The Air Car

[Garin]

One to keep the greens happy

http://www.theaircar.com/

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

[mike142sl]

One to keep us all happy. Imagine the power of a scaled up version that will fit the space of a Land Rover engine bay.

Just watch the reaction of the oil companies.

[thermidorthelobster]

Just like hydrogen, the compressed air isn't a fuel at all, it's a way of storing energy.  Just like hydrogen, you need to put all the energy in when you generate the compressed air (or hydrogen).  So you still need to use the same amount of energy as any other method of propulsion;  which comes from the national grid, which in the UK is mainly coal- or gas-fired power stations.  So to say this is non-polluting is just plain rubbish.

[muddymesser]

ewww

[V8MoneyPit]

Just like hydrogen, the compressed air isn't a fuel at all, it's a way of storing energy.  Just like hydrogen, you need to put all the energy in when you generate the compressed air (or hydrogen).  So you still need to use the same amount of energy as any other method of propulsion;  which comes from the national grid, which in the UK is mainly coal- or gas-fired power stations.  So to say this is non-polluting is just plain rubbish.

Too right. Energy only changes state. It doesn't pop out of thin air. In order to get energy out in one form it has to be put in in another.

The only time it's 'for free' is if you can harness naturally occuring energy..... like nuclear, the cleanest power generation method ever discovered  :roll:  :D

Of course, you still have to build the power station, or the wind turbine, or the hydro electric plant..........

[Boggert]

At least it sounded better than electric.

[thermidorthelobster]

Too right. Energy only changes state. It doesn't pop out of thin air.

I'd tell you about my quantum fluctuation engine, but I'd have to kill you.

[Range Rover Blues]

Runs on compressed air, so it's a sort of steam engine then, without the steam.

sounds a bit naff to me, how heavy must the reservoir be :?

[Range Rover Blues]

OK , ijust watched the video and that answers a few questions :roll:

Apparently the reservoirs are carbon fibre, becasue at that high pressure a steel tank would burst, throwing shrapnel around.  What do they theink carbon fibre does then, go out for a pizza 8-[

And they can be recharged in just 4 hours from the mains, well that's ok then becasue as we all know electricity magically appears from a hole in the wall.  No little furry animals get killed and no poisenous fumes either, just magic.

The only reason it's so economical is that it's made from Meccano and weights about the same as a bowl of cereal.

[Rich_P]

Sounds like an old transit diesel too.  :lol:

[RCRockCrawler]

^^ That's what I thought.  :lol:

The second design in the vid looked fairly feasable for it's application, 3-4 mins of running a compressor to charge, for 3-4 hours of driving.

[mike142sl]

Just like hydrogen, the compressed air isn't a fuel at all, it's a way of storing energy.  Just like hydrogen, you need to put all the energy in when you generate the compressed air (or hydrogen).  So you still need to use the same amount of energy as any other method of propulsion;  which comes from the national grid, which in the UK is mainly coal- or gas-fired power stations.  So to say this is non-polluting is just plain rubbish.

Too right. Energy only changes state. It doesn't pop out of thin air. In order to get energy out in one form it has to be put in in another.

The only time it's 'for free' is if you can harness naturally occuring energy..... like nuclear, the cleanest power generation method ever discovered  :roll:  :D

Of course, you still have to build the power station, or the wind turbine, or the hydro electric plant..........

Oh dear, you know what they say about a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

Part of what you say is correct but you have applied it incorrectly. If we accept your argument then all engines would have the same emissions and consumption, which is clearly not the case in practice, You are ignoring or forgetting the economies of scale in that the emissions etc are a fraction when produced centrally because there is less waste. The same applies when catering; the individual cost/waste of cooking for 4 is greater than if you are cooking for 40 (The individual cost of catering for 4 is not multiplied by 10 to cater for 40)

To put it another way, and we know that the claims of this air engine have to be put into practice but the emissions and fuel needed to charge the air car is a fraction of those put out by the best-known petrol or diesel engine. Even if you use a portable petrol generator it would charge the air engine several times on one gallon of fuel which would then travel several hundred miles – how many normal engines are there that have that level of consumption. Also it tackles the amount of exhaust chucked out in the areas we live i.e. the towns and cities. Moving this to a central location such as a power station doesn’t eliminate them but means more can be done to combat those emissions as a whole via filters etc. We then get to breath cleaner air where we live and play.

The other point being missed is that we are not in a ‘them and us’ fight here. Just because it has a ‘green’ label we should be ready to embrace something that minimises the impact we have on the environment whilst enjoying our hobby. It’s accepted that, in general terms, Petrol engines are less efficient than Diesel engines, and that modern Diesel engines are far more efficient now than 20 years ago – this air engine is just another step along that efficiency route.

My only gripe is that they put something like this in a shell that looks like it's from toy town  :roll: It also sounds like one of those old Trabants (not sure of spelling)

[thermidorthelobster]

What you're saying is true, but this is all about refining efficiency, and when you've got to a 99% efficient engine running on compressed air or hydrogen or pixie dust, you still need to produce that energy.  Improving the efficiency only brings you closer to a line of minimum energy use which is still a long way away from the axis.  Given we can't move the line very much either, unless we persuade everybody to drive to work in recumbent scooters instead of 4x4s, which is proving tricky, then the only place left to go is to look at how the energy is produced in the first place.  Which brings us neatly back to...

I guess what gets my goat is all the articles I've read saying hydrogen is an amazing non-polluting fuel, which. is. just. not. true.  As above, it's a way of storing energy which still must be produced, and usually it's produced by messy polluting non-renewable methods.  You've correctly pointed out that the compressed air idea reduces the amount of energy you need to put in in the first place;  and building the car out of lightweight materials etc reduces it further by lowering the total amount of energy needed to get it from A to B.  But is that what the average Joe is going to see when he looks at this site?  No, he's going to go away thinking "wow, there's a car that runs on compressed air, so we all get to drive around in big heavy luxury cars for free!"

[thermidorthelobster]

and that modern Diesel engines are far more efficient now than 20 years ago – this air engine is just another step along that efficiency route.

By the way, 18 years ago the first 200tdi Discoveries were rolling off the line, and the one I had would do 32mpg under a wide range of conditions.  Now I have a TD5 Discovery which does about 24mpg, and doesn't deliver radically different performance.  The TD5 may produce less emissions, but it's certainly not far more efficient.  In consumption terms, it's far less efficient.

[datalas]

and that modern Diesel engines are far more efficient now than 20 years ago – this air engine is just another step along that efficiency route.

By the way, 18 years ago the first 200tdi Discoveries were rolling off the line, and the one I had would do 32mpg under a wide range of conditions.  Now I have a TD5 Discovery which does about 24mpg, and doesn't deliver radically different performance.  The TD5 may produce less emissions, but it's certainly not far more efficient.  In consumption terms, it's far less efficient.

IIRC it's also a fair sight heavier than the D1,  as in the entire vehicle is,  guess that extra foot and the poncy dash count for something :)

Although it is an interesting observation that even the most "efficient" vehicles really aren't that much more efficient than they were ten years ago, and the question of whether the cost of production (in terms of energy spent and emissions released) counters any benefit in it's running efficiency is one which goes unanswered.

If you add in the requirements to dispose of the old car in some manner which isn't haphazard and irresponsible then you're further detracting from the argument over getting a "new" car.

A better solution would be to address the immediate problem, and not the symptom, viz why people drive so much in the first place.  But we all know this I'm afraid to say :(

I did at one point wish we could take out a suitably large advert near no #10 (well, specifically #11) which bore a picture of a suitably attired person stood infront of a d3 bearing teh legend "I drive to work because a) I hate the environment   b) I love spending money on fuel   c) there isn't a bus"