If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
BobG wrote: > This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and > compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors > I've seen are big noisy 220V several HP contraptions and they huff and > puff and finally shut off at a whopping 150 psi.) > http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm Well no, scuba tanks go to around 2500 psi, and there is no practical reason a compressor can't be designed to be 100% wind powered without any electricity at all. Don't knock compressed air, a metal tube is easier and cheaper to manufacture than any battery (and does not need nasty acid and lead), and combustion engine generators can be adapted to run off compressed air. There is nothing stopping a reasonably bright engineer making the whole setup, wind-compressor, tank and air powered generator, without depending on a battery factory overcharging him on a short-lived, complex energy storage device. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
Joe Fischer wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 06:32:41 -0700, "BobG" > wrote: > > >This site has a table of energy density by weight and volume and > >compressed air is worse than batteries. (Hint... most air compressors > >I've seen are big noisy 220V several HP contraptions and they huff and > >puff and finally shut off at a whopping 150 psi.) > >http://xtronics.com/reference/energy_density.htm > > Energy density by weight is not an issue except > for big hills, one of the reasons for using air is to have > regenerative braking, and with regenerative braking, > weight is not anywhere near as critical, if at all. > > And storage is apparently not at 150 psi, > it is hundreds of bars, which is 3000 psi or more. > While storage tanks are high tech for this > pressure range, it makes a big difference in > whether or not the vehicle has any utility. > > If regenerative braking were perfect (100 > percent efficient), the energy needed to make > a trip would only be the bearing friction (which > should be negligible for good bearings), rolling > friction (which can be reduced by less flex in > the tires), and air resistance (which should also > be negligible at low speeds and no wind). > > It is these facts that make EVs or any > other technology that supports good regenerative > braking viable at all. > > The auto industry has not placed good > physics above inept road testing programs, and > they need to start from scratch, with good physics, > and build cars that take almost no energy at all > to make a trip on level ground! > Only then will the myth of weight being > a critical issue be discarded and the understanding > that it has been hills and overpowered ICE engines > that have been wasting all the energy (plus having > an engine running and wasting energy waiting at > traffic lights). > > Joe Fischer Another big waster is inefficient driving. I drive my car like a bicycle, there is absolutely no need to use an engine downhill, so in goes the clutch on every slope. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
Joe Fischer wrote: > On 4 Oct 2006 "John S." > wrote: > > >But the one indicating they are both cooling the air to minus 100 > >degrees and compressing it to 4,500 psi indicates a lot of energy is > >being transferred to come up with a supply of air that is packed > >tightly enough to provide sufficient expansive power to propel a car. > > Cooling the air may be part of another process, > maybe the heat extracted is used for something. > > But compressing the air is NOT a waste of energy, > it IS the energy that will move the vehicle. :-) Energy isn't wasted, it is just converted to another form. Unfortunately not all of it makes it to the intended recipient, which in this cas is an air powered car. If you look at the chain of events required to convert the energy from burning coal into ultra-cooled highly compressed air there are many places where energy is diverted. The proponents of this idea ignore that reality. > > The argument of compressing combustible fuels > being a waste of energy is valid, but compressing in and > of itself is not what causes the waste, it is not using the > compression for anything after that which is wasteful. > > >That transferred energy comes at a financial and environmental cost > >which appears to be ignored. If they are able to store compressed air > >at those pressures and temperatures do you know how large and heavy > >would the storage tank(s) have to be to give the car a range of 200 > >miles. > > There are no ICE vehicles to compare this against, > because air may be one of about four possible viable > regenerative braking systems. How would a regen system be implemented here. To power a generator to charge an auxiliary battery or to power a compressor? > > I doubt if 200 mile range is offered or needed, > I drove a cab in 1950, 12 hours or more per day, and > rarely went 200 miles. > Air tanks could be exchanged, although they > may be heavy, but possibly not even as heavy as > a liquid propane tank if the air is not liquified. Because of size, tank exchange would not be practical for most applications. A recharge would make the most sense I think. > > The idea may be oversold, or suspicious, > after all it came from France :-), but for certain > uses it may be an extremely useful technology. Certainly possible and we should keep trying new ideas. But my biggest complaint is that the proponents of that air car, like the proponents of battery power and fuel cells choose to ignore the significant costs that impact those ideas. > > The motors look identical to hydraulic > motors being used on aircraft in 1946 when I > was an A & E mechanic instructor, so I have > an open mind as to how much range a tank > of air will hold. > > Without the possibility of regenerative > braking, the idea would be rather dumb. > Contests should be held where the > least amount of energy would be used over > a closed course with traffic lights, stop lights, > and some straight-aways, because regenerative > braking is the key to range in city driving. Contests like that are alwaus a good idea. I know a gal that has crewed on more than one car in the solar power race in Australia. The cars keep getting better. > > Joe Fischer |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
Hoggle wrote: > John S. wrote: > > I got lost trying to read through all of your links, so I'll give it a > > try later with a cup of coffee. > > I apologise for using referenced evidence in my arguments. I realise I > am virtually unique in this regard on usenet. > > http://www.theaircar.com/ > This website will answer many of your questions (although it is badly > out of date and many of the links have not been changed to stay on the > English site, so being able to read spanish will help). No apology needed. And I would like to read as much useful information on this topic as available. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
On 4 Oct 2006 14:09:39 -0700, "Hoggle" >
wrote: >John S. wrote: >> I got lost trying to read through all of your links, so I'll give it a >> try later with a cup of coffee. > >I apologise for using referenced evidence in my arguments. I realise I >am virtually unique in this regard on usenet. I don't think John S. was having a go at anyone but himself about getting lost. He was not having a go at you. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
OldNick wrote:
> I don't think John S. was having a go at anyone but himself about > getting lost. He was not having a go at you. Fair point - my reply was merely facetious, not offended |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 06:22:43 +0800, OldNick >
wrote: >And we are not all reasonably bright engineers, who are also capable >of actually making the gear. Only a dim engineer would consider it as it's so horribly inefficient. But one needn't make anything at all. Instead all you need is enough land for several Bowjons and tanks. They can even be had surplus and relatively cheap. The fact that it's actually easy, and that pretty much nobody does it, ought to tell you everything you need to know. About the only remotely practical application would be to run a scrounger's shop tools. I have a neighbor who says he's going to do it some day. It'll only be about the hundredth major mistake he's made since I've known him. :-) Wayne |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Compressed Air powered, zero emission cars - for $6.5K each
On 4 Oct 2006 14:58:14 -0700, "John S." > wrote:
>Joe Fischer wrote: >> On 4 Oct 2006 "John S." > wrote: >> >But the one indicating they are both cooling the air to minus 100 >> >degrees and compressing it to 4,500 psi indicates a lot of energy is >> >being transferred to come up with a supply of air that is packed >> >tightly enough to provide sufficient expansive power to propel a car. >> >> Cooling the air may be part of another process, >> maybe the heat extracted is used for something. >> >> But compressing the air is NOT a waste of energy, >> it IS the energy that will move the vehicle. :-) > >Energy isn't wasted, it is just converted to another form. I was thinking some may have been relating to the compressing of hydrogen or natural gas for motor fuel, where the compressing is wasted. >Unfortunately not all of it makes it to the intended recipient, which >in this cas is an air powered car. I suspect it is more efficient than burning fossil fuel in an ICE. > If you look at the chain of events >required to convert the energy from burning coal into ultra-cooled >highly compressed air there are many places where energy is diverted. >The proponents of this idea ignore that reality. They don't have coal (to speak of) in France, and they don't have oil or natural gas, so if off peak nuke plants compress the air, the cost of the grid power is the only number to consider in efficiency. >> The argument of compressing combustible fuels >> being a waste of energy is valid, but compressing in and >> of itself is not what causes the waste, it is not using the >> compression for anything after that which is wasteful. >> >> >That transferred energy comes at a financial and environmental cost >> >which appears to be ignored. If they are able to store compressed air >> >at those pressures and temperatures do you know how large and heavy >> >would the storage tank(s) have to be to give the car a range of 200 >> >miles. >> >> There are no ICE vehicles to compare this against, >> because air may be one of about four possible viable >> regenerative braking systems. > >How would a regen system be implemented here. To power a generator to >charge an auxiliary battery or to power a compressor? No, an air motor is also a compressor (it may need valves switched, I haven't thought about it. The success or failure of the car companies will tell if it is economical or not. >> I doubt if 200 mile range is offered or needed, >> I drove a cab in 1950, 12 hours or more per day, and >> rarely went 200 miles. >> Air tanks could be exchanged, although they >> may be heavy, but possibly not even as heavy as >> a liquid propane tank if the air is not liquified. > >Because of size, tank exchange would not be practical for most >applications. A recharge would make the most sense I think. After I wrote that I found info on refill stations, and I surmise that transferring air under pressure may' not have the heat changes seen in the original compression. >> The idea may be oversold, or suspicious, >> after all it came from France :-), but for certain >> uses it may be an extremely useful technology. > >Certainly possible and we should keep trying new ideas. But my biggest >complaint is that the proponents of that air car, like the proponents >of battery power and fuel cells choose to ignore the significant costs >that impact those ideas. I didn't see anything about government funding on this, and a lot of people may not realize that some government funding requires the inventor/developer to forfeit some patent rights. >> The motors look identical to hydraulic >> motors being used on aircraft in 1946 when I >> was an A & E mechanic instructor, so I have >> an open mind as to how much range a tank >> of air will hold. >> >> Without the possibility of regenerative >> braking, the idea would be rather dumb. >> Contests should be held where the >> least amount of energy would be used over >> a closed course with traffic lights, stop lights, >> and some straight-aways, because regenerative >> braking is the key to range in city driving. > >Contests like that are alwaus a good idea. I know a gal that has >crewed on more than one car in the solar power race in Australia. The >cars keep getting better. I saw the solar cars go through here on the way from Florida to Detroit a few years ago. I really think the effort behind that particular air car is the serious problem of fuel of all kinds in Europe. And if it helps alleviate that problem, great. The only thing I would suggest is not to increase the diameter of the tanks, at 20 inches and 4500 psi, the belt stresses are approaching the burst pressure, even with carbon fiber wrap. Joe Fischer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RWD stick shift "family" car... and fairly recent? | ray | Technology | 106 | September 5th 06 03:21 PM |
Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage... | Cory Dunkle | Driving | 118 | February 4th 05 03:00 PM |
HEMI's HOT | Luke Smith | Driving | 208 | December 19th 04 05:27 PM |
Vintage Cars Get Hot with Makeovers | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 2 | December 5th 04 04:13 AM |
European Cars Least Reliable | Richard Schulman | VW water cooled | 3 | November 11th 04 09:41 AM |