• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Car of the Future

saptech

saptech

Android Expert
AIRPOD POLLUTION-FREE CAR - powered by compressed air

It takes 2 minutes to fill up the tanks, and a single occupant should be able to go somewhere around 90 to 125 miles on a full set of tanks. With air costing just
 
Link blocked at work unfortunately, as I am curious to see the physics of how this works. Can't see how there is enough energy in compressed air to go 90-125 miles in a tank that takes only 2 minutes to fill. But again, I will check it out before making judgement :)
 
Here is a picture for those who can't click the link. Some times at work I can't click links and sometimes I can...

a+copy.+airpod+pollution+free+magical+car.jpg
 
Wow. however in the end my love for expensive sports cars will always be the same. But for daily usage, sure, why not :)
 
although awesome in concept.. would love for this to get more traction

i thought the tri-wheel with the single up front was proven to be bad and prone to roll-overs...
 
I'm skeptical.

The "fuel" for these things is the differential pressure (which keeps going down as you drive) between the compressed air and ambient air. Common sense dictates that it would take a mighty large initial pressure in the car's tanks to make the car able to go more than a mile or two.

I can tell you right now that the little boxes at gas stations that take quarters in return for a few cubic feet air at pressures less than 60 PSI aren't up to the task of completely "refueling" one of these cars. That means that the air powered car suffers from more or less the same problem that all-electric cars do, except maybe worse. It's one thing to have your electric car on the charger all night. Just try running a big, noisy air compressor all night and see how far you get before the cops come knocking on your door.
 
Speed Daemon said:
I'm skeptical.

The "fuel" for these things is the differential pressure (which keeps going down as you drive) between the compressed air and ambient air. Common sense dictates that it would take a mighty large initial pressure in the car's tanks to make the car able to go more than a mile or two.

I can tell you right now that the little boxes at gas stations that take quarters in return for a few cubic feet air at pressures less than 60 PSI aren't up to the task of completely "refueling" one of these cars. That means that the air powered car suffers from more or less the same problem that all-electric cars do, except maybe worse. It's one thing to have your electric car on the charger all night. Just try running a big, noisy air compressor all night and see how far you get before the cops come knocking on your door.
Click to expand...

It could be powered by hot air.
 
saptech said:
AIRPOD POLLUTION-FREE CAR - powered by compressed air

But those in power will not want this to happen in the near future...too much money to be made from oil, which is going to run out in another 50 years or so.
Click to expand...

LOL . . . i think those in power (whoever they are) know it absolutely will not happen. Like matter transmitters. the airlines do not worry too much, I suspect.

I remember being told we will have flying cars by now. So where are they? Huh? Where penguin are they? I'll tell you, big FAA got involved and killed them off.

I think the solution is to drill the hell out of the planet. Build plants to extract oil from tar sands and shale. We are sitting on vast amounts of crude oil, apparently. Perhaps we will run out. Then before you know it, someone will invent a butane powered hover car.
 
saptech said:
AIRPOD POLLUTION-FREE CAR - powered by compressed air.
Click to expand...

Should have Googled. Apparently, the car of the future is the car long since dead and gone. Like the hybrid compressed air and diesel loco and the AP car that (apparently) could hit 60 or so MPH.

From this site: Air Car Factories - The History of Compressed Air Vehicles

"According to his design the hot air was pressed into a motor which contained a number of cylinders, half of which go down when the others rise up. As in an ordinary engine, the crankshaft forced a rotating movement. The major difference was that the air after having passed through the cylinders, passed again through the cylinders by means of a compressor at the side, causing a continuous circulation and enough perpetual movement to last three months."

I'll decide after the test drive.
 
The major difference was that the air after having passed through the cylinders, passed again through the cylinders by means of a compressor at the side, causing a continuous circulation and enough perpetual movement to last three months
Click to expand...

Errr... OK. So what powers the compressor then?

Anything which mentions 'Perpetual' and 'Movement' together ignores the laws of Thermodynamics i.e. You can't get more out that you put in.

Heck, you can't even get as much out as you put in due to thermal, and friction losses.
 
AntimonyER said:
Link blocked at work unfortunately, as I am curious to see the physics of how this works. Can't see how there is enough energy in compressed air to go 90-125 miles in a tank that takes only 2 minutes to fill. But again, I will check it out before making judgement :)
Click to expand...

Sadly, the people who developed that super secret chemical that turns water into flammible liquids as well as the developers of zero-point energy and commercializing the Casimir Effect will keep this astounding new invention 'they do not want you to know about' off the market.

I predict Apple will sue the company as well. Isn't Apple's innovation powered by hot air?
 
I doubt compressed air will be an efficient power source. You still need energy to compress air, I also think it would be heavier compared to a battery with similar power output. Air as opposed to popular belief isn't weightless.

-Sent using the force
 
thats pretty ugly lol. Most people choose a car because it looks nice and i bet
only rich people can afford these
 
My idea of a car of the future is an electric car of some sort. Electric motors have a great property: they can produce their full rated torque at nearly 0 RPM. That has performance potential written all over it!

Until there's some major breakthrough, chemical power sources like gasoline will remain the most useful of all. Cars that have piston engines to charge the batteries are a step in the right direction, but not a big enough leap. As soon as they replace the automotive engines with small turboshaft power plants, things will start getting interesting.
 
Speed Daemon said:
My idea of a car of the future is an electric car of some sort. Electric motors have a great property: they can produce their full rated torque at nearly 0 RPM. That has performance potential written all over it!

Until there's some major breakthrough, chemical power sources like gasoline will remain the most useful of all. Cars that have piston engines to charge the batteries are a step in the right direction, but not a big enough leap. As soon as they replace the automotive engines with small turboshaft power plants, things will start getting interesting.
Click to expand...

I think diesel engine generators would be the next step to hybrid technology. With diesel powering the batteries and for Highway cruising.

Happy New Year!!!
 
Caloy said:
I think diesel engine generators would be the next step to hybrid technology. With diesel powering the batteries and for Highway cruising.

Happy New Year!!!
Click to expand...
Happy New year to you!!!

Diesel as motor fuel is a logical step forward. IMHO another larger step would be to ditch the reciprocating assembly with a simpler, lighter, more efficient and more reliable turbine power plant. Gas turbine motors can use a wider variety of fuels, including Diesel. Frankly it's a bit silly to use a big, heavy car motor to drive the generator and not the car's wheels directly. IMHO the one thing that should be missing from a "pure electric" car is the traditional car motor under the hood.
 
The problem with turbines is that it has a very narrow powerband, as far as engine speed is concerned. Not advisable with stip and go traffic. Once in the powerband it's a very efficient engine, but like I said it's a very narrow rpm band. Off the powerband, I wouldn't be surprised that efficiency would be half of a wankel engine.

Another problem is when they want to keep it on the powerband while the vehicle is stationary, then it has to be kept at the optimum rpm, eating fuel and a noisy engine even at a standstill. It could charge the battery efficiently, but what happens if the battery is fully charged? You can't just stop the turbine, it would take time for the rpm to build up to optimum operating speed. The internal combustion piston engine is still a better choice when you want engine speed to vary quickly.

Happy New Year!!!
 
Caloy said:
The problem with turbines is that it has a very narrow powerband, as far as engine speed is concerned. Not advisable with stip and go traffic. Once in the powerband it's a very efficient engine, but like I said it's a very narrow rpm band. Off the powerband, I wouldn't be surprised that efficiency would be half of a wankel engine.
Click to expand...
That's a moot point since the turbine powerplant isn't going to be used to drive the wheels.

Another problem is when they want to keep it on the powerband while the vehicle is stationary, then it has to be kept at the optimum rpm, eating fuel and a noisy engine even at a standstill.
Click to expand...
Again, a moot point, as the turbine isn't being used as a jet engine, and isn't going to rely on ram air to feed it.

It could charge the battery efficiently, but what happens if the battery is fully charged? You can't just stop the turbine, it would take time for the rpm to build up to optimum operating speed. The internal combustion piston engine is still a better choice when you want engine speed to vary quickly.
Click to expand...
Sure the turbine can be shut down and restarted at will. Why would you think otherwise? Sorry if I was unclear about it, but I am talking about a purpose-built turboshaft powerplant that's designed from the ground up to generate electricity and nothing else, with the possible exception of heating the passenger compartment when needed. Since it's for use in an electric car, there will be ample battery power available to spool the turbine back up. I'm not talking about jet engines here. Big difference!
 
Speed Daemon said:
...Sure the turbine can be shut down and restarted at will. Why would you think otherwise? Sorry if I was unclear about it, but I am talking about a purpose-built turboshaft powerplant that's designed from the ground up to generate electricity and nothing else, with the possible exception of heating the passenger compartment when needed. Since it's for use in an electric car, there will be ample battery power available to spool the turbine back up. I'm not talking about jet engines here. Big difference!
Click to expand...

Yes a turbine engine can be stopped and started like any engine. Never suggested it can't. However the turbine isn't efficient anywhere from start to 90% of it's optimum engine speed. And unlike a piston engine, a turbine would take more time for the rpm to speed up to optimum rpm. And no I'm not talking about a thrust propulsion engine. =)

I'm not saying it can't be done, but given the current technology, it's either not practical nor cheap to do so. There are companies working on concepts on what you're suggesting. Jaguar already have a concept car out, but this is more of a study than anything else. Other companies are looking to conserve the energy that has already been built up on the turbine. One study has a flywheel like device similar to a flywheel (mechanical) hybrid. Others are looking into an electric motor to spin the turbine to optimum operating speed, given the electric instantaneous torque, I feel this is the best approach.

Give it another 10 to 15 years before the technology is practical. By then I bet the mainstream powersource would be from batteries. =)

Happy New Year!!!
 
Yeah saw that in popular mechanics. Great concept, and I'm hoping it will it will materialize soon. I still don't think the technology is there to apply theory to practical and dependable use. I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Happy New Year!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom