View Full Version : The Car That Runs On AIR. (Not The Onion)
Yep. A real car and it runs on AIR.
We breathe it. Why not drive it?
Peugeot Citroen this week introduced a car that runs on air. The car manufacturer said the vehicle should be available by 2016.
"We're quite confident," company spokesman Jean-Baptiste Thomas told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.
Thomas said the company already had developed four of its "Hybrid Air" prototypes and driven them 12,000 miles.
Peugeot To Produce Air Powered Car by 2016. (http://goo.gl/7Z7Rb)
But wait there's more! The Peugeot car is a hybrid. This car is powered by Air only:
http://youtu.be/NOImbv_xcT8
Seeing is believing. Air is the energy of the future. Zero emissions and the technology is here now.
KG4CGC
03-12-2013, 12:46 PM
Virginia legislatures would go around slashing their tires while screeching, "Where's your precious air now?"
PA5COR
03-12-2013, 01:00 PM
It is an already older concept.
The assembly plant is due to start construction in early 2002 and be ready for production in 2003. The car has a 50hp engine, a range of 312 Km (195 Miles) and can run 100Km (62.5 Miles) on ?0.6 ($0.625USD). Top speed is 120Km/h (75MPH). It can be refueled in around 3 minutes by a compressed air machine (300 bar internal pressure) in a propperly equiped gas station, or in around 4 hours by a built-in air compressor plugged into a household-variety power socket. An outline of the concept can be found here (http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/concept.html).
Although initially slated for the public transportation, taxis,distribution and logistics markets (evaluation units on pre-order from several local companies), it is expected to have some penetration into the consumer market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Development_International
KG4CGC
03-12-2013, 01:09 PM
Last time this was brought up, my understanding was that the US would not allow it here. Similar to the 75mpg VWs. Not allowed on US roads.
PA5COR
03-12-2013, 01:41 PM
Oil companies woulld not make a dime, so it's out? ;)
Oil companies woulld not make a dime, so it's out? ;)
They will find a way to patent air and charge you for it I am sure.
PA5COR
03-12-2013, 03:55 PM
I bet our Shell will be a frontrunner on that one...
KG4CGC
03-12-2013, 04:31 PM
I bet our Shell will be a frontrunner on that one...
Oil companies could have been the front runners in many areas but chose not to. What name fits this behavior?
Oil companies could have been the front runners in many areas but chose not to. What name fits this behavior?
Avarice. Good old American Avarice or in Teabonix, "Capitalism."
n2ize
03-12-2013, 05:00 PM
They will find a way to patent air and charge you for it I am sure.
They won't have to. Since there is no "free energy" loop and the car runs on compressed air, or liquid nitrogen, energy is going to have to be consumed to compress the air or nitrogen. In other words thermodynamics says that you are not going to get any more energy out of the car than you put in, and, depending on the efficiency you may get slightly less energy out or significantly less energy out. In other words to compress the air you are going to need a compressor and most likely that compressor is going to run on electricity which is in turn produced by oil, coal, or natural gas. Or the compressor may run directly on gasoline, or some sort of fuel. Ultimately, even if you were to theoretically get 100% efficiency from the car you are going to get out of the car the same amount of energy (ability to do work) that was consumed in the form of electricity, oil, coal, etc. used to compress the air. And since the efficiency will most likely be less than 100% you will get somewhat less energy out than you put in.
Last time this was brought up, my understanding was that the US would not allow it here. Similar to the 75mpg VWs. Not allowed on US roads.
New York has been using LNG* on their buses for at least 15 years as a "green" alternative to gas. I wonder how hard it would be to convert them to Liquid Nitrogen?
*Liquified Natural Gas
kb2vxa
03-12-2013, 07:33 PM
For me this discussion began on the @WW packet BBS about 6 months ago when Tata (India) announced plans to market a compressed air powered car in North America. It went nowhere because Tata designs don't meet Canadian or American safety standards. The discussion went on stating reasons above, however when overall energy efficiency is the concern it falls to an extremely low value. Consider the fact the efficiency of an average internal combustion engine is 4% and you can imagine how low it is when fuel is burned remotely and transmitted via electricity, the old coal by wire concept, with its inherent losses. Now they want to run an electric air compressor for the car? Oh boy, add mechanical losses in the compressor and the engine and you're lucky if efficiency is anywhere close to 0.5% so the concept goes from green to red, nowhere near running in the black.
The concept is nothing new, it started in the Age of Steam with a locomotive called a fireless cooker, high pressure steam fed into a tank to power the engine. They were used in mines and other hazardous environments where a spark can cause an explosion. Seems like everyone and his brother painted locomotives in bicentennial colors in 1976 and Beauknit Textiles was no exception.
Here's a funny Tata for you, the slang word "tatas" comes from Spanish slang tetas meaning tits, ergo, Indians drive Tits.
n2ize
03-12-2013, 07:37 PM
New York has been using LNG* on their buses for at least 15 years as a "green" alternative to gas. I wonder how hard it would be to convert them to Liquid Nitrogen?
*Liquified Natural Gas
Think about it. What would be the difference between using the stored potential energy of nonflammable compressed or liquefied nitrogen to perform the work of moving a bus versus using a combustible fuel like natural gas ?
n2ize
03-12-2013, 07:46 PM
For me this discussion began on the @WW packet BBS about 6 months ago when Tata (India) announced plans to market a compressed air powered car in North America. It went nowhere because Tata designs don't meet Canadian or American safety standards. The discussion went on stating reasons above, however when overall energy efficiency is the concern it falls to an extremely low value. Consider the fact the efficiency of an average internal combustion engine is 4% and you can imagine how low it is when fuel is burned remotely and transmitted via electricity, the old coal by wire concept, with its inherent losses. Now they want to run an electric air compressor for the car? Oh boy, add mechanical losses in the compressor and the engine and you're lucky if efficiency is anywhere close to 0.5% so the concept goes from green to red, nowhere near running in the black.
.
My point exactly, there is no free ride when it comes to energy. If you are going to power the car via the expansion of compressed air, nitrogen, argon, neon, krypton, or whatever the energy consumption involved in compressing the gas so it can be later used to move the car must be considered as well as how that energy is derived, And at every step in the process where energy is transfered losses will be incurred due to inefficiency. Now perhaps it might not be so bad if the air compressor is run via electricity produced by solar, wind, or hydroelectric.
KG4CGC
03-12-2013, 09:23 PM
New York has been using LNG* on their buses for at least 15 years as a "green" alternative to gas. I wonder how hard it would be to convert them to Liquid Nitrogen?
*Liquified Natural Gas
In the late 70s and 80s I saw quite a few LNG fleet vehicles around here. Delivery vans and other vehicles in thatr size range, even converted passenger vans used by florists. By 1986/87 they just faded away.
In the late 70s and 80s I saw quite a few LNG fleet vehicles around here. Delivery vans and other vehicles in thatr size range, even converted passenger vans used by florists. By 1986/87 they just faded away.
Last that I saw, they still had a fleet of those buses in West Brooklyn. Seemed to work as the air was pretty good there.
The second air car is not converting Liquid Nitrogen into electricity to run an electric motor. It is actually running the engine.
The majority of the public transit buses in this area operate on CNG.
http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/images/MTSRt992onBroadway_LO.jpg
KG4CGC
03-12-2013, 11:34 PM
Last that I saw, they still had a fleet of those buses in West Brooklyn. Seemed to work as the air was pretty good there.
The second air car is not converting Liquid Nitrogen into electricity to run an electric motor. It is actually running the engine.
They could use a diesel engine to turn the compressor when it needed a charge. It would hardly use jack shit for fuel as the engine wouldn't have to be over 500cc. An electric motor with a weighted flywheel could be turned off the compressed air engine to keep the electricals going. When you come to a stop, the flywheel would keep it turning but there would also be a battery, just one or two car battery sized batteries, and a couple of large capacitors to keep the headlights up at night when at a stop as well as other electrical need in the interior.
I discussed this with some other hams in person in 2007 and they all agreed with me. Therefore, I am indisputable.
I discussed this with some other hams in person in 2007 and they all agreed with me. Therefore, I am indisputable.
"And you can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."
n2ize
03-13-2013, 11:27 AM
Last that I saw, they still had a fleet of those buses in West Brooklyn. Seemed to work as the air was pretty good there.
Con Edison also runs a lot of their vehicles on natural gas.
] The second air car is not converting Liquid Nitrogen into electricity to run an electric motor. It is actually running the engine.
You are correct. But energy has to be consumed to compress the nitrogen in order to make liquid nitrogen. This is not done in the car this is done elsewhere and requires energy. Some of that energy is later consumed when the potential energy of the nitrogen is converted to mechanical energy to run the car.
I discussed this with some other hams in person in 2007 and they all agreed with me. Therefore, I am indisputable.
I read it on the internets so it is so.
How about making ice with of air?
When he isn't snowboarding or volunteering for Engineers Without Borders, Dave Williams spends his days thinking about something most of us take for granted: ice. As he discovered on a volunteer trip to Haiti in 2002, ice can be a godsend to a poor village, keeping fish fresh on a journey to market or preserving vaccines. But how do you make it without electricity, without access to coolants like Freon or fuels like propane? Williams, 26, knew that forcing compressed air through a hole in the middle of a pipe causes hot and cold air to flow from opposite ends, a phenomenon known as the Ranque-Hilsch vortex-tube effect. No one is quite sure how the separation works, but feed the cold air into a container, he reasoned, and you would have an icemaker and a freezer, which would have zero operating costs and would be environmentally friendly, since it wouldn't require chemicals and the jet of air could be generated via a compressor powered by wind, water, man or animal.
It takes a bit of energy, more than a refrigerator, but if you don't have electricity, you can still have ice.
Ice without electricity. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101299,00.html)
n2ize
03-13-2013, 01:57 PM
How about making ice with of air?
It takes a bit of energy, more than a refrigerator, but if you don't have electricity, you can still have ice.
Ice without electricity. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101299,00.html)
It could be an environmentally friendly idea if you have the running water, enough wind, and/or enough human power. I wound;t go so far as to say the operating costs would be zero in any case. In the case of wind there is the cost of building and maintaining the wind generators (windmills). In the case of water there is the cost of dam construction and/or water generator construction and maintenance and, in the case of human power there is the cost of energy, food, water, through which the human derives energy.
kb2vxa
03-13-2013, 05:52 PM
Then there are labor costs, union rules and taxes but it just might work in Haiti...
n2ize
03-13-2013, 09:33 PM
Then there are labor costs, union rules and taxes but it just might work in Haiti...
Of course costs may be saved if the owner of the car is a politician... in which case there is plenty of hot air under extreme pressure.
kb2vxa
03-13-2013, 11:37 PM
Unless the car is an air compressor what does it have to do with making ice in Haiti?
"Guess I'll hang my tears out to dry.."
Have you ever considered writing Country & Western songs?
The majority of the public transit buses in this area operate on CNG.
http://www.sdmts.com/MTS/images/MTSRt992onBroadway_LO.jpg
A lot of them in NJ do too. Longer distance commuter buses still need to use diesel though.
N2CHX
03-14-2013, 01:23 PM
This is great! So you save money AND get rid of Republicans at the same time?
kb2vxa
03-14-2013, 03:15 PM
Now THAT'S the right idea! You won't get rid of them but you'll put them to good use for the first time in their lives. Just think of it, these things would pay for themselves in short order and the rest is gravy.
N2CHX
03-14-2013, 03:18 PM
Now THAT'S the right idea! You won't get rid of them but you'll put them to good use for the first time in their lives. Just think of it, these things would pay for themselves in short order and the rest is gravy.
Dang! You're right! I was thinking we could just shove them into a compressor tank, pipe in Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and let the inflated egos do all the work, but since Republicans are all about everyone working and doing away with minimum wage, we can simply employ them to run hand compressors for 15 cents an hour.
kb2vxa
03-15-2013, 02:20 AM
Sorry Kel, if you put them IN the tank all you have is hot air, you can't make ice with that, steam maybe but not ice.
Sorry Kel, if you put them IN the tank all you have is hot air, you can't make ice with that, steam maybe but not ice.
Use them to power a stationery steam engine to move a piston which will make ice by the carton. Great idea Kelli and kudos to Warren.
Fox is good for something.
But my ex-wives got them beat. They could make ice just by looking at you. :lol:
kb2vxa
03-15-2013, 08:06 PM
You too, it's a matter of energy efficiency. Hot air, boil water, and a steam powered air compressor in its simplest form (like that on a steam locomotive) is far less efficient than powering the air compressor piston directly. Then you have all that waste heat, Haiti is hot enough without making things worse. Then there's recycling, Republicans generate a lot of shit. Shit is fertilizer for growing food to feed the Republicans. Haitians practice voodoo and could make them zombies (they're half way there already) but then what to do with all that shit? Don't get carried away peeps, it started out simple so KISS.
"But my ex-wives got them beat. They could make ice just by looking at you."
Then send them to Haiti and have each one stare at a lake.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.