Car that runs on pure air

mercury maid · 25-09-2006, 10:11 AM

This might be old news but here's a video of a car that runs on just air..

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/v...r-driven-cars/

And i guy in melbourne built a rotary air engine.. w=

:

EB 2 XR8 · 25-09-2006, 10:19 AM

Most importantly, the company plans to begin sales next year.

lol cost a arm and a leg to buy 1 of those

Allen · 25-09-2006, 10:30 AM

So, when will the governement start a fuel excise tax on air?

(I'm not joking...)

:

Ruger · 25-09-2006, 12:09 PM

2 hours of running on 1 tank of air :| i hope its a very small tank because consumers wont want that short running time.
Maybe a petrol air compressor on board to run it :P

25-09-2006, 12:15 PM

It takes more energy to compress the air compared to the output it puts out. Its just not a viable solution to petrol.

uranium_death · 25-09-2006, 12:19 PM

The problem with finding alternate sources of fuel for cars is that people are settling for anything.
This is a boutique idea that will not work for people who actually want to get anywhere.

What Australia needs to do is say, "We only want something that will permanently replace petrol...not a FAD".

Then maybe we'll get somewhere

Iphido · 25-09-2006, 12:26 PM

Air powered transport I don't think will replace regular petrol in cars.

However for pushbikes, scooters, golf karts etc where distances are short it could be a interesting option.

For example a golf kart that can drive around the course, then be recharged in a few mins is a great idea.

Scooters that could help people get around city areas or indoors. Air motors make no pollution from the vechical and are quiet excellent for indoor or urban areas.

miitch · 25-09-2006, 12:52 PM

Pushbikes?

Hahahaha

BlueRaven · 25-09-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uranium_death

The problem with finding alternate sources of fuel for cars is that people are settling for anything.
This is a boutique idea that will not work for people who actually want to get anywhere.

What Australia needs to do is say, "We only want something that will permanently replace petrol...not a FAD".

Then maybe we'll get somewhere

This is where the problem with electric cars is. Take the car due to come out in America in 07 (I've forgotten its name). It is completely electric and uses a battery to travel 250miles. Thats all well and good, but you need your house power, or a charging station, to charge it for 4hrs or so. Fuel is just going to be replaced by extra load at the power station and then we are burning coal faster.

Sure, its a great solution - but don't power stations create something like 60% of the pollution?

Pieoter · 25-09-2006, 01:41 PM

Your forgetting something very important. An internal conbustion engine is around 20% efficient while a power plant gets around 90% efficientcy. So the power they make is MUCH cheaper than the car. They also have filters that clean the air as well. They are very clean for what they are.

You also are taking the pollution away from places such as cities. It stops the concentration of pollution in cities which will in turn improve air quality and health. No its not a direct replacement for petrol but can take SOME of the load off petrol.

Iphido · 25-09-2006, 02:05 PM

While a coal power station is 90% efficent the distribution and storage is not

losses in:
-Transporting from powerstation to your house (quite a bit)
-Storage into batteries (lots and lots of wastage here)

The distribution network would need a massive upgrade to feed this sort of stuff on a large scale.

You would be better off burning the coal in the car. As a external combustion engine. Burns cleaner and use any combustable fuel (gas, liquid, solid, etc). regenerative braking can also be used to build up pressure. As well as compressed air running.

Accessories could be run off a turbine, so things like alternator, power steering, aircon, etc could all be run extremely efficently. No idle is needed so added efficency. BMW is looking into this, using waste heat from the IC engine to power accessories.

Steam powered cars predate internal combustion and electric cars. In the early 1900's a stanley steamer clocked over 200 kmph on daytona beach a record that still stands for steam, and took several decades for ic engined cars to catch.

Steam powered trains produced well over 2000 hp, and could spin up ~8 linked ~180cm high steel wheels weighing over 500kg each with ease. They could also travel at over 200 kmph with passenger cars back in the 1930's with some timetables requiring average speeds over 160 kmph. Diesel trains have only fairly recently began to match these speeds.

Steam power has a power delivery like few else. "Pulls like a steam train" is a phrase used to describe massive torque at idle that just doesn't quit. Piston steam engines also have a lot of charater with huffying and puffing.. They are also a lot smoother than IC engines, but more emotive than electric engines.

My dream is to make a modern steam powered car. Possibly a combination of tripple expansion and steam turbine for maxium efficency. With computer controlled combustion, predictive power production, quick heating micro boiliers.

There was actually a steam powered ford falcon made in the 60's.

Pieoter · 25-09-2006, 02:20 PM

Steam power isn't a viable option for a road going vehicle.

Even though there are loses a powerplant and distribution network is still MASSIVLY more efficient than an internal combustion engine

uranium_death · 25-09-2006, 02:58 PM

I wish to make a clean recommendation for cars...

We can have engines run by mice (or hamsters) on wheels...the old piece of cheese.

You might need a lot of mice to run a Commodore or Falcon, but minus the poo, it's clean.

I'm just jumping on the bandwagon.

mcflux · 25-09-2006, 06:38 PM

90% efficiency from a coal plant (or pretty much any power plant)? Dreaming...

Bucknaked · 25-09-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruger

2 hours of running on 1 tank of air :| i hope its a very small tank because consumers wont want that short running time.
Maybe a petrol air compressor on board to run it :P

Stick the kids in the back and get their to blow into a tube connected to the tank. Not only do you get free power, but the kids are kept quiet and they get so light headed from all that blowing, they pass out for even more peice and quiet.

39ClevoUte · 25-09-2006, 06:54 PM

Have a cruise through here, real Aussies working on real projects.........

http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps1lc,,.html

http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps1l0,,.html

coyote · 25-09-2006, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucknaked

Stick the kids in the back and get their to blow into a tube connected to the tank. Not only do you get free power, but the kids are kept quiet and they get so light headed from all that blowing, they pass out for even more peice and quiet.

Now your thinking as only a parent could

Best option yet

McobraR · 25-09-2006, 08:56 PM

cool!, now f*rts have a purpose.

:

Bucknaked · 25-09-2006, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Now your thinking as only a parent could

Best option yet

: gotta be cheaper than DVD screen's in the back :hihi:

outback_ute · 26-09-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

90% efficiency from a coal plant (or pretty much any power plant)? Dreaming...

Exactly, from what I remember the “efficiency” of an electric car’s engine, once you take into account the generation and distribution of the power is roughly the same as a petrol engine in the low 20% range. The most efficient engines are the big turbocharged two stroke diesels in ships that turn at 100rpm, they can achieve 50% efficiency or more.

gozza · 26-09-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iphido

While a coal power station is 90% efficent the distribution and storage is not

-Storage into batteries (lots and lots of wastage here)

T

isn't it somthing like a 1000 units of energy in for every 1 unit out?

turboute · 26-09-2006, 06:30 PM

What is important is how many Joules of energy can be stored per unit volume. Petrol has a really high amount of energy/volume and it is also relately stable making it a great fuel for cars.

If we could compress gas enough that the amount of potential engergy was the same it could be a viable alternative - this is the problem though, to get to those types of pressures the 'tank' would weigh a ton due to the enormous pressuresit would have to hold.

As for electric cars - if petrol can give you x amount of Joules per Dollar (which fluctuates alot lol) and energy from power plants comes at y joules per dollar, you will probably find that the difference in cost is huge, which is why an electric car may only take $2-3 to charge and still get you 200km, meanwhile a small car will cost $15-20 to do the same. meanwhile the amount of energy required to power the car is the same.
If we started trading in energy units, electric cars would be unheard of. Also they probably still pollute the environment just as much anyway.

Green X · 26-09-2006, 06:47 PM

Yeah, one other thing electric cars, 1. In 3 to 5 years when the battery Crap out and you need to spend $3000 on a new battery packs oh goodie> granted still cheaper than feeding an petrol car over 3 years but the outlay of $3000 on the spot would be a bit of a shock.

And I can run my Petrol car for 5,10,15, 20hrs and so on adn so on Without a problem all I need to do is take 5 minutes to fill the tank every 400 to 700K’s.

Also How am I meant to charge my electric powered 4WD half way along the canning stock route, on that point pulling into Newman after a bit of a drive up the Gt Northern to charge battery for 4hrs before moving on is just not an practical option.

Electric cars are practical in the city and for short day-to-day use but outside of the city or on long trip’s Petrol, Diesel or Gas powered infernal consumption engines are the only real option at this stage.

Cheers.

mcflux · 26-09-2006, 06:56 PM

And then you have to consider the disposal/long term storage of the dead batteries.

05MkIIFutura · 10-10-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackLS

It takes more energy to compress the air compared to the output it puts out. Its just not a viable solution to petrol.

They said in the first video that it only takes a couple of bucks in petrol to fill up a tank which lasts 200km. Thats ok if you ask me, just have a little petrol generator with a 20 litre tank, so it will cost you about $26 to travel 2000km

blueoval · 10-10-2006, 06:11 PM

This is a great start for the future of motor vehicles.

It looks and sounds agricultural but over time the development will get underway and they will continue to improve. who knows, even with a turbo charger set up. Got to be good not only for the environment, but tight a55e5 like me who dispise the petroleum industry.

I wouldnt mind one at all.

bigjim · 10-10-2006, 10:34 PM

These cars seem like a bit of a pipe dream, and also very similar to a lot of industrial equipment. There are plenty of air powered motors used in industry, but never for high power applications, where hydraulic systems are favoured, due to the fact that oil is incompressible and much better for power transfer at high pressure.
Which brings me to the second point- the amount of pressure required for these engines to work seems rather unfeasible. In the first video they mentioned working pressures of 300 bar, which is huge (over 4400 psi). I work on heavy agricultural hydrualic systems, and usually max pressure in these is around 250 bar, so moving this air around at 300 bar without leaks reliably could be a huge issue, not mentioning trying to compress the air to that pressure in the first place (considering most compressors, even in workshops, only go to around 100 psi or roughly 7 bar)