Air-Car Ready For Mass Production - Yes It Runs On Compressed Air!

As for selecting electric over air power....


Hmmmm, let's see, you need to put batteries that will be part of a life cycle in a car that includes chemicals that could damage the environment. Then you are talking about replacing those batteries every several years, I believe even with the increased technology we are beginning to see in battery tech., they will require maintenance and be subject to temperature fluctuations.

Now, I don't know about the mechanical limitations of air compression, whether or not it too will require some sort of parallel battery system to do things like maintain a constant temperature in the air tanks to prevent condensation and maintain pressure, etc.

The point is, both technologies seem to have their pluses and minuses. Choosing one over the other is almost like saying: "My son can throw a baseball faster than my daughter. Therefore, I will ship my daughter off to work in the Siberian coal mines. No need to house and feed her!"

Who knows. With some work, your daughter could be pitching in the Olympics on the softball team...

Instead of a compressed air cylinder, one could use an air pump which does not consuming any thing.

do a Google search on “Synthetic Tornadoes” to learn more.

I did know that thanks newton. And I also know that if you subject O2 to ultraviolet light you get O3 which is ozone. Maybe a way can be found to replace the Ozone layer.

It would be good if someone could invent a car that runs on water extacted from the vapour in the atmosphere and the oxygen produced contained and used to replace the ozone lol. Far fetched I know.

[edit on 1/6/2007 by cwheathcote]

Originally posted by cwheathcote
I remember when studying chemistry that water vapour has a worse greenhouse effect than CO2. Did you know this?

No I have never heard of that. Can you furnish evidence in the form of links to back up this rather absurd claim?

Originally posted by shots
No I have never heard of that. Can you furnish evidence in the form of links to back up this rather absurd claim?

You must have missed this previous post-
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[Edit to fix quote box]

[edit on 6/1/2007 by yeahright]

Sure, no problem. Why do you say it is obsurd?

physicsweb.org...

Originally posted by cwheathcote
Sure, no problem. Why do you say it is obsurd?

So are you saying that Al Gore is all wet? he claims global warming is due to carbon yet you are saying water has a bigger effect then carbon.

Edit don't answer that it will take this thread way OT and I do not want that to happen, yet it is something to thing about.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by shots]

Im not saying it. I know it mate, from a experiment i did myself in 1999 and from the information I showed you. Also CFC`s were known to be harmful to the ozone in the 60`s maybe even earlier. I think most politicians of full of BS especially the Americans.

I made a little joke about Al Gore. I think of Algorithm when i think of him, especially after seeing him do karaoke.

[edit on 1/6/2007 by cwheathcote]

Originally posted by DYepes
i wil be calling around to see if the FEDS will allow me to import this vehicle if I sign a waiver agreeing to understand the dangers of a vehicle collision in such a lightly constructed vehicle. I have a safe driving record, but as a pre-caution I don't beleive I would be driving my son around in it.

I don't understand why compressed air invokes fear in anyone. We are around compressed fuel tanks every day and that doesnt seem to bother anyone. I even grabbed this from the company website:

One of the most frequently asked questions is about the safety of the compressed air storage tanks. These tanks hold 90 cubic metres of air compressed to 300 bars. Many people ask whether this system is dangerous in case of an accident and if there is a risk of explosion. The answer is NO. Why? Because these are the same tanks used to carry the liquid gas used by buses for public transport. The tanks enjoy the same technology developed to contain natural gas. They are designed and officially approved to carry an explosive product: methane gas.

In the case of a major accident, where the tanks are ruptured, they would not explode since they are not metal. Instead they would crack, as they are made of carbon fibre. An elongated crack would appear in the tank, without exploding, and the air would simply escape, producing a loud but harmless noise. Of course, since this technology is licenced to transport an inflammable and explosive gas (Natural gas), it is perfectly capable inoffensive and non-flammable air.
www.theaircar.com...

air compressed car huh? good idea.

now, how are we going to fill the air tank? i assume by burning a fossile fuel to power a compressor...

It really doesn't matter if it is powered off the super efficient turbine generator or a less efficient engine if the fill up is MUCH cheaper to fill the air tanks. Power plant turbines emits less toxins per KiloWatt then a piston engine that spends time in anything but the powerband, where its the most efficient. For drivers without kids, its all about the cost.

I personally think super/ultra capacitors are the way to go. They are made mostly of carbon, metal and a bit of plastic. They last alot longer then batteries and can be charged/discharged faster then batteries. They need R&D work done to boost their energy density per pound (KWH/lb) to around that of NiMH and then we are set. Capacitors can do work over a long or short time depending on how many watts per second/hour you draw from them and the same goes for compressed air too.

Excuse my scepticism, but I do have my doubts about these 'wonderful' engines.

I would ask some kind mathematician to compare the following…..

Two vehicles, identical other than the fact that one is powered by a gasoline internal combustion engine and the other a compressed air engine, will require the same amount of work (ie:- mass x distance).

What is the mass of compressed air, compared to the mass of gasoline, required to do the same amount of work?

If we are talking about a piston type engine, then the force required to produce equal work would require the same force produced in the cylinder the same number of times per second.

Since the fuel of a gasoline engine is not only the gasoline, but also the air required to burn the gasoline (which is not carried by the vehicle, but drawn from the atmosphere - ie:- not carried by the vehicle), I would suspect that the mass of the compressed air on board (at, say, a nominal stored pressure of 4000 psi) would be absolutely prohibitive. However, the amount of air required to burn the gasoline to produce the force (ratio of about 14:1) may not be applicable to a compressed air engine.

Over to the mathematicians…..

The Winged Wombat

I won't get into the math of it, some one else can do that. The air car is light on its own and would probably have the same acceleration/speed with a 30HP motor in it next to a normal 100-125hp car. If you halve the weight of the car you need 4 times less power to get it moving at the same rate, not just twice less as most would think.

Also, as the air runs out, the car gets lighter. Cool tanks will fill with less energy needed, hot tanks will discharge faster (provide more energy).

My biggest problem with this concept is the noise factor. What good is a car like that when you can't hear yourself thinking, let alone being able to drive like that? What can be done to quiet the thing down? It sounds like some sort of really loud lawnmower.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
My biggest problem with this concept is the noise factor. What good is a car like that when you can't hear yourself thinking, let alone being able to drive like that? What can be done to quiet the thing down? It sounds like some sort of really loud lawnmower.



TheBorg

You are sooo right, The Borg! I'm sure glad the cars we drive today are just like the Model T's that great, great grandpappy used to putter around town in, with all those people in horse-drawn wagons and carriages laughing at him.

Good point.