Compressed air instead of fuel?

[turtl631]

WOW.

WOW.

Physics is 2007. Air is more efficient!

[B Love]

Originally Posted by turtl631

WOW.

WOW.

Physics is 2007. Air is more efficient!

You feel pretty good huh, Love how people cannot explain there statements. oh physics its physics. Because Im pretty sure the people who built that thing couldnt be as smart as you right?

[ryguy]

Originally Posted by B Love

If that were the case it would be an ELECTRIC car. And you will need more current in order to create enough power to turn the axles or driveshaft or whatever parts of the drivetrain you are trying to turn. This would need alot more higher powered batteries, also these batteries would need to recharge. So in all actuality it is more efficient cost and time wise

No, it would be more efficient to just use the electric motor to run the car. It's going to take the same energy to fill the tanks and in turn use that air to turn the engine as it would take to just run the car off the electric motor. That energy to move the car is just being moved from one potential energy source to another. Sure, the compressed air can "store up" a lot more potential energy at what I would imagine would be less cost to turn into motion, but it's going to use the same energy to get from point A to point B regardless. I cant understand how anybody would think you only have to fill the first tank once because "the air powered compressor would compress the air tank." What a stupid idea, that's basically just moving the air (energy) from one tank to another with no gain whatsoever.

[B Love]

Originally Posted by ryguy

No, it would be more efficient to just use the electric motor to run the car. It's going to take the same energy to fill the tanks and in turn use that air to turn the engine as it would take to just run the car off the electric motor. That energy to move the car is just being moved from one potential energy source to another. Sure, the compressed air can "store up" a lot more potential energy at what I would imagine would be less cost to turn into motion, but it's going to use the same energy to get from point A to point B regardless. I cant understand how anybody would think you only have to fill the first tank once because "the air powered compressor would compress the air tank." What a stupid idea, that's basically just moving the air (energy) from one tank to another with no gain whatsoever.

How many electic cars have you serviced? Im going to guess none because if you ever have you would understand the amount of electricity it takes to comepletely power a car. It takes alot less battery power to run a small compresser than it does to run a whole vehicle. I never said anything about filling the first tank once but if there is more than one tank that is essentially correct, the air in one tank can be used to run the engine while another tank is being charged off of the motion on that engine. The whole purpose of this car is that it takes less money and its using a resource that is free. Have you ever seen the price tag on replacing electic car battery cells? Its extremely high, its not just one big batter its alot of small ones that take up alot of space.

[turtl631]

You don't just get energy for free. To keep a car moving you have to overcome frictional losses from the tires as well as air. To generate energy to compress air, you have to take it from the moving car. You'd be converting kinetic energy into potential energy of a sort. The point is, you don't do anything for free, and each step has losses from friction (heat). So no, you can't just fill your car with compressed air and drive off at 30mph, turning an alternator to power a compressor that compresses more air to keep you moving.

[turtl631]

Post 666 for me - everyone who wants a physics free lunch can go to hell!

[B Love]

Originally Posted by ryguy

and how anybody would think you only have to fill the first tank once because "the air powered compressor would compress the air tank." What a stupid idea

Im not sure if you understand how a car works. But the compressor isnt powered by air it is electric, electricity comes from the battery, the battery is being recharged by the alternator, the pully on the alternator is being turned by the motor? Get it?

[B Love]

Originally Posted by turtl631

You don't just get energy for free. To keep a car moving you have to overcome frictional losses from the tires as well as air. To generate energy to compress air, you have to take it from the moving car. You'd be converting kinetic energy into potential energy of a sort. The point is, you don't do anything for free, and each step has losses from friction (heat). So no, you can't just fill your car with compressed air and drive off at 30mph, turning an alternator to power a compressor that compresses more air to keep you moving.

Of course it wont be able to just start from nothing that why it needs to have a tank full of air already this will start the motor and it can use the air from that tank to get the process started. How can you say there is no way when you see the car actually moving

[neverrain]

Originally Posted by !Zar!

Only poor people worry about gas and such.

8mpg for life.

lol you crack me up. I was reading the thread all serious like and you come outta nowhere with the lulz. It's like being kicked in the balls for no reason.

[turtl631]

I just read up on this for a few minutes and you guys are going way beyond what even the inventors are claiming. The farthest an air powered car has traveled is 7.2 km. The goal is 200 km.

You can't use an air motor to power a compressor that will compress enough air to sustain a constant speed. Think about it- that initial filled air tank has a certain amount of energy in it. Some of this is used to turn the motor, while some will be wasted (internal friction, for one). Then, some of THAT energy will be used to keep the car moving against air resistance and rolling resistance, while some will (in your plan) turn an alternator to generate electricity. Energy will be lost in the alternator, and energy will be lost once you run a compressor with it. Sure, you'd be able to compress some air with a scheme like this, but I really doubt it would significantly add to the range. The added weight would also reduce the benefit.

How can you say there is no way when you see the car actually moving

You believe everything you see on youtube? I can claim I'm using condensed strange quarks to power my car and push it down the street, then take video to prove it. Will you invest in my company, Quarkcars?

[murda-c]

irt b love

Having a battery powered electric motor to compress air to turn an engine which moves both the car and the alternator which charges the battery makes sense to you?

It's a compressed air tank supplemented by a flexible internal combustion engine for when you run out of air.

What would be cool is a valve system that allowed regenerative braking - have the exhaust air be captured...but since i doubt it would get near 4500 psi i don't think it would work without a separate compressor with a higher compression ratio, which would add weight and complexity you don't need in a car like this.

[turtl631]

O Pipe (Single Exhaust) - $89.95 : KaleCoAuto, Hard to find automotive items!

[turtl631]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....007/11/dei.jpg

[boske]

This thread is killing me. For whoever was talking about only needing enough electric to run a small compressor, instead of a large electric car motor, your wrong.

The size of the electric compressor motor you would have to have would be LARGER than the size of an electric car motor. This is because using electric to compress air is LESS EFFICIENT than using electric to power the car. You are wasting tons of energy, not even just a little wee bit. I can't even imagine this kind of car working because of the massive amount of air flow it would need (500 gallon tanks would likely be drained almost instantly) but to be efficient it would have to compress air without electric being involved, maybe some type of turbo or supercharger to refill the tanks? If you could get something like this to work it would end up being more of a toy than an energy saver I'm sure. I wonder what a car like this could do full throttle with some 4500psi nitrogen tanks

[luftrofl]

Simply put, perpetual motion, is impossible.

Machines cannot be 100% efficient. This is because friction causes energy to be converted into heat and effectively lost from the system. To make this explicit: this loss of energy, no matter how small, will ultimately drain all of the energy from the system and cause it to stop unless extra energy is added.

Keep in mind that I'm not knocking the idea of a car that runs on compressed air. Personally, I think that it seems like a good, cheap, low-tech way to get around.

The thought that you could somehow make this into a perpetual motion machine, however, is naive and stupid.

Sorry for not explaining this in detail previously. I should've known that someone arguing that a perpetual motion machine knew nothing about physics.

Originally Posted by B Love

Ok Mr. Automotive physics major explain to me the downfalls of this system?

Originally Posted by B Love

Really because Im pretty sure it shows a car and a motor working in the video. A small compressor being powered by the battery can constantly refill the air tanks. So explain to me what would stop this idea from working?

Originally Posted by B Love

You feel pretty good huh, Love how people cannot explain there statements. oh physics its physics. Because Im pretty sure the people who built that thing couldnt be as smart as you right?

[BustedS13]

jesus fucking christ

Perpetual motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

crack a book, seriously.

[B Love]

How about your head.

[theicecreamdan]

while we're at it.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[B Love]

While were at it Fuck You - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SmogSUX]

Bleh I dun wanna read all the replies..but like few have said you can't have a perpetual energy car like that. The compressed air can't power the motor that powers a compressor that fills the tanks and makes the car run forever. It's impossible. Like other people have said there is wind resistance blah blah blah....either way though if it really does take 3 minutes to fill the tanks to go 200 miles that is a fraction of the cost of gas. The amount of electricity that my compressor uses in 10 minutes doesn't even come close to 8 gallons of gas. (I figure 200 miles/25 miles per gallon)...hell even if I had a car that got 50 mpg meaning 4 gallons of fuel. My compressor doesn't cost that much.

It's an interesting idea...I'd like to look at one of these cars..I don't see how they can travel 200 miles in a trip before needing to repressurize.

EDIT: And yeah lol whoever said you're just moving the energy from one tank to another was correct. You can't get something from nothing. THOUGH they could have the motor running a small compressor that does fill another tank, BUT it wouldn't put out enough air to completely make the car never need air again, it would just make the range better. It's similar to EV's regenerative braking or w/e it's called where the braking even stores some energy for the car. It doesn't make the car go forever though..

[ESmorz]

Fluid Karma

ohhhh yeah