Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 10:45 am, C J Campbell
wrote:
On 2007-11-13 19:07:50 -0800, Dave said:



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

Compressed air engines are really just variants on steam engines.
Anybody remember the Freon based solar powered steam car? The idea was
that Freon would be stored in a tank in the car and cycled up to the
roof where it would be heated into steam for powering the car. The
steam would go to the engine and from there the now cooled liquid Freon
would go back to the tank.

There were some guys who took this a step further. They would heat the
Freon with a small burner when the sun was not enough. One guy built an
MG to run this way. He also was working on a 1966 Cadillac which
weighed 5000 lbs. He was going to use an 80 hp diesel to compress Freon
and run the car. He chose Freon over compressed air because it is a
lubricant, which would save wear and tear on moving parts, and the
contracting/expanding cycle of Freon kept you from losing so much heat
energy.

William Lear had a bus and a Monte Carlo powered by a closed circuit
steam turbine engine back in the '70s. However, he never put it into
production because (he claimed) adding expected features like air
conditioning and power windows was extremely complex and more than he
wanted to deal with at the time. The real reason it was never put into
production, of course, was that it used a turbine. The fluid was
something called "Learium," which was really just Freon. It ended in
bankruptcy, but it is claimed that someone bought the hardware and
built a water steam race car with it, proving that although the concept
worked well enough to set some land speed records for steam cars,
Learium was a total fraud and turbine engines were too inefficient for
use in automobiles. Sure, the turbine works great for land speed
records, but the engine only has to run for 10 minutes, so it is easy
to carry enough water to get that much time out of it. Most people want
a car that runs longer than that.

There is supposed to be an article on a Lear designed steam piston
engine in Car & Driver in 1969. It was said to have six cylinders,
twelve pistons, and generate 500 hp at 1000 psi. Trouble is, it was
Lear who made these claims and he never allowed anyone to take a close
look at the engine.

Back in the 1940s people were experimenting with hydrogen peroxide over
a catalyst bed, sometimes injecting kerosene and water to generate even
more steam. Might be a tad dangerous for use in the family car, though,
and I would bet that the pollutants would be a serious problem.

Despite all these problems, though, I would think it would be much
easier to get a steam engine to work with actual steam than with
compressed air.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

David Johnson

I don't know the specifics, but Bill Lear tried a steam car back in the
sixties. He was going to sell it to the highway patrol. He built a track and
some cars that were 4 wheel drive. I think he had problems with cylinders
blowing.

Al G

Dave wrote:


I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

It won't.

Have you ever used air tools?

Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
tool?

Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?

That's wasted energy.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote

Have you ever used air tools?

Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
tool?

And how quickly a tank full of air can be used up, without the compressor
motor running. Very quickly.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-11-16 16:55:03 -0800, said:

Dave wrote:


I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

It won't.

Have you ever used air tools?

Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
tool?

Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?

That's wasted energy.

What we need is a car powered by hot air from Usenet. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:50:07 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2007-11-16 16:55:03 -0800, said:

Dave wrote:


I read somewhere about steam locomotives that operated from a pressure
tank that was filled up at a "charging station", then run until a
refill was needed. Used in mines and other circumstances where
cumbustion was not acceptable. A proven technology that works - but I
wonder about the range. Problem is, steam is a preishable commodity.
Use it without delay or lose it. Compressed air doesn't have that
problem. Air motors are a proven technology as well - but as others
have said, efficiency may leave much to be desirerd. I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

It won't.

Have you ever used air tools?

Notice the huge motor and tank to supply the air for a little, bitty
tool?

Ever noticed how hot the tank and motor get compressing the air?

That's wasted energy.

What we need is a car powered by hot air from Usenet. :-)

Good Lord CJ, Do you realize what you are proposing? At first glance
it sounds like a plentiful supply of high powered energy, but I see a
number of problems.

First the sheer power itself. You'd probably never be able to keep
the car under the speed limit or even under control. Then think of
all the pollution coming out the exhaust. You'd never be able to run
it in California and as soon as it hit the roads other states would
bring on legislation as well. I'd probably even bring tickets for
littering. Then there is the fuel. At the minimum you'd need a
license for hauling toxic waste in every state you'd drive in,
probably one from the feds as well, and then environmental impact
statements to each state's Department of Natural Resources, and who
knows how many federal agencies. Then you'd be expected to pay into
the fund for toxic waste clean up and provide bonded companies to
dispose of the waste. True the fuel available would be free and
probably power most of the cars on the road, but the permits
would make the price of gas and it's emissions look great.

Roger (K8RI)

"Dave" wrote

I for one will be
interested to see if the claims made about this compressed air car
will pan out.

Have no fear; they will not.

The physics do not allow the claims to be met.
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 13, 10:07 pm, Dave wrote:
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

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

Wil

"William Hung" wrote

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

More vaporware.

I particularly got a big kick out of the part where the hybrid gasoline air
power car could drive coast to coast of the US on one tank full of petrol.

How dumb do they think we are?

I would be ashamed to be lumped into the masses of people that think it
would be possible, even for a second.

Either that, or it is a VERY big tank full of petrol.
--
Jim in NC

On Nov 19, 7:25 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"William Hung" wrote

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

More vaporware.

I particularly got a big kick out of the part where the hybrid gasoline air
power car could drive coast to coast of the US on one tank full of petrol.

How dumb do they think we are?

I would be ashamed to be lumped into the masses of people that think it
would be possible, even for a second.

Either that, or it is a VERY big tank full of petrol.
--
Jim in NC

Perhaps, but it seems they are trying it out as TAXIs in India. We'll
see how that goes I suppose.

Wil

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4

Wil- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This video certainly lends some credibility to the idea of a
compressed air car. As I said, we'll see - and I would make a special
trip to see one of these.

If nothing else, this thread has produced a lively discussion, and
has, for the most part, avoided ****ing contests.

Elsewhere I stated that one cannot buy a practical electric car today.
That is not strictly true. For example, one of these would
certainly meet my requirements for a commuting vehicle: http://www.myersmotors.com.
It's even made in the suburbs of my hometown (and not China or India
etc). But omigod - the price!
It's really just an enclosed motorcycle. Howzcum none of the bigname
motorcycle manufacturers make anything like this (regardless of the
powerplant)? Probably wouldn't sell (anybody remember the
Messerschmitt in the 1950s? [yes - the same company that made aircraft
in WWII]). Nobody wanted it.

There are "promising" battery technologies "in the works" - but that
has been the case for years. I hear that some of the folks planning to
introduce "viable" batteries for EVs are talking about leasing rather
than selling their products. No doubt they forsee "Sticker Shock"
problems.

In spite of all the disappointments, there is research and
experimentation going on everywhere, and I, for one, am confident that
there are better (and hopefully revolutionary) developments ahead. For
a collection of links on this subject look at this:http://
freeenergynews.com/Directory/EV/index.html

Thanks to all who responded.

David Johnson