Posted on 03/19/2007 4:47:16 PM PDT by HangnJudge
March 19, 2007 Many respected engineers have been trying for years to bring a compressed air car to market, believing strongly that compressed air can power a viable "zero pollution" car. Now the first commercial compressed air car is on the verge of production and beginning to attract a lot of attention, and with a recently signed partnership with Tata, India’s largest automotive manufacturer, the prospects of very cost-effective mass production are now a distinct possibility. The MiniC.A.T is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis that is glued not welded and a body of fibreglass. The heart of the electronic and communication system on the car is a computer offering an array of information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems and almost anything you could dream of, starting with voice recognition, internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment. The engine is fascinating, as is and the revolutionary electrical system that uses just one cable and so is the vehicle’s wireless control system. Microcontrollers are used in every device in the car, so one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, indicators etc
Most importantly, it is incredibly cost-efficient to run – according to the designers, it costs less than one Euro per 100Km (about a tenth that of a petrol car). Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km. The car has a top speed of 68 mph.
(Excerpt) Read more at gizmag.com ...
You could build a secondary heat exchanger, but you are talking about significant expense as you need a completely separate system to supply heat when you are not charging your car. Also, do you always want to add heat to your home at the exact time you are charging your car. Also the charging stations would not have this option. Storing energy can be tough, it is the reason gasoline and diesel work so well for mobile applications with power on demand and relatively easy to store.
bump for later reading
"I got nothing against alternative fuel tech. I wonder why it has taken so long. I am not saying this is a bad thing it is just that the body looks flimsy and is described in frightening fashion as "glued" the the frame..."
I know, I just think most of us conservative-minded folks think oil and nucleur is the only way to go. I'm not against domestic oil drilling or even more plants, but we can't look the other way on alternatives. We have to be the rational side of the arguement.
Granted I'm sure this may not be the best of things, but that's how everything starts in business. You don't buy the first line, because sometimes it's not worth anything or it's just not good enough. But you keep your eyes open, and you understand how much this effects our future.
There's too many advantages to alternatives to look away.
I'm not thinking all this is going to solve everything, but it's a start. I'm so glad private industries starting to invest (in the billions), and I hope they invest wisely. I'm not for the dims route of subsidizing the hell out of something that can be done privately. I just don't want them taking the torch and saying they did it....no, it won't be them, it will be private industry.
Dims like to think they're light years ahead, but private industry is always innovating (and doesn't need their subsidizes). I just want us to not depend on our enemies, and I know of no better way than alternative energy.
Imagine Iran without petro sales....our hassles of keeping them in line wouldn't be as challenging.
Could you add me to your list?
"I'm all for greater use of nuclear power. But, nuclear isn't even CO2-free. Construction and maintenance of the plants is still done using conventional sources."
It also involves huge amounts of oil to construct.
Although I'm not as worried as liberal are when it comes to global warming...I'm more concerned of nucluer weapon warming. The more the middle east is subjected to western standards, because it no-longer has petro-powers, the more I'm comforted.
Alternatives are just a means to that ends in my view. That and Mexico doesn't have us by the cahones anymore.
But keep in mind that a bullet going through a tank in a car would cause a lot of headaches for anyone in a couple hundred feet radius.
welcome aboard!
Using compressed air to power a motor is not a new idea. It is a relatively straightforward means of energy storage, much like flywheels or batteries. However, liquid air or liquid nitrogen is generally considered to be more capable of providing useful ranges.
From http://web.archive.org/web/20040914232840/http://www.eurekamagazine.co.uk/eureka_editorial/news_reference/FI-Nitrogen.htm
...
A car powered by liquid nitrogen may be seen cruising the streets of Bishops Stortford. Cylinder injection of a heat transfer fluid followed by liquefied gas has raised efficiency to a point where fuel costs are comparable with petrol, but, more importantly, without the pollution. As well as solving a problem which has long plagued all Rankine cycle engines, it leads to pollution-free vehicles without the associated cost and weight penalties incurred by batteries.
...
in November 2001, the team put its fingers on the breakthrough which Peter Dearman has been exploiting . His engine is two stroke. The induction stroke starts by drawing in the heat exchange fluid, which, in his case, is a conventional mix of ethylene glycol based car anti-freeze and water. Liquid nitrogen is then injected from a separate nozzle (if it was injected simultaneously, the liquid nitrogen would freeze the heat transfer fluid as it entered, blocking the injection port). The heat transfer fluid possesses sufficient heat capacity to both boil the liquid nitrogen and heat it all the way up to ambient temperature. The pressure pushes the piston down and, as it does so, it absorbs more heat from the heat transfer fluid, maintaining its temperature at ambient. At bottom dead centre, the exhaust valve opens, and the expanded nitrogen and heat transfer fluid are allowed to escape. Before reaching the atmosphere, the mixture passes through a separator to recover the heat transfer fluid which then passes through a radiator to warm it up to ambient ready for the next cycle.
...
Dearman says that it allows the car to be driven at up to 20mph and achieves a mileage of 1mile/litre. At a cost from Air Products of 10p/litre, this allows the car to achieve a similar fuel cost per mile to that achieved using petrol
...
Note that the power to weight ratio of this type of engine is much lower than any gasoline engine. Also, there are several dangers associated with the handling of cryogenic liquids.
Something odd about that equation. The lower the efficiency of the motor, the lower the annual cost. Maybe they should have divided by efficiency.
non-flammable propellant
No, air isn’t flammable - but to run that far it would take a very high pressure air tank. Ever see one blow?
. . . straight up.
Whatever is different for the sake of being different is "liberal." The establishment (Big Journalism) defines "liberal" according to journalism's self-interest.Difference corresponds to "Man Bites Dog," and so is a good start on a good story.
Most of all, difference which is cavalier about the bottom line is "liberal." That's because the bottom line allows the great unwashed to seperate the pipe dreams from the good ideas - and that negates the idea that we need "objective" journalists to tell us what is what.
Sorry, your numbers don't add up.
It takes about 9.8 Watts to move on kilogram one metre in one second? Where the heck are you getting that figure from? Sounds like you've gotten confused. It takes a force of one Newton to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one metre per second per second. The acceleration that gravity produces is 9.8 m/s^2. A mass of one kilogram weighs 9.8 N under normal earth gravity.
Based on that (incorrect) assumption, your calculcation then moves to guestimating that the power required by this vehicle at 20 kph would be 27.4 kW, or 36.6 HP. There's no way in heck that a 500 kg car consumes 36.6 HP at 20 km/h. The average passenger car consumes no more than 15 or 20 HP at 100 km/h. I'd guess that the vehicle in question would probably consume no more than about 5 HP at 20 km/h, or 3.75 KW. That'll change your calculation of per km costs a bit, no?
"These tanks hold 90 cubic metres of air compressed to 300 bars.
I can't do the math to get the tank size"
Pretty simple. 90 m^3 / 300 = .3 m^3, or 300 litres, or 10.6 cubic feet. Not terribly big, a cube about 2.2 feet to a side. Or a cylinder 2 feet in (inside) diamater and about 3.4 ft long. Somewhat bigger (by about 5 or 6 times) than a typical gas tank.
How much heat sits in each cask, about 1 kW or do they load em hotter? You'd have 20 kWs of waste heat to play with as well. You could use them for snow removal maybe (but I'm not doing the math now).
Which way would you go? Could you go up for a while? Maybe take a sharp right and roll a few hundred times?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.