Yamaha-frame bike with scuba tank makes Dyson shortlist [Runs on AIR!]

Phys.Org ^ | 11-06-2012 | Staff

[Red Badger]

Look what an Australian designer would like us to roll with in a no-emissions future: A motorcycle powered by nothing but air. Adding to a growing portfolio of ideas centered around compressed-air engines, this good-looking entry is called the 02 Pursuit. As an alternative-fuel bike, it reaches impressive speeds, given that is powered by a tank of compressed air. Opened up all the way, according to claims, the O2 Pursuit can do over 60 miles on a single tank and can zoom past trees and mountains at 87 mph. The obvious advantage to electric bikes would be that this Pursuit cycle would not require the big heavy batteries, long re-charging waits, and thoughts about battery disposal.

The O2 Pursuit was designed by Dean Benstead, an industrial designer and a graduate of RMIT University, in Melbourne, Australia. Benstead started out with a what-if idea: "Living in a world where people can commute in vehicles and have fun without impacting on the environment in a scenario that seems unachievable and unimaginable—what if we could?" He worked the idea into a functional prototype stage with numerous design iterations along the way. He said he conducted a validation of air as power source with the use of life-cycle analysis mapping and futuring. A Yamaha WR250R frame was fitted with a compressed-air engine, which is the DiPietro Air Engine developed by Engineair Australia, and a standard scuba diving tank. Last year, he showcased his O2 Pursuit air-powered motorcycle at the Sydney Motorcycle and Scooter Show. This year, the O2 Pursuit is one of the inventions that have been shortlisted for the upcoming James Dyson Award. There are 15 projects on the list and the winner and two runners-up will be announced on November 8.

As some suggest, however, the idea is wonderful but not yet practical. The drawback is lack of refilling stations, and a need to find power to compress the air in the first place. While gas stations are available to provide compressed air, they would not be efficient for something like a scuba tank. The answer would be in a "distributed generation smart grid," he said, where refill stations can be positioned around a city or rural area to facilitate the required range. The refill points would be navigable via the user's integrated smartphone and GPS system. Air energy could be compressed via solar or wind and stored in an inert state forever. Right now, however, the O2 Pursuit is a project that provides an inviting look into the use of air as an alternative fuel in, as he said, a post-petroleum world.

[Oztrich Boy]

You can extend the range by towing one of these

[CanuckYank]

YAH right, until the environazis or the EPA decide to return your water storage area “back to nature” .....

[wonkowasright]

Why don’t we just put a seat on that and be done with it ? :-)

[chaos_5]

USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I know you said you are playing devil’s advocate and I think you mean well in your points but a huge red flag goes up every time I see one of those air cars and the “facts” associated with them. A quick stop over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density will show that the claim “Compressed air tanks have greater energy density than batteries” is FALSE (mostly)!

At 300 bar (4350 psi) compressed air has a specific energy density of 0.5 MJ/Kg

Others for comparison…
Gasoline 47.2
Lithium air battery 9
Lithium battery 1.8
Alkaline battery 0.59
Lithium ion battery 0.72
Lead acid 0.1

So, it may be better than an old fashioned lead battery not so in general.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I clearly got the energy density part wrong. I was going on (obviously faulty) memory.

Also, I hadn’t realized that the energy density of a lithium-air battery is so high. That’s very interesting.

I felt the need to play devil’s advocate, because I think that there’s too much of a tendency to politicize certain technologies on FR. To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

I realize that air cars, battery-electric cars, hybrids, etc. have been politicized by the “other side” — all part and parcel of the greatest boondoggle of all times (the AGW, carbon-credit, “green” energy subsidy, anti-coal, wealth-redistribution, knock-the-west-down-to-size, watermelon conspiracy). That does make it hard to be dispassionate about any technology that gets ensnared in that mess. I have a simple rule for approaching such technologies: if it’s subsidized, criticize; if it’s a product of free markets — then leave it to willing buyers and willing sellers.

As a confirmed gadget freak; if I had the mad money I might indulge myself with an air car, or air motorcycle, just to play with it.

[chaos_5]

To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

Well, I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. Also, reading through your other post I have to say it is refreshing to see some looking at energy issues from a system wide prospective.

I don’t use the subsidized litmus test though since nearly every breakthrough technology is arguably subsidized in its infancy, especially if the technology is in the research phase and resaving government funding through university grants etc. Then there is the idea that you subsidize what you want more of and tax what you want less of. Clearly dumping billions of dollars into solar power companies that just go belly up is stupid.

Anyway, the writing is on the wall as far as alternative energy goes. It’s frustrating when people support it for ridiculous reasons like CO2 emissions instead of more reasonable terms like conserving finite and diminishing resources. But, honestly, I think the big dogs in power just use things like global warming to grab more power from the sheeple and artificially drive up the cost of energy to make alternatives more economically attractive.

Perhaps the end game is the same...

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"I don’t use the subsidized litmus test though since nearly every breakthrough technology is arguably subsidized in its infancy, especially if the technology is in the research phase and resaving government funding through university grants etc."

Agreed -- and thanks for the opportunity to clarify my meaning. This forum isn't designed for academic discussions; so I try to get to the main point, while often leaving aside a lot of important nuances. I've said on several other threads that subsidizing pure research is a legitimate government role. And often a case can be made for subsidizing applied R&D. There is almost never a case for subsidizing full-scale industrial operations. For instance, there should have been a lot more R&D in solar, before solar companies were subsidized -- enough to have a clear path to profitability.

In short, my litmus test is: if the production phase needs subsidy, complain. If a business can produce and market an air-powered motorcycle, without ongoing government subsidies -- more power to them. If they come cap-in-hand for a production subsidy -- then, we all have a right to complain.

[devolve]

"...how does the compressed air get compressed in the first place?"


"...maybe a little blow...."

-- Barack Hussein Obama II

[Hot Tabasco]

Cool! How’s it run in snow?

[steve86]

Two-stroke (offroad) making a huge comeback. Yamaha (and others) actually never quit making them. Also check out KTM, Husqvarna, Husaberg, Gas-Gas and others. Ossa has a new direct injection 2T that beats 4T in some emmisions metrics.

[steve86]

emissions

[Red Badger]

Since air must have ‘heat’ to expand, I’d think it runs rather slower in the cold than the summer........