Cars of the Present/Future

[D2011]

*Couldnt find this in the search facility, so apologies if its been discussed*

Had these few links sent to me via email today & although I had heard about them, I thought they were further away from sale to the public than what they are.

One is powered by air, the other powered by electricity.

Check these out:

http://teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

http://www.engineair.com.au/index.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjSOvbsE460

http://www.theaircar.com/


I wonder what the impact will be to the oil industry? Trucks & ships & other large modes of transport will still need them for a while & we will always have a use for oil when it comes to plastic, foam & ashpalt etc.

The other side of it is. If electric cars were to become the norm, power stations would have to scale up or be more of them to cope with the extra burden & what fuels the power stations?

Food for thought anyway.

D2011

 

[Topspy]

How do you compress the air? How do you recharge the batteries? With electricity from OTHER sources, such as oil.......

 

[TjW]

Air motors would be pollution amplifiers. Compressing gases is a lossy process. So you wind up using more fuel overall for equivalent energy to the rear wheels.
The little golf carts the french guy is building won't use much energy, because they're small, and light, and the energy density of compressed air is terrible, so their range will be short, and people will stay away from them in droves.

 

[AtaraX]

Air motors would be pollution amplifiers. Compressing gases is a lossy process. So you wind up using more fuel overall for equivalent energy to the rear wheels.
The little golf carts the french guy is building won't use much energy, because they're small, and light, and the energy density of compressed air is terrible, so their range will be short, and people will stay away from them in droves.

The energy loss issue is the problem these engineers are proporting to solve. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as complete bunk. We are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here. Or a water fueled car. Compressed air is a legitimate way to store potential energy to do work. The questions are:

a) can sufficient energy be stored to power a vehicle for pratical length of time?
b) can that stored energy be efficiently translated into motion of the vehicle?

They are claiming so but I would like more collaborating evidence before I endorse them. But to dismiss them out of hand would be an arguement from ignorance: saying it can't be done just because we don't know how. There is nothing magical or physically impossible about their claim.

 

[bruto]

The energy loss issue is the problem these engineers are proporting to solve. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as complete bunk. We are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here. Or a water fueled car. Compressed air is a legitimate way to store potential energy to do work. The questions are:

a) can sufficient energy be stored to power a vehicle for pratical length of time?
b) can that stored energy be efficiently translated into motion of the vehicle?

They are claiming so but I would like more collaborating evidence before I endorse them. But to dismiss them out of hand would be an arguement from ignorance: saying it can't be done just because we don't know how. There is nothing magical or physically impossible about their claim.

Compressed air just isn't very efficient. It's been around a long time. Millions of tools and other devices are powered with it. I think you'll find a lot of engineering has been done, and substantial tomes written with the figures, facts and numbers which would probably explain why nobody has seriously tried to run compressed-air cars. You could just get something like a Sears tool catalog. Figure out how much horsepower, and how many cubic feet per minute of air at what pressure, you would need to run, say a hand held grinder or a small pneumatic drill. Now try to figure out where you're going to get that air, and where you're going to store it, to run an engine a hundred or more times the size.

 

[TjW]

The energy loss issue is the problem these engineers are proporting to solve. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as complete bunk. We are not talking about a perpetual motion machine here. Or a water fueled car. Compressed air is a legitimate way to store potential energy to do work.

So is stretching a rubber band. Nevertheless, I don't think I'll invest in rubberband powered cars.

The questions are:
a) can sufficient energy be stored to power a vehicle for pratical length of time?
b) can that stored energy be efficiently translated into motion of the vehicle?

They are claiming so but I would like more collaborating evidence before I endorse them. But to dismiss them out of hand would be an arguement from ignorance: saying it can't be done just because we don't know how. There is nothing magical or physically impossible about their claim.

And the answers are:
a) Of course it can. I have no doubt they're driving their little golf carts around and letting investors drive them around too.

b) Efficiently enough to move the car, certainly. There's also a scheme that warms and expands liquid nitrogen to power an air motor. Works fine. Energy density is about the same as lead-acid batteries, which is to say, terrible, in terms of transportation applications.

You apparently misunderstand my position. I am not saying they physically don't work and can never work. But the range will remain short, and the well-to-wheels efficiency will remain low. The thermodynamics of gas compression and expansion are pretty well known.

Actually, if I had some heretofore unknown super-efficient method of compressing gases, I'd be looking at building air conditioners, or maybe jet engines.

 

[steve s]

At the Air Car site, there's a section called Mileage and General Running, but nowhere do they actually give any numbers for mileage or range. Just a bunch of "filler" like, "Much has been said and written about the mileage of our vehicles..."

ETA: Also the FAQ section makes no mention of the range.

Steve S.

 

[Grimoire]

Definitely a lack of hard numbers on those sites, but they are intriguing. The gootube link mentions that a hybrid version could go 4000km on a single tank of "petrol". Seems like a ridiculous claim, especially with the lack of real info.

Worth keeping an eye on though.

One good thing about these cars though: free air conditioning!

 

[bruto]

One problem with compressed air, which anyone who has worked with a compressor should know, is that the act of compressing air creates a good deal of heat. Look at the compressor there in the garage: see the fins on the cylinders and the big cooling fan. There's a lot of heat coming off, even for the relatively trivial job of squashing the air down to 125 psi or so. Before you have even gotten to the part about storing it and carrying it around, you have lost considerable energy in the conversion. Not only that, but the air itself comes out hot, which means that when it cools down, the pressure drops; whatever pressure you wish to have in the morning, you'll be paying for more when you pump it in the night before. The remainder goes off as wasted heat.

Any compressed air power scheme for general use must first find a source of free or very cheap power to squash the air, so cheap that the inefficiency is not worrisome, and then must justify that inefficiency against other uses of the same energy for other sources of motive power. There are, of course, some justifications for these things, as the Engineair folks have shown: zero pollution vehicles inside of buildings, for example, or use in areas where explosion is a hazard. For these, there is little need for long range or high power, and little penalty for running out of air at inopportune times. It's a long stretch from there to heading down the highway in an air car.

 

[D2011]

How do you compress the air? How do you recharge the batteries? With electricity from OTHER sources, such as oil.......

These technologies are only in their infancy compared to petrol engines, so you would have to expect amendments & adjustments. I guess it comes down to. What do you prefer to pay in fuel costs to get you the same distance? $10 or $50.

People will always take economics over environment.

Engineers have been faced with these sort of challenges for eons & usually a bit of lateral thinking wins out, where others said "thats impossible".

At the Air Car site, there's a section called Mileage and General Running, but nowhere do they actually give any numbers for mileage or range. Just a bunch of "filler" like, "Much has been said and written about the mileage of our vehicles..."

Yes, I noticed that. If you click on the "engine" link, there is a tab on the side that says "thermodynaics & mileage". However, the link is broken. I wrote to them over this to either fix the link or provide me with the details.

If you watch the video, you will see they claim 4000km. This seems far fetched to me & I have written to them also.

Bruto, did you watch the you tube video?

I didnt see anyone mention anything about the electric car.

D2011

 

[bruto]

These technologies are only in their infancy compared to petrol engines, so you would have to expect amendments & adjustments. I guess it comes down to. What do you prefer to pay in fuel costs to get you the same distance? $10 or $50.

People will always take economics over environment.

Engineers have been faced with these sort of challenges for eons & usually a bit of lateral thinking wins out, where others said "thats impossible".



Yes, I noticed that. If you click on the "engine" link, there is a tab on the side that says "thermodynaics & mileage". However, the link is broken. I wrote to them over this to either fix the link or provide me with the details.

If you watch the video, you will see they claim 4000km. This seems far fetched to me & I have written to them also.

Bruto, did you watch the you tube video?

I didnt see anyone mention anything about the electric car.

D2011

I did watch the you tube video, and it was quite interesting. I have no doubt that both the vehicles work, and I'm especially impressed with the little aussie engine, which looks ideal for indoor forklifts and the like. There are still a few things not addressed though, that I think affect the likelihood of these things seeing widespread use for transportation. The obvious first one is the energy cost of compressing the air. Range is also a factor, and so is horsepower, and so are auxiliary functions such as lights and heat, all of which must be provided in some way by the compressed air engine. I'm not saying it's impossible, and it certainly looks like an interesting alternative for certain applications. But I think internal combustion will still have the edge for some time to come.

One of the things worth noting here is the size and weight of the vehicles themselves which are used for demonstration. Almost any well engineered power source will give you good economy in that size. You can drive a little box like the French examples around city streets with a lawnmower engine. Back in the energy crisis days there were a few outfits that made minicars like that. I knew a person in Massachusetts who had one. It ran on a 6 or 8 horsepower Tecumseh, as I recall, and got something like a hundred miles to the gallon even though the engine, like most such engines, was a technological dinosaur. I suspect that if you took the same little van the French guy was driving on compressed air, took out the tanks, and put in a really well designed, low emission small gas engine, it would give the air version a run for its money.

Of course I could be all wrong, but I think range and compression inefficiency will keep air cars in a niche.

 

[TjW]

These technologies are only in their infancy compared to petrol engines, so you would have to expect amendments & adjustments. I guess it comes down to. What do you prefer to pay in fuel costs to get you the same distance? $10 or $50.

People will always take economics over environment.

Why do you think an inefficient storage medium would be good for the environment?

Engineers have been faced with these sort of challenges for eons & usually a bit of lateral thinking wins out, where others said "thats impossible".

Can you show me where an engineer has gotten around the Carnot limit?
I'm sure it would have been big news.
Seriously, though they run cool, air motors are heat engines (so are air conditioners). Carnot puts an absolute limit on the efficiency of heat engines.
If you can find a way around the Carnot limit, it's trivial to build a perpetual motion machine.

Yes, I noticed that. If you click on the "engine" link, there is a tab on the side that says "thermodynaics & mileage". However, the link is broken. I wrote to them over this to either fix the link or provide me with the details.

If you watch the video, you will see they claim 4000km. This seems far fetched to me & I have written to them also.

Bruto, did you watch the you tube video?

I didnt see anyone mention anything about the electric car.

D2011

What's to mention? As I recall, it's an eighty thousand dollar hobby car.
I wish I had the money to buy one. I wouldn't buy one, but I sure wish I had the money.

 

[luchog]

How do you recharge the batteries? With electricity from OTHER sources, such as oil.......

The good thing about electrical cars, however, is that you can charge them with non-petrol electricity sources. Sources that, unlike petrol, cannot really be used for powering a vehicle directly -- eg. hydroelectric, solar, wind, tidal.

But wholesale conversion to electrical vehicles would certainly require a major scaling up in electricity generation; and quite likely a complete re-working of production patterns, since peak usage times would change. They're also only going to be useful primarily as commuter vehicles, since longer-distance driving is hampered by the slow recharge time.

 

[Crazycowbob]

In my opinion, electric seems to be the way to go. Advancements in battery technologies (the primary limiting factor for electric cars) have made considerable strides. Batteries are being produced now that recharge within minutes, instead of hours.

http://www.atbatt.com/news/p/48/Toshiba_announces_Super-fast_rechargeable_battery.asp

Energy density and weight has improved vastly as well, along with electic motor technologies.

The major problems we're facing with electric cars right now revolve around the very high cost (which can be expected to drop at least a little should they come into widespread production), and the lack of amenities, as modern A/C and other comforts are power hungry devices, and would kill any range benifits gained by advancing technologies.

 

[Lynx2174]

In my opinion, electric seems to be the way to go. Advancements in battery technologies (the primary limiting factor for electric cars) have made considerable strides. Batteries are being produced now that recharge within minutes, instead of hours.

http://www.atbatt.com/news/p/48/Toshiba_announces_Super-fast_rechargeable_battery.asp

Energy density and weight has improved vastly as well, along with electic motor technologies.

The major problems we're facing with electric cars right now revolve around the very high cost (which can be expected to drop at least a little should they come into widespread production), and the lack of amenities, as modern A/C and other comforts are power hungry devices, and would kill any range benifits gained by advancing technologies.

Recall, however, that the one part that makes electric cars so expensive happens to be the battery. And battery prices aren't exactly dropping at an appreciable rate. anything besides lead-acid batteries are quite expensive on the scale you need to run a car. From what I've heard, the chemestry in batteries is quite a bit ahead of most other fields of chemestry, and that chemical storage of electricity isn't likely to get any better than the Lithium batteries in the forseeable future. And those cost so very much, that it's probably better just to use very small ones to power all our nifty consumer electronics. as we do.

I say, for now go with ultra-low sulfur diesel in tiny engines in very small cars. Call me in a few years when they come out with practical consumer ultracapacitors, and then I'll take a look at electric cars.

 

[D2011]

What's to mention? As I recall, it's an eighty thousand dollar hobby car.

The major problems we're facing with electric cars right now revolve around the very high cost (which can be expected to drop at least a little should they come into widespread production)

Yes. Like anything. Once someone see's that someone else is making a dollar out of something, they give it a go too, forcing competition & driving down cost to the end buyer.

TJW, looks like you have got a little upset over this topic,lol.

so their range will be short, and people will stay away from them in droves.

But the range will remain short, and the well-to-wheels efficiency will remain low. The thermodynamics of gas compression and expansion are pretty well known.

Can you show me where an engineer has gotten around the Carnot limit?

Its ok mate, your oil stocks are ok for the moment & Im sure they wont be making your job at Caltex redundant any time soon, haha.

Why do you think an inefficient storage medium would be good for the environment?

Well, we have to start somewhere. How effcient was the petrol engine at its conception & how many people could afford a car?

Oil is a rapidly depleting source & non renewable, so do we just stand around & watch the last drop fall & say "Oh well, at least we have horses".

I have not received replies to my emails from either aircar or engine air regarding their data & mileage. So for now I will dismiss the mileage as exageration.

Like TJW says. They may be ok for golf buggies, maybe even small inner city cars & scooters. The electrics seem to be further down the path of success for the time being.

I see that Hydrogen is making a bit of a comeback though.

http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/schwarzenegger.htm

http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/

From what I have seen of the costs. It is slightly more expensive than petrol. So, it will be interesting to see how that one will pan out.

D2011

 

[TjW]

Sorry. I find ignorance irritating.

 

[Crazycowbob]

Recall, however, that the one part that makes electric cars so expensive happens to be the battery. And battery prices aren't exactly dropping at an appreciable rate. anything besides lead-acid batteries are quite expensive on the scale you need to run a car. From what I've heard, the chemestry in batteries is quite a bit ahead of most other fields of chemestry, and that chemical storage of electricity isn't likely to get any better than the Lithium batteries in the forseeable future. And those cost so very much, that it's probably better just to use very small ones to power all our nifty consumer electronics. as we do.

I say, for now go with ultra-low sulfur diesel in tiny engines in very small cars. Call me in a few years when they come out with practical consumer ultracapacitors, and then I'll take a look at electric cars.

True, but Lithium Ion batteries appear to be effective. Look at the Tesla linked in the first post, it runs off Lithium batteries, and it's performance and range specifications look spectacular. The only problem is, again, it's cost, but if demand spurs an increase in production, you can expect prices to drop as manufacturing gets retooled for mass production.

 

[ponderingturtle]

These technologies are only in their infancy compared to petrol engines, so you would have to expect amendments & adjustments. I guess it comes down to. What do you prefer to pay in fuel costs to get you the same distance? $10 or $50.

Not really, these things are well understood and well engeneered, as they are used in things that are not transport related.

 

[ponderingturtle]

True, but Lithium Ion batteries appear to be effective. Look at the Tesla linked in the first post, it runs off Lithium batteries, and it's performance and range specifications look spectacular. The only problem is, again, it's cost, but if demand spurs an increase in production, you can expect prices to drop as manufacturing gets retooled for mass production.

The problem is that say I want to be able to drive to my brothers. With a 250 mile range it will take me 3 days to get there, instead of one. So why would I buy a car that can not do what I want it to do?

Electric cars either need to be able to be recharged in a few minutes, then you need to get enough cars on the road to get enough for charging stations to be a cost effective proposition.

If you need to recharge over a few hours and can only go a short distance(add in AC and a couple of years on the battery and you will be gettin much less than 250 miles on a charge). It means it is an exclusively commuter vehical, so it needs to be for people who can have such exclusive vehicals and fit thier driving patterns. So it is an expensive second or third car.