an 'A'.
Zero Emissions with a piston engine??? (Score:2)
-Marcel
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:2)
--
My brother and I (Score:2)
----
Its a Nerf car! (Score:2)
Baz
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:2)
Look, you keep changing the parameters ... First you said the volume is constant. Then you say n is constant. Nope. Either you consider the tank and tank only, in which n rises and therefore P, or you consider the gas at P=1 atm, whose volume will shrink to fit the tank ...
--
Re:And lo, the mechanic speaks. (Score:2)
Yeah, guys, I agree with you completely. It's a great idea. I love it, it's the economy car of the future, but with one great reservation: compressed tanks. I've seen compressed air tanks go off, I've seen compressed acetylene cylinders go off, and I don't want to share the road with a fleet of the aging Toyota Tercels of the future, all equipped with thermally cycled, corroded and metal-fatigued compressed air tanks.
Job one every morning was to drain all the water out of the air tanks. You pull a cord which opens a valve and lets the air in the tank blow out the water that settles in the bottom. You wouldn't believe all the muck that is in the air that winds up in that water.<grin> A few years ago, I got my air brake license so that I could drive the company Hino around. (Ugh. Hated the Hino. Loved my TopKick.) This was in the Ottawa and Toronto areas in Canada. Toronto's climate is about the same as Detroit or Chicago's, but Ottawa makes a cold winter's day in Maine seem warm.
Evidenly, the moisture in the brake tanks collects, and will freeze into ice just with the drop in pressure when you apply your brakes hard and fast, let alone when the weather is really cold.
Since the average driver lets their car run out of fuel occasionally, or does minimal maintenance, or can drive for miles without noticing the low oil pressure light, do we want to trust them to add air tank deicer? What kinds of weird compressed air fitting leaks and failures are these things gonna develop when they're frozen up? This is scary.
If the tanks aren't drained for a few days they will spray out a grey goo that's just nasty.LOL.... I'm not perfect either. I have a compressor in my garage, and the bottom of the tank is a bitch to get at. Because I don't empty it as often as I should, I'm starting to get corrosion on the inside of the tank from the water just sitting there. I've been spraying air tool oil into the tank lately just to ensure that the corrosion doesn't get out of hand.
My point is that low maintenance will only be moved from the engine to the compressor (another high maintenance item) and the associated holding tanks.I'm only worried about the idiots with whom I have to share the road. The people who aren't smart enough to know that a tractor-trailer can't stop as fast as a car and therefore cut them off are oblivious to the laws of physics, and therefore to the basics of driving and vehicle maintenance. At least if a gas tank leaks, it has to be ignited before you have a problem. If a tank that is compressed hard enough that it powers your vehicle fails, you and your vehicle will be airborne.
In principle, this is a great way to store the energy required to operate a vehicle. In practice, this scares the shit out of me.
Re:I'd like to believe this, but I don't. (Score:2)
- This company already has two factories making these things, and the African government has already bought a budle of 'em.
Not to nitpickAlex Bischoff
---
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
Blowing up a city (Score:2)
__________
Sometimes true, BUT (Score:5)
Furthermore, it modularizes the problem. Instead of having to come up with an engine for a car (which has to be small, high-power, light, and various other characteristics that vary by car) you can extract all those issues to the power plant where size, weight, cost, etc aren't as important. Imagine, for simplicity, that we were all driving electric cars but that our electric infrastructure was coal-based. Just replace those coal-plants with fusion plants (or solar, or whatever) and the change is transparent to the rest of society.
This is just like putting wrapper calls around malloc/free--you have all the same memory management issues to deal with, but in only one location.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
Almost certainly, yes. however, given that the compression can take place at a fixed site, and is pretty much danger free, there is no reason you *can't* market solar-powered compressors for the home user. Each car owner could produce their own compressed air at home, unattended, and transfer it to their vehicle on an evening. Firms could run compressors for the convenience of their employees, and so forth.
--
Re:And lo, the mechanic speaks. (Score:2)
Not to burst your bubble, but why saddle the thing with pistons and all those moving parts and the associated friction? A better idea (maybe in use already?) would be to use the compressed air to spin a small turbine that drives a flywheel.
Yeah, but the problem with a turbine is that it doesn't make complete use of the fuel passing through it.
In a car, the piston engine won out over *many* attempts (noteably by Chrysler) to build a turbine car, because most of the force of the expanding gases in a piston engine is used to push down the piston. In a turbine, however, only a small amount of that kinetic energy is used to push the turbine blades and create rotational energy - the rest of that kinetic energy goes out the exhaust.
Now, in the case of a jet aircraft, the turbine really only needs to power the compressor that runs the engine - the actual pressure of the exhaust gases leaving the engine is what produces the airplane's forward thrust. In a car, this isn't practical; capturing the energy with the turbine blades is too inefficient, and powering your car with the exhaust would cause jet blast in traffic. (On the good side, this would deter tailgating.)
So, in all likelihood, the automotive turbine will go down in history as a really cool curiosity. (However, it did pioneer the use of many inexpensive high-temperature alloys that are used in today's car engines.)
The flywheel could then be used to drive a generator and the electricity would power the vehicle. That way you maximize the energy in the compressed air... you spin the flywheel at a constant speed except at startup.Absolutely. You spin your engine at its most efficient speed, and then use other technologies to couple that power to the wheels. Let's say this is done with a piston engine. Good idea; this is why hybrid cars are starting to come about. But if the engine is running entirely on compressed air, I'm not sure if the additional cost of a hybrid system will be worth the incremental savings in fuel costs. The marketplace will have to bear out whether the added weight and cost makes that feasible.
With a gasoline engine, the appeal, in particular, is that when a gas engine runs at its most efficient speed, it produces less emissions for the amount of mechanical power it is creating. It's not the gas mileage, though that's a great selling feature. And it simplifies engine design to meet a given emissions target for a vehicle. If the engine is running off compressed air, though, do you care? The efficiency and emissions questions are mostly going to come about at the compression stations that produce the "fuel" for these cars.
The wheel motors would also be the brakes scavenging some wasted power during stopping by acting as generators.Again, worth the cost, weight, decreased reliability penalty from added vehicle complexity? Probably not. Regenerative brakes are a great idea in electric cars and in hybrid cars (which are that way more for emissions reasons, rather than for gas mileage issues). In either an electric or a hybrid car, this is a very simple extension to the system that you've already implemented to power the vehicle. The cost and impact are minimal, the payoffs are good. But, I don't see them really being important enough to bother on air cars.
Re:Completeness != efficiency (Score:2)
And this is why we didn't have steam powered airplanes, and had to wait on the IC engine before we could create them.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
---There is no spoon....---
The way this thing works (Score:2)
Step 1: There is a small, circular, pink bag of air that you inflate to be the size of a small cushion.
Step 2: Place the cushion into the driver's seat of the car, preferrably under the seat cover, in a way that the small pink tab is sticking out.
Step 3: Have the driver go to sit down on the seat, and distract them so they do not notice the bulge in their seat.
Step 4: Laugh in a childish manner as a loud "poot" sound comes out of the seat. As an added bonus, you can say something else amusing in a childish manner. e.g. "JEEZ! WHAT DID YOU HAVE FOR DINNER?!?!?"
As you can see, it will not transport you anywhere, but you'll be having such a good time at someone else's expense, you won't care.
Re:Another link (Score:2)
Hate to point out the obvious - but during the Reagan/Bush years, both the House and the Senate were controlled by Democrats. You know - those two funky legislative bodies that make the laws of the land and decide what the national budget will be?
Either the Democratic-controlled Congress decided to cut that spending, or they considered it a minor bargaining point that they were willing to throw to the dogs in order to get some other aspect of the budget past the president's veto. In either case, why do you presist in supporting the people responsible for cutting funding that you consider important?
Re:And lo, the mechanic speaks. (Score:2)
Except that turbine engines are now used in main battle tanks, like the M-1 Abrams, and the T-80-something, or whatever the latest Russian model is, which also uses a turbine engine. So what is the engineering reason which makes turbines practical for tanks, but not for automobiles?
They don't have to conform to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) laws. Or emissions standards. They're an off-road vehicle.
And the poor efficiency (mileage) of a turbine is probably quite inconsequential when you're talking about something that takes gallons per mile, not miles per gallon, based on its sheer bulk, inelegant steering system, and the friction of treads against the ground, regardless of how you power it.
In fact, a turbine has a very important advantage here. The reciprocating mass of a piston engine makes it comparably slow to build RPMs, but its greater sealing makes it more efficient. While I know nothing about tanks, I'm sure they've got fairly simple transmissions that can take great advantage of the fact that a good turbine can spool up quickly, can run fairly low (if a 5,000 RPM idle is low) and has a bigger RPM range than pistons. The simpler drivetrain makes it less vulnerable to breakdown under attack, among other things.
The performance of the M-1 using a turbine is far superior to the older diesel engined tanks.Probably, yes. Diesels aren't known for great speed. Volkswagen Turbo-Diesels and a few others have gotten around this, but by and large, diesel engines aren't great for torque or horsepower (which is torque over time, essentially) per cubic inch.
Diesels are known for great gas mileage, though, because the fuel produces a lot more BTU of heat per milliliter. But they don't do it suddenly the way gasoline does.
Diesels are known for being tough to start in a cold climate. Since the heat of compression is what ignites the fuel/air mixture, glow plugs are employed for cold winter mornings. Even so, they can be tough to get running. While jet/turbine engines or a gasoline piston motor can have trouble too, I've always dreaded being the poor sucker who gets to help someone start a cold Mercedes/VW/Isuzu/etc. diesel engine on a cold Ottawa morning.
Half the problem is getting the diesel into the fuel pump. I've seen in jelly up. Neither gasoline nor kerosene/naptha (jet fuel) does that readily, since it's a far lighter hydrocarbon.
Of course, once the diesel is running, the friction and heat of combustion quickly warm the motor to its normal operating temperature and all is well, even if it's -50C with the wind chill. (And Ottawa does get that cold. Don't believe me? Mid-January, 1993; the only things that started in that cold were *well-maintained* Chevettes, Volares, Ladas (Russian cars that are sparsely sold in Canada), older Volvos and stuff. Seems EFI computers don't use components rated to those temperatures.)
You don't choose where wars get fought. Nor do you want a tank that wouldn't start easily after it's just been airlifted in the cold of a transport at 20,000 feet and has just been parachuted to troops in the middle of hostility.
So, while a diesel engine is great for a ship or a big rig or even a commuter car in a warm climate, it's not very good for something where speed might be important - like a tank which may have to get out of the line of fire.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
--
Re:No pollution from car but... (Score:2)
If you put 100 square km full of solarpanels in the sahara you can produce enough energy to replace all other forms of energy production.
One of the main ingredients where solarcells are made from is silicium.
Guess what?
There is very much sand also available in the sahara.
The enrgy to make the solarcells you can get from...
The solarcells themself.
The only problem is the transport of this energy.
Wow.. (Score:2)
I've *never* seen this.
Electrics, eat your hearts out! (Score:2)
Note that it runs on high-pressure air, and 4500 PSI air compressors aren't that common - yet - and not at all at gas stations. (Imagine "Honey, I need to go down to the dive shop to fill up the car!")
I have to wonder about crashworthiness issues, though.
--
A metaphor: spring-powered BB gun. (Score:2)
kinda like a large container of gasoline? Besides, I love a glorious death
If your gasoline tank leaks, it's only deadly dangerous if it also gets ignited.
A tank of compressed air under sufficent pressure and with sufficient volume to serve as the motive power for a vehicle will be deadly with a simple leak. Forget ignition; a pinhole could kill you.
In a vessel of compressed gas, leaks tend to spread.
If, in a controlled fashion, there is enough pressure and enough volume of compressed gas to move the vehicle at respectable speeds over respectable distances through the inefficiencies of tires, transmissions, and the friction incurred in a piston engine, just think of how fast, how far, and in what direction the vehicle will travel if the tank is ruptured.
And if you think it won't happen, think again.
If you rear-end a car and split the gasoline tank, chances are you'll just make a (potentially dangerous) puddle.
But if you rear-end a car and split open a tank of compressed gas, the energy stored in that tank is going to be released like a big strong spring being flicked across a room.
Ever play with a spring-powered BB gun? Think of your tank of compressed air as being a metaphor for the spring. Think of the BB as being a car, hurtled out of control as the spring is released suddenly.
Finally, think of how far the BB can embed itself into the object at which it happens to be pointed.
Any questions?
Re:Another article... (Score:2)
Hot air (Score:5)
Doesn't work that way. (Score:2)
If you use one of those rockets with no water, all the air comes out 'pop' just like that. with water, it takes considerably longer. In both cases, there is the same amount of energy expended.
Re:Compressed French, Cars, and Time (Score:2)
Wheres my jet car!!! (Score:2)
"sex on tv is bad, you might fall off..."
Hydro != zero emissions (Score:2)
The turbines are cooled by the water that pushes them and to an extent, contribute to raise water temperatures.
Needless to mention the massive powergrids of wires, poles, etc. which all consume brute product.
Hydro is clean.. But it's not Zero Emissions.
Web Page of the company (Score:3)
Someone please mirror important stuff before it gets dotted.
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.
Re:Charging for air (Score:2)
----
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:2)
--
Re:Screw air cars! (Score:3)
spring car [leonet.it]
As mentioned... (Score:2)
Air Hogs from Spinmaster Toys [spinmaster.com] are similar, but use the air to spin a prop for a free-flight toy airplane (BTW, the site isn't there anymore - does anyone have a clue what happened to them?). I bought one of these when they first came out, and I was impressed (damn fun to fly!)...
Recently I was at a Wal-mart and noticed that this other company (can't remember who) started making the Air Jammer again - except they don't call it as such. It is the exact same car - I own an original Air Jammer (with box, bought it off of Ebay for $15.00 - I collect 80's TOMY), and this car was exactly the same - they either bought or licensed the patents from TOMY.
IOW, they are still available. Air powered machines aren't new things, esp on the toy front. You used to be able to get compressed air engines for radio control and free-flight model planes (back in 20's-40's), not sure if they are still available or not...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Update... (Score:2)
This [spinmastertoys.com] link auto-forwards you to here [air-hogs.com], which proclaims to be a new home for "A retail site for air powered glider planes" - which sounds like it may be the real case, not sure...
WHOIS lists a Richard Giardini - but this guy doesn't appear connected with the company. I don't know if they have gone out-of-business, or what...
I support the EFF [eff.org] - do you?
Pressurized Autos (Score:2)
I wonder if this e.Volution uses a similar concept? Anyone have more info?
"The net is like a highway..." (Score:3)
Only on slashdot would someone use a programming analogy to explain an automotive system!
You almost have it (Score:3)
For the average IC engine made of materials that you can afford, the maximum theoretical efficiency is 40%.
If you double the difference (in Kelvin) of the combustion temperature and the ambient temperature, you would get 80%. But this would melt an engine composed of normal alloys.
So, it's more efficient to have the electrical powerplant do the combustion, they can afford a turbine that burns at 2,000 degrees and is made out of tungsten-nickel alloys.
Ultimately, ceramic engines will yeild a huge increase in efficiency, but they are a aways away.
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
Obviously non-zero, but not huge. That's why we have high tension distribution: P = I^2 R. By jacking up the voltage to 20 fold or more, you reduce the current carried by a factor of twenty and drop the power loss by 400 fold or more.
Thus if you are ten miles from the power station distributing power at 20x the voltage or more, the power dissipated in the lines is the same as if you had low tension distribution but were less than 150 feet from the station -- about what you'd lose in an extension cord.
I'd like to believe this, but I don't. (Score:5)
Re:Charging for air (Score:2)
Sure, and those machines aren't used particularly often, and the cost is based on recouping the cost of the machine and the electricity to use it. As usage goes up, cost per-use goes down.
--
Great idea, but will it ever really make it? (Score:2)
1.Big Oil companies
2.Current big car manufacturers (don't want to change out those assembly lines)
3.Governments of large oil producing companies
4.Politicians who are controlled (oops I mean lobbied) by the oil companies
5.Car parts manufacturers (have to start making parts they may be unfamiliar with)
And the list just goes on...
It's a great idea, but if you think gaining widespread acceptance will happen anytime soon, think again. Alternative fuel-source cars have made their way into the market, yet the above groups haven't worried about them because they know these cars so far have limits on them that keep the average driver from purchasing them. Either the cost of the vehicle itself or the cost of maintenance is too high, they are limited on distance of travel at one time, etc. A vehicle that could stand up against a regular car in performance, reliability, travel distance without refueling, ease of maintenance and cost would be reason for these guys to worry. A lot.
Well, I oversimplified (Score:2)
To see more about the Carnot cycle, you can start here. [taftan.com]
Maximum theoretical efficiency is
1 - T2/T1, where T2 is the ambient temp, and T1 is the combustion temp.
You can't influence T2, unless you move to Canada, T2 is the temp of the air the engine works in, which is why early helicopters had trouble lifting themselves in hot climates, the ambient aur temp was high enough to reduce their efficency.
Artificially cooling the ambient air won't work either, you'd be battle entropy and thermodynamics.
So, you have to increase T1, the combustion temperature. But most IC engines have low melting points, because they're made of steel and aluminum alloys.
If you changed alloys to a nickel tungsten titanium alloys (Inconel maybe) you could increase T1.
If you could use a ceramic engine block and piston, you could really increase T1.
Hope this helps.
Re:Too small, Americans need an air powered SUV (Score:2)
They also show three different models of the thing...a station wagon of sorts, the taxi, and a pickup truck. (look here [zeropollution.com])
Max speed was about 63mph, which still isn't too bad.
I don't know how well it would do here in the states, but I know I'd bloody well buy one (and maybe another for the wife) at the prices they are initially talking about. That is however, a big if.
Re:You almost have it (Score:2)
Is that your plasma rocket in the newest Scientific American? I'm sure you have few tailgaters, considering what superheated hydrogen fuel does as it mixes with our reducing atmosphere.
Re:Pressurized Autos (Score:2)
This thing is actually pretty damned cool. I was really skeptical about it when I first ran across it a few weeks ago, but I think I've some idea how it works. Check out the url above for all sorts of interesting info, with a diagram of the engine (I don't think the spark plug is used during the air-only phase of operation...that's what confused me at first.)
Also, be sure and check out their planned factories. Instead of building huge factories ala Ford/GM, they want to put small factories producing a few thousand units a year outside big cities...I don't know how that would fly over here, but it's intriguing.
It puts out about 25 hp, which ain't much...but when your fuel is air....
Besides, these would make dandy emergency generators. Just hook up a number of small air tanks, a few solar cells, a compressor, etc. etc.
MIRROR (Score:2)
The text is there. The images are coming over very slowly. But at least you can read the article.
________________________________________
Re:Zero Emission? (Score:2)
The fact that this one has no fuel to burn does not mean that the other ones don't. So just when you have thought that the crash flames from the petroleum driven ones have subsided the great pneumatic wonder goes booom and there is a nice crater in the road.
Re:Another article... (Score:2)
There are currently two factories in France,
with the first models expected on the streets
later this year.
There are five factories planned for Mexico and
Spain, with three in Australia.
OK, maybe the BBC got it wrong, but why 3 factories in Australia? That seems really wierd to me.
...j
Re:The Insidious French! (Score:2)
Of course, some idiot will decide that it'd be best to choose Venus' atmosphere so that the additional CO2 and SO2 introduced will compensate for the amount not produced by Internal Combustion Engined-vehicles.
Since idiots run the world, they would listen to him.
And now, my 2:
I live in Pittsburgh. Vehicles carrying tanks of flammable gases (not all gases, but most of them) are prohibited in any of our four or five* tunnels (three of which are on major thoroughfares). Would that mean I'd have to drive for an additional 15 minutes around them? If I were to drive such a car through the tunnel and get stopped, would I be cited and have my car repo'd?
* - Offtopic sidenote: The Wabash Tunnel will be reopening soon as an HOV/Bus-only thruway, for yunz 'Burgh geeks who carpool dahntahn. Which if they lifted the flammability provision and got one of these cars, you could go from Carnegie to Dahntahn in less than 5 minutes!
Re:Another link (Score:4)
The same thing happened when Reagan was elected. All research into Solar Power a Argonne Natl. Laboratory was killed almost immediately and remained dead throughout their administrations. In many respects the Reagan/Bush administration was to alternative power as Microsoft was to Computer Science -- they slowed the technological development down for at least 10 years or so.
The other post was correct -- any career politician will be a whore to the contributor with the biggest check, but historically the Republicans have been the worst offendors when it comes to fossil fuels vs. alternative energy, with the Reagan/Bush administrations being the worst offendors by far.
Thermo and safety lesson (Score:3)
Oh yeah, compressed gas is dangerous. All of the work you put into it can be released instantly if your tank busts. This of course, is bad for people that get in the way. It happens from time to time, especialy when people screw up and put the wrong pressure in a cylinder. Boom, like a bomb. Failures in accidents will be less interesting, but knocking off the valve can give you a thousand pounds of force for a few seconds. If the cylinder is not held down well, it will fly around like a balloon. This is also very bad for people who get in the way.
All of that said, this might be cost effective if you do all of your gas compresion with cheap nuclear or hydro generated electricity. I have my doubts. Natural gas prices are comming up, :(. Windmills, solar and all that, forget it, it will be cheaper to burn oil.
Poster would rather ride his bike.
Re:MIRROR (Score:2)
Try this [flyingbuttmonkeys.com].
________________________________________
Re:MIRROR (Score:2)
http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/www.news
________________________________________
Re. the blurb... (Score:2)
Sad, but true. Oil companies are way too rich and powerful. And if we end up with W in the whitehouse, look for them to become even more powerful.
--
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:2)
As anyone who has pumped up their tires knows, it takes lots of work and a good deal of that work is wasted as heat.
... but the slower you go to fill that tank, the lower the loss ... limit being 0.
So if you have time (like, while you sleep), the loss could be very small.
--
Light as a feather! (Score:2)
Re:Thermo and safety lesson (Score:3)
Piece de resistance (Score:4)
Power lines are a lot more efficient than you think, too. I'm having a bitch of a time locating the resistivity of typical aluminum transmission wire (AskJeeves is turning out to be useless), but if we assume that the lengthwise resistivity of the alloy as used would be about 3 times that of pure Al or about 8 micro-ohm meters, the wire has a cross-sectional area of 10 square cm and it carries a current of 50 amps at a voltage of 500,000 volts (25 megawatts) for 160 kilometers, we see that:
- The resistance is 8e(-6)/1e(-3) = 8e(-3) ohms/meter, or about 1300 ohms over 160 km.
- Total voltage drop is 1300 ohms * 50 amps = 65,000 volts.
- This is 13% of the total, not 2/3 or even 1/3.
If I had a line that was leaving about 3 megawatts undelivered, I'd want to lay thicker wire; at $.05/KWH, that's about $150/hour it's costing me. That's $3600/day, $25000/week, $1.3 million a year. You can recoup some pretty steep capital costs with that kind of return on investment, especially if you are amortizing over the kind of time-frames typical of a regulated public utility.--
Completeness != efficiency (Score:3)
Quick recap of Carnot efficiency: Eff = (Thi - Tlo) / Thi. Thi is the temperature at which you put heat into your working fluid (assuming that it is at a constant temperature, which it isn't in any real engine). This is where the internal combustion engine kills the steam engine. It does it because the steam engine has to run its working fluid below the highest working temperature of its parts (the boiler wall is always hotter than the steam). The internal combustion engine produces heat within the working fluid, so the working fluid can be far hotter than any part of the engine. You can easily have combustion temperatures of 3000 F or more in your car, temperatures a steam engine cannot approach.
Large steam turbines get thermal efficiencies in the low 30's. Medium-truck diesel engines commonly break 40% (look at the Cummins data sheets if you don't believe me), large marine diesels hit 50%, and combined-cycle power plants (which use gas turbines - internal combustion engines - as the topping cycle) are up to 60%.
--
And lo, the mechanic speaks. (Score:3)
How does this car sound? Well hot DAMN, somebody FINALLY figured out something other than (gasoline, alcohol, nitromethane) to inject. Basically, this is a very interesting system that works. How well does it work? Time will tell.
But you could probably modify any engine in the world to do this.
Instead of creating compression through combustion, it's direct injection of compression, forcing the piston down, thusly turning the engine. The horsepower potenetial is nil, but it's an excellent economy design. And the kicker is that, despite what others have said, unless there is a genuine combustion cycle, there is no emissions outside of what you put in. If you put in clean air, clean air will come out, in this setup. The engine will probably be low maintenance as well - you don't have to worry as much about rings failing from carbon buildup, or piston failure from using too low an octane rating. Although I wonder if using pure O2 instead of air could cause detonation, heehee.
Sounds like the best idea I've seen in a good long while. Now all they have to do is figure out how to do it in a better looking car that's smaller, and I'll buy one!
=RISCy Business
your company here. [fuckedcompany.com]