Air-powered cars..... attn PV if he's still around.

>> Were you interested in Ait Powered vehicles as a concept some while ago?
>>
>> "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/air-powered-car-airpod_n_799939.html?ref=twitter&comm_ref=ibm"
>
>
> Yeah, this is a really neat concept.
>
> Most of us were under the impression that compressed air was just too
> expensive, but apparently it can store electrical energy with theoretical
> 100% efficiency, just as with a motor-compressed spring (some
> ratchet/pawl system).
> iow, compressed air is ess'ly just a spring.
>
> Compressed air is is not subject to Carnot's Law (thermodynamic
> efficiency), like gas engines are -- or so I think.

> ALTHO when expended into pistons or turbines, there are proly significant
> efficiency losses, altho perhaps on the order of 10-20% losses, as opposed
> to the 70-80% losses of cyclically combusting a fuel.
>
> So this a NEAT energy solution, not dependent on any specific commodity,
> like oil or lithium.... which means this strategy is then a big threat to
> special effing interests.
>
> However, like recharging an electric car, a primary hydroelectric source
> is what makes this environmentally sound.
>
> What you would do, at an air station, from what I read, is not compress
> your air tank, but just swap tanks.
> And to extend your range, you just carry along an extra tank or two or
> three -- heh, mebbe on the roof rack....
>
> In principle, a gigantic clock spring could do the same thing. Or ANY
> spring that can drive rotational motion.
>
> Europeans don't talk about mpg's, but mpkw, or some such thing. I think
> the video mentioned a figure of 7-8 mpkw for electrics, while this air
> car gets 14 mpkw.
>
> I'd like to watch the video again, but these fukn commercials they stick
> us with now, just drive me effing crazy.
>
> --
> EA
>

"Existential Angst" > fired this volley in
:

>> In principle, a gigantic clock spring could do the same thing. Or ANY
>> spring that can drive rotational motion.

Can't remember which author OR book, now, but there was a SciFi that
depicted a world where all transportable energy sources were by giant
springs -- except with some futuristic molecular science in them that
allowed a single spring that could reasonably fit in a small vehicle
power same for hundreds of miles.

I can't remember the story exactly, but it was about a rebellion on a
colony planet. The colonizing society was high-tech, but the colony was
forced to be low-tech; thus the spring-wound transportation.

LLoyd

Long ago, I think it was in England, they had something I think it was
called a Penny Farthing, something like that, I think.It was a wind up
spring motor for bicycles. Long before that, a guy in Italy invented
some sort of a wind up spring 'car', or at least he sketched it on
paper.
cuhulin

http://www.damninteresting.com/why-not-a-wind-up-car

There used to be an accessory 'wind up key' for VWs.
cuhulin

On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:35:20 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>"Existential Angst" > fired this volley in
:
>
>>> In principle, a gigantic clock spring could do the same thing. Or ANY
>>> spring that can drive rotational motion.
>
>Can't remember which author OR book, now, but there was a SciFi that
>depicted a world where all transportable energy sources were by giant
>springs -- except with some futuristic molecular science in them that
>allowed a single spring that could reasonably fit in a small vehicle
>power same for hundreds of miles.
>
>I can't remember the story exactly, but it was about a rebellion on a
>colony planet. The colonizing society was high-tech, but the colony was
>forced to be low-tech; thus the spring-wound transportation.
>
>LLoyd

Perhaps David Brin's "The Practice Effect"?
--
Cliff

"Existential Angst" > wrote in message news:4d155274

>>
>> Europeans don't talk about mpg's, but mpkw, or some such thing. I think

FYI, we didnt use mpkw. It was normally litres per 10 kilometers driven.
Other countries might use other units.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:09:09 -0600, hls wrote:

> "Existential Angst" > wrote in message news:4d155274
>
>>>
>>> Europeans don't talk about mpg's, but mpkw, or some such thing. I think
>
> FYI, we didnt use mpkw. It was normally litres per 10 kilometers driven.
> Other countries might use other units.

Litres per 100 Km.

I will remind all that businesses usually try to avoid
the use of compressed air for things like tools when
possible.
It's a very expensive & wasteful mode of
power distribution.

http://www.utahefficiencyguide.com/m...ressed_air.htm
"Over 15% of total motor energy in the industrial sector goes to producing
compressed air, yet compressed air systems are inherently inefficient, producing
only one unit of useful work for every 5 units of energy input."

"For a compressed air system in constant operation in a facility whose
electric energy cost is 5 cents/kWh, a 1/16” diameter leak costs about $500 per
year, a 1/8” diameter leak about $2,000 per year, and a 1/4” diameter leak about
$8,000 per year."
--
Cliff

"Cliff" > wrote in message
...
> I will remind all that businesses usually try to avoid
> the use of compressed air for things like tools when
> possible.
> It's a very expensive & wasteful mode of
> power distribution.
>
> http://www.utahefficiencyguide.com/m...ressed_air.htm
> "Over 15% of total motor energy in the industrial sector goes to
> producing
> compressed air, yet compressed air systems are inherently inefficient,
> producing
> only one unit of useful work for every 5 units of energy input."

Well, if this is true, then the air car is doomed.

There are also compression losses itself, from the heat produced (pv = nRT),
but I was under the impression those would be relatively minor, altho I
haven't done the calcs. Theoretically, in an insulated tank, this really
wouldn't be a loss, but insulation is indeed a pita.

It could be that the rotor losses are indeed substantial.
For example, the energy retrieved from wind energy is only about 50%,
because of the "dead" air at the blades, etc.
I sort of assumed that in an engine, they would have greatly reduced these
losses, but mebbe not.

In the original features of the french guy designing this air car, they
claimed that it cost like $2 for an air charge that was good for a whole
bunch of miles, amounting to a *fraction* of the gasoline cost.

And yeah, it seems reasonable that an air tool WOULD be substantially less
efficient than an electric tool, as there are losses in BOTH directions:
compressing the air, AND delivering the air through the tool rotor, whereas
the electricity used to compress that air can just drive the tool directly,
at near-100% efficiency.

Heh, mebbe batteries ARE the way to go.... but the problem there is the
PRICE.... holy ****.....
No free lunch, eh??

Air Car = Cold Fusion??? No real excuse for all these ambiguities....

Mebbe a big-assed spring is an answer......
But be careful with that, you'll poke yer eye out.... (Xmas Story.....)
--
EA


>
> "For a compressed air system in constant operation in a facility whose
> electric energy cost is 5 cents/kWh, a 1/16" diameter leak costs about
> $500 per
> year, a 1/8" diameter leak about $2,000 per year, and a 1/4" diameter leak
> about
> $8,000 per year."
> --
> Cliff

(Snap)
Existential Angst wrote:

Let's see you could get a boiler and some water and coal and use the
steam to run it, I think we just invented that Stanly Steamer II