I know that this car looks like crap, but if you're going to be driving in the city, and the car costs $7k euro's, and 50 euro cents for 100km, and the car is able to go 80 km/hour, and with a full tank of air, you should be able to travel between 150-200km.

Why can't technology like this be focused on more? You think we'll see more Air powered cars in the future, say 20 years from now?

 

Cuz the big oil companies won't allow stuff like this to happen

This kind of technology would greatly reduce pollution though, but don't expect anyone to give up their gas powered cars anytime soon!

 

why do you think? because it is vaporware...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

You need a lot of energy to pump in air at high pressures into their tanks. Or did you think it would somehow make energy out of thin air? . You need to spend energy to get energy.

 

It seems like a decent idea. I can see it trickling down into future developments.

BTW the 1st thing that came to my mind when I read the title is a quote from That 70's Show, "So there's this car that runs on water man..." LMAO anyone?

 

that's a car? haha


just watched that one

 

you do realize that it takes energy to compress air right? Air itself has zero energy, how does it power something then? It only carries energy because you applied energy to it in the first place (compression). Its the same BS with hydrogen cars, hydrogen itself has very little energy. In a fuel cell car ts an energy carrier, not an energy source.

You can do the same thing with water too, does that mean water has energy? You cant get something from nothing. Law of the universe.

 

^^ Like he says.

Piston-type air motors are not particularly efficient at translating air pressure to motive power. A steam engine can get away with some inefficiencies because using a steam-generator, low and high-pressure cylinders, and a condenser, they can produce vast quantities of steam and recycle it again and again to produce motive power. Air-driven piston engines use the air once and blow it back into the atmosphere, along with lubricants and condensate that are not as environmentally friendly as the developers might have you believe. By the time you add pressure regulators, throttle valves, and a full set of filters, dryers and lubricators to the engine, you start having maintenance issues not apparent in the prototypes because they aren't designed for regular service.

Vane-type compressed air motors are about 3X+ the cost of a comparable hydraulic motor because of even finer tolerances involved in their construction. They require regular maintenance, more so than an internal combustion engine because air motors are extremely vulnerable to dirt and moisture entrained in the tanks, thus must run even more sophisticated filters, dryers, and lubricators to properly clean and prepare the air for use in the motor to avoid overheating and physical damage to the plastic vanes. They are popular in relatively small air tools that need to deliver a lot of power and rotational speed, but are not so good at moving heavy loads at slow speed for long distances, which is pretty much their assignment in a vehicle.

Finally you have two problems with the exhaust. First, it's LOUD, and requires extensive muffling to make it tolerable to be around - unfortunately muffling can cut into performance pretty drastically unless the mufflers are large, high flow devices. Second, that exhaust is going to require some filtration to catch the oil you've injected into the air supply ahead of the motor to keep the parts spinning happily. Without an exhaust oil recovery system the motor, like a 2-cycle gas engine, it will produce a fine blue mist that will settle on everything in the vicinity.

 

Compressed "air"? Lunch stop at Taco Bell so we have more thrust for the afternoon commute.