Digg

The Car that Runs on Air watch!

youtube.com — After twelve years of reserch and development, Guy Negre has developed an engine that could become one of the biggest technological advances of this century. A new type of engine being developed runs on compress air.

Bury

digitalgopher 1 year 331 days ago, made popular 1 year 331 days ago

997 diggs
digg it

118 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Rummey, on 10/12/2007, -35/+21That idea of full of hot air.
- berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -30/+3@Rummey
  So are you! Pull my finger...
- 8086ed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Rummey's right... Air doesn't exactly compress itself...
- sniper6121, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5It's a cool idea, but the concept looks horrible and when he was driving it the car was very loud.
- berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1@8086ed
  You can pull my finger too. Hahahaahahahahaha.....
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Actually, I have a few toys that run on compressed air. One of them is a dragonfly thingy, that you pump air inside then it flies like a bird (no RC though). There are other toys like that as well, like helicopters, motorcycles, planes.. So it is pretty viable.
  Here is an air powered plane: http://www.amazon.com/SpinMaster-6001785-Air-Hogs-Accelerator/dp/B00012TLKW
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Yet another energy storage and transfer mechanism touted to solve a problem relating to lack of energy sources. When will people learn this isn't a solution and is little more of a curiosity. This is at best a fringe development, the core areas have had very little effort put in bar saying 'go nuclear' which is both obvious and not enough anyway.
  
  Quite simply the amount of expertise in nuclear generation isn't enough to cover all the worlds demand.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I remember my mom saying once that this 'information superhighway' thing was little more than a curiosity. Anyway, there are actually air-powered vehicles in production today, so I'd argue against it being nothing more than a 'curiosity'.
  
  That said, I think with some of the new advances in batteries we'll be seeing alot of focus towards pure electric cars.
- JAshbaugh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Being loud sometimes is a good thing. One bad thing about the hydrogen car is that it is completly silent. The problem is that no one can hear it coming and crossing the street for busy (on the cell phone or eating mcdonalds) predestrians sometimes take their other senses for granted.
- PYREX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10compressed air is much more lightweight than batteries.
  
  compressed air tanks are MUCH MUCH MUCH less toxic than batteries & easier to dispose of.
  
  compressed air tanks dont lose capacity over time like batteries.
  
  air compressors are MUCH MUCH more efficient than internal combushtion, watt for watt.
  
  there're only 2 downsides right now,
  a) the engines are noisy
  b) carbon fiber is expensive
  
  fix those 2 problems and you have a great solution.
- jivinjerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1All cars run on air you idiot. Cool idea but title is inaccurate
- hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1GMorgan, you are right about it just being another energy transfer method. But you have to look at the whole picture. What is the most more energy efficient path?
  
  1) Drilling for oil, shipping the oil to refineries, processing the oil into gas, trucking the gas to gas stations, filling up individual cars, burning that gasoline to make you go,.
  
  2) Mining for coal, shipping the coal to power plants, burning the coal, heating water to turn turbines, turbines create electricity, transporting the electric power long distances over land, then powering an air pump to fill a car up with air.
  
  3) Same thing as 2), except fission or fusion (hopefully in the future) plants.
  
  I don't know the answer when comparing 1) and 2), but I'm pretty sure 3) is better than both.
  
  This is why things like bio diesel make sense, but isn't an answer to all of our problems. If everyone in a city switched from gas or diesel to bio diesel, the smog problem in the city probably wouldn't go away. You're still burning a fuel and generating gas particulates that are going to hang around and dirty the air.
  
  BUT, you are no longer screwing with the Earth's carbon cycle. The Earth has adjusted over time to having all of the carbon in oil be sequestered under ground, where the day to day, month to month, and year to year surface activity of plants and animals does not interact with the oil. There's a certain amount of carbon present in various molecular structures, and it continually changes hosts, from a plant absorbing carbon from the air or ground, to cows eating the plant and using the carbon to build muscle, to humans eating the cow and using it to grow, then turning it into feces and using it to re fertilize the ground, where the plant will once again absorb it.
  
  When you burn a bunch of oil that has been sequestered, and dump the resulting carbon into the air, it disrupts the balance. And that is fundamentally where the problem arises. Before, the rate at which carbon was absorbed out of the atmosphere by plants and animals was balanced by the rate at which plants and animals generated carbon and released it into the air. Now, burning oil is increasing the rate of carbon generation in the air, but nothing is accountable for absorbing all that extra carbon.
  
  (Very brief description of the carbon cycle.)
EochaidRiata, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Look at the EROEI of compressing air to 31MPa. That is the reason everyone abandons this path at the most preliminary stages.
- Thater, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Could you explain that that means? Because from everything I saw in the video it seems pretty interesting. But if you know something else you should elaborate because I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
- zumpiez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It means that you've got to expend energy from the very fuel sources this car is trying to get away from in order to compress the air. You're just shifting the problem from the fuel itself to the source.
- Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7It means that in the end, this engine requires the same, or more energy to run than a gasoline engine.
- klaymen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27but couldn't you then use nuclear power to compress the air?
- n0sferatu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8or water or wind or solar?
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3Or just plain good old electricity? They said in the video that with 2 bucks worth of electricity you can fill it in.
- boo5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20lol @ "just plain old electricity"
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, the reason gasoline engines are so bad, is the fuel conversion is so inefficient. Really, the compressed air is no different than a battery - it is nothing more than stored energy, and it is a hellova lot cheaper per KG than batteries are. You convert the air to compressed air using some sort of clean energy, and then use the compressed air to run your car in a completely clean manner. That said, there are some interesting technological advances being made with batteries which might make this technology completely redundant. Batteries run quieter as well, and there isn't the explosive risk associated with them either.
  
  Actually you can run gasoline engines alot more efficiently as a generator than you do as a car engine. Reason being is a generator is optimized to run at one speed, where a car engine has to be able to provide a huge range of power on demand. That is why you can put a gas powered generator on an electric or air powered car and they'll still be much more efficient than a gas engine.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1If you put it that way, the petrolium is also a battery, because it just stores the chemical energy. Of course, the petrolium comes for almost free from the ground, but it is limited.
- Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6"Or just plain good old electricity? They said in the video that with 2 bucks worth of electricity you can fill it in."
  
  Haven't you read the 5 comments above yours? The electricity has to *come* from somewhere! Yeesh..
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Of course it has to come from somewhere, but it is cheaper and cleaner than gas, which explains why with 2 dollars worth of electricity you can drive as much as with 10 dollars worth of gas.
- Persol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, compressing air is not extremely energy efficient... but that's a huge issue.
  
  You have several benefits:
  1) You can use various energy sources. Probabaly more efficient than a battery (battery->AC motor is about 80% efficient), but is a benefit over gas vehicles.
  2) The vehicle doesn't have a diesel/gas engine. It should therefore be lighter and cheaper.
  3) Not having to worry about fuel injection/etc also makes it more reliable.
  4) Safer - yeah, compressed air is nasty... but we've had 100 years to perfect how to use it safely. Railroads use similar pressures, and injuries from air pressure are mostly unheard of.
  
  The major downside I can think of is noise. Pressurized air is NOISY AS HELL... even when just running through a pipe. The problem is that the flow isn't continuous, but pulsates through the engine.
- MyNightwish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If the Statue of Liberty is not good to you, then give it back to the French then,
  and the French Fries, French Kissing, etc
- minideezel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The fact is that making the electricity to compress the air for this vehicle uses a lot less nonrenewable resources than gas or diesel burning in you car or truck. That is the reason that this is more efficient, hell you could have a port on the vehicle that has air pushed into it by the movement of the vehicle and have that air power another air piston engine to generate more pressure. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Just as long as the oil companies don't buy the patents, were OK.
- vitriolix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i guess noone actually watched the video. they clearly state that the hybrid version with a gasoline powered compressor on the vehivle can travel 4000+ miles on one tank of gas. sounds a bit hard to believe, but if they aren't full of *****, clearly this is one hell of a lot more efficient that a standard combustion engine.
krupawan5618, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2That's really cool. This is the future.
- berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@mastercheif
  What a dumb thing to say.
  Here, pull my finger...
infra172, on 10/12/2007, -31/+7Its from France. Nothing good comes from there.
- AngryBacon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36French fries?
  French toast??
  French kissing????
  
  Whats wrong with you?
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25without France, America wouldnt have a punchline :(
- QuorumCall, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Well I know for a fact that Frech fries are actually from Belgium, not sure about the other two.
- artgon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10french women!
- mastercheif, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Since my American heritage permits me from saying the F word, I would really apreciate it if you used
  Freedom Fries
  Freedom Toast
  Freedom kissing
- JuyLe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14WIthout france maybe you wouldn't be there. It's awesome to see such dumb comment. They also made you statue of liberty, have the best road, railway, postal service in the world... Anyway, looks good but still need improvement.
- RubeusEsclair, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7The French are the leading manufacturers and consumers of white 'I surrender' flags.
- lumnar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Christian Moroe.
- musicaks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Just please keep in mind all the stuff France has contributed. Especially to Mathematics and Science. Bashing the French just reinforces the stereotype of a typical ignorant arrogant American.
- boo5000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Mustn't forget all the white flag waving they have let us watch over the years. Priceless.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7"Its from France. Nothing good comes from there."
  
  Nothing good ever came from French involvement in anything....except maybe US independence from Great Britain...
- berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@Koopa
  What an ignorant thing to say.
  Here, you pull my finger too...
- Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11"Its from France. Nothing good comes from there."
  The statue of liberty is from france.
- SyDIGG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nothing good comes from France THESE DAYS except for hot air.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Nothing good ever came from French involvement in anything....except maybe US independence from Great Britain..."
  
  Wow, I'm dugg down to -3 for stating historical fact. Some people need to do some research before they give me a thumbs down.
Takteek, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5Al-you-min-ee-umm :P
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What is so funny about that? That's how you actually pronounce it (anywhere but in the US, that is).
- sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3aluminum is just darn lazy.
  
  aluminium is the actual way to say it.
  
  I hope America's the only place that speaks lazily like that(ignoring the letters in the word)
- ic349, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0What the heck? It is spelled ALUMINUM. Where do you get the extra "I"??
  
  For those that need a refresher in 4th grade spelling:
  
  http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=aluminum&gwp=13
- zeiben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I hope America's the only place that speaks lazily like that(ignoring the letters in the word)"
  
  There are at least two letters in this very sentence that the British & Aussies don't pronounce at all. Perhaps we lazy Americans should get snitty about that.
  
  Do yourself a favor, lab partner, and run a quick google search on language change.
- Jadael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When it was invented, it was given a proper metal name. Aluminium. Aluminum was a typo or something and stuck.
- sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1hrm....sorry americans, it seems that it was from a simple typo(or something) that caused all this.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Spelling
  
  Still, Aluminium is the correct way.....in my dictionary;)
HellifIno, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0This is total crap. Good pun/joke material, but other than that? No. Not viable.
- berberrama, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@Helliflno
  Pull my finger...
thunde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0http://www.gearthblog.com/images/images2006/flyingcar.jpg
Cruelapollo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1Incredible 4,500 kM?

That's like what, a trip to the 7-11 around the corner?

Damn foreign countries and their crummy metric system....
- diggfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+114,500 Km is about 2800 miles. and at least the metric system makes sense:
  
  4500 km = 4 500 000 meters = 450 000 000 centimeters... etc
- Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Stupid ***** hillbilly. I think I hear your sister/wife calling.
pahncrd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't the concept of using compressed air to power a car pretty old now? I remember reading about it years ago.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Some cities already have buses that run on compressed air.
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah? Where? And why aren't more doing it?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have to turn around on this. I read that it was about to be deployed. But some searching doesn't back this up. I think perhaps I should retract my statement.
DiggerT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3well these concepts come and go, half the challenge is getting it too market!
ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Lets do the math.

25 mpg (avg city for us) / 125 miles is 5 gallons = in the us about $3 a gallon (totally depends on where you live) is $15 bucks.

with a compressed air engine, it would take you 4 hours at home to run your compressor.

question? is running a compressor for 4 hours cheaper than $15 bucks. If it is, then we have a winner.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Watch the video again, this time pay attention.
- Clemson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting point... (although it doesn't speak to the eco-friendlyness of the idea). The average cost per kWh in the US is 9.86¢. Air compressors pull around 3.5A @ 120V ~ 420W. 420W x 4 hours = 1.68kWh... So to answer your question, around 16.5¢.
- Clemson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In regards to my previous comment... after watching the video again I heard him say the pressure needed was around 300 bar (roughly 4350 psi!). I really have no idea how much power a compressor for that would consume. Certainly a heck of a lot more than 420W... so, like he pointed out - it would probably end up costing a few bucks.
- Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Total guess here, but think you'd need at least a 50HP compressor, which would require about 37kW.
- TheJosher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Alright, let me see if I got my math done right here:
  
  -- 1 Gallon of Gas in the US: $2.30 (more or less depending on where you live)
  -- Supposedly the average mid-sized car in the US gets about 27 miles to the gallon
  
  So, if I did my math right it comes out to $0.09 per mile, again, depending on the car you have.
  
  Air car:
  -- I'm gonna go by the video on this one, so $2 to fill up the car at home
  -- Supposedly runs 200km (about 124 miles) per fill-up
  
  Comes out to about $0.016 per mile -- almost 6 times cheaper than the gasoline powered car.
  
  It seems like a really nice idea to me. Of course, it's aimed for city driving but I could see using a car like this to get back and forth to work and whatever other errands you have to do throughout the day, then plugging it in when you get home and have it ready to go again in the morning. And if you need to go farther there will be the 'air stations' that'll fill it up in a minute or two.
  
  Of course, you'll need the energy to come from somewhere, but at least this way the car itself isn't putting out any harmful emissions and you can chose your own source of clean energy to fill it back up again. (Solar power anyone?)
  
  I'd certainly consider purchasing one if they come to the US. (And improve the design a bit. I know it's a prototype, but it's pretty ugly.)
danielh4824, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0It already has been done long before this ***** stole the idea.
baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5this is cool!

a good alternative to petrolium is a great idea, i wish them lots of good luck with this...
cmearns, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think it sounds like a great idea. The only think that freaks me out is the compressed air tank sitting under your butt. Gasoline may or may not explode - That much compressed air could flip your car in the air if it was cracked open.

Scary thought.
SeBBBe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3This is basically the exact same thing as a battery powered car. You take expensive power from your electric outlet, convert it to a portable format and then power a car with it.
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are correct, the difference for now is you don't need half a million dollars in batteries to make it viable in a consumer market. That said, batteries are getting better and better, so this technology might not be viable for long.
- Clemson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Last time I checked, batteries weighed a bit more than air (an important factor in concept auto design).
- evolseven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I dont know.. 300 bar is ahell of alot of pressure, and its going to require a really thick walled steel tank to contain it.. on top of that this isn't just standard pressure air.. it is 300 bar.. or 300x atmospheric pressure.. which I am sure can weigh quite a bit.. so the savings may not be completely in weight..
shank69xo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Bahhh, I'll stick to my V8 5.0 302.
ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3According to MDI's homepage, it only only cost 1.5 Euro's to refill the entire car. Thats way cheap.

http://www.theaircar.com/faq.html
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Yeah, but isn't that about $35 U.S. these days?
- ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1lol is that sarcasm? 35 bucks! rofl
  
  According to google, if you type in 1.5 Euros you get
  
  1.5 Euro = 1.9086 U.S. dollars
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sarcasm, yes. Sorry, I forgot my little smirky face...
  
  :)
  
  Tone of voice just doesn't come through very well over typed discussions... but I was typing in a sarcastic tone!
RickyBennett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0ok how wold it take 4 hr to fell the tanks at home but 4 min at a filling stashon for it ??

and why are all the card that dont run on gas so ugly ??
- ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The filling stations are high presure high volume tanks that have huge tanks and can push air into your tank super fast. The ones at home are small (10-20 gallon tanks @ 90-150 psi)
  They will have to work harder and longer to fill the tanks in the AIr Car. For example it takes 5 mins just for the air compressor to fill it's self up 20 gallons at 100 psi...
  
  so filling up 3 giant tanks with 3000 psi in your car would take awhile.
- notman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It takes four hours because it has to pump in the air... the filling stations have precompressed air already stored in tanks. The transfer of stored air is faster.
  Edit: Doh, Viper beat me to it.
  
  Part 2 of that show is better. It shows the Aussie design, which is lighter, more efficient, and quieter.
MacBandit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What gives air a huge advantage over gasoline is it's efficiency. In an air car 100% of the compressed airs energy goes to driving the piston. In a gasoline motor your doing very very well if you harness even 30% of the potential combustible energy in the gasoline. On top of that you can compress air using much less energy from electricity then you lose in the combustion process of a gasoline motor. This has extreme potential.
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"In an air car 100% of the compressed airs energy goes to driving the piston"
  
  not true. If that were the case, it would be absolutely silent and the engine would run at room temperature. It is more efficient than petrol, but 100% is not realistic.
  - MacBandit, on 06/14/2008, -0/+1It should run at room temperature since the air isn't being compressed by the motor it should not generate extra heat in fact the expansion of the air in the cylinder should cool the motor rather than heat it.
    
    All the energy loss is in the air compression. Not to say there isn't any energy loss in the motor but it's from friction not from incomplete burn.
jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While agreeing with the issue that the energy still has to come from somewhere, one possible advantage may be a lighter engine, if reasonable performance could be made using lower compression than a combustion engine then presumably the engine could be built lighter. The air tank though would be heavy, so maybe no net benefit. But in any case, if an alternative energy allows for lighter vehicles it can be a net positive ecologically.
- minideezel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1carbon fiber is really light, the air would weigh quite a bit, but the carbon fiber is extremely light compared the the steel needed for over 3000psi.
  
  Plus if the whole car is made out of aluminum a average person would probably be able to pick up 1/2 the vehicle.
steve1618to1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Okay some high skool physics:
Gas/Diesel has about 135,000 Btu/gallon
If you compress air to an extremely high 5000PSI (kevlar wrapped tank) you get:
5000PSI = 720,000 lbs/ft^3
1 gal = .1336 ft^3
p*v = 96192 ft-lbs
=123 Btu/gallon

So, roughly speaking, you would need an air tank that is over 1100 times larger than the gas tank to get equivalent energy storage.

If you put a small internal combustion engine into a lightweight golf cart-like vehicle such as the one featured in this video, you can get some some impressive mpg specs too. I see little advantage to using compressed air for energy storage.

Does anyone know what the typical mechanical efficiency is for compressing air to high pressures?
- ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3thats not 100% right. Your Math might be right but its the concept.
  
  It's not the power contained inside gasolean vs air, its how it is used to create kinetic movement of the car.
  
  And yeah, gas stores way more energy, but how much of that energy gets wasted when trying to make a car move?
- allatti2d, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steve --
  
  Thanks for explaining. I didn't take physics in high skool.
u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2but the carbon fiber air tanks are still as likely to explode as metal one if sometime is to hit it with a large amount of force. and carbon fiber is not cheap either!
good idea, but i think if the inventor were in the US, the petrolum companies would have WIPED HIM OUT a while ago... quite literally
- ViperG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0True, but a gasolean tank can explode as well, under the right conditions, but it DOES and has happened on a car crash, although rare.
  
  Secondly, I'm sure ALOT of people world wide will try and buy these air cars, even if they aren't legally allowed to drive on their government roads... But that still wouldnt even stop people from driving it anyways and taking the risk of being pulled over, which is another discussion on it's own.
theotherlight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...but how much would your neighbours enjoy the sound of an air compressor running for four hours each night just one house over?

Cool idea though.
russau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1has anyone read Stephen King's Running Man? (http://www.amazon.com/Running-Man-Stephen-King/dp/0451197968/)

futuristic book - cars that run on compressed air are mentioned. another case of life imitating art?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Jules Verne suggested it first, back in the 19th Century. It was in his novel "Paris in the 20th Century".
  
  When electricity came around, he rethought his ideas.
carlosthebest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Compressed air can hardly be a more efficient means of conversion of energy from internal to kinetic.

For one, consveration of energy means that it takes at very least, equal amounts of energy to compress the air to get equal (not likely) or less (more likely) energy out of the system.

2nd there is nothing spontaneous out of simply opening a cylinder hosting compressed air into a piston chamber. You simply release the air, it expands then the driving force of another piston moving the crankshaft forces the air from the other pistons. The reason why petro will always be more economical is because it undergoes a reaction which results in a change of state: liquid->gas and then combustion. Air simply expanding, per mass volume, holds exponentially less energy.

Torque is something very important to a car engine, something that a high amount of instant energy is required to create. Without the spontaneity of a combustion explosion you're looking at far less instantaneous torque, and therefore these air cars would have piss poor acceleration.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I beg to differ. The reaction causing gasoline to release its energy does not liberate all energy contained within that gasoline. There is a fair deal of loss, much of it in forms of heat(hence the whole burning thing). Air being rapidly decompressed could indeed translate more of its stored energy into the car as it comes out kinetic.
  
  The only energy issue you're likely to have is that the compressed air stores less energy then is located in gasoline. But with the loss lessened, this tech could be very promising indeed. However, even the video is quick to say that it's maximum current velocity is 120kph. Even my Echo is capable of more then that. But then again, when do you actually -need- to drive faster short of just trying to show off to friends unless you plan on racing professionally.
- Sottilde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure that compressed air isn't THE mainstream answer for this. Pure compressed air cars would definitely work for smaller and government vehicles - for example, in my county, the county exec's office owns an electric car that it uses for most errands to save money. Pure compressed air cars could do that too. They are simply a cheaper way of storing energy than electricity - that's it.
  
  However, the hybrid idea is interesting. Having a small petrol motor running that will compress air on the fly could possibly produce more power and run much faster and longer. As stated above, a generator is much more efficient than a car's petrol engine because it is allowed to run at more efficient speeds. We'll have to see how this pans out, but even if it ends as a jazzed-out hybrid, I like it. Anything for conservation.
Innagadadavida, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, a caah that runs on pure aeeh.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Wow, that there yank be mockin' yer speakin' wurds. Shucks howdy.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1roflmao
ucbrave92, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1too bad this will never come to market because either a) the oil companies will buy the technology and never produce it or b) the government will make some bs law banning them due to either safety concerns or some other made up junk science funded by the oil companies. i mean, the oil mafia does run this country and is hell bent on world domination as it is.
- realyst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Key words: "This country"
  
  Whilst a major influence on it, the US no longer completely control the rest of the world that may have become sick of being raped by western oil companies.
grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Compressed air may have a place in vehicles even if it is not the primary fuel. A sickening amount of energy is wasted (converted to mostly heat and a little sound) when braking. Ideally, it should be (under light braking at least) converted to potential energy. The problem with many regenerative braking systems is that they store energy back to a battery. That process is inefficient and limited, and batteries are large and heavy which eats away at many of the benefits hybrids bring.

It would be possible to use the kinetic energy of the car slowing down to compress air into a tank. Of course you would need standard brakes for emergency stopping. There are many things you could then do with the compressed air. You could use it to directly drive the wheels, or use it as a source of air for combustion inside a normal petrol engine (a bit like a turbo or supercharger but without the need to use engine power to generate the boost). That could result in manufacturers producing smaller engines without the cars being underpowered. Even if everything else is left as-is, the fact that at least some of the kinetic energy lost when braking is returned as kinetic energy when accelerating is going to be beneficial.
anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I must be missing something. I can't understand how an idea like this could get all the way to a prototype stage.

A gasoline-powered car delivers exactly the same amount of power to the drive train no matter how much fuel is in the tank. A gallon or a teaspoon, it doesn't matter.

But an air-powered car can't work like that. It derives its power from pressure, that is mass per unit volume. As soon as you start the engine, you begin removing mass from the tanks, which means the pressure begins to fall.

Obviously there's a minimum pressure required for this car to work at all, but at the minimum pressure you'd just barely be nudging the pistons. So obviously you need much more pressure than that in order to propel the vehicle at any practical speed.

But the pressure is constantly falling. Which means the power delivered to the drivetrain is constantly falling.

I wonder how the inventor got around this flaw?

The other major flaw in the system, of course, is that it's impossible to partially refuel. If your gas-powered car runs out of fuel, you can add just a little more fuel in order to get moving again. With one of these, you have no choice but to recharge the tanks all the way before you can drive the vehicle. Which makes roadside refueling a total impossibility.

Clever idea, but not a very practical one, I don't think.

Incidentally, the video makes a big point of how the engine can be made of aluminum, saving weight. I remember reading of a study done many years ago that said the mileage of a gasoline-powered car would skyrocket if the engine block were cast out of titanium, which is far lighter than steel but can withstand combustion temperatures. The problem is that such an engine would be so much more expensive than one cast out of steel, you could never recover the added cost with the fuel savings.

Same deal with gasoline-electric hybrids. When they were first introduced, you had to pay more for one than you would ever save in fuel costs over the life of the car. (Whether this is still true, I don't know; I haven't been car shopping lately.)
- minideezel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1a) the engine would only require a certain amount of pressure to run, there would be pressure regulators, because if you were to put 3000psi to that engine, it would most likely just rupture seals and such so the engine is at maximum removing a certain amount of pressure from the tanks. The tanks house over 3000psi, therefore, you would have a lot of pressure in your tanks for a while.
  
  B) you could have a portable tank, that would house still 3000 or so psi, but you hook it up to you car and it goes into your car's tank and the pressure would be spread out but it would be partly refilling you vehicle.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow that is a couple of long comments. there's a very simple answer that i'll form in a question: ever heard of a regulator?
  
  even with no idea how much PSI is going in to the engine, i bet you a million dollars it doesn't start at 3000 psi and then drops to 2 psi just before the car 'runs out of gas'
  
  regulators are devices used with gasses like CO2, and O2. usually double-guage (one of the two guages shows how much pressure is left in the large tank, and the other shows how much is going out the breathing line, keg pressure hose, or whatever. there's a little screw or dial that 'regulates' how much pressure is sent 'out'.
  
  I thought i noticed some dials and guages on the car's steering wheel. it certainly has a regulator that shows tank pressure, and perhaps the engine pressure is also shown.
rawis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been in this business of alternative propulsion, and then also air. First, the efficiency of any product is around 30% in a traditional vehicle.

The idea that has to change is the "one size fits all" style. Didn't work on clothes and doesn't on the new type of cars. Most importantly therefor is that the entire vehicle needs to be redesigned, to fit the particular energy form.
The new electric Mini (don't know what I'm on about, digg my dugg stories or search Digg) has partly understood this by placing the motors in the wheels(not Mini's idea). The general idea is to remove the drive-shaft and most of the other attachments.
This is what gets your efficiency rating up. A bus-type in Germany uses an electromagnetic engine inside it's wheels.

Lastly, pure electricity or electro via magnets or air all needs it's power from somewhere, yes, but a small movable combustion engine is less efficient and much more difficult to clean the exhaust then in a large stationary power plant.
dtatom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is worth a digg just because of how he says aluminum. ;)
- shoover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He doesn't say aluminum, he says 'aluminium'. It is actually spelled differently in British english.
jasonmog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what good is a car that runs on compressed air if it still costs fossil fuels indirectly to power the air pump? you'd only be paying more because rather than pay for the fossil fuel directly you also pay for the labor and material for the air compression equipment. someone please enligten me if possible.
blogaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also wrote a little something about it here
http://gavilan1010.wordpress.com/2006/10/07/car-that-runs-on-air/
blogaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And I got more info about the company and about the founder here http://gavilan1010.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/follow-up-on-car-that-runs-on-air/
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

The Car that Runs on Air watch!

Login or register to add a comment