| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Air (Compressed) Car from Zero Pollution Motors |
| 2008-02-26 |
| there was an article back in 2007 about this same concept- nobody other than employees of ZPM has driven the test vehicles -------- Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) confirmed to PopularMechanics.com on Thursday that it expects to produce the worldÂ’s first air-powered car for the United States by late 2009 or early 2010... Company officials want to make the first air-powered car to hit U.S. roads...to travel as far as 1000 miles at up to 96 mph with each tiny fill-up. --------- Apparently, compressed air on board the vehicle and the compressed air drives the engine. In some paragraphs, the compressed air is placed in the vehicle at a service station. In some paragraphs the vehicle carries a pump. |
| Posted by:mhw |
| #14 Excellent idea, numbnuts. Riding around with a pressurized cylinder in my car sounds brilliant. There's a reason it's illegal to drive around with a pressurized clinder in your car. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2008-02-26 21:28 |
| #13 Air motors are used in the petro-chemical industries where they are cheaper than explosion-proof electric motors, but most compressed air motive power in the factories I've visited is in the form of either air cylinders (pistons) or diaphragm pumps (also sort of pistons), not rotary air motors. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-02-26 20:49 |
| #12 From my student days when I worked in a number of factories, I recall compressed air driven machinery was fairly common. Although the compressed air was piped through the plant. I assume because compressed air was safer to use in some kinds of machinery than electricity. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-02-26 20:13 |
| #11 "75-hp equivalent" This is going to require a pretty big electrical plug back at the house. Generating electricity has a fair amount of inefficiency at the power plant. A lot of thermal energy is lost up the stacks and out the cooling towers. Then you have your air compressor at home that is least efficient in hot weather. And be sure you allow for energy for an air dryer or you will be compressing a lot of moisture into your car tank. Then you have your "75-hp equivalent" air motor in your car that is least efficient in cold weather. And God help you in a traffic accident when that tank ruptures. There are good reasons why why we don't use a lot of air motors in industry. Inefficiency is the big one. Maintenance hassle is a close second. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-02-26 19:49 |
| #10 I am trying to NOT think of what would happen if this vehicle ever got into an accident (very light construction, ultra-high air pressures, probably such a low height that it needs a pole & flag to be seen). Probably safer to be on a high performance motorcycle, in traffic, without safety gear. The tanks (there are two I believe) are made out of carbon fiber: light and strong, but it doesn't explode very well when punctured. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2008-02-26 19:48 |
| #9 We just need nuclear electric generation and that problem's solved. When Mad Max days are upon us this thing will be godsend as we won't be fighting Humungus, the Ayotollah of Rock and rolla for the Gasoline and to rule the wasteland. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-26 19:27 |
| #8 I'm not at all sure this concept will actually work. But if it did work, the point of pollution would be the electrical generating plants. Some of these are zero or near zero pollution themselves (e.g. hydro).Coal powered generation is relatively dirty but since nearly all the pollution is at the stack it is controllable. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-02-26 19:15 |
| #7 Doesn't this simply transfer the emission to the 'air' station or power plant or something? No, even though it takes energy to do the work, by compressing the air and moving it somewhere else, it magically becomes free and non-polluting. It's like science and stuff. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-02-26 17:05 |
| #6 OK, the graphics in the article show a 4 wheel, rounded brick. The aerodynamics look marginal for higher speeds. Other than the possible need for a pole & flags for visibility (hard to tell height from graphic) the rest of my previous comments stand. |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2008-02-26 14:24 |
| #5 Maybe I'm missing something. Doesn't it take some sort of energy to compress the air to begin with? Doesn't this simply transfer the emission to the 'air' station or power plant or something? |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-02-26 14:21 |
| #4 I am trying to NOT think of what would happen if this vehicle ever got into an accident (very light construction, ultra-high air pressures, probably such a low height that it needs a pole & flag to be seen). Probably safer to be on a high performance motorcycle, in traffic, without safety gear. |
| Posted by: Throger Thains8048 2008-02-26 14:13 |
| #3 When the idea first came out, I investigated it thoroughly. There are some serious disadvantages to using ccompressed air, that have nothing to do with the concept of "Emissions Free". The main problem is heat, you allow compresed air to expand and whatever it's expanding in gets very cold. This automaticly requires use in a hot climate or you have to provide some sort of heater, (There goes your economy)as your engine will freeeze up. In the same vein the air you compress MUST be dehydrated (Dry) or you destroy your engine with ice chunks going through it. The actual engine is nothing new, simply a multiple-cylinder modernized steam engine, the fact it's using compressed air instead of steam has no difference in operation, it even allows the use of seals and piston rings (Etc) that have no need to withstand steam temperatures, a huge benefit. Aluminum and plastic, not cast iron, streel and bronze, much cheaper and much lighter. But the disadvantages are, 1. the need to heat the compressed air as it expands through the engine, here's why the outside air tempeature is important, in a hot climate, the heating is free, the surrounding air provides your heating free. A huge benefit, you also get free air conditioning, simply duct some of the engine's surrounding air into the cabin, you cannot use the exhaust, it must have a bit of oil fog in it to make the engine survive. But in a cold clime heat must be applied, that requires some heat source, electric resistance, or fuel oil and that alone is the flaw in this otherwise good idea. Air compression is no difficulty, in welding we use liquid nitrogen delivered in a pressuized sealed stainless "bottle" and it's relatively inexpensive, (About 40 gallons a bottle). that's your "Fuel", no, heat is the problem the concept is worthless unless the air is hot or very warm. say 70 farenheit minimum, the hotter the better. Good idea, serious disadvantages in use. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-02-26 14:03 |
| #2 Of course in the flintstone case you have to have the vehicle sufficiently stable so that the vehicle won't tip over if a driver gets the extra large serving of ribs handed him at the take out window. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-02-26 12:19 |
| #1 I would imagine you'd want a pump in case you run out, sort of a last ditch get you the extra couple of miles to the net tank deal. Also compressed air is a bit explosive, I think, so you have to wonder if the tanks are extra thick and if the mileage is any good. I hope it all works out but it almost sounds too good to be true. I can imagine a Flintstones like setup with pedal powered air compression so you can make the kids bike their way across the country from the backseat, not replacing but suplmenting the compressed air. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-02-26 10:02 |