Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson


Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

Allen wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson


Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Bean burritos?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
Allen wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson


Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Bean burritos?

--
Jim Pennino


There you go, think outside the box! I was thinking about some substance
that could be used that a small amount of matter when reacted would produce
a large amount of "controllable" gas. Forget about plugging it in each
night, just drop in a cartridge or something. (Hey I'm just an idea man -
you work out the details)

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

On 2007-11-14 09:20:45 -0800, "Allen" said:



"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson


Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Sure, if you don't mind the carbon dioxide in the bubbles and have a
good idea of what to do with the used up chemicals.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave said:

The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air.

Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some large
animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If the
animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable source of
energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,' for
'horsepower.'




--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007111410422875249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-11-14 09:20:45 -0800, "Allen" said:



"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...
The recent discussion of the merits of various electric cars. I'd
summarize the current state of the art as one of interesting
technologial developments, but an unsolved basic problem: How to store
an adequate amount of the source of motive power in a manageable
package. Batteries aren't there yet - and may never be. NEVs are a
joke, and the 3-wheel "motorcycle" types are marginal at best.

Now it appears that someone has come up with the idea of running a
vehicle on compressed air. Check this out:
http://www.theaircar.com/ There is nothing novel about the
technology - air motors have been around for years. They are often
used where sources of ignition are a hazard. The only thing new is the
idea of combining an air motor and a source of supply in a compact
vehicle. The advantages would appear to be adequate power and range
for urban/suburban use - and zero pollution (not counting the
pollution generated in the process of compressing the air in the first
place). Such vehicles could be "recharged" by compressors overnight -
when surplus electric power is available. Downsides? High pressure
compressors are expensive, and require lots of power to operate. Not
to mention the fact that any high pressure tank is a potential bomb.
OTOH such tanks are in common use, such as SCUBA tanks and paintball
tanks - found everywhere.

Comments?

David Johnson


Maybe supply the pressure from a chemical reaction (alka-seltzer and
water;
vinegar and soda, mentos and coke, etc.) You won't need the high
pressure
if you can renew the pressure while you are driving.

Sure, if you don't mind the carbon dioxide in the bubbles and have a good
idea of what to do with the used up chemicals.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor


I don't think all chemical reactions produce carbon dioxide (some actually
produce oxygen) and some would leave no residue. Just throwing out ideas,
don't be so negative

--

*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.

C J Campbell wrote:


Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
for 'horsepower.'

Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
footprint of livestock.

On 2007-11-14 11:16:45 -0800, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net said:

C J Campbell wrote:


Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
for 'horsepower.'

Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
footprint of livestock.

Which, I guess, is the point. No matter what you do, those guys will
complain. So why bother to do anything at all to address their
complaints?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Nov 14, 1:29 pm, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-11-14 11:16:45 -0800, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net said:

C J Campbell wrote:

Eh. Why not wind-up springs or rubber bands? Or, better yet, some
large animal could be trained to pull a vehicle the size of a car. If
the animal was a plant-eater, it would be a continually renewable
source of energy. We could give the animal a name, such as 'horse,'
for 'horsepower.'

Nope, there are plenty of folks out there bitching about the carbon
footprint of livestock.

Which, I guess, is the point. No matter what you do, those guys will
complain. So why bother to do anything at all to address their
complaints?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

The best way is to shoot each and every person who compains about your
carbon footprint, and bury them 6 feet under. That way, you are
reducing their carbon footprint by 100%, and you can claim that you
are indeed actually doing something to help the environment... :-)

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:45:59 -0800, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:

From the research below, it does indeed seem that the lithium-oxygen
battery offers the highest energy density that the laws of physics
permit.

Big snip of fascinating stuff

Thanks for posting that, Larry.

I'm happy you found it interesting.


The problem of temperature range must be considered again because
the performance of Lithium-air varies by a factor of 5 over the
-20 0C to +40 0C range. It is important to note that the battery
must be tuned to the application because Lithium-air batteries are
not going to start Minnesota autos in January.

That's the kiss of death, I'm afraid.

That's what I thought at first too. But I would expect the battery to
warm when it is in use, so the it may not be the low end of the useful
temperature range that is limiting.

Perhaps a mix of lithium-air
with lithium-ion batteries would work, but the climate in the US is
too widely variable to rely on a power supply that is so temperature-
sensitive.

It seems that lithium-oxygen technology is still firmly in the
development stage. We'll have to see how it matures before reaching
any firm conclusions about its feasibility for aviation uses. At
least it seem promising.