Behold the CityCAT air car, powered by compressed air.

Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org

"Useful Info" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>
>
More spam by the tinfoil hat site. Gotta say, they advertise the normal
stuff and leave teh weird subjects until you actually look at the site.

Mike

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:38:44 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

> "Useful Info" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Read all about it, he http://Muvy.org
>>
>>
> More spam by the tinfoil hat site. Gotta say, they advertise the normal
> stuff and leave teh weird subjects until you actually look at the site.
>
> Mike


Gee...at my age, I have plenty of...uh "compressed air".
Maybe I ought to look into one of these!

Michael Pardee wrote:
> More spam by the tinfoil hat site. Gotta say, they advertise the
> normal stuff and leave teh weird subjects until you actually look
> at the site.

So, skip right to the source:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
A "Beyond Tomorrow" segment, worth the watch.

Fishface wrote:
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> More spam by the tinfoil hat site. Gotta say, they advertise the
>> normal stuff and leave teh weird subjects until you actually look
>> at the site.
>
> So, skip right to the source:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
> A "Beyond Tomorrow" segment, worth the watch.

I think for things like the fork lifts, as well as lawn mowers, it is a
great thing. It really get rid of fumes and will really help the
environment. All you're doing is taking energy in one form and putting
it in another. I could be wrong, but I don't see how it will increase
fuel efficiency that much. Effectively, you're just making the CO2 at
the electric power plant rather in the car engine (assuming the air is
compressed with electric motors).

I think it has many advantages like weight. And it is probably more
reliable. I mean far fewer parts to break. But, I would have to see the
evidence that it is really that much more efficient to believe it.

Jeff

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:b1_5i.3446$D31.888@trnddc01...
>
> I think for things like the fork lifts, as well as lawn mowers, it is a
> great thing. It really get rid of fumes and will really help the
> environment. All you're doing is taking energy in one form and putting it
> in another. I could be wrong, but I don't see how it will increase fuel
> efficiency that much. Effectively, you're just making the CO2 at the
> electric power plant rather in the car engine (assuming the air is
> compressed with electric motors).
>

Worse than that, air (and most gases that have low boiling points) are not
very "elastic." Air has a ratio of specific heats of around 1.4, so about
1/3 of the energy is lost just to the compression and expansion. Batteries
can do a lot better. The compressed air has to be used at raw pressure -
that's the point, after all - and it is very difficult to make motors that
can maintain efficiency over the range of pressures necessary to make the
system work. It's much more like charging a giant, lossy capacitor. I'd be
shocked at getting anything near 50% overall efficiency, something EVs do
with ease.

Mike

"Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Worse than that, air (and most gases that have low boiling points) are not
> very "elastic." Air has a ratio of specific heats of around 1.4, so about
> 1/3 of the energy is lost just to the compression and expansion. Batteries
> can do a lot better. The compressed air has to be used at raw pressure -
> that's the point, after all - and it is very difficult to make motors that
> can maintain efficiency over the range of pressures necessary to make the
> system work. It's much more like charging a giant, lossy capacitor. I'd be
> shocked at getting anything near 50% overall efficiency, something EVs do
> with ease.
>
> Mike
>
>
>

Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil fuels.
The compressed air cars are doing pretty well, and if you use solar power to
charge them up, it's free energy. The car I saw on NG channel, (maybe
Discovery), was still in development, but the engine was also able to be the
compressor, and he was developing an electric motor to make the car
self-contained. If the technology was pushed to it's limits, it could do a
lot better. Hey, if you put the car in reverse, and roll forward down a
hill, it'll charge it's own tanks!

Batteries are very very bad for the environment.

"Dan G" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Michael Pardee" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> Worse than that, air (and most gases that have low boiling points) are
>> not
>> very "elastic." Air has a ratio of specific heats of around 1.4, so about
>> 1/3 of the energy is lost just to the compression and expansion.
>> Batteries
>> can do a lot better. The compressed air has to be used at raw pressure -
>> that's the point, after all - and it is very difficult to make motors
>> that
>> can maintain efficiency over the range of pressures necessary to make the
>> system work. It's much more like charging a giant, lossy capacitor. I'd
>> be
>> shocked at getting anything near 50% overall efficiency, something EVs do
>> with ease.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>
> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil
> fuels.
> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well, and if you use solar power
> to
> charge them up, it's free energy. The car I saw on NG channel, (maybe
> Discovery), was still in development, but the engine was also able to be
> the
> compressor, and he was developing an electric motor to make the car
> self-contained. If the technology was pushed to it's limits, it could do a
> lot better. Hey, if you put the car in reverse, and roll forward down a
> hill, it'll charge it's own tanks!
>
> Batteries are very very bad for the environment.
>
>
>
The physics of the technology pretty much cap the energy storage efficiency
at 50% max, and it's going to be hard to break the 35% barrier. The ratio of
specific heats problem (the same thing that makes a basketball "deader" than
a superball) won't go away as long as this universe is in existence.
Adaptive air motors are possible but always tricky. Using only the "top
half" of the pressure charge means hauling around a lot of dead weight.

Batteries don't have to be bad for the environment at all. The heavy metals
that are most to blame for batteries' bad rep are completely recyclable. The
larger batteries get the less likely they will escape the recycling stream;
even standard car batteries are rarely dumped any more.

Air powered cars have been around longer than electric cars - there are
reasons they haven't caught on. In a time when efficiency is seen as more
important than ever, the inherent inefficiency of compressed air makes this
a tough sell.

Mike

Fishface wrote:

> Michael Pardee wrote:
> > More spam by the tinfoil hat site. Gotta say, they advertise the
> > normal stuff and leave teh weird subjects until you actually look
> > at the site.
>
> So, skip right to the source:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
> A "Beyond Tomorrow" segment, worth the watch.

Seen it before.

It just shows how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of TV reporters.

Graham

Dan G wrote:

> Nevertheless, this type of thinking is what will save us from fossil fuels.

No it won't.

They are *less* efficient that EVs, so need MORE energy to keep them running.


> The compressed air cars are doing pretty well,

Where exactly ? Except in your fantasies ?


> and if you use solar power to charge them up, it's free energy.

Damn you're an ignorant prick of the first order. Use the same cutesy 'solar
energy' in EVs and you'll easily go *TWICE* as far - probably more since EVs can
reclaim energy by regenerative braking.

Graham