Reply With Quote
Why do all the innovative cars designed look like the product of some designer on an acid trip?
Remember when it was American car companies coming up with innovative technologies of the future?
Revolutionary air car runs on compressed air
Mike Aivaz and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday January 4, 2008
BBC News is reporting that a French company has developed a pollution-free car which runs on compressed air. India's Tata Motors has the car under production and it may be on sale in Europe and India by the end of the year.
The air car, also known as the Mini-CAT or City Cat, can be refueled in minutes from an air compressor at specially equipped gas stations and can go 200 km on a 1.5 euro fill-up -- roughly 125 miles for $3. The top speed will be almost 70 mph and the cost of the vehicle as low as $7000.
The car features a fibreglass body and a revolutionary electrical system and is completely computer-controlled. It is powered by the expansion of compressed air, using no combustion at all, and the exhaust is entirely clean and cool enough for use in the internal air conditioning system.
Tata Motors is known for its interest in innovation and has been selling compressed gas buses since 2000. It is currently working on producing the world's cheapest car, which will be almost 100% plastic and will sell in India for about $2500.
Tata is also expanding into the world market. It acquired Korea's Daweoo in 2004 and is now the top bidder to purchase the originally British Jaguar and Land Rover lines from the United States' troubled Ford Motor Company.
Why do all the innovative cars designed look like the product of some designer on an acid trip?
No, I wasn't alive before World War II.
Because that is what they were on when they thought of a car that runs on air.
If you want a car in the future you may be forced to own
one these motor scooters, they call cars. That is the way
the environmentalist want you to go. Got to save Mother
Earth because she is going to be a cold place to live otherwise.
Oh, you haven't heard. We are in a cooling period now.
Brrrrrrrr
Yes, one of the problem with this car is that it does NOT have an engine that warms the universe -and the inside of the car in cold days- wasting 80% of the energy introduced.
Too simple.
Too few components.
Too clean.
What a nightmare.
How much electricity is required to compress the air in the first place? That isn't as cheap or as environmentally friendly as let on.... Still, a very practical alternative to driving around on a hydrogen 'bomb' or a gasoline/diesel tank.
Hopefully the air compressors are all powered by solar, wind, wave and geothermal (the only true green energies).
I think the air compressors are run on gasoline powered generators.
What happens when this thing gets in a head on with another vehicle? It looks like the engine would be in the back seat in a head on with a Dodge Neon.
This car was first reported on about a year ago....way to be on the cutting edge
Hmmmm, never mind then, just watched the video, that thing is big and ugly, not tiny and ugly. Still looks like it would disintegrate in a high speed head-on collision though.
I'd buy one...
The idea is that once everyone is driving them, the danger presented by collisions is much less.
I'll still keep my jeep on the side though...
you will be forced to get rid of the large heavy suv's and if you are at fault in the accident you lose $100000 and a finger
What gets me is that these cars still use power from what ever source produces the electricity to compress the air. What is it? More coal plants? Oil powered turbine generators?
Even at that. The car is so dinky... Who would want it? How does it fare for the USA crash safety standards? How dangerous is the tank if the exhaust fitting gets broken?
Ever see an oxygen tank when the end gets snapped off? At 2500+ PSI, it takes off like a rocket, and goes right through concrete walls! If I remember right, nitrogen can be compressed more than oxygen, and makes up about 78% of air.
This design would never fly in the USA. Too many safety issues. Still not enough power storage.
Why haven't we seen much on the new hydrogen cells. Carbon nano-tubes hold hydrogen very well at safe pressures. Cannot do that with air. This is a recent breakthrough that has previously hampered hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. It was not safe and feasible to hold enough hydrogen fuel for any reasonable distance between fill ups. Now it is possible. There is now only one problem that I am aware of with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, besides the cost of the hydrogen. That is the membrane life. Fuel cells go bad rather fast unless extremely pure hydrogen is used. Not very feasible. The cost is still high, but if it lasts for 100,000+ miles, does it matter? Right now, they cannot even warrantee then for 5,000 miles, unless there are farther developments I'm not aware of.
Oh... let's not forget the most important thing. At about 44 KWH of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline, where do we get the electricity to hake all the hydrogen?
Let's see...
at $0.0.8 per KWH, that is $3.52 per gallon equivalent just for the electricity the break the hydrogen out of water through electrolysis. Add profit, taxes, equipment maintenance, employee costs, etc...
How much would a hydrogen powered car cost to fuel?
Yep, I seem to remember a thing about it. It was a joke then, and a joke now.This car was first reported on about a year ago....way to be on the cutting edge
I see no future in it. Just a later joke in the history books, like the patent on recovery of CH4 from us mortals. I did a quick internet check, but failed to find it. I recall seeing a patent issued before the computer age. A devise was inserted up the ass to collect methane... I see this car about as appealing to people as having such a devise inserted.... Maybe the same people like it?
Good point. This thing would obviously have way more than 2500 PSI in it (a scuba tank holds about 3000 psi when full).Ever see an oxygen tank when the end gets snapped off? At 2500+ PSI, it takes off like a rocket, and goes right through concrete walls! If I remember right, nitrogen can be compressed more than oxygen, and makes up about 78% of air.
Go to about the two minute mark and watch the steel cylinder hit with a .3006 round causing an explosive decompression.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx4XfFVRArQ
yep, an unattached aluminum air cylinder shot with a bullet by a drunk red-neck gun freak behaves just like a (steel? carbon fiber?) air cylinder securely wedged into a car frame. yep, great Aggie science.
I note how the right-wingers are uniformly against this and any new idea, wanting retrogressively to "conserve" the mostly unsustainable status quo.
If you don't like the car, STFU and get out of the way of progress and experimentation.
And of course steel gasoline reservoirs in cars are NEVER punctured, catch fire, explode, except in movie stunts for the demographics of 12-year-old boys and NASCAR red-necks.
Yes, of course it takes electrical energy to run the compress energy into a cylinder. They haven't figured out how to create energy from nothing.
Cylinders could be refilled overnight when peak electricity capacity is wasted There is no refinery to build, no expensive pipeline distribution system, no ANWR to rape, and no pollution, no batteries to wear out, no multi-$T wars for oil to be fought.
$3/cylinder for 125 miles vs $12+++ for gasoline. yep, a really bad deal.
I can one-up you. I remember Peter Jennings having a broadcast on this first around 2004. At the time, it could do a max of 50 mph. I didn't bother to check if that has changed.This car was first reported on about a year ago....way to be on the cutting edge
Nothing new under the sun. Here's 50 year old "transportation appliance" for when the nasty US govt intervened in the "free market" to ration gasoline.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/au...16CROSLEY.html
If US gasoline was "rationed" with European-level gas taxes putting gasoline at $7/gallon, the USA would finally quit over-consuming oil to the detriment of the entire planet.
You're a ing re . It doesn't matter whether it's a cylinder or wedged in a car frame. You have a substance under pressure in a confined space. When something catastrophically ruptures said confined space, the pressure escapes like you saw in the video.yep, an unattached aluminum air cylinder shot with a bullet by a drunk red-neck gun freak behaves just like a (steel? carbon fiber?) air cylinder securely wedged into a car frame. yep, great Aggie science.
Wedged securely in a car frame? Any high velocity wreck in an automobile usually ends up with said vehicle in multiple pieces. In this scenario, you'd not only have multiple pieces, but you'd potentially have half a car rocketing across a road taking out anything in its place.
I notice how you are a ing re . I think any alternative fuel ideas are great ones, being dependent on oil sucks. At the same time, I could swear we're in the US of A, which means I'm en led to voice my concerns over this thing. And namely the safety of this vehicle in a collision is a valid concern.I note how the right-wingers are uniformly against this and any new idea, wanting retrogressively to "conserve" the mostly unsustainable status quo.
Blow me you ing commie . And I didn't realize my post here on Spurstalk had the power to stifle experimentation for alternative fuel sources half way around the world. You really must be wearing a tin foil hatIf you don't like the car, STFU and get out of the way of progress and experimentation.
Um, they do. And the point remains that any new automobile has to undergo crash testing to check for things like how easy it is to rupture fuel tanks.And of course steel gasoline reservoirs in cars are NEVER punctured, catch fire, explode, except in movie stunts for the demographics of 12-year-old boys and NASCAR red-necks.
You sound like the idiots who think ethanol is such a great idea when it's taking more energy to produce the ethanol for use in gasoline than it costs to refine normal gasoline.Yes, of course it takes electrical energy to run the compress energy into a cylinder. They haven't figured out how to create energy from nothing.
So you want to put an air compressor in everyone's home? Who writes the check for $50K for each of them? Or is everyone supposed to stop off at the corner air store every morning for a new cylinder that can instantaneously be wedged in to their oh-so-secure vehicle frame as you put it? You don't even make sense with your own post.Cylinders could be refilled overnight when peak electricity capacity is wasted There is no refinery to build, no expensive pipeline distribution system, no ANWR to rape, and no pollution, no batteries to wear out, no multi-$T wars for oil to be fought.
And no pollution? You realize the majority of compressed air generators run off of gas/deisel or are plugged into the electric grid. So try again.
It is if a fender bender gets you killed.$3/cylinder for 125 miles vs $12+++ for gasoline. yep, a really bad deal.
Look, I know you're dumber than a rock and get all your talking points from salon and democrapticunderground.org, but honestly, shut the up until you grow up and have some semblance of common sense to apply to anything going on in the world.
Alternative fuel research is great, and as prices rise it puts more pressure on entrepreneurs and companies to develop an alternative, and this has got some promise, but not if the only way you can drive one is to strap into a death trap.
Last edited by Aggie Hoopsfan; 01-06-2008 at 05:23 PM.
Cool, so explain your plan for getting the Chinese, whom are on the way to becoming the #1 consumers of gasoline in the world, to cut back their consumption. Oh wait, that's probably the fault of Bush and the big oil companies too, right?
Not so. We are just smart enough to look at the pros and cons of an idea. If there were no disastrous probabilities involved, I would be for it. So would others.
I'm not in the way of either. I simply pointed out real concerns. It is not progress anyway if the bad outweighs the good.
I don't think you realize the differences in dangers. Yes, gas fuel tanks are dangerous under the right conditions, but they rarely cause serious problems. Compressed air to the pressures required is extremely more dangerous. Not just dangerous.
I just wanted to point out to people the energy isn't free. Some people seem to think so.
Very true. Does it outweigh the downside?
And with that size of a car, the same cost per mile, or better, can probably be achieved with a hybrid with a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine. You don't have the pressure problems then.
"We need to be more innovative and cutting edge...but, we need to tax the crap outta those evil corporations first."
Is this ironic...or a dichotomy? Mebbe schizophrenic? Paranormal?
Nah, just plain 'ol dumb.
OK, after watching the video, I would like to make a few observations and extrapolate using some simple math.
Now a 30-06 bullet has a 0.3" diameter. At 2500 PSI, this amounts to a force of 178 pounds of thrust to propel the tank. A compressed car will have a larger diameter tube that could easily be sheared in an accident. If we assume, to get the volume needed, it is either a 1/2" or 3/4" ID tube, the forces are far greater. The 1/2" ID tube if sheared would have a thrust of 481 pounds. This is nearly three times greater forces. The 3/4 ID would produce 1104 pounds of thrust. Almost six times the energy.
Now what I haven't been able to find is a video of a tank getting it's top sheared off. Mythbusters proved the myth, and it propelled a cylinder through a concrete wall!
Now when dealing with a tank to hold such energy, the air will be compressed to a liquid form. That is why it 3000 PSI or so. Once it gets to a liquid state, the pressure remains stable from almost no liquid to full liquid. Expansion space needs to be maintained also. Now I don't know the pressure at room temperature that air turns to liquid, but at 3000 PSI, the ½" is 589 pounds of thrust, and the ¾ is 1325. Now I bring up the liquid aspect of it because it greatly changes the duration of the thrust. If the cylinder was just compressed gas, it would only be maybe a few seconds. Liquid for changes that to several seconds, maybe beyond a minute or so.
Meanwhile, enjoy this video:
So you retrogressives kill this car because of the "pressure" problem? The pressure problem, if it even exists, is insoluble by the most advanced technology culture in the history of the universe?
What ballsy, courageous, innnovative at ude. Macho Men showing their true chicken nature.
As the drunk, infantile red-neck demonstrated, a hole in a compressed tank ONLY causes the tank to decompress, NOT to explode, since there is no explosive or fuel involved.
Compared to highly flammable, explosive gasoline, a problem that remains UNSOLVED in current vehicules, compressed air is an extremely safe choice for storing energy.
So the US should never try to fix its own foreign oil dependence, nor reduce greenhouse gases, simply because China isn't? great logic masquerading as a pre-text to "conserve" do nothing. Since when does the USA let China set the example?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
