What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
126 Comments
- TheRealToma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+29The bigger question is, how much energy is required to compress the air?
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21It's too bad this thread was hijacked by water car stories.... this story is about a real, working compressed-air car.
The TATA M.D.I. air car can re-compress 3minutes at a service station, or in 2 hours at home (for $2 of electricity)... and lasts 200km.
See a test drive here, from a '05 report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4 - omenmedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I've seen news about these cars before, apparently it is true and the tank is "regular" sized, but the air inside is under incredible pressure - better hope that it's a strong tank! Also, zero pollution is a bit of a misnomer... sure it seems the car does not produce harmful emissions, but you still need something to compress the air, which requires power, and that power has got to come from somewhere - but I suppose it's a bit like the electric car debate.
Here's what wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_car - democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The tank is not only extremely strong, but it's also made out of (I believe) carbon fibers. IF the tank ruptures, you won't be pounded with shrapnel from an exploding sheet of steel. The tank will rather "tear" along the plain of the fibers, sort of like a hot dog that splits down the center when microwaved too long.
- foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Children on bicycles.
Pedal like you have never pedalled before my young air compressors! - z00k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Hrm, Alot of attention eh?
Wonder what ever happened to the guy who made the car that ran on water?
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2358637173689658380&hl=en
Oh wait, That's right... - PigThief, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16The water car is not real; look it up on Wikipedia.
- Lawrencetom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Screw dirty , co2 producing, fossil fuels produced by anti-American despots. Nuclear is the way to go. Not a plant here and one there , but about 500 new ones. And quick. New designs are safe , produce little waste and are good for the climate warming fears of the kooks.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@jerbaker:
Nuclear energy is the best we've got in terms of energy output and cleanliness.
Stop listening to Greenpeace propaganda(as an enviromentalist, Greenpeace offends me with their terror tactics and uninformed activism anyways). Reactors have come a damned long way since Chernobyl. They are much much safer, can harness much more energy for the fissionables they utilize and the remaining nuclear material can be used again and again until their half life can be measured in a few centuries(as opposed to the OMG QUAZILLION YEARS!!! Greenpeace wants you to think). Not to mention that we would never produce more waste then we could realistically store before we undoubtedly come up with a better source(like fusion).
Equally, depleted Uranium has applications outside being stored in caves.
Equally, some reactor designs are even safer then typical fuel rod storage. Like the carbon pearl reactors that store the fissionable material in carbon marbles that won't rupture under heat or radiation but conduct the heat nicely.
Wind power is awesome. Solar power is getting better each day. Wave power is emerging. But nothing holds a candle to the yields of nuclear energy yet. And those yields will be needed soon enough to power all those air cars and electric vehicles. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Nuclear Energy and Hydrogen Storage are the way of the future. We need to get there, now.
- saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15WalMart has been using this car for years:
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/08/tv_kart.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/tech/_photos/2006/09/18/kart.jpg
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/wolf/images/supermarket_cart.jpg - NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'll take one, thank you
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Well, you could use solar, but making the panels requires fossil fuels. Or you could use thermal, but making that equipment requires fossil fuels. Or you could use.. you get the picture.
I agree that we should work on mixing our current fossil fuel burning ways with the better (solar, thermal, hydro, wind, nuclear) for the short run, and while we do that, research for that could be used to get the better power sources perfected. - PigThief, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Unless solar panels actually use fossil fuels or one of their byproducts as a component (which they may be, as far as I know), then they are not needed. If you were referring to the energy needed to produce the panels, then this may be true for the first panels. However, we could later use the energy produced by the solar panels to create more solar panels.
- rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Compressed air is heavier than huge banks of poisonous batteries?
- KiloCharley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Does it make sense that 1 big smog belching engine, still may be better than a billion smaller ones?
personally, my work is close, the stores are close, if i had this car, i would pollute about as much as the average bicycle rider. (Taco Bell comments aside)
The best thing here is, for you to ask yourself, 'got a better idea?'
we're waiting.......;-) - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The water car isn't practical, because it takes more energy to free hydrogen from water than you get out of it by far. So you need an alternate energy source on-board to power your electrolysis, like a battery. Of course, it'd be way more efficient just to power your car with the battery, and skip the wasteful electrolysis step.
Similarly, this "air car" is only "zero polution" as much as the electric car was -- the method for "refueling" your car still involves pollution. Instead of a coal burning plant providing the electricity that powers your car, now you've got an extra step -- that electricity is being used to power a high-powered air compressor.
The electric and air car are only truely "zero pollution" in a world that's moved its primary energy infrastructure to green fuel sources. They are not solutions in and of themselves, by any stretch. - lettruthout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Natural gas vehicles have been using tanks pressured to 3600 lbs for years. (I believe they're carbon fiber.) Here's a link to a crash involving such a vehicle (with pictures). "According to the NYSDOT fleet manager, the accident investigator stated that the strength provided by compressed natural gas fuel tank probably saved the driver’s life."
http://pugetsoundcleancities.org/HondaCivicCrash.htm
Safety at 4500 lbs doesn't seem like it would be too hard to accomplish. - phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9it would seem that mass producing electricity is more efficient than burning gasoline...
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6But I *LIKE* TaTas! Oh wait...were we discussing a car?
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+94500 psi in a carbon fiber container? Hmm... I wonder how well such a device would do in crash testing. Last time I had a 1000psi steel container explode in a metalworks lab, my ears were ringing for almost 2 days and the most of the glass in the lab either shattered or cracked. The lab was about 1600 square feet (2 story high) and the container was a standard oxygen tank, as far as I remember. So, with 4.5 times the pressure and about 120 times less cubic space, I don't even want to imagine what it would be like, sitting in a car when the thing went off. I'd rather drive with lithium batteries. At least they can be separated into individually insulated cells and there is a temperature buildup before they explode. With compressed air tank you'd be gone before you ever got to hear the boom. 2 cars collide head on? Or how about a gas car and an air car? The perfect mix!
- syco123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@merreborn
Not true
For those who live in sunny climes solar panels could easily charge the vehicle in 3/4 hours using an on board compressor even the panels coul be on board and as tier effency increases so does this technology's viability. This wouldn't be a practical long distance vehicle until the technology took off but would be a great commuting vehicle.
Inner city pollution is a real problem. This would be the solution. - Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5its going to solve the problem of dirty innefficient energy production
- democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@cherrick
I actually saw some videos of these cars. They were a lot less noisy than regular cars with combustion engines! You could clearly hear the turning of the wheels on the gravel over the engine noise. - Ozzy73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sorry for the comment abuse but the site is already down. Seems like Google
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/ - Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nice FUD guys - the tank is safer than your average LPG tank already in widespread-use around the globe with no real safety issues. You're more likely to rupture the tank on the Mobil truck you crashed into. :-P
- Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Electric cars are zero-emission, what are you smoking?
Of course you could go into the debate about where the electricity comes from, but it isn't the car doing the emitting. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Nothing beats the cleanliness and efficiency of electric cars. But it's not hard to beat gasoline. Gas makes pollution during refining (where large amounts of electricity are used), it makes pollution when it's delivered to service stations by thousands of trucks (EVs get their energy by wire, at 95% efficiency), and of course, gas makes lots of pollution when you use it.
The proof of this is right in the fuel prices. Gas costs 10 cents and up per mile. Electricity for EVs costs a penny or two per mile. Efficiency is the reason. Much greater efficiency means much less pollution per mile, no matter what gets burned at the plant.
Personally, I like the idea of putting up a solar panel on the garage, for zero cents per mile, and zero pollution. Try that with gasoline. - thentro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Great video about air car research here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Even if compressed air is less efficient at transferring/storing energy than a battery set up, the technology to do it is incredibly easy and available and you get none of the side effects of building and destroying batteries. Its worth a look thats for sure! - ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
"Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by a Ohio court in 1996.[2] Similar devices have been promoted by others; see Water-fuelled car." - HairyPoter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Make this car as cheap as you can, make it as better as you can. No matter what you do, the industry will never let this car be sold to any significative number of persons. They cannot allow one product like that to ruin the life of thousands of wealthy guys who burn 100 dollar bills to light their cigars. This rich scum need something that can make people depend on. Make no mistake - this is why you will never see water being used as fuel. Before this, they will bottle hydrogen, so they can sell it to you.
- thentro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3why would any EV car ever be more efficient than a gas engine?
The duh answer is you get more energy burning gas/coal/whatever in one big hot spot than in your car. You could also use solar/wind. The compressed air is just a battery nothing more. What do you want? - Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4merreborn, you do realise that there is significantly less pollution producing the power required to recharge this air car, or an electric car than there is produced by an equivalent petrol car? Even a dirty coal-fired power station is can produce energy more efficiently and cleaner than an internal combustion engine can.
Sure, it's not pollution free, but it's a massive improvement over the current system. I'm thoroughly impressed by the claims they're making for this car. Freeway-speed capable (at least in Aus), decent range (how do they figure 300km = 10 hours though? Who drives that slow?) and cheap to run. Can't ask for much more. - danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3See a test drive here (from 2005, same company) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
I would drive it. - foamcow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Funnily enough there was once no such thing as the internet or Digg.
Amazing how things just, like, kind of appear out of nowhere isnt' it? - jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The poster didn't say a compressed air tank was heavier than batteries, they just said it was heavy and inefficient. The energy density of air is pretty low compared to just about anything. Wishing something to be true doesn't make it true.
- Tenoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ skram - the burning of fossil fuels at a power plant is far more efficient and less polluting than it is by a fossil-fuel car. You're also ignoring the bigger picture - we'd save even more on pollution by reducing the dependence of vehicles on fossil fuels, and thus reducing the need to 'ferry' fossil fuels all around the country to service stations. Less trucks = less pollution + reduced energy consumption. Less fuel would need to be shipped around the world too - again, less pollution and energy consumption.
All I'm seeing is win-win-win. The challenge is making it cost-effective, practical and available. I think it has potential, and perhaps TaTa can rise to the challenge. :P - PigThief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There can be a zero-emissions car quite easily. The trouble is generating the energy for the car at a power plant without emissions (which we are working on). Of course there is no perpetual motion device, but me grandmother be eaten by the Monster o' Loch Ness. Aye, laddie!
- alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@skram & @sponeil
You don't need gaz everywhere to create electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Zero Pollution? Innacurate. How do you think the air got pressurised? This is not perpetual motion. It is an 'air battery', not a fuel source. It needs to be considered alongside EVs and fuel cells to see which one as a smaller lifecycle footprint.
- sponeil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@skram
Don't be stupid. Of course it takes gas to compress the air. But the article says it takes less than $3 of gas to fill a tank that can go 200km - 300km. It takes about $30 to fill my gas tank. Do the math. - grakker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's funny all the people on here saying that it can't be true. The air car has been in real life development for years. I've read about it for years. I've seen it driven on TV (Future Cars or Beyond Tomorrow, I can't remember which). I would buy it, if it were cheap enough.
And that there is the rub. I'm not a rich person. Most likely I never will be, as I don't care enough about money to have that as a goal. If it is cost effective, for me (not from a "where is the energy produced cost effectiveness"), I will buy it. Quickly. I have a relatively efficient car (Scion XB). I honestly feel that it is an obligation to my children to do what I can do. But not to the point of living a Quaker lifestyle or off the grid or whatever.
Make it cheap, relatively. That means about the same as other inexpensive cars. Make it do 100 miles (160km for the metric maniacs) on a charge and do 75 miles per hour on the freeway and I'll be there. Up to now I see cool stuff I want (in car technology), is either way too expensive, has a top speed of like 45 or 55, or has a range of 50 miles. That may work for my retired parents (who bought a Prius, which I'm a little ambivalent about), but it doesn't work for me. I have about a 75 mile commute every day, round trip. A lot of that is on the freeway doing 75 to 80 miles per hour. Make something do this and I'll buy it. - Futurepower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree, it doesn't sound believable. The Physics has been known for decades.
- irodman, on 11/20/2009, -0/+2Now this looks more like the car from the future.
KUDOS to the inventors! - rexona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whether it be ugly or there be better options, at least someone is pushing in the right direction - clean, green and cheap to run.
- chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is the car itself emitting pollution?
maybe heat and noise from the compressor running
but thats about it - Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, the energy return drops significantly as pressure increases, which makes me really doubt this.
- chingy1788, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're ugly too but at least I can drive the air car around
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Is the car itself emitting pollution?
You're kidding right? What is your point? The main reason we are looking for alternative fuels is to reduce greenhouse emmissions. Any alternative has got to produce fewer emmissions. You can't just drive around without some way of compressing the air. Any emmissions required to compress the air is part of the footprint of this type of vehicle. You don't drill for compressed air, you have to compress it yourself. Again, it is simply a battery. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
