Electric Car? How about a Compressed Air Car?

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)

Carbide (like was formerly used in miner's headlamps)?

David Johnson

No. it has an optional gas-powered kicker motor that also recompresses
the carbon-fiber air tanks. Just caught something about it on television
the other day. Plus, it's loud as hell; sounds like somebody's driving an
air compressor.

Noisy they are. I have been around air tuggers (large winches) in
marine operations, and also air starters for diesels. Deafening.

David Johnson

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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

David Johnson

Dave wrote:
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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
tender.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dave wrote in news:085e256a-0987-4249-b920-
:


Don't be too quick to judge batteries that way. New advances in
lithium-air batteries have come a long way since their inception. The
Tesla electric car is using Lithium-ion batteries which has far less
efficiency, but still making waves. It is not unfeasible in the near
future to have a lithium-oxygen battery to power a light GA aircraft
with the same endurance as gasoline with comparable fuel+engine
weights.


I'm all for electric vehicles - but feel that there needs to be an
order-of-magnitude improvement in battery performance to make them
practical. There have been claims of "revolutionary battery
technologies" for years - but they never seem to pan out.

There has been.



Bertie

Dave wrote in
:


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)

Carbide (like was formerly used in miner's headlamps)?



Carbide produced Acetylene.

I wouldn;'t care to try and run a IC engine on acetylene!

I have used it in lamps however and the light they produce is brilliant!


Bertie

Dave wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
(I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

wrote in :

Dave wrote:
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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

Well, other than the energy efficiency is pretty poor, they take
relatively forever to start up, and boilers are heavy and dangerous,
they would work just fine to run a car as long as you have a coal
tender.


Cars almost always used liquid fuel, except for the few that ran gas fuels.
A few very early cas used solid fuel, and I've only ever seen one running,
and that was an 1884 De Dion Bouton. all th eproduction steamers from
around th eturn of the century used flash tube boilers and liquid fuels.

The Army doesn't use crossbows or the trebuchet any more either and
they're also proven technology.


But the navy stil uses steam.



Bertie

In article
,
Dave wrote:

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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

David Johnson

Poor energy efficiency. Steam partitions the power generation from the
heat source -- you lose energy in the transformation processes.

On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dave wrote in news:97dd61d9-9e9e-46f0-9034-
:

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

No one seems to be designing anything to run on steam anymore -
despite it's being a proven technology that will operate on any source
of heat. Is high maintenence the reason? Or is it high initial cost?

It's a PITA for a car which is why it died out in the early years of the
last century. You had to go out and light the fire 20 minutes before you
went driving. The simple cars like the Stanley had no condensers and you
had to top them up with water after about 30 miles and the cars that
recycled like the White were extremely complex to operate (even the
stanleys were pretty daunting)
The performance was amazing, though and they are smooth and almost silent.
Serpollet held the land speed record several times and that was taken off
them once or twice by electric cars IIRC. In the end the convienience of
the IC engine won out after they were simplified enough to be easy for
almost anyone to use. Steam lasted up to about 1930 for at least one make
(I think it was Doble), White lasted up at least through the first war with
steam (they still exist , of course) and Stanley into the 20s I believe.

Nifty contraptions and beautiful pieces of engineering..

Bertie

Here is some steam power for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aphQNGOz7v8