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

Jordan wrote:
>
>> 30 seconds or less.
>> Gunner
>
> Now, you're talking.
> Any evidence?

Only anecdotal.

I've used them, and it's like, turn on the faucet, hear the instant-heat
boiler coming on (it makes a sizzling sound), and have hot water at the tap
right now.

> Say, I come out to my steam car on a cold morning, get in and fire her
> up. By the time I've attached my seatbelt and tuned the radio, I'm ready
> to drive off normally, right?

Yeah, and that's why I can't understand why nobody's pursuing it. In fact,
with an instant boiler, by the time you've done all the rigamarole, the
boiler would have turned off or lowered its demand for fuel, because there
is already sufficient steam pressure.

Why do you need to "tune" the radio? Did somebody else use the car and
change the station? I usually leave mine on my favorite station, and it
comes up on its own. ;-)

> I hope it's true because I like the idea of steam power, especially if
> it's minus the high pressure vessel.

Well, there's high pressure on the steam side of the instant boiler, and
the line to whatever motor you use (I have an idea to use a retired
supercharger (blower) in reverse for this very thing; unfortunately,
I don't have $10,000.00 to finance the prototype.) and if the motor is
designed properly, it will extract enough heat energy to get plain
water as its output.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:29:50 -0500, "Existential Angst" >
wrote:

>For example, the energy retrieved from wind energy is only about 50%,
>because of the "dead" air at the blades, etc.

"Impedance" matching limits conversion efficiency too IIRC.
In some cases 50% is the maximum possible conversion efficiency.
--
Cliff

On 2010-12-27, Jordan > wrote:
> Now, you're talking.

The Doble steam car of the 1920s would fire up from cold within 30 seconds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_s...al_performance

--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."

"Cliff" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 10:29:50 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> >
> wrote:
>
>>For example, the energy retrieved from wind energy is only about 50%,
>>because of the "dead" air at the blades, etc.
>
> "Impedance" matching limits conversion efficiency too IIRC.
> In some cases 50% is the maximum possible conversion efficiency.

You know, it would be extraordinarily simple for these assholes to do the
following:

Put a kWhr meter on the compressor used to charge up an air tank to 4,000
psi, or whatever.

Run the air car, with the crankshaft connected to a generator/load, tune the
motor/load for maximum power -- or perhaps more accurately, maximum kWhrs
per 1 psi drop in tank pressure -- and measure total kWhrs, 'til the tank
empties.
This tuning will proly vary with pressure, so it's not a
super-straightforward trial, but not rocket science, either.

After a few trial runs, in less than a day, I'll bet one could pretty
accurately extrapolate to the true deliverable energy of a high pressure air
tank, visavis the input energy.

WaaLaa, done, near-instant efficiency measurement, and thusly a true
viability check, at least from a pure energy pov.
The technical practical details would remain, of course.

It is the New Zeitgeist of Informational Chaos that these figures are not
immediately and unambigerously available.

I hope that this air car is not some neurotic (or dishonest) pigment of the
inventor's insistent imagination -- ie, butt another hustle.

It's hard to believe, tho, that the project could have gone this far
*without* the above efficiency check giving the, uh, Green Light -- heh, a
little ecology pun there.....

--
EA


> --
> Cliff

Existential Angst wrote:

>> 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.

Um no.

Compressing and expanding air (or any gas) produces
and absorbs heat respectively. That is a massive
loss of energy.

Jim Stewart wrote:

>>> 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 essentially just a spring.

>>> Compressed air is is not subject to Carnot's Law (thermodynamic
>>> efficiency), like gas engines are -- or so I think.

> Um no.

> Compressing and expanding air (or any gas) produces and absorbs heat
> respectively. That is a massive loss of energy.

Do not forget that air compressing machinery has friction losses as
does the expansion mechanism.
--
Jobst Brandt

On 12/28/2010 12:40 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
> It's hard to believe, tho, that the project could have gone this far
> *without* the above efficiency check giving the, uh, Green Light --

Efficiency is one thing, but more importantly, just how effective is the
technology? It just doesn't seem plausible for a practical car.
Possibly, you could drive around the block at best?
Just my feeling, without any fair analysis.

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> Existential Angst wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Um no.
>

Um, pt 1 is correck, it's not Carnot....

> Compressing and expanding air (or any gas) produces
> and absorbs heat respectively. That is a massive
> loss of energy.

Pt 2: Just how big ARE these heat losses?

pV = nRT.... mebbe p1v1/T1 = p2v2/T2, solve for T2, then E = mcdelta T as
the energy lost??
Heh, but what's V1?????

Could just measure T2..... how hot is hot??

But since m and c for any gas are pretty small, the total energy is pretty
small. I mean, we're talking a delta T of, what, mebbe 100 deg? 200 deg?
Still a very small E.

I personally think the blade losses, as in a windmill, would swamp the heat
losses due to compression.
--
EA

Existential Angst wrote:
> "Jim > wrote in message
> ...
>> Existential Angst wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Um no.
>>
>
> Um, pt 1 is correck, it's not Carnot....

Sorry if I implied that it was.

>> Compressing and expanding air (or any gas) produces
>> and absorbs heat respectively. That is a massive
>> loss of energy.
>
> Pt 2: Just how big ARE these heat losses?
>
> pV = nRT.... mebbe p1v1/T1 = p2v2/T2, solve for T2, then E = mcdelta T as
> the energy lost??
> Heh, but what's V1?????
>
> Could just measure T2..... how hot is hot??
>
> But since m and c for any gas are pretty small, the total energy is pretty
> small. I mean, we're talking a delta T of, what, mebbe 100 deg? 200 deg?
> Still a very small E.
>
> I personally think the blade losses, as in a windmill, would swamp the heat
> losses due to compression.

I looked at running some numbers but quickly got
in over my head so I fell back to MIL-STD-1522A,
page 10, which gives a chart of potential energy
verses pressure.

The classic example is 2 tanks, equal volumes
connected with a valve. Pressurize one to n psia,
the other to zero psia, calculate total energy,
open valve, recalculate total energy. As I
understood your original statement, the total
potential energy should stay the same.

From the chart in MIL-STD-1522A you can work out
that if n=100, you lose 30% of your energy and
with n=1000 you lose 10%. Not as huge as I
expected, but not negligible either.

http://zeropollutionmotors.us

Or on the web,
The Air Car
cuhulin