Air Powered Vehicles, Maybe Planes Too?

[Geico266]

I saw this a couple of months ago and thought I'd throw it out to have POA take a look. It is pretty intriguing way to move people around. 200-500 miles range is nothing to laugh at. Priced right, $2-5.00 to fill it up, and you can plug it in at home for fill ups at night.

There are some draw backs, but for around town, and NO GAS, this is pretty cool. AND it is here today.

Why isn't the "Big 3" making something like this?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

http://gas2.org/2008/07/15/an-air-car-you-could-see-in-2009-zpms-106-mpg-compressed-air-hybrid/

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I saw this a couple of months ago and thought I'd throw it out to have POA take a look. It is pretty intriguing way to move people around. 200-500 miles range is nothing to laugh at. Priced right, $2-5.00 to fill it up, and you can plug it in at home for fill ups at night.

I doubt it.

There are some draw backs, but for around town, and NO GAS, this is pretty cool. AND it is here today.

Why isn't the "Big 3" making something like this?

Because they have to work in the real world.

 

[silver-eagle]

I doubt it.



Because they have to work in the real world.

Well, that and they just got a loan to continue doing what they've been doing all along.

 

[jhausch]

The power density of highly compressed air (and the tanks needed to contain it) is similar to current battery technology.

I have more faith in discovering better battery technology than I do for improved air storage. A chemical reaction to create charge air is one possibility though.

 

[Ted]

Few things to note:

1) The air tank is close to 90 gallons. For comparison, that's twice the size of the tank in my Ford Excursion, and pretty close to twice the size of the tanks in a 172 or Archer

2) The car is, according to the article, held together by glue, and can only travel 125 miles. That means a very small amount of power available per unit of power storage (figuring that means a bit under 1.5 mpg, using the air tank at 90 gallons).

The car is a really neat concept, and for most people would be great for commuting to work. A top speed of 68 mph and range of 125 miles is more than enough for me to get to work and back, and then plug it in at night. It's a significantly more practical concept than most of the alternative energy vehicles I've seen, as you can charge it in minutes at appropriate stations as opposed to hours. Then it just becomes a problem of infrastructure, having enough stations where people can fill up. I don't see this being an issue in India.

If they managed to do something like that here (classified as a motorcycle, I'd think), it would probably get a number of buyers as a commuter car. Only problem is that's about the limit of its practicality, as I couldn't see there being many charging stations outside of urban areas. It's the same problem that CNG powered cars have.

Other question: How's the heater work? When I started my truck up this morning it was 5F. Fortunately, my garage was about 25F, keeping the truck (and its hubs and transfer case) warm enough to engage 4x4 and get me up my driveway with 8" of snow at 5F. I was happy to have my big, inefficient 6.8L V10 that gets up to operating temperature really fast and heats up the truck similarly fast.

 

[Geico266]

The heat is generated by friction and pumped into the cabin (I'm not sure it will help in -12F here, ), A/C is gathered by the colling effect of releasing the air.

What is neat about this idea is, N0 gasoline, no vehicle emissions, NO $10,000 batteries to replace (car thieves will love these), and it uses existing electrical infrastructure.

The APV (Air Powered Vehicles) are currently in production in India and this is a promising new & cheap technology.

I would love to have one just to study it.

 

[Ted]

What is neat about this idea is, N0 gasolene, no vehicle emmisions, NO $10,000 batteries to replace (car thieves will love these), and it uses existing electrical infrastructure.

Do not confuse no tailpipe with no emissions. I realize you said no vehicle emissions, but a common misconception is that no tailpipe emissions is equal to no emissions, which is simply not true. Power is power, and it has to come from somewhere. Since solar and wind power aren't used enough, that means it comes from coal, gas, oil, nuclear, whatever other source of power generation that is polluting. Yes, these power plants are probably more efficient than gasoline internal combustion engines for a number of reasons, but they still pollute.

Just a little discrepancy - I hear lots of supporters of electric cars stating how great they are because there's no pollution, and when I ask them where the power comes from they give me blank stares, as if electricity is produced by magic. I've never seen any witch, wizard, warlock, etc. with a flashlight, usually it's fire.

 

[Geico266]

I realize you said no vehicle emissions, but a common misconception is that no tailpipe emissions is equal to no emissions, which is simply not true. Power is power, and it has to come from somewhere. Since solar and wind power aren't used enough, that means it comes from coal, gas, oil, nuclear, whatever other source of power generation that is polluting. Yes, these power plants are probably more efficient than gasoline internal combustion engines for a number of reasons, but they still pollute.

Yes, I was referring to vehicle emissions. Producing electricity is pretty clean compaired to gasolene and for the most part does not involve buring oil. Nuclear energy is as emission free as you can get, and we need to start building reactors now. Yes, there is nuclear waste to dispose of, but that is an issue grossly exaggerated by the greenies. Much of the nuclear power plant waste can be recycled.

But the biggest benifit is NO gasolene. None. We can save the oil / gasolene for airplanes!

 

[RMCN172RG]

One question looking at the size of the car do you want to be sitting on a 90 gallon container of 4350 PSI compressed air when the tank is breached by a rear end collision while you are at a stop light?

Can you say car bomb?

But on the bright side you won't be worrying about which lawyer to get to sue for whiplash.

 

[Ted]

Exactly, Ray. That's a lot of compressed air. I suspect they chose carbon fiber construction of the tanks for high strength and light weight, which I'm sure they have. However, the safety aspects would concern me. Somehow, I trust a big metal tank significantly more.

 

[Geico266]

One question looking at the size of the car do you want to be sitting on a 90 gallon container of 4350 PSI compressed air when the tank is breached by a rear end collision while you are at a stop light?

Can you say car bomb?

Sitting on 35 gallons of gas is something we have all gotten used to. There are dangers in any vehicles for sure. The air tanks are composite for weight reduction and strength. Exploding?..not likely. The same technology as the high pressure vessels used in the space shuttle. Sure there are risks, but there is risk with anything. The risk with high pressure vessels is manageable.

Now that I think about it there was a piece on Myth Busters about the high pressure air tank (3,000 PSI) in the shark's mouth in movie Jaws. They set up a tank and shot it with a high powered rifle. It just leaked, granted that is a steel tank.

I'm sure your fears are warranted as the governemnt will prodably nix any of these APV's for the reason you state, just to protect the oil industry and our failing auto industry. ....and so it goes.

 

[RMCN172RG]

Sitting on 35 gallons of gas is something we have all gotten used to. There are dangers in any vehiles for sure. The air tanks are composite for weight reduction and strength. Exploding?..not likely. The same technology as the high pressure vessles used in the space shuttle. Sure there are risks, but there is risk with anything. The risk with high pressure vessels is managable.

Now that I think about it there was a piece on Myth Busters about the high pressure air tank (3,000 PSI) in the shark's mouth in Jaws. They set up a tank and shot it with a high powered rifle. It just leaked.

Your 35 gallon tank is surrounded by an SUV or a truck. The cars I've driven max out at 16 which is very well protected since the Pinto design.

An crash will involve much different forces than shooting a bullet into a tank.

 

[fgcason]

Exactly, Ray. That's a lot of compressed air. I suspect they chose carbon fiber construction of the tanks for high strength and light weight, which I'm sure they have. However, the safety aspects would concern me. Somehow, I trust a big metal tank significantly more.

What exactly happens to a glue together car and it's occupants when you breach or structurally fail a 90 gallon 4350psi tank?
I'm filing that in the same category as the fiberglass propane tanks. Any shoddy work or materials resulting in delamination or a sharp stick and you get BOOF!


Glue bad. Caveman trust metal.

 

[Skip Miller]

Can you say car bomb?

Maybe a rocket car. I remember reading a news article about an automobile accident that knocked the valve off full 72cf scuba tank. The tank went off like a rocket, traveled about 6 blocks, went through a brick wall and killed an unfortunate soul in the building.

Rupturing this 90 gallon tank would release a lot (!) of energy quickly....

-Skip

 

[vontresc]

Yeah High pressure gas tanks store an awful lot of energy. I remember getting reamed out by the shop foreman at one of my summer jobs, for moving one of the welding tanks without the protective valve cap. IIRC the Mythbusters recently shot a nitrogen tank through a brick wall on one of their shows recently. Was pretty impressive to watch.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The power density of highly compressed air (and the tanks needed to contain it) is similar to current battery technology.

I have more faith in discovering better battery technology than I do for improved air storage. A chemical reaction to create charge air is one possibility though.

The efficiency for chargers / electric motors is much higher than compressors / air motors. No way you could operate a compressed air vehicle at the same cost as electric.

 

[gkainz]

Just a little discrepancy - I hear lots of supporters of electric cars stating how great they are because there's no pollution, and when I ask them where the power comes from they give me blank stares, as if electricity is produced by magic. I've never seen any witch, wizard, warlock, etc. with a flashlight, usually it's fire.

"Where's the power come from? What do you mean 'Where's the power come from?' I just plug it into my neighbor's outdoor outlet every night."

 

[Ted]

Sitting on 35 gallons of gas is something we have all gotten used to. There are dangers in any vehicles for sure. The air tanks are composite for weight reduction and strength. Exploding?..not likely.

The 16-45 gallons of gasoline or diesel is not only surrounded by a bigger vehicle (this is a smaller concern to me), but rupturing the tank will only cause a leak. Do not underestimate how much energy is stored in one of those containers. Remember that gasoline is not pressurized, or if it is it is a very low pressure. For something to happen with gasoline after it leaks, you need a spark. Hollywood explosions of gas tanks are not real. Hollywood explosions of pressure vessels are a lot closer to reality. I wouldn't be concerned about this as much with a metal tank, but with carbon fiber (which is very brittle), I would worry significantly.

I'm sure your fears are warranted as the governemnt will prodably nix any of these APV's for the reason you state, just to protect the oil industry and our failing auto industry. ....and so it goes.

I'm not saying that such things shouldn't be out there, actually quite the opposite. After all, people haven't been stripped of their ability to ride motorcycles (in many states without helmets), and I want it to stay that way. I'd like to see these cars over here (although I wouldn't buy one - I won't pay $12,000 for it). You're right, everything has risks associated with it, I am saying it's important to have a realistic understanding of the risks. The carbon fiber tank I am not comfortable with at this point, and this is coming from someone whose testicular fortitude is of such an immense magnitude that it must be factored it into weight and balance calculations.

What exactly happens to a glue together car and it's occupants when you breach or structurally fail a 90 gallon 4350psi tank?
I'm filing that in the same category as the fiberglass propane tanks. Any shoddy work or materials resulting in delamination or a sharp stick and you get BOOF!

Glue bad. Caveman trust metal.

This was pretty much my point.

 

[Ted]

"Where's the power come from? What do you mean 'Where's the power come from?' I just plug it into my neighbor's outdoor outlet every night."

I did that with the block heater for my GMC 6.5 Turbo Diesel and later Cummins-powered Dodge Ram in college!

 

[jhausch]

The efficiency for chargers / electric motors is much higher than compressors / air motors. No way you could operate a compressed air vehicle at the same cost as electric.

I should have been more clear when I said the density was similar. I meant the weight of air tanks to hold that sort of energy was going to be similar to that of batteries.

I agree with your statement that charging batteries is a more energy efficient endeavor. Compressing air is not very efficient.

 

[Geico266]

Yeah High pressure gas tanks store an awful lot of energy.

I helped build the high pressure vessels in the space shuttle. Pretty amazing pressures they can handle, 4350 PSI is not anywhere close to the limits of composite. I'm trying to remember the burst pressure we would test them at. They were submerged in water and water filled. We then added liquid nitrogen until they bursed. If I remember right (don't yell at me if I'm wrong) the destructive test pressures were over 30,000 PSI. It was pretty crazy when it let go.

When the Challenger disintegrated upon re-entry all 24 of these vessels were found intact, they are pretty tough.

http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SpaceOps/Shuttle/COPV/

 

[Geico266]

Glue bad. Caveman trust metal.

Come on now Frank, glue has come a long way!

 

[fgcason]

Come on now Frank, glue has come a long way!

Pin me to the wall and, yea, true, however I've seen way too much delamination in shoddily made glue together stuff and way too few steel failures that didn't give lots of warning first.

I guess glue is ok...
BUT...
At this very moment I'm sitting less than three feet from 2.9 million BTU (135 lbs) of propane that's currently around 50psi...all of which is very ready to spontaneously boil off into an explosively flammable cloud with two spark ignitors/open vent flames 2.5 and 8 feet from the tanks..add another 3 feet from ignitor/flame source #2 and there's 70 gallons of gasoline in another steel tank.
Caveman very happy knowing pressurized kablooey magic safely contained inside steel.

 

[jhausch]

When the Challenger disintegrated upon re-entry all 24 of these vessels were found intact, they are pretty tough.

http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SpaceOps/Shuttle/COPV/

That would be the most convincing high pressure tank testimonial around, that's for sure.

 

[Geico266]

Caveman very happy knowing pressurized kablooey magic safely contained inside steel.

Thanks buddy, I just spewed hot cocoa all over my laptop.

 

[Geico266]

That would be the most convincing high pressure tank testimonial around, that's for sure.

If I remember right about the recovered tanks several still have their contents under pressure due to a safety valve that closes the tank if abnormally high rates of contents are released. Nice to know what I helped build worked!

Getting back to the APV, Caveman fears not withstanding, I'd buy one and run it.

 

[cessna182b]

I saw this a couple of months ago and thought I'd throw it out to have POA take a look. It is pretty intriguing way to move people around. 200-500 miles range is nothing to laugh at. Priced right, $2-5.00 to fill it up, and you can plug it in at home for fill ups at night.

There are some draw backs, but for around town, and NO GAS, this is pretty cool. AND it is here today.

Why isn't the "Big 3" making something like this?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

http://gas2.org/2008/07/15/an-air-car-you-could-see-in-2009-zpms-106-mpg-compressed-air-hybrid/

Check this out:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19

(from a link within the original PM article)

Dave

 

[Geico266]

I doubt it.



Because they have to work in the real world.

Seems you may be right after all.

Pasted from Popular Mechanics follow up.

Since this article was published in Feb 2008, 1) Tata Motors announced that the MDI technology was not developed enough to put into production anytime in the near future, 2) the August 2008 prediction of 6,000 cars on the streets of India didn't happen, 3) MDI announced yet another version of their car (The AirPod), 4) MDI announced that Air France will test some of the prototype AirPod cars starting in Spring 2009. Of course, with MDI's history of never, never, ever going into production, the Spring 2009 update will be that the Airpod prototypes are scheduled to go to Air France in 2010. At some point the repeated announcements of production every year since 2000 will start ring hollow. But MDI does appear to continue to find enough investors to make it worthwhile to make yet another model, with yet another set of predicted mass production dates.


Oh well it was fun to dream.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

At some point the repeated announcements of production every year since 2000 will start ring hollow. But MDI does appear to continue to find enough investors to make it worthwhile to make yet another model, with yet another set of predicted mass production dates.

This buisness model has been working for Moller and his ScamCar for more than 40 years.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Seems you may be right after all.

Pasted from Popular Mechanics follow up.

Since this article was published in Feb 2008, 1) Tata Motors announced that the MDI technology was not developed enough to put into production anytime in the near future, 2) the August 2008 prediction of 6,000 cars on the streets of India didn't happen, 3) MDI announced yet another version of their car (The AirPod), 4) MDI announced that Air France will test some of the prototype AirPod cars starting in Spring 2009. Of course, with MDI's history of never, never, ever going into production, the Spring 2009 update will be that the Airpod prototypes are scheduled to go to Air France in 2010. At some point the repeated announcements of production every year since 2000 will start ring hollow. But MDI does appear to continue to find enough investors to make it worthwhile to make yet another model, with yet another set of predicted mass production dates.


Oh well it was fun to dream.

I was wondering about that. I'm sitting in a "cybercafe" right now in Kolkatha- not a single air-powered car has driven by and I don't see any refill stations (maybe they use the compressors that are used to refill tyres?).

I'ts nice to see the news from home. The reports here are on the potential war between Pakistan & India (Pakistan is promising no nukes), there's a tiger running around eating people, and someone twittered after a plane crash in Denver.

 

[gismo]

I was wondering about that. I'm sitting in a "cybercafe" right now in Kolkatha- not a single air-powered car has driven by and I don't see any refill stations (maybe they use the compressors that are used to refill tyres?).

I haven't seen too many tires that will hold several thousand PSI so I doubt you'll find any help there. This idea of a compressed air powered car is so wrong on so many counts that PM is about the only place you'll ever see one. Little things like the inabiity to fill a tank with such high pressure quickly, the risks of an uncontained explosion during filling or in a crash, and the relatively low energy density of compressed air stand in the way of this ever becoming practical.