AirPod Concept Car Runs on Compressed Air

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
They don't quite seem to mention what the range of this thing is (the 100 miles figure is for something different), although given its target market, it probably doesn't need that much range per charge.

Now, if only this worked with a hand-operated air pump...
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
Aircars like these have been around for years. They typically have two tanks. They make them big enough to hold 2~4 people without a problem.

Cool thing about an AIR-CAR, is that there is plenty of AIR, its just compressed... And in a sense, it should be able to run itself.
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
Here are some examples of AIR-CARS that are years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJeMnZuOOJU (200 Miles per charge, takes minutes to re-fill / 60mph)
Watch the video above: A possible $15K car... and perhaps the ability for it to-re compress its own air using... compressed air.

This is WHAT we need. No pollution... no gas, no coal, no solar... no wind.

 

HenrikG

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2005
63
0
18,630
0
Why oh why is it so difficult to make a 'green' car that also looks aesthetically pleasing for an affordable price?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]and perhaps the ability for it to-re compress its own air using... compressed air.This is WHAT we need. No pollution... no gas, no coal, no solar... no wind.[/citation]
You cannot make a self-powered air-car since the air-compression/decompression process is very inefficient. On top of that, you have mechanical losses due to friction, rolling losses in the tires/suspension, aerodynamic losses from drag, more losses from braking, etc. so no matter how efficient you manage to make everything, you still need some form of external energy source to top off the compressed air tank.

The next biggest hurdle is the weight and size of an air tank large enough to store all the energy required for a typical roundtrip. To keep the tank size down, you need very high pressure air (4000+ psi) which means very thick tanks and pipes. Thermal cycling in the propulsion/braking piston would also be a problem with fast heating during braking and cooling during acceleration.

Personally, I would be wary of literally driving a pipe bomb on wheels.
 

theabsinthehare

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2011
61
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]belardo[/nom]Here are some examples of AIR-CARS that are years old:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJeMnZuOOJU (200 Miles per charge, takes minutes to re-fill / 60mph)Watch the video above: A possible $15K car... and perhaps the ability for it to-re compress its own air using... compressed air.This is WHAT we need. No pollution... no gas, no coal, no solar... no wind.[/citation]

For the car to compress the air it runs on via its own air supply would result in a perpetual motion machine. This is impossible. See "Entropy."

If the car requires an electric pump to compress the air, then it doesn't actually run on air, it runs on electricity. Compressed air may be what makes the motor run, but electricity is what compresses the air. I suppose you could ultimately use a man powered crank compressor of some sort, but how much work would that take?

From a general perspective, this may seem like a good idea, but if you think about how the entire system works including the charging, you'll realize this might be less efficient than a car that just runs on electricity.

Each time you convert energy from one form to another, you lose some. For an electric car, you need to change the kinetic electric energy from the wall into potential energy in the battery and then to kinetic energy again when you drive the vehicle. For this Air-Pod, you do the same with an extra step: Outlet electricity to powering the compressor to compressed air then finally to powering the engine.

Compressors give off a LOT of heat (put your hand up near the ceiling behind your fridge. That's heat given off from compression). That heat is lost energy. Batteries give off some heat, but not as much. This means a purely electric car would be more efficient. This concept just *seems* better because they tell you it runs on air.

 

Elwenil

Honorable
Feb 23, 2012
27
0
10,540
1
Another example of deferred responsibility. People get latched onto the idea that cars like this are so great because they create little or no pollution. That's fine, but in order to drive them, you must have pollution. All electric cars have to be charged and so far solar power isn't quite feasible. An air powered car will require the air to be compressed with by electricity or a compressor driven by an engine or something similar. The car itself may make no pollution but all you are really doing is making someone else responsible for the pollution, be it the electric company, fuel supplier, etc. These cars can't make their own energy so they must take it from something else. Even if we get solar power nailed down for electric cars there are still issues with the pollution created when making the batteries. Hell, even if you used a manual pump to compress the air a human still creates it own pollution as it works. Eventually we will reach a point where the efficiency of such things is worth it for the cost but so far everything I have seen fails miserably. I think I'll keep my '80s 4x4. ;D
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom].Personally, I would be wary of literally driving a pipe bomb on wheels.[/citation]

Ever see a gas tank blow up ? :)

 

antegravity

Honorable
Aug 26, 2012
4
0
10,510
0
This car really doesn't run on air. It runs on whatever compressed the air. Whether that is electricity from a power plant on the grid fueled by coal or wind turbines. Even batteries have an energy and material cost from their industrial production.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]Elwenil[/nom]Another example of deferred responsibility. People get latched onto the idea that cars like this are so great because they create little or no pollution. That's fine, but in order to drive them, you must have pollution. All electric cars have to be charged and so far solar power isn't quite feasible.[/citation]

Actually it depends on your location. Germany, located in the Latitude of Canada, produces some 18TWh of solar energy already. Over28GW installed capacity in a country smaller than Texas with weather patterns similar to Canada; and they are building more.

The oil lobby likes to talk down on alternative sources, wondering why :)
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
[citation][nom]antegravity[/nom]This car really doesn't run on air. It runs on whatever compressed the air. Whether that is electricity from a power plant on the grid fueled by coal or wind turbines. Even batteries have an energy and material cost from their industrial production.[/citation]

True, nothing is 100% pollution free. But if you generate your power responsibly, and outside city limits, then electric , air powered or hydrogen fueled cars will clearly help in cleaning up our smog filled downtowns.

 

del35

Distinguished
May 22, 2009
964
0
18,980
0
Now, if only this worked with a hand-operated air pump...
I envision air compressed by solar powered compressors being sold along traffic roads. This really is
a grand idea and a reason to be optimistic about human ingenuity.... Just when we thought morons like the jury who decided on the Apple/Samsung case ruled the world.
 

sacre

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2006
379
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]antegravity[/nom]This car really doesn't run on air. It runs on whatever compressed the air. Whether that is electricity from a power plant on the grid fueled by coal or wind turbines. Even batteries have an energy and material cost from their industrial production.[/citation]

To charge an electric car, it takes very little energy. So, yes, you do pollute less by removing gasoline operated vehicles from the market.

Look at it this way, You have factories that produces waste to produce gas which produces waste. Or you have a hydro station produce waste to produce electricity which... produces nothing. So now you eliminated 1 extra "waste" step.

On top of this, you have Hydro Electric dams that produce no waste, so now you have a dam producing no waste that supplies energy for a car that produces no waste. What is this? Damn near perfection.

Eliminating "gas" from the field would make this world a LOT better. Oil companies control every single individual heavily, gas goes up = food goes up, products go up, everything goes up in price.

Unfortunately, people are afraid to go mainstream with new technologies. Doing so has the oil companies breathing down your neck trying to either buy you out or shut you up.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
636
0
18,980
0
Air cars are a joke. It would require more electricity to compress the air and fill a tank than it would take to run an electric motor in the car in the first place.

Air cars are very inefficient. The only thing they have going for them is they are much simpler than electric or gas veicles and produce no local pollution (though they produce more pollution from whatever makes the electricity).
 

theabsinthehare

Distinguished
Mar 15, 2011
61
0
18,630
0
[citation][nom]sacre[/nom]To charge an electric car, it takes very little energy. So, yes, you do pollute less by removing gasoline operated vehicles from the market.Look at it this way, You have factories that produces waste to produce gas which produces waste. Or you have a hydro station produce waste to produce electricity which... produces nothing. So now you eliminated 1 extra "waste" step.On top of this, you have Hydro Electric dams that produce no waste, so now you have a dam producing no waste that supplies energy for a car that produces no waste. What is this? Damn near perfection.Eliminating "gas" from the field would make this world a LOT better. Oil companies control every single individual heavily, gas goes up = food goes up, products go up, everything goes up in price. Unfortunately, people are afraid to go mainstream with new technologies. Doing so has the oil companies breathing down your neck trying to either buy you out or shut you up.[/citation]


How did they build the dam? I bet it was with concrete and steel. The production of both produce pollution. All the electronics required to run the dam? Materials to produce the car? Batteries? All major contributors to pollution. Hell, even the dam itself actually produces a lot of pollution through methane as plant material settles on the bottom of the reservoir and decomposes.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed.html

"Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels."

Yes, hydroelectric powered electric cars probably produce less pollution than fossil fuel powered cars, but to say it's damn near perfection is pretty ignorant.
 

ien2222

Distinguished
Mar 28, 2010
500
0
19,160
78
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Actually it depends on your location. Germany, located in the Latitude of Canada, produces some 18TWh of solar energy already. Over28GW installed capacity in a country smaller than Texas with weather patterns similar to Canada; and they are building more.The oil lobby likes to talk down on alternative sources, wondering why :)[/citation]

Given that they use over 600Twh that's still less than 3% of there electricity production. Also, there's less high rise sq footage as a percentage of total footage which is a huge difference. Solar will never amount to more than 8-10% of our electricity production in the USA unless space based energy collection becomes viable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS