The new ENGINE is here and it RUNS on AIR!

If you have a 2000lb car it will take 100 units of energy to accelerate it to 60KM/H in 10 seconds.

A 1000lb car will take 25 units of energy to accelerate to 60KM/H in 10 seconds.

If a gas car and an electric/air car of the same weight, same power/power bands, same body and friction were compared, the electric/air car would use less gas. When you plug in an electric/air car, you are using less gas/coal to power it as powerplants are supplemented with other forms of power.

Powerplants use gas/coal more efficiently then car engines and you don't pay as much for the gas they use. Also, people who can afford solar cells can also afford $30,000-60,000 battery packs, pneumatics are alot less costly but less known. Carbon (used to make the air tank) is cheaper then lithium or any other element used in batteries.

If gas is cheaper and more efficient then power from the outlet, why are we not running our houses off of big gas generators and not even have high voltage lines?

One thing I think Nygdan is missing is: POWER PLANTS aren't ENGINES.

Powerplants work off of turbines (whether it be steam, water, or air). They're not huge combustion engines that rememble car engines. Car engines are wasteful to the max.

Wouldn't it make sense to power your engine through a turbine...nay, make the turbine the actually propulsion?! That's what these air engine's are. They cut out all the unnessecary middle men (gas, cables, magnets, etc).

Not only that, but the car that the airengines would be put into, weigh MUCH less than the behemoths out now. Air will not have a problem pushing them. And pushing them with less amounts of more efficient energy (the air itself isn't what makes it efficient, it the amount of alternative feuls working to gether that would accomplish this). And remember, the DiPietro engines are powering scooters, buggies, and forklifts in Australia...as we speak! How can you say it doesn't work...when they're out there working?

Seriously, Nygdan...Do you honestly think that it really takes that much energy to fill a tank of air? And do you think that the people making the claims on their websites are lying about how efficient their vehicles are? Do they lie about the speed, or the range? Do they lie about how much it would cost to fill up a tank?

Remember, these things are already being sold! I can't see how they'd make money if they were lying...

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Arcane Demesne]

Originally posted by XL5
When you plug in an electric/air car, you are using less gas/coal to power it as powerplants are supplemented with other forms of power.

Only a relatively small percentage of electrical power comes from nonfossil fuels. And you have to use more energy for the electricity than you do for the running of the engine.

If gas is cheaper and more efficient then power from the outlet, why are we not running our houses off of big gas generators and not even have high voltage lines?

How would you even get that much gasoline shipped to your house to accomplish that???

For a power grid, it makes sense to have centralized power plants.

Arcane DEmense
Powerplants work off of turbines (whether it be steam, water, or air). They're not huge combustion engines that rememble car engines.

The problem is, that the vast majority of the power plant turbines are run by burning fossil fuel.

Look:

www.eia.doe.gov...
Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors) im thousand megawatthours
2006 3,408,513 total, of which 245,515 is hydroelectric and 86,901 is alternative energy

So thats 332416 thousand megawatts that are non-fossil fuel derived. Thats (332416/3408513)*100= 9.8%

Less than 10 percent of the electrical energy produced in the US (in 2006) wasn't from burning fossil fuels.

That means that if there is PERFECT transmission of energy at all stages, then the air car would have 10% fewer emissions. But you don't have perfect transmission, you have far, far FAR worse transmission of energy, you loose some when generating the electrical energy, when transmitting it, and when using it to compress the air, and then, finally, to run the air engine. Whereas, again, with the gasoline engine, you are only losing at one step, just the combustion. And, on top of it all, it we're talking about replacing all the cars out there with air engine ones (more or less), then you've got to drastically increase your domestic electrical production, and thats not going to happen by dedicating even more of your energy to non-fossil fuel burning, you will end up making more and more fossil fuel burning plants, and reducing that 'automatic' 10% advantage drastically.

They cut out all the unnessecary middle men (gas, cables, magnets, etc).

I don't see how you can say that, since they add two extra stages, electrical power, and then compressors, and only then running the engine.

How can you say it doesn't work...when they're out there working?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. I have not, at any point, said that compressed air can't power a device. Anything, steam, gas, compressed air, can provide the work to run an engine.

Seriously, Nygdan...Do you honestly think that it really takes that much energy to fill a tank of air?

It will take more energy to compress the air then it will take to power run the car.

And do you think that the people making the claims on their websites are lying about how efficient their vehicles are?

No. They are saying that the egines make extremely efficient usage of the energy in teh compressed air, I see no reason to not beleive that. But that is not the same thing as making efficient use of the fossil fuels that were burned to run the turbines to make electricity to run the compressor to compress the air. That is going to be less efficient, in terms of fossil fuel used, than to simply run a gas car engine.

Nygdan, you missed the nuclear power of 655,337 thousand megawatthours. The next big step in nuclear will be Thorium, its cleaner and theres more of it.

Electrical losses in the US were 7.2% in 1995, also Gas turbine combined-cycle plants are close to 60% effecient compared to a car engine at 25-30% effecient. The powerplant is still the better way to make power and transmission does not lose too much energy, the problem is storage.
en.wikipedia.org...

If the air car gets that speed, range and the cost per fill is what they say it is, then wheres the problem?

quote shearder: Like I said, most people would use an electrical compressor and THAT, EXPLICITLY, would certainly use less gasoline/coal consumed at a power station to power a compressor to fill the air tank so the vehicle would travel 300km than it would to power a car on gasoline to travel 300km.

reply Nygdan: No, it will not. How the heck could it? No matter what happens, you are in the end trying to get the energy to move the car. If you burn the gas you get energy. You can either use that to run the car, OR to turn turbines that create electricity at a power plant, loosing some energy, transmit that electricity across the country via power lines, loosing some energy, run the motor of an aircompressor, whcih looses some energy, then compress the air, store it, and release it, which also looses some energy, and use that energy to run the car.
It is clear that you will use more energy to run a turbine, power line, compressor motor, and then a car engine, than to run just a car engine.

reply shearder Ok I need to just make it clear that I throw no punches at anyone because I do believe we are simply debating the subject which is cool – I do not believe we have subject experts on this matter in this forum – so I do not intend to offend anyone and I take no offence, within reason, from anyone.

However, to get back to the matter at hand, I want to simplify this train of thought for a minute. I use a compressor from time to time at home for doing odd things around the house. There is no way in hell or on earth it uses more fuel than my Subaru to pump out the required amount of air to run the aircar. Please visit the site www.theaircar.com... it may be a different site from the original message but the “objective” is the same – RUNNING ON AIR.

I have based this on a WORKING MODEL AIR CAR.

Lets think this through logically for a second (or hour) – with the design you typically plug THE AIR CAR into the socket and it has a built in compressor. Lets consider for a minute that it has NO compressor of its own and you have to get one yourself (www.paramina.net... as examples I used) that can manage 300bar of pressure. I used info from this site and the car site to get to the following:

What do we need??

The Car
Tank: 100litres air
Pressure: 300bar
Distance: 200km

The Compressor
300 bar capable
must be fuel efficient

Ok here are some of my findings (feel free to debunk - I am no mathematician or scientist)

The compressor I used to calculate was capable of 330bar! Simply put, could do the following:
10 litres of air at 200 bar in 8 minutes as per the site above!

This typically relates too (BASED ON THIS COMPRESSOR):
100litres @ 300bar @ 2hrs (120 minutes) to fill

The car, if plugged in, takes (based on its OWN compressor - taken from the link above)

www.theaircar.com...
- For CityCAT's :
· 230V : approx 5hrs 30mins
· 380V : 3 hrs 30mins - 4hrs.
· 115V : currently being tested.

- For MiniCAT's :
· 230V monofásico: 3 hrs 30mins - 4hrs
· 380V : 2hrs 30mins - 3hrs.
· 115V : currently being tested.

So I can assume my calculations are pretty correct in comparison with the above figures. The fuel consumption of the compressor is 3 litres of gasoline per hour. So it costs you 6 litres of fuel to fill OR 2.66 litres diesel fuel. (depending on the model of compressor.)

The comparison
My Subaru uses 60litres gasoline for 470kms
The Air Car (as TESTED and WORKING) uses 6 litres gasoline to pump air for 200kms

This equates to:
Air Car: 18litres gasoline for 600kms - 6hrs to refill
Subaru: 76.5litres gasoline for 600kms - 10 minutes

That makes the Air Car 4.25X more efficient in relation to distance traveled and cost.

I hope I am right or I will now REALLY look like a quality t1t!

I have worked with industrial and military spec high pressure air compressors for 20 years as part of my job working with munitions in the USAF. Those cute little compressors you cite will last about 6-12 months before it's completely worn filling your vehicle even if you do it just on a bi-weekly basis. That's so funny

Do some real research before you start posting how things are going to work. I was a Munitions Maintenance Support CrewChief my last 3 years at Luke AFB supporting 200 F16 aircraft. I had 120 of those steel high pressure air tanks mounted of our ammo loaders. We had an industrial compressor at the maintenance shop that was a maintenance queen if there ever was one. When it ran, it could fill the 2 200 cu.ft tanks to 200 bar in about 20 minutes and it was louder than hotrod car engine. When they had to use a portable diesel powered high-pac, it would take 40 minutes and they were even louder than the electric ones. You had to have double hearing protection just to bleed the air lines just to disconnect. You want everyone in the neighbor hood to have high pressure air compressor to fill their vehicle? I'd rather listen to a jackhammer,it would be quieter. We filled at least 30 times a week to support just 200 aircraft and your talking about filling billions of bottles to replace our nasty old internal combustion engines. Get real.

Since we're on the subject of air compressors this is what you'll need for reliable filling stations:

www.breathingair.com...

You'll want the largest capacity 5000 psi model at a minimum because if you just get one of the 4500 psi systems, you'll just wear it out quick and end up replacing it every other year. Notice they don't put prices on these at the site because these things are expensive and right now there's a very limited manufacturing capability for these compressors. At Luke, we were on a waiting list for a rebuilt compressor because the operational commands were still waiting to get their new replacements.

How much of our current industrial capacity will have to converted to make air compressors and how many compressors will it take to meet our transportation needs. What about maintenance and replacement of those air compressors? How about those 200L carbon fiber tank are expensive and don't grow on trees? Again how much industrial capacity will it take to make cf tanks. What do we do with the tanks that don't pass hydrotests anymore?
You don't just melt them down and recycle them like you do the steel and aluminum ones. I can see it now verichipping and micro-engraving tanks and tracking them back to owners who illegally dump them rather than pay the recycling fees. I could go for just about forever about why most of the alternative energy community hasn't seen the Air Motored cars as a viable mass replacement for the i.c.e. car but who are they to step on some one's dream.

a 1958 Nuclear Powered car:

en.wikipedia.org...

The Ford Nucleon was a nuclear-powered concept car developed by Ford Motor Company in 1958. No operational models were built. The design did not include an internal-combustion engine, rather, a vehicle was to be powered by a small nuclear reactor in the rear of the vehicle. The vehicle featured a power capsule suspended between twin booms at the rear. The capsule, which would contain radioactive core for motive power, was designed to be easily interchangeable, according to performance needs and the distances to be traveled.

The passenger compartment of the Nucleon featured a one-piece, pillar-less windshield and compound rear window, and was topped by a cantilever roof. There were air intakes at the leading edge of the roof and at the base of its supports. An extreme cab-forward style provided more protection to the driver and passengers from the reactor in the rear. Some pictures show the car with tailfins sweeping up from the rear fenders.

The drive train would be integral to the power module, and electronic torque converters would take the place of the drive-train used at the time. It was said that cars like the Nucleon would be able to travel 5,000 miles or more, depending on the size of the core, without recharging. Instead at the end of the core's life they would be taken to a charging station, which research designers envisioned as largely replacing gas stations. The car was never built and never went into production, but it remains an icon of the Atomic Age of the 1950s.

The mock-up of the car can be viewed at the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit, Michigan.

Efficiency to the Max

Article

Ford never produced a working prototype, nevertheless the Nucleon remains an icon of the Atomic Age. In spite of the Nucleon's flaws, its designers deserve a nod for their slapdash ingenuity. Their reckless optimism demonstrates that one shouldn't consider a task impossible just because nobody has tried it yet– some ideas need to be debunked on their own merit.

[edit on 1/31/2007 by a1ex]

Originally posted by crgintx
I have worked with industrial and military spec high pressure air compressors for 20 years as part of my job working with munitions in the USAF. Those cute little compressors you cite will last about 6-12 months before it's completely worn filling your vehicle even if you do it just on a bi-weekly basis. That's so funny

6-12 months does not sound practical.
It sounds like an opportunity. An opportunity to develop a new type of compressor that isn't so "cute" as you put it.

Originally posted by crgintx
I have worked with industrial and military spec high pressure air compressors for 20 years as part of my job working with munitions in the USAF. Those cute little compressors you cite will last about 6-12 months before it's completely worn filling your vehicle even if you do it just on a bi-weekly basis. That's so funny

Do some real research before you start posting how things are going to work. I was a Munitions Maintenance Support CrewChief my last 3 years at Luke AFB supporting 200 F16 aircraft.

If the above is a fact, then you should, with all due respect, have gotten the jest of my post. It was not to say you have to go and by one of THOSE compressors - it was to state the FUEL - that is F U E L – that is a combustible which will burn to release E N E R G Y to enable the compressor to do its job. As I STATED, if you go back and read (perhaps take a dictionary with you) the post was not to demonstrate the robustness of a compressor BUT, and read this slowly so you get the point, to TRY and demonstrate how much F U E L you would use.

So to be very honest, I take your post as a reflection of your intelligence. I did, ALSO, state I was not a scientist OR a mathematician. The post was NOT aimed at what TYPE of compressor you need BUT how much F U E L it would use in comparison with a standard car. How about you go back and read it again and then post your “I am so clever it hurts” comments. I am not into researching compressors and if that is what gives you kicks then do it yourself and post, in a new thread, how fantastic compressors are and which ones are the best.

Just a thought…

www.theaircar.com...

Compressing air does permit heating in the interior of the car. While other solutions are being developed, electric cars are currently using a heating technology that involves the combustion of fuel. The vehicle’s body structure is composed of fiberglass over a polyurethane web which also helps to increase thermal insulation.

Since it is necessary to produce electricity to recharge them, are your vehicles really clean?

Effectively, there is no technology that permits for completely pollution free vehicles. We feel that the creation of electricity and compressed air in rural areas is more ecologically friendly than the combustion of fossil fuels in urban areas. Therefore, our current objective is not to produce a completely pollution free car, but rather, to produce a car that emits the minimum amount of pollution possible.

- theaircar.com

[edit on 2/23/2007 by a1ex]

reply to post by Nygdan




Wow, what a fascinating forum, there are so many threads here Im not sure where to start, I guess the key issues as raised here are the viability of the new air engines, do they work and will people use them and the sustainability argument - ie as suggested here more power to compress the air than provided by the compressed air and finally what are the alternatives.


Lets start with the viability, although I am hugely enthused by the air car concept, but the one one nearest commercial realisation is the old piston based model, the cylindrical design also discussed here is hugely Superior in both engineering terms and commercial viability, I have seen working models of this engine and it is a masterpiece of design simplicity, it has been said here that the reason people arent driving these cars already is because they dont want them - this is clearly not the case, if you leave your computer now and ask the first 10 people heck the first 100 people you meet about their views on the air car they will almost certainly only meet your question with a "huh"......?


The general public know nothing of such things especially American general public. I am not a conspiracy proponent - but I am commercially aware, this is all about money, if you have billions invested in old tech why adopt new, particularly if on the face of it the new does not offer the same scope for profit. Governments no matter what their colour are run not by politicians but by industry and commerce, the men in grey suits that happen to have provided more than a fair chunk of the current governments rout to power also happen to sit behind desks in buildings created and centered within the oil industry.

Im not even saying this is wrong - I am just a realist, we still have governments denying there is such a thing as global warming - let alone doing something about slowing our demise let alone halting it.


Although it may not be a fair analogy but the UK gov have had to recently admit that even though they knew in the 50s that smoking was probably very very bad for the 60 - 80% of the male population who smoked, but it was decided the tax revenue was to much money to even risk playing with - so NOTHING was done to save the lives of its citizens.


Commercial interests often take the place of good sense - even when the planets fate is involved.


So back to our air cars, they work they are more cost efficient to build and so also extremely cheap to bring to market and can be sold much cheaper than current models, they are small and not best suited in their current developmental form to on city traffic - but for the purpose of this discussion lets leave that issue to one side.


There was also much said here about the viability of the use of compressed air as a fuel both to make the thing work and for energy consumption, I suspect although clearly extremely knowledgeable Nygdans detailed understanding of PAST compressed air motors and compressors has made it difficult for him to see the wood for the carbon rich sustainable oxygen factories.... It may well be the case that to run a conventional car with this energy source is impossible, and the energy efficiency of compressed air is less than perfect - but these new cars are not conventional one very basic reason for this is the engine weight is less then a 20th of the old engines, and so the power to weight ratio is considerably better, and the of course the weight of the fuel itself......


It is also suggested that it is much less efficient to burn the energy to compress the air to use the energy....


Well there happens to be a very handy universal measuring device available to us - to give an pretty accurate indicator of the relative cost efficiencies of these to fuels - gasoline against - compressed air - against power station fuel to power efficiency.

Its called PRICE, _javascript:icon('')

Wow, what a fascinating forum, there are so many threads here Im not sure where to start, I guess the key issues as raised here are the viability of the new air engines, do they work and will people use them and the sustainability argument - ie as suggested here more power to compress the air than provided by the compressed air and finally what are the alternatives.


Lets start with the viability, although I am hugely enthused by the air car concept, but the one one nearest commercial realisation is the old piston based model, the cylindrical design also discussed here is hugely Superior in both engineering terms and commercial viability, I have seen working models of this engine and it is a masterpiece of design simplicity, it has been said here that the reason people arent driving these cars already is because they dont want them - this is clearly not the case, if you leave your computer now and ask the first 10 people heck the first 100 people you meet about their views on the air car they will almost certainly only meet your question with a "huh"......?


The general public know nothing of such things especially American general public. I am not a conspiracy proponent - but I am commercially aware, this is all about money, if you have billions invested in old tech why adopt new, particularly if on the face of it the new does not offer the same scope for profit. Governments no matter what their colour are run not by politicians but by industry and commerce, the men in grey suits that happen to have provided more than a fair chunk of the current governments rout to power also happen to sit behind desks in buildings created and centered within the oil industry.

Im not even saying this is wrong - I am just a realist, we still have governments denying there is such a thing as global warming - let alone doing something about slowing our demise let alone halting it.


Although it may not be a fair analogy but the UK gov have had to recently admit that even though they knew in the 50s that smoking was probably very very bad for the 60 - 80% of the male population who smoked, but it was decided the tax revenue was to much money to even risk playing with - so NOTHING was done to save the lives of its citizens.


Commercial interests often take the place of good sense - even when the planets fate is involved.


So back to our air cars, they work they are more cost efficient to build and so also extremely cheap to bring to market and can be sold much cheaper than current models, they are small and not best suited in their current developmental form to on city traffic - but for the purpose of this discussion lets leave that issue to one side.


There was also much said here about the viability of the use of compressed air as a fuel both to make the thing work and for energy consumption, I suspect although clearly extremely knowledgeable Nygdans detailed understanding of PAST compressed air motors and compressors has made it difficult for him to see the wood for the carbon rich sustainable oxygen factories.... It may well be the case that to run a conventional car with this energy source is impossible, and the energy efficiency of compressed air is less than perfect - but these new cars are not conventional one very basic reason for this is the engine weight is less then a 20th of the old engines, and so the power to weight ratio is considerably better, and the of course the weight of the fuel itself......


It is also suggested that it is much less efficient to burn the energy to compress the air to use the energy....


Well there happens to be a very handy universal measuring device available to us - to give an pretty accurate indicator of the relative cost efficiencies of these to fuels - gasoline against - compressed air - against power station fuel to power efficiency.

Its called PRICE....

Dark Side

Ok OK the power station may well also pollute but it is easier in global terms to work on supplementing carbon power generation even replacing it all together than sticking with the untenable prospect of continuing with gas. people are up in arms at the current prices of fuel they have NO IDEA whats is coming their way over the next 5 years - not some undefinable time in the future but FIVE YEARS, the simple fact is - gas is running out.

It was suggested battery power was much more suitable but this misses the point - the weight of these cars isnt much better than current and the same power to weight equation apply, and of course the issue of filling the batteries in the first place and of course the issues related to point of delivery - people do not want to plug in and wait - they do not want to have to think about filling up until they little light comes on, on the dash which means you need energy that is simple fast and convenient to deliver - electricity is none of those things.

current power station tech is just as doomed as the car, unless we substantially cut the dependence of gas for energy for our home and mobility EVERYTHING else is going to continue to increase in price and eventually run out - and by everything I mean everything look around you unless you are sitting in an un-forested wood everything you can see required gas to make it or deliver it......

This has nothing to do with universal laws of thermodynamics (constant or not) - it has everything to do with commercial imperatives - its has nothing to do with what makes the most sense it has only to do with where a profit can be made, because the universal law of commerce will determine what is to be worked upon and developed not physics...

Power stations are a much easier technical challenge to address than the global depletion of oil.

Our planet is a massive power house and you dont have to go very far below the surface to find that out..


Dark Side

Weird how this pops up every now and then. Read about air cars a few months back and was absolutely fascinated. Remembered that Tata motors was gonna launch one (dual fuel hybrid) soon in 2008-09. Check it out here en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 2-6-2008 by postmeme]

I dont get this thread.. its title says that the new engine is here.. and its running on air.. so I open up the thread and the first thing I read is that there are people working on an air engine,, but no one has yet put one into production. what??? huh??? am I missing something???

reply to post by Arcane Demesne


Using liquid air might be even better.

To run an electric generator to provide direct drive.

Its like back in the piston airplane days with the compressors
to give it more power and then they did away with the pistons
altogether and called it a jet. And we know who did that first.
History couldn't be changed to anyones advantage in that case.

Yeah, we're getting there.

You young folks will enjoy the workings of science known 100 years
ago and still won't know why the Aliens haven't contacted FOX News yet.