Cars That Run On Air
05-15-12, 11:32 PM
#1
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars That Run On Air
I know that this car looks like crap, but if you're going to be driving in the city, and the car costs $7k euro's, and 50 euro cents for 100km, and the car is able to go 80 km/hour, and with a full tank of air, you should be able to travel between 150-200km.
Why can't technology like this be focused on more? You think we'll see more Air powered cars in the future, say 20 years from now?
Why can't technology like this be focused on more? You think we'll see more Air powered cars in the future, say 20 years from now?
05-16-12, 05:00 AM
#3
I know that this car looks like crap, but if you're going to be driving in the city, and the car costs $7k euro's, and 50 euro cents for 100km, and the car is able to go 80 km/hour, and with a full tank of air, you should be able to travel between 150-200km.
Why can't technology like this be focused on more? You think we'll see more Air powered cars in the future, say 20 years from now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBl1...eature=related
Why can't technology like this be focused on more? You think we'll see more Air powered cars in the future, say 20 years from now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBl1...eature=related
The overall efficiency of a vehicle using compressed air energy storage, using the above refueling figures, is around 5-7%[citation needed]. For comparison, well to wheel efficiency of a conventional internal-combustion drivetrain is about 14%,[9]
Early tests have demonstrated the limited storage capacity of the tanks; the only published test of a vehicle running on compressed air alone was limited to a range of 7.22 km.[10]
A 2005 study demonstrated that cars running on lithium-ion batteries out-perform both compressed air and fuel cell vehicles more than threefold at the same speeds.[11] MDI claimed in 2007 that an air car will be able to travel 140 km in urban driving, and have a range of 80 km with a top speed of 110 km/h (68 mph) on highways,[12] when operating on compressed air alone, but in as late as mid 2011, MDI has still not produced any proof to that effect.
A 2009 University of Berkeley Research Letter found that "Even under highly optimistic assumptions the compressed-air car is significantly less efficient than a battery electric vehicle and produces more greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional gas-powered car with a coal intensive power mix." However, they also suggested, "a pneumatic–combustion hybrid is technologically feasible, inexpensive and could eventually compete with hybrid electric vehicles."[13]
Early tests have demonstrated the limited storage capacity of the tanks; the only published test of a vehicle running on compressed air alone was limited to a range of 7.22 km.[10]
A 2005 study demonstrated that cars running on lithium-ion batteries out-perform both compressed air and fuel cell vehicles more than threefold at the same speeds.[11] MDI claimed in 2007 that an air car will be able to travel 140 km in urban driving, and have a range of 80 km with a top speed of 110 km/h (68 mph) on highways,[12] when operating on compressed air alone, but in as late as mid 2011, MDI has still not produced any proof to that effect.
A 2009 University of Berkeley Research Letter found that "Even under highly optimistic assumptions the compressed-air car is significantly less efficient than a battery electric vehicle and produces more greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional gas-powered car with a coal intensive power mix." However, they also suggested, "a pneumatic–combustion hybrid is technologically feasible, inexpensive and could eventually compete with hybrid electric vehicles."[13]
You need a lot of energy to pump in air at high pressures into their tanks. Or did you think it would somehow make energy out of thin air?
. You need to spend energy to get energy.
05-16-12, 06:44 AM
#4
Lexus Champion
It seems like a decent idea. I can see it trickling down into future developments.
BTW the 1st thing that came to my mind when I read the title is a quote from That 70's Show, "So there's this car that runs on water man..." LMAO anyone?
BTW the 1st thing that came to my mind when I read the title is a quote from That 70's Show, "So there's this car that runs on water man..." LMAO anyone?
05-17-12, 11:23 AM
#6
you do realize that it takes energy to compress air right? Air itself has zero energy, how does it power something then? It only carries energy because you applied energy to it in the first place (compression). Its the same BS with hydrogen cars, hydrogen itself has very little energy. In a fuel cell car ts an energy carrier, not an energy source.
You can do the same thing with water too, does that mean water has energy? You cant get something from nothing. Law of the universe.
You can do the same thing with water too, does that mean water has energy? You cant get something from nothing. Law of the universe.
05-17-12, 04:50 PM
#7
Out of Warranty
^^ Like he says.
Piston-type air motors are not particularly efficient at translating air pressure to motive power. A steam engine can get away with some inefficiencies because using a steam-generator, low and high-pressure cylinders, and a condenser, they can produce vast quantities of steam and recycle it again and again to produce motive power. Air-driven piston engines use the air once and blow it back into the atmosphere, along with lubricants and condensate that are not as environmentally friendly as the developers might have you believe. By the time you add pressure regulators, throttle valves, and a full set of filters, dryers and lubricators to the engine, you start having maintenance issues not apparent in the prototypes because they aren't designed for regular service.
Vane-type compressed air motors are about 3X+ the cost of a comparable hydraulic motor because of even finer tolerances involved in their construction. They require regular maintenance, more so than an internal combustion engine because air motors are extremely vulnerable to dirt and moisture entrained in the tanks, thus must run even more sophisticated filters, dryers, and lubricators to properly clean and prepare the air for use in the motor to avoid overheating and physical damage to the plastic vanes. They are popular in relatively small air tools that need to deliver a lot of power and rotational speed, but are not so good at moving heavy loads at slow speed for long distances, which is pretty much their assignment in a vehicle.
Finally you have two problems with the exhaust. First, it's LOUD, and requires extensive muffling to make it tolerable to be around - unfortunately muffling can cut into performance pretty drastically unless the mufflers are large, high flow devices. Second, that exhaust is going to require some filtration to catch the oil you've injected into the air supply ahead of the motor to keep the parts spinning happily. Without an exhaust oil recovery system the motor, like a 2-cycle gas engine, it will produce a fine blue mist that will settle on everything in the vicinity.
Piston-type air motors are not particularly efficient at translating air pressure to motive power. A steam engine can get away with some inefficiencies because using a steam-generator, low and high-pressure cylinders, and a condenser, they can produce vast quantities of steam and recycle it again and again to produce motive power. Air-driven piston engines use the air once and blow it back into the atmosphere, along with lubricants and condensate that are not as environmentally friendly as the developers might have you believe. By the time you add pressure regulators, throttle valves, and a full set of filters, dryers and lubricators to the engine, you start having maintenance issues not apparent in the prototypes because they aren't designed for regular service.
Vane-type compressed air motors are about 3X+ the cost of a comparable hydraulic motor because of even finer tolerances involved in their construction. They require regular maintenance, more so than an internal combustion engine because air motors are extremely vulnerable to dirt and moisture entrained in the tanks, thus must run even more sophisticated filters, dryers, and lubricators to properly clean and prepare the air for use in the motor to avoid overheating and physical damage to the plastic vanes. They are popular in relatively small air tools that need to deliver a lot of power and rotational speed, but are not so good at moving heavy loads at slow speed for long distances, which is pretty much their assignment in a vehicle.
Finally you have two problems with the exhaust. First, it's LOUD, and requires extensive muffling to make it tolerable to be around - unfortunately muffling can cut into performance pretty drastically unless the mufflers are large, high flow devices. Second, that exhaust is going to require some filtration to catch the oil you've injected into the air supply ahead of the motor to keep the parts spinning happily. Without an exhaust oil recovery system the motor, like a 2-cycle gas engine, it will produce a fine blue mist that will settle on everything in the vicinity.
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
gs400tx
GS - 2nd Gen (1998-2005)
2
09-26-01 04:57 AM
