David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 06:53 AM |
|
|
Zero emissions car?
LINKY
...but doesn't this mean that the harmful emissions happen somewhere else? (power station, for example?)
Interesting concept though - not sure I like the idea of sitting on a CF air tank at over 4000 psi, especially in Indian traffic! 
|
|
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:03 AM |
|
|
Where on earth do they hide a 340 litre air tank?
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
bilbo
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:05 AM |
|
|
It's fugly, but I quite like the concept - simple, uncomplicated.
The air tank is a bit scary, but is it any worse than a can of Hydrogen as required for fuel cell cars
---------------------------------------
Build Diary: http://bills-locost.blogspot.com/
Web Site: http://locost.atspace.com
|
|
|
ditchlewis
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:12 AM |
|
|
I like the "Glue Construction" bit does that mean it will fall apart if it gets to hot 
looks like the bext big bang waiting to happen
Ditch
|
|
|
robertst
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:17 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RazMan
Where on earth do they hide a 340 litre air tank?
not very difficult really. u see: 1 cubic meter equates roughly to 1000 litres so 340 litres is around .34 cubic metres or 64cm long by 64cm wide by
64cm tall.
playing with those measurements, you can use the dimensions of the floor for example, say 2m x 1.2m x 15cm tall will give you .36 cubic metres
capacity in a tank which is only 15cm tall. not bad IMO compared to a hydrogen tank in the boot of some H2 cars....
Tom
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:18 AM |
|
|
Air tank unlikely to explode,if it can hold that pressure then it will be pretty uncrushable in a crash! I bet you could use the engine to make a neat
steam car only problem is you would need to re-cycle water and carry some kind of fuel.
Whatever you do by using energy somewhere you will be dumping waste into the air unless you can get solar, geothermal , wind or hydro 
Caber
|
|
|
robertst
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 07:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by robertst
quote:
Originally posted by RazMan
Where on earth do they hide a 340 litre air tank?
not very difficult really. u see: 1 cubic meter equates roughly to 1000 litres so 340 litres is around .34 cubic metres or 64cm long by 64cm wide by
64cm tall.
playing with those measurements, you can use the dimensions of the floor for example, say 2m x 1.2m x 15cm tall will give you .36 cubic metres
capacity in a tank which is only 15cm tall. not bad IMO compared to a hydrogen tank in the boot of some H2 cars....
there u go found this pic in their website.. i knew it was under the floor:
[Edited on 4/6/07 by robertst]
Tom
|
|
|
Bluemoon
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 08:00 AM |
|
|
Of course you are correct David, power is just generated somewhere else.. But in India, on of the big problems is the smog from the cars in cites, so
this is a good solution for local pollution reduction... But not climate change..
Dan
|
|
|
DIY Si
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 08:37 AM |
|
|
Just how many garages in India happen to have 4350 psi custom built compressors lying about handy? And how manyof them actually work? Good idea, but I
can't see it helping with emissions all that much over all.
Oh, and it's proper fugly.
“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
My new blog: http://spritecave.blogspot.co.uk/
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 09:52 AM |
|
|
But there is nothing stopping them using renewable power sources to supply the compressed air. A small wind turbine for instance? But 4350psi is some
pressure!
Most importantly, it is a green product coming out of a very polluting country. Anything that raises awareness is a good idea.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 10:01 AM |
|
|
I'd be worried that some back-street mechanic with a big old hammer might try to repair it, once the cars get older and slip into general
ownership...
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
I don't think there's anything inherently more dangerous about having big tanks full of compressed air or hydrogen or whatever than
sitting on a tank full of petrol. 60-odd litres of petrol would make a bloody big bang if you set it off as a bomb yet we all take the safety of it
for granted when we get in our cars. Why would these other energy storage solutions be any different?
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 01:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Palin
I don't think there's anything inherently more dangerous about having big tanks full of compressed air or hydrogen or whatever than
sitting on a tank full of petrol. 60-odd litres of petrol would make a bloody big bang if you set it off as a bomb
It would only go bang if it was all in vapour form to start with. Personaly I don't like the idea of 300Bar in a tank I'm sitting on.
That's some 25 times higher than the pressure in an LPG tank.
Apart from that, storing energy as compressed air is grossly inefficient compared to electricity. When you compress air you heat it up, and this heat
energy is simply lost.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
When you compress air you heat it up, and this heat energy is simply lost.
one improvement might be to have a heat pump to save on wasted heat at the compressor, and run the air through a heat exchanger (like an anti
intercooler) in the car. Would be a useful cooler for the aircon, which i guess they need in india!
Its a crap idea, but has merit in its low tech-ness. That said, carbon fibre air tanks arent that low tech!
|
|
|
Syd Bridge
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 06:38 PM |
|
|
For those who can do the calcs, it would be fairly obvious that it takes more energy to compress the gas, than it gives back. This only moves the
pollution out to the power station.
Electric is still about the best efficiency, all things in the system considered.
And cfrp high pressure tanks??? Low tec, I was doing them for in-car air and aircraft oxygen some 19 years ago now. Test to 300 bar. 300 bar in use
just needs more carbon. Not much science involved at all.
Anyone seen a cfrp fire extinguisher system for a racecar? The very first was made here on the IoW, 1988. Batches of ten for Lifeline, for Williams,
Ferrari and McLaren. Made hundreds of the things. ( And those bottles went out the door at £110 each, and cost little more today.)
Cheers,
Syd. 
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 06:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Syd Bridge
For those who can do the calcs, it would be fairly obvious that it takes more energy to compress the gas, than it gives back. This only moves the
pollution out to the power station.
Thats what I was just thinking...
In total an electric car works out something like ~17% efficient that includes all of the losses from electricity generation activities and the
inefficiencies in the car combined. (so my mate who works for a company making electric sports cars has told me) That is far more efficient than a
petrol vehicle, though I dont have a total efficiency % for fossil fuels...
You would be far better making an electric vehicle as you would be, overall, more efficient than the compressed air one (you are simply adding another
energy conversion if you want to look at it like that).
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/07 at 08:23 PM |
|
|
I guess that the big advantage of the compressed air car is that you don't have to manufacture and carry a huge load of storage batteries. With
affordable technology (we're talking about India here) that would probably mean lead-acid cells. At least with compressed air there's very
little weight penalty.
I wonder how they intend to deal with condensation in the air system, in such a humid climate?
|
|
|
