Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
An Air Car You Could See in 2009: ZPM’s 106 MPG Hybrid
gas2.org — Car-tech aficionados may be familiar with Zero Pollution Motor ’s compressed-air powered car. For those that haven’t heard of it yet: air cars could soon take you over 800 miles on a single fill-up, at speeds of up to 96 mph. They'll refuel in less than 3 minutes for around $2, and at speeds over 35 mph emit about half the CO2 of a Toyota Prius.
claybodie- 1452 diggs
- digg it
- Mathieugothax, on 07/15/2008, -9/+43Simply amazing! I hope it does pass the safety tests and that we will see such cars in a close future! Hopefully with a nicer look too, the current design is ugly!
- Magnut, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3really! ugly!
- Blankcheque, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12You can paint pink polk-a-dots on it, and make me hold up a sign that says "I like beastiality", and I still wouldn't care what it looks like. Not having to "fill up" for a month, and coming home and plugging the compressor up to the tank for a few minutes would be amazing.
The only draw backs I can think of, is fuel tank regulation in hot/cold, and altitude highs/lows.
Really great stuff.
But it sounds like it's so light weight, it won't ever pass crash safety standards. That's why the Smart cars had such a hard time coming to state side. - Jareth86, on 07/16/2008, -5/+6I disagree. I'm sick of every car looking the same. Take a chance!
- Slovenian6474, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1Well they did and failed.
- Jareth86, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Well don't worry then, I'm sure by the end of the line, it'll look exactly like you want it to: http://store.dwswebhosting.com/Portals/12/CarSilho ...
- LeeSoong, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1It looks great, kind of like a VW bug, but with sharper curves...
- jeffvvisoft, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Great idea. Air doesn't compress itself, will we be using coal-fired plants to provide the juice to do this?
- sulthernao, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4All the more reason to invest in wind, solar, and nuclear energy.
- exomni, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Power plants do it far more efficiently than internal combustion engines. And the power grid could be run on renewable wind energy, or geothermal, or solar, or hydro-solar.
Moral of the story: you're an ignorant *****.
- griz, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2I don't understand why it is that every concept idea for a car needs to be crammed into some ugly "futuristic" design. Why not build this fuel system underneath something that looks like a honda civic so that people will actually visualize themselves buying it.
- exomni, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Ah, the "land of the free", where the dictatorship government forbids you from driving any car that doesn't torch fuel (sold by their buddies in the oil industry) by the gallon and weigh thousands of pounds. America, land of hypocrisy.
- HuskyPuzzle, on 07/15/2008, -7/+10Really cool, just not sure I'd feel safe on the fwy. I drove a SmartCar from Madrid to Sevilla once and it was terrifying, skipping along at 100 kph.
- Norumeni, on 07/16/2008, -24/+16Terrifying? Come on, just because it's not a suburban doesn't mean it's not going to keep you safe, you weak American!
- green1152, on 07/16/2008, -13/+2Although I agree with you, it was unnecessary to put that last line in your comment.
- Tishiablo, on 07/16/2008, -3/+24Madrid? Sevillla? kph? American?
D: - krolm, on 07/16/2008, -11/+3americans suck the fat one when it comes to geography...
- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Raza de Muerte de España 2000
- Codwhy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7i don't understand how people could digg such a stupid comment.
- wizzroom, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4I found the comment rather funny.
- exomni, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3@ Tishiablo
Yeah, because we all know Americans cease being Americans the minute they set foot in Spain. It's absolutely impossible for an American to go to Spain and drive a Smartcar, that violates, like, the first law of thermodynamics or something.
According to HuskyPuzzle's profile he is "A 27 year-old guy from San Francisco (US)". Although there's no real reason to assume he's American, there's no reason to assume he's not.
In summary, both of you are idiots. And so is HuskyPuzzle, for thinking there's any reason to ever feel safe on the freeway, regardless the size of the hunk of metal you're being propelled along in.
- LeeSoong, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1Smart Cars are fine - the Smart ForTwo car is HUGE compared to the scooters, motorcycles, and bicycles currently growing more and more popular in the USA:
http://evosales.com/cat_scooter_moped.cfm
- Norumeni, on 07/16/2008, -24/+16Terrifying? Come on, just because it's not a suburban doesn't mean it's not going to keep you safe, you weak American!
- Wildthing, on 07/16/2008, -6/+22Ok, I may be wrong on this, but let me bring up the paintball model: In paintball you have your selection of either compressed air or co2. co2 is stored as a liquid in the tanks and allows you to maintain a minimum (though inconsistent due to the gas/liquid nature and temperature) pressure, so you don't really have to refill that often.
Compressed Air offers more consistent pressure (your paint shoots out more consistently) since it is not stored in a liquid form and is not affected by temperature as much, BUT the pressure drop off is exponential, meaning once you reach the point where your pressure matches that of what you need to shoot your paint, you're going to be shooting blanks really soon.
I don't really have any point here, but it's what I think of whenever I hear of a compressed air powered car.- kingfoot, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3i thought about that too. but one day someone will come along with a whole new type of recharge thing. and by that i mean, how current engines charge your battery while you drive, the new car will generate enough power for air to be compressed while you drive, OR charge the battery like normal and then the battery is powerful enough to run your car and compress air at the same time. just a thought. though the noise problem of compressing air would definitely need to be solved.
- indierockzombie, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Yeah that makes sense...It could be compared to filling up a balloon with air and then applying consistent pressure so that the air is released powerfully at first, but then as the air left the balloon, would become incrementally weaker.
It all makes sense... - WatchDragon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+20Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.
Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.
Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!
Fry: Of course! It's all so simple! - waydee, on 07/16/2008, -5/+1Or how about a tank containing a spring loaded piston. As the compressed air is used up, the piston rises maintaining the pressure?
- WatchDragon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Thats what regulators do.
- MorfiusX, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1These tanks run at over 4000 PSI. I'm sure that the engines only need a fraction of that to run. The difference is what can be used to regulate the pressure.
- SimonTB, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3A regulator?
- AndreiOttawa, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1But isn't the main point of an air car to reduce CO2 emissions?
Also, you'd need an infrastructure to truck the CO2 tanks around to fill up the cars. With air, just plug the car into a power outlet and the on-board compressor will fill it up.- DeFex, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2depends where the co2 comes from. i dont know if liquefied co2 is taken out of the air, or from fossil fuels. if it is taken out of the air there is zero emission.
- fahrvergnuugen, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Liquid CO2 comes from an air separation process, just like any other liquified gas. The only emission you have is from the power plant that the air separation plant buys its electricity from.
- ManicA, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3and it runs on compressed AIR not CO2,
Wildthing was talking about CO2 in regards to paintball guns, not cars
- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Take a look at a standard air compressor. There is a regulator that adjusts the pressure output of the hose; I suspect that the same type of regulator device (sans adjustability) will reduce the output to whatever the engine requires.
- pa1ntball56, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I'm a little confused at what you mean to shooting blanks.... heres how it really works
your tank of compressed air will put out and output, over 400 psi, the air is then feeded through steel braiding or a macroline tube into the high pressure regulator (HPR), from there the air is dropped depending on the marker (my dye guns run at around 170 PSI, shockers at about 200, you get the point). From here the air is then moved into a low pressure regulator(LPR), where it is again dropped signifigantly down even more. From here that air is used to move the bolt with whatever system is being used, a rammer or a spool valve, to propel air through the bolt to project the ball past the detents, and out the barrel at a rate of close to 300 feet per seccond. The recharge rates of the simple regulators are so quick in the guns that when cleaned and set right, no should ever see any drop off period (unless the power to the noid is not up to top speed or the noid is clogged/jammed- quick fix, change your battery and only use name brands and never open up your noid unless certified to do so). It makes you think, that if this is done all for a paintball gun, and only really developed in the past 10 years or so, think of the cheap and safe cars we are going to be driving, ran on air, 10 years from now- amd2323, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Although we have hprs and lprs to bring the pressure down, do you really want to be sitting on top of a big assed tank at 4500 psi if you get into an accident?
- feignNU, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0AndreiOttawa: I'm pretty sure he was not suggesting CO2 tanks for cars.
- MattgUP, on 07/16/2008, -5/+20I love it. This is some real innovation, breaking from the same old same old.
- wpennb, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1You do realise how old the idea of a compressed air engine is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_engine - curtisag, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Yes, the idea is old, but a real world model available to consumers is innovative for sure.
- Jynx97, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I had a toy car when I was little that ran on air!
Air Jammer I think it was called.
I loved that thing!
- wpennb, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1You do realise how old the idea of a compressed air engine is?
- helenkupo, on 07/16/2008, -14/+9I understand that the design is to reduce drag but come on! It looks like a Prius but uglier!
- Zanarkand, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Its a car that gets 106mpg, better for the environment and is under $15,000....who the ***** cares what it looks like? It gets you from point A to point B at little cost...
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Who would care what it looks like? Guys trying to score some points with the young hotties with whom you wouldn't care to have a conversation...
...and not the practical MILF/Cougars who would schedule having the sex on Outlook after they dropped the kids off at soccer practice.
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Who would care what it looks like? Guys trying to score some points with the young hotties with whom you wouldn't care to have a conversation...
- Zanarkand, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Its a car that gets 106mpg, better for the environment and is under $15,000....who the ***** cares what it looks like? It gets you from point A to point B at little cost...
- SEGA4life, on 07/16/2008, -7/+93Starting at under $15,000 FTW.
- nbx909, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7that's a huge selling point.
- TastyWheat, on 07/16/2008, -7/+9This idea makes the most sense for long distance travel. Pretty much every gas station has an air pump and it only takes a few quarters. Try driving cross-country in a Tesla (an all electric). It won't happen.
Still pretty ugly, but a huge upgrade from the roller skates they originally made.- rgodfrey, on 07/16/2008, -2/+21I fill my tires to 35 psi for a few quarters. Something tells me the same machine will not fill a 3200 cu ft tank at 4500 psi for a few quarters.
No problem, though. I'll just carry around the battery pump from my Aero bed.- bossywalker, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8It costs you money to use the air pump? It's free here in Australia.
- stoanhart, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Wow, you guys have to pay to use those pumps? I've only ever seen free ones.
- Artimusbill, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3The air pumps will not remain free if this thing catches on, heh.
- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Free air?
:(
- Altotus, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7The body design is negotiable, but you're still going to want something aerodynamic. However, I see this sort of device carrying it's own compression system, and probably a regenerative braking system in the form of a mechanical or electrical compressor. Neither of those things would cost too much (in dollars, or weight), and they wouldn't preclude a compressed air hookup either. That way, you could refill on air, or electricity. You could even provide a mechanical clutch to connect it to a crank (if you've got a source of mechanical power such as wind or water -- even a donkey).
It should make for some interesting car crashes though. I imagine catastrophic pressure cylinder failure will be rare, but when it happens, I imagine it will make the car into a very impressive whirling projectile. - MorfiusX, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3The tanks can be filled with a traditional compressor, but it take 8+ hours to do. The cars Tata are selling are supposed to come with a home compressor. There is a larger compressor system that uses multiple storage tanks just for these cars. This is what allows the tanks to be filled quickly.
- KennMac, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Many Hess stations are known for offering free air pump stations! I wonder how long that would last with this invention.
- rgodfrey, on 07/16/2008, -2/+21I fill my tires to 35 psi for a few quarters. Something tells me the same machine will not fill a 3200 cu ft tank at 4500 psi for a few quarters.
- dougvfr750, on 07/16/2008, -8/+22It looks like crap, but I like the numbers
- Chicken2nite, on 07/16/2008, -4/+8How well will these function in 40 below winters? Where I live we've got plenty of hydro power but 2 weeks out of the year it gets to be around -50 C with wind chill. My friend keeps saying the EESTORE battery is the only way to go because of our cold winters, and I'm not sure he's wrong.
- wrxpert, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7If enough of us get to drive these you can keep your gas car in the cold climates. Gas could be cheap if alternative energy really starts to grab hold.
- kingfoot, on 07/16/2008, -1/+14one day gas will be one of those niche products that only old vehicles and vintage devices use.
i for one, cant wait until that day. - Chicken2nite, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2The point I was making was that we have alternative energy here where I live in Manitoba (Manitoba Hydro is a Crown Corporation) where having a vehicle that would be powered off the grid would be ideal as opposed to a gas car that would need to have the fuel imported from the refinery near the great lakes which would get the crude oil from the oil sands in Alberta. Against your dirty coal power plants which feed into the grid of the east coast, that would be purely clean energy. The NDP government in power here at the provincial level recently made the point of renewing our commitment to lowering our greenhouse emissions to meet our Kyoto goal even though the rest of the country isn't, and that is largely because of the hydro electric dams along the Hudson's Bay powering our cities (something the federal Liberals wanted to connect to the greater Ontario grid in order to reduce their dependence on dirty coal and other sources. Anyways, a Stingray Corvette convertible converted to an EV with a 200 mile range would be my dream car. Something to get when I'm old I guess.
- wrxpert, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2"one day gas will be one of those niche products that only old vehicles and vintage devices use.
i for one, cant wait until that day."
I myself can't wait till I have to find a place to get some of that gas stuff to put in my old timey WRX.
- kingfoot, on 07/16/2008, -1/+14one day gas will be one of those niche products that only old vehicles and vintage devices use.
- Altotus, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3It's compressed air, so the pressure is key. You'll need an increased mass of air, but the same volume. The question is, what if you fill up in one season, but garage it outdoors. Fill in the winter, by summer the pressure might rupture the tank. Fill in summer and by winter, the tank would have a fraction of the pressure by winter...
PV=nRT ; not just a good idea, it's the law.- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Nothing good insulation and emergency release valves can't handle.
- sanosuke001, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3I would assume it would be outfitted with a pressure release valve to stop it from going over max pressure. I would hope, anyway...
- AdamFromMyspace, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4That'd be similar to gasoline expanding past the capacity of your gas tank, right? Does gas come out your gas door when it gets warm out? Wait, there is an expansion tank!
Problems like this are easy to overcome. Getting the average person to buy one of these cars is the hard part. [: - curtisag, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2There is a margin for error on any storage tank. The max PSI may be 4500, but the actual pressure that can rupture the tank is higher. Plus, temperature changes gradually over time, so any wild fluctuation in average temperature will not occur that can significantly change the pressure equation. Everybody will need to refill their tank each month. Temperature is also in Kelvin in that equation, so you have to take your temp in Celsius + 273 degrees. You would need a huge change in temperature to radically change pressure. The number of moles of gas is the primary determinate of pressure in any temperature on earth.
- wrxpert, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7If enough of us get to drive these you can keep your gas car in the cold climates. Gas could be cheap if alternative energy really starts to grab hold.
- satanatnmtedu, on 07/16/2008, -22/+471) The article is not corroborated by an independent source. You don't take car companies at their word for new technologies.
2) There are practical reasons why few cars are made from aluminum space frames. A crash pretty much means the car is totalled. You cannot fix such cars like you can fix steel framed cars due to the nature of aluminum.
3) If the car company had a prototype, this would be shown. The fact they do not have a prototype to show suggests that this car is much further away than 2009.
4) All the claims that this car is zero emissions is utter *****. You need power to compress the air. This will come from the power grid where a majority of the power comes from coal plants. Coal is hardly zero emissions. Further, even if the power came from solar, wind or hydro, it is not zero emissions. It is very low over time, but it is not zero.
5) If you are using a fuel to create compressed air, then you are back to the low efficiency problems with a combustion engine and adding an additional step and losses to generate the compressed air.
6) Until this car is put through real world test, it is all a pipe dream. It is admirable, but it is not proven technology by any means. I would love to see them succeed, but the fanboi crap that this article and the comments on Digg follow are blind to any objectivity.- wrxpert, on 07/16/2008, -4/+6Bah Humbug!!!
- raptormn, on 07/16/2008, -1/+17they have prototypes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4- jestormoose, on 07/16/2008, -1/+11I love the end of that second movie: "What if that generator was on board the car? Then one day, perhaps the compressed air that runs the cars will also run a generator to compress its own air, a car that runs on air and constantly refuels itself. Round and Round. A perfect circle. Perpetual motion."
What is the second law of thermodynamics again?
- jestormoose, on 07/16/2008, -1/+11I love the end of that second movie: "What if that generator was on board the car? Then one day, perhaps the compressed air that runs the cars will also run a generator to compress its own air, a car that runs on air and constantly refuels itself. Round and Round. A perfect circle. Perpetual motion."
- claybodie, on 07/16/2008, -3/+311) how many articles on the internet are independently corroborated? check the internal links.
2) & 3) A prototype of this car is already being manufactured in India, that's what the discussion about Tata Motors was about.
4) No, your definition of zero-emissions is just incorrect. Zero emissions mean's there are no emissions at the tailpipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_emission_vehicle ... Obviously there are emissions related to using electricity to create compressed air (and above 35 when the compressed-air generator kicks in). As discussed in the article, it still creates a large net savings in GHG emissions.
5) No, you don't understand how compressed air engines work. A different amount of energy is transferred within the piston chamber because nothing is being burned. Plus, it's a backup system. If you don't like this one you won't like the Chevy Volt either.
6) This car is undergoing safety testing in Europe and is being built in India right now. As the article says, we'll just have to wait and see what happens in the US. - wogfella, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3They've already got them in some parts of France - as really crappy "people movers". I don't know if it's still a startup or running fully but...
Ugly as hell and not as quiet as you'd like but they get a fair distance and speed, more than is needed for 90% of your average user requirements.
Take the compressed air model and combine with a plug-in hybrid electric recharge system (where the main driving force is electric and when the batteries wind down the compressed air kicks in to recharge them and power on the fly) and I reckon you are on to a winner.
Unfortunately either system won't be able to drive trucks, which is why we still need an efficient electric-type solution for those. - Blankcheque, on 07/16/2008, -8/+2I really didn't want to digg you up, but you did have a compelling argument, so I had to.
- jeffiek, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7"back to the low efficiency problems with a combustion engine"
Not quite. A big source of inefficiency in automotive engines is the requirement for peak performance. The ability to accelerate comes at the price of reduced efficiency under average load. An engine designed to perform only at a single level of power will be more efficient. - thegreatgazoo, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12 - The big reason is aluminum is expensive. The only cars I can think of are Honda Insight, Acura NSX, and the Audi A6-A8.
- biggerapple3am, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You come off as one of these people that knows it all without any legitimate research into the matter, using over-simplified "common sense". You must be constantly surprised at the world's achievements.
- moskrin, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Well, *somebody's* a negative nancy!
- PhantomZmoove, on 07/16/2008, -4/+34I was hoping it was powered by a zero point module. :(
- EntangledPhysx, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13And instead of airbags, it uses a Stargate to teleport you out of an accident before the car hits anything.
- Burn, on 07/16/2008, -1/+13Why use a Stargate when you can use Asgard beaming technology?
Heck, why use a car if you can use Asgard beaming technology... - esfisher, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12Why use a car when you guys obviously never leave the house?
- Burn, on 07/16/2008, -1/+13Why use a Stargate when you can use Asgard beaming technology?
- sanosuke001, on 07/16/2008, -4/+0Seriously, why can't those bastards just reverse engineer one instead of trying to find new ones when their old ones run out? And you'd think it would be in the Asgard library they got when Thor's crew committed Asgard genocide...
- ZaNkY, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5At first I was glad I wasn't the only one that thought zero point module when I read the headline....Then I read the replies to your post.....
I definitely need to leave the house.... sometime today... eventually... - ShyGuy91284, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1I really wanted to digg you down since that was so corny and horrible to say... But I thought the same thing, so I had to do the opposite...
- geoboy, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1I was hoping it was powered by farts :(
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The shortest distance between two points is a straight line...unless you do this:
*brings the two points together*
- EntangledPhysx, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13And instead of airbags, it uses a Stargate to teleport you out of an accident before the car hits anything.
- HubbertWins, on 07/16/2008, -3/+9Brilliant concept. I hope we see them soon!
- lazerflesh, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13It looks like 2009 is going to be the year that companies fight to bring us our new cars.
- e2superman, on 07/16/2008, -7/+5Brought to you by gas2.org. If it had been from *****.com though then I would have thought it was not credible. Cheers gas2!!
/sarcasm - chkdg8, on 07/16/2008, -4/+9If it happens, it'll go up in Europe and the rest of the world first before it ever hits our shores. We're still one of the few if not only developed countries that still rely on the SUV-Minivan-Big-Ass-Truck market which translates into billions for big oil companies. Here's the Beyond Tomorrow clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
- nytejade, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Actually SUV sales have plummeted dramatically. Most fuel inefficient cars are sitting on lots. Just take a look when you drive by them. You can get brand new corvettes for thousands off MSRP because no one wants to spend the money on gas.
Now drive by your local Honda dealer. How many Civics / Fits are left? And GOOD LUCK finding a hybrid.
A lot of people are still driving SUV's because they already own them, but the market is (has) drastically changing (changed).- Belittle82, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0Wrong about the Corvette:
"Despite the bump in power, Corvette's fuel economy of 18 mpg city and 28 highway is not affected, says Rydzewski. Emissions are lower, moving the new engine into a cleaner EPA certification category, he says."
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= ...
- Belittle82, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0Wrong about the Corvette:
- Belittle82, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0Wrong.
"Truck sales were down 21% in the first six months of 2008, while car sales were down 9% and Hummer sales plunged 40%. Overall, GM's vehicle sales were down 16%: worse than the industry wide vehicle sales decline of 10%."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/news/companies/GM/ ... - carlosos, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Just one question, did you read the article?
It states, that the technology is from Europe, licensed to India where the first cars are already on the streets and a company in the US bought the license too and plans to release cars late 2009 or early 2010...
- nytejade, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Actually SUV sales have plummeted dramatically. Most fuel inefficient cars are sitting on lots. Just take a look when you drive by them. You can get brand new corvettes for thousands off MSRP because no one wants to spend the money on gas.
- XBunnyRacer, on 07/16/2008, -9/+3I joined the email update list so I can make a reservation in 2009 and delivery in 2010.
- ZodiacKiller, on 07/16/2008, -16/+696mph on compressed air? *****.
- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6Think about the power in compressed air tools--impact wrenches and the like.
- GlassAgate, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Using compressed air to put a nail into a wall is one thing.
Moving a vehicle is another. Let's just see how things work
out.
- j1ggy, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Good idea and everything, but wouldn't you think that once you've gone down to half a tank of air, you'd only get half the speed? Maybe the idea is fill up before you lose too much pressure. Just think of all the gadgets you'd be able to get for it... like manual pumps for when you run out of air on the side of the road or just want to save a bit of money on a fill. Makes perfect sense to me, I can't wait to drive down the freeway expelling gas.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3These cars aren't designed to have 4500 psi going into the drivetrain. There is an initial pressure reduction, so any tank pressure above a baseline value will allow you to get full power.
- knute5, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4If sincere efforts to leverage technology in fuel type/efficiency was equal to the efforts made in computing hardware, just imagine how far we could have come in the past 20 years. I'll do what I can to support this and other smart technologies, and here's to the day when nobody cares about oil...
- ericthesalmon, on 07/16/2008, -2/+33200 cubic feet of air at 4500 psi contains about as much energy as a 15-gallon tank of gas, but it is also the size of a cube 14.7 feet on each side. There is something wrong here.
- zephc, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5The wording was sort of unclear, but it seems to me they mean 3200 ft^3 of air at seal level (~14.7 psi). Some quick math works it out to a little over 2 feet on a side (assuming a cubical tank)
- Slovenian6474, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7hehe, seal level. It's a few feet shorter than human level.
- ericthesalmon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Yeah, I was dumb there.
But what about adiabatic cooling in case of a rupture? The article says the tanks would tear instead of explode, but with that kind of pressure it would still be very violent and very cold.- Hosalabad, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Yeah the sheer volume of wind rushing would be great on the ears, too.
- rrife, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0And you would go deaf.
- MorfiusX, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5From what I've seen, the tanks are made of carbon fiber and stored underneath the vehicle along the frame. It would be interesting to see one of these tanks ruptures for testing purposes though.
- zephc, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5The wording was sort of unclear, but it seems to me they mean 3200 ft^3 of air at seal level (~14.7 psi). Some quick math works it out to a little over 2 feet on a side (assuming a cubical tank)
- knute5, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3If sincere efforts to leverage technology in automotive fuel type/efficiency were equal to the efforts made in computing hardware, just imagine how far we could have come in the past 20 years. I'll do what I can to support this and other smart technologies, and here's to the day when nobody cares about oil...
- splinter09, on 07/16/2008, -4/+11106 mpg that is serious fuel efficiency...................
- Fludd777, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10Opposed to the whimsical fuel efficiency.
- Youreallinsane, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3Umm...how do they compress the air??? That generally takes other machinery running on other forms of energy (electricity, fuel etc).
- zephc, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Solar? Wind?
- FaithclubDotNet, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8I wonder if my next car is going to run on air, or have an exhaust that drips out water. Stuff is getting exciting.
- Burn, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Your petrol car exhaust already drips out water when it's cold (A large part of exhaust gas is water).
- saggyb, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1It's likely he meant only water
- Burn, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Your petrol car exhaust already drips out water when it's cold (A large part of exhaust gas is water).
- Nimda11, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Pretty neat, recharges itself while driving, or you can plug it in and it charges in around 4 hours. That's good because even if these things sell like Tijuana hookers you wont be doing it at a service station anytime soon :).
- fivex, on 07/16/2008, -1/+22i was hoping for flying cars when i first saw "Air Car"...
- Philbert, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Me too but this may be the next best thing.
- ultimatekiwi, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7Well I've got an Air Guitar you could see, uh, never. 500 Power Chords per minute.
- repmekevets, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3dugg for making no sense at all.
- Resiroth, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3I'll believe it when I see it. Aptera is the greenest car I know of that seems like you might be able to buy it soon. I hope this car lives up to the hype.
- Pusod, on 07/16/2008, -4/+15Seriously folks! IF (BIG IF) this hits the U.S. market in late 2009 for under $18,000 you can bet your ass i'm buying one! Im so burnt out on gas prices I will be jumping for joy and I CAN FINALLY STICK IT TO THE OIL COMPANIES for screwing me over!
- Hosalabad, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5You'd still be buying gasoline.
- Merendino, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5yes but OH so less of it.
- Enjia, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2they didn't screw you over, they have a product that they sell, deal with it.
- Hosalabad, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5You'd still be buying gasoline.
- nsmiller, on 07/16/2008, -5/+0This car poses a serious danger in the event of a crash. The fact that it would be made almost entirely from aluminum and that there is a tank of compressed air at a super high pressure makes any freeway crash almost certainly fatal.
- azimir, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Being made from aluminum doesn't mean unsafe by definition. Yes, the car shall be totaled, but the passengers will be fairly well protected, along the lines of any other US commercially sold vehicle.
As to the air tanks? Carbon fiber construction. The designers indicate that they split instead of explode during duress. I would like to see what the means, but the assumption: air tank gets hit -> BOOM is incorrect.
Will these be a good option in the future? Perhaps, but dig around before random speculation. - Astaro, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4first of all, lighter cars have less kinetic energy.
the lower the energy of a collision, the more likely the occupants are to survive.
secondly, aluminium absorbs more energy when it is deformed than an equivalent steel structure.
the effect of which is that the occupants of an aluminium vehicle experience a smoother, more drawn out deceleration.
all told, this car is almost certainly LESS dangerous to its occupants, and definitely less dangerous to other road users than any comparable car, and most larger cars or trucks.- floorman56, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2first of all, lighter cars have less kinetic energy.
But tractor trailers still have the same. If you are parked at a stop light and get hit the fact that YOU have less kinetic energy is not going to make any difference - MorfiusX, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Depending on the velocity of the truck, the type of vehicle you are driving will likely not make a substantial difference. To add to this, this is why we have safety standards. The standards are not in place to protect you in 100% of accidents, just the majority. If these cars meet the standards, they are as safe as any other vehicle on the road no matter how they are engineered.
- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Less mass means less inertia and a greater change in momentum, which means more impulse, which is bad.
- floorman56, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2first of all, lighter cars have less kinetic energy.
- YZBot, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2It's not like we already drive around in cars with highly combustable gasoline. They rarely explode in an impact. You are probably afraid of hydrogen cars too. OMG, the hydrogen is explosive.
- azimir, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Being made from aluminum doesn't mean unsafe by definition. Yes, the car shall be totaled, but the passengers will be fairly well protected, along the lines of any other US commercially sold vehicle.
- scoottie, on 07/16/2008, -3/+11why do the all have to look so ***** ugly?
- wogfella, on 07/16/2008, -5/+5Euro-gay design.
Balls may not have been touching, but still. - SimonTB, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2They're trying to make them look futuristic. The future happens to be an ugly place. Also, aerodynamics.
- wogfella, on 07/16/2008, -5/+5Euro-gay design.
- Cerius, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7Damn, at first glance I thought the title meant air powered as in a sail.
Overpasses would be a bitch in that scenario though. - Barackalypse, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5And how many miles to the gallon would it get if you stuck that same engine technology it into a Honda Civic body instead of some stupid ultra-lightweight vehicle? (I think there is some sort of design criteria that states any alternative propulsion technology must be placed in some goofy looking vehicle that weighs 1100 pounds).
- robert3211, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5I like numbers but i don't think its quite feasible. Everyday you heard of a breakthrough invention, I remember that yesterday only, i saw a flashing news that U.K scientist have made Hydrogen fuel compatible cars, thus making a possibility that every other being will have his own filling stations. The point i wanna make is that technology brings lots of ideas but very few of these ideas have really been applied in actual world.
_______________
Robert- GlassAgate, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Feasibility tends to kill a lot of projects, and there's always a
group of people who cry "Conspiracy!". - saggyb, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5They've already built the car, and will be selling it in a few years at most... the point you want to make is stupid because in this case they are clearly applying the technology. Technology you probably know very little about, yet you still speculate about how it's not "quite feasible". Here's a flashing news: you're an idiot.
- GlassAgate, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1I was replying to robert3211's comment that most ideas
are killed because most of them, at the end of the day,
aren't feasible.
Just because they are producing it doesn't mean that
its feasible. Only time will tell if it is. The company could
be crocked. The may have fooled a bunch of investors
to invest in the product, that may end up being con,
and run off with their riches. I don't know if this is the
case or not, but simply because they're producing it
doesn't mean that it's feasible.
Another example is this: Kevin Trudeau has sold millions
of his books. He's on the New York Times bestsellers
list. That does not mean that there is any truth in his books.
When new products come onto the market, I wait 6-12 months.
If they're still on the market, then I look into them.
Anywho, how much do you know about it?
How much energy is needed to compress the
air to fill the tank? How is that energy going to be
produced? How expensive is the vehicle?
How safe is the vehicle? These are a good handful
of questions to be answered, and I'm guessing that
there are more questions to be asked.
- GlassAgate, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Feasibility tends to kill a lot of projects, and there's always a
- GlassAgate, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3Damn those laws of physics! They are always getting it the
way of new inventions, like the perpetual motion machine,
a car that runs on water and is cost effective, and a host
of other inventions. We need to amend these laws so that
these inventions will see the light of day!- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2No laws of physics are getting broken here, its basically a plug in hybrid with air instead of batteries.
- seifip, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Let's combine the flyinf cars (2010) and air cars (2009)... That will be something!!
- stephenjbolger, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Great concept! All they need now is to use the braking system to re compress air back into the air tank.
The future is looking bright for a life without petrol. - Hosalabad, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I'm caught on the air compressor demands for this. Perhaps someone with scuba experience would know, but for home refilling what kind of compressor are we taking about. 4 hours at 100% duty cycle to fill the car, and at such a high pressure, it sounds like it's going to be disturbingly loud. Might be a great way to heat the house in the winter though. Will it even run on 220-240v (U.S.) or will people be using motor generators to get up to 480v to push the compressor.
- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2US is 120V
- OffPiste, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1What about two-phase US power?
- barnett25, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2120V is what the wiring throughout your house is. But you still have 220-240V for your dryer. This is easy to setup however 480V, like Hosalabad said, requires special equipment to generate.
- Arnos, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1120, 122- whatever works.
- AVigorVermin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1who cares? It's at HOME.
- Origin415, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2US is 120V
- MariettaMama, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I like it, Id buy it.
- bigfruitbasket, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3I'd hit it.
- Shoebox639, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2As great as this is, I hate how it takes a global fossil fuel crisis to get the scientific and industrial community rolling on new innovations. Nevertheless it is a great achievement for personal transportation.
- dekuscrub, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7I am all for great gas mileage, but why do the cars have to look so retarded?
- juicycutlets, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1i completely agree.
- robertnealan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3No flux capacitor?
- ttitone, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2MAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTY
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"If you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything."
- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4I'm no mechanical engineer (hell, I'm no engineer) but is a reciprocating engine seriously the most efficient design? I'd figure some sort of impulse turbine design would be more efficient.
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1True, a reciprocating engine, such as a piston engine, is not all that energy efficient in a number of situations such as under constant load. A turbine is much more efficient in such situations.
However, for engines that spend a large amount of time not being under load, the turbines are less efficient. This was a consideration for the M1 Abrams tank as the gas turbine on it still sucked the fuel like no tomorrow even though the tank was just sitting there and not blazing its 60 tons along at 45mph. One idea was to have a 2nd reciprocating engine to run when the M1 wasn't needing the 1500hp turbine.
However, repeatedly starting and stopping a turbine negates another very positive feature of the turbine, which is its maintenance intervals. A major benefit to airlines using turbines, in addition to speed, is that the turbines can last a very long time, but starting and stopping the engine (a cycle), is something that increases wear and requires shorter intervals for a tear down.
Anyway, back to reciprocating vs turbine.
Driving across Nevada, a turbine would be great. Stop and go city traffic, the reciprocating engine would be the efficiency champ.- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I understand this but at the same time the fuel (in this case the pressure of the air) does not require combustion, and therefore does not require the engine to continue running while the vehicle is not in motion, whereas with an internal combustion engine of any type, starting the engine requires a secondary starter device and some time every time the engine is shut off to start again. Unless the engine is also running power steering/brakes, it is unnecessary to run it while stopped.
- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1As a too-late-to-edit thought, I guess I should consider the number of features and amenities of a car that require constant power no matter what speed it's going, such as the lights, climate control, radio, etc. I guess the engine will idle with the vehicle at a standstill to continue to run a generator or alternator to keep the electrical system up as well as hydraulic pressure for any power-assist features such as power steering or power brakes.
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1True, a reciprocating engine, such as a piston engine, is not all that energy efficient in a number of situations such as under constant load. A turbine is much more efficient in such situations.
- ttitone, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2please let this become a reality
- unpolloloco, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4"Compressing air heats it up and expanding it cools it down. Therefore practical air engines require heat exchangers in order to avoid excessively high or low temperatures and even so don't reach ideal constant temperature conditions. Nevertheless it is useful to describe the maximum energy storable using the isothermal case, which works out to about 110 ln{frac{P_A}{P_B}} kJ/m3-N at 24°Celsius. One m3-N is one cubic meter of gas volume at normal, i.e. atmospheric pressure, conditions. Thus if 1.0 m3 of ambient air is very slowly compressed into a 5-liter bottle at 200 bar, the potential energy stored is 583 kJ (or 0.16 kWh). A highly efficient air motor could transfer this into kinetic energy if it runs very slowly and manages to expand the air from its initial 200 bar pressure completely down to 1 bar (bottle completely "empty" at ambient pressure). Achieving high efficiency is a technical challenge both due to nonlinear energy storage and the thermodynamic considerations. If the bottle above is emptied down to 10 bar, the ener"gy extractable is about 330 kJ at the motor shaft. The efficiency of isothermal compressed gas storage is theoretically 100% but in practice the process is not isothermal and the two engines (compressor and motor) have additional types of losses.
A standard 200 bar 5 liter steel bottle has a mass of 7.5 kg, a superior one, 5 kg. Bottles reinforced with, or built from, high-tensile fibers such as carbon-fiber or kevlar can be below 2 kg in this size, consistent with the legal safety codes. 1 m3 of air contained inside such a full bottle has a mass of 1.225 kg (at 0°C). Thus, theoretical energy densities are from roughly 70 kJ/kg at the motor shaft for a plain steel bottle to 180 kJ/kg at the motor shaft for an advanced fiber-wound one, whereas practical achievable energy densities for the same containers would be from 40 kJ/kg to 100 kJ/kg. Comparing to the data given for rechargable batteries, this makes the advanced fiber-reinforced bottle example comparable to the lead-acid battery in terms of energy density and advanced battery systems are several times better. Batteries also provide nearly constant voltage over their entire charge level, whereas the pressure of compressed air storage varies greatly with charge level. It is technically challenging to design air engines to maintain high efficiency and sufficient power over such a wide range of pressures. Compressed air can transfer power at very high rates, which is a principal objective of transportation prime-movers, for acceleration and deceleration; particularly for hybrid vehicles.
Advantages of compressed air over electric storage are the longer lifetime of pressure vessels compared to batteries and the lower toxicity of the materials used. Costs are thus potentially lower, however advanced pressure vessels are costly to develop and safety-test and at present are more expensive than mass-produced batteries.
As with electric technology, it must be stressed that compressed air energy storage depends on external energy sources and overall consumption can only be as "clean" as these.
As with most technologies, compressed air has safety concerns, mainly the catastrophic rupture of the tank. Highly conservative safety codes make this a rare occurrence at the tradeoff of higher weight. Codes may limit the legal working pressure to less than 40% of the rupture pressure for steel bottles (safety factor of 2.5), and less than 20% for fiber-wound bottles (safety factor of 5). Design rules are according to the ISO 11439 standard. [4] High pressure bottles are fairly strong so that they generally do not rupture in crashes."
--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy ... - snoop396, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3what if the tank is ruptured? its only carbon fiber and at 4500psi it will do allot of damage
- repmekevets, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4did you know that carbon fiber is stronger than steel?
- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5What I heard is the tank, if compromised, is supposed to split in a single location rather than catastrophic fragmentation of the tank. I'm sure it'll be a deafening bang but other than that I suspect not much will happen. At least the propellant isn't a flammable liquid that can leak over hot components and possibly ignite, as well as being an ecological hazard.
- entrepreneur2, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5"a lot" not "allot" aggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- snoop396, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2thanks captain grammar
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5I think a ruptured tank might be a little more dangerous than a loud noise.
with the 4500psi tank that can hold 3200 cubic feet of air, at 25 degrees Celcius I calculated the following..
tank size = 0.2959 cubic meters or 10.45 cubic feet
total energy on a full tank = 52.562 megaJoules of energy
I also looked up on their website that the car weighs 1874 lbs or 851.8 kg.
This means a ruptured full tank has enough energy to accelerate the car to 351 meters per second or 786 MPH (ignoring drag). Obviously there is drag so it will not actually go that fast, but that's the upper limit.
If the tank is ruptured in a way where the car is thrust upwards like a normal rocket (which this car has now become), once again ignoring drag (but not gravity), the car's theoretical altitude would be 6.297 kilometers or 3.9 miles up in the air.
Granted my calculations are approximate and assuming some ideal conditions. I would guess that the car might just spin around really fast because the rupture would probably not be ejecting gas directly away from the center of gravity. But this just gives you an idea of how much energy we are dealing with here. I would not be surprised if this car got a significant amount of air just from spinning and bouncing around and if a tank ruptured.
This helped a bit with some of my calculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy ...- Lunarbunny, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Interesting. Reminds me of the Mythbusters hot water heater rocket. Now I want to see tank compromise testing videos.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Actually after talking to my brother, he pointed out that at least half the energy would go towards accelerating the gas leaving the tank. :(
So this means that the velocity the car could attain from a ruptured tank is only 248 meters per second or 556 miles per hour, and the total height you could get from rocketing upward at that velocity is only 3.148 kilometers or 1.96 miles.
Sadly because of this revelation we can no longer break the sound barrier (770 MPH) using the energy from a full tank in the event of a ruptured tank. - TsuruchiBrian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Actually that last thing I said is totally wrong. I completely ignored conservation of momentum. Half the energy does not go to the gas. Because of the difference in mass of the car and the gas in the tank, actually only about 10% of the total energy goes to accelerating the car and 90% goes towards accelerating the gas.
The total energy that is transferred to the car is 5.883 megaJoules
This is enough to accelerate the car to 117.5 meters per second or 263 miles per hour.
It is also enough to send the car to a height of 704.7 meters or 0.438 miles.
And once again I am taking about ideal conditions. This is about how high you could get if you built a rocket that was the same mass as the car with the same air tank at the same pressure and you were trying to go as high as possible, with 0 wind resistance.
This time I am pretty sure I did the physics right. - snoop396, on 07/17/2008, -0/+3ahh, that makes a lot of sense. so i guess the reaction would be similar to a scuba tank being ruptured since they range from 3000 to 4500 psi;
something like this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002643152 ...
- naokske, on 07/16/2008, -8/+0Nice , but i preffer the Hydrogen car .... XD
- spritom, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3Ok...how many of you dugg just for the name Tata Motors?
- repmekevets, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1why does the license plate read "2003 DEC 08"? old design? it's certainly ugly enough to need a redesign.. or at least an update.
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
