TATA Motors new car. This sounds very interesting.

[latexeses]

How about an air powered car? I'll take one!!
I just wonder what sort of air presure you need in that tank!?

http://trak.in/tags/business/2008/07/01/tata-motors-air-car-minicat/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+trakin+%28India+Business+Blog+%21%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

[DGXSER]

First of all, what a let down, after that name I was expecting something TOTALLY different.

What CFM and pressure it runs on is a good question. After all, how does the air get compressed? Electricity, which needs to be generated, which takes.....fuel! Same concern I have with E-85, it takes corn to make which drives the cost of corn products up and then it takes energy to convert it.

Not saying it is not a good answer, just it is never as clean cut as the ads make them seem.

[latexeses]

I was expecting something TOTALLY different

I better get down and have the testosterone checked! I think I may actually know to what you were referring!!

It says it takes hours to fill the tank. My guess would be that if I forgot and left the light on over my lathe it would cost about as much. JAT

[Rasputin]

Electricity, which needs to be generated, which takes.....fuel! Same concern I have with E-85, it takes corn to make which drives the cost of corn products up and then it takes energy to convert it.

From what I know about 1/3 of the oil produced goes back into the drilling and other services to get it from the ground as well as all the shipping from Fuel tankers to the trucks that deliver it to your local station. It is not a cheap commodity to produce nor is it efficient. However the E85 and hydro are not very good either. Of course if i knew the answer I would be a rich, very rich man

[DGXSER]

I understand your thoughts Rasputin. Fuel cell technology has the most promise in my mind, primarily because it uses resources every one has on hand.

Here in the US, there is a big push for all new commercial buildings to be "energy neutral" by 2030. Yet, every thing I see that can help achieve it is a nre and additional technology to what already goes into a building. So it seems we are not truly reducing the energy the building takes in its life cycle, just moving some or even alot of it to different, off site resources.

Back to the car, it says the off gassed air is cold enough to use for AC. So what is causing the air to drop temp so much? More energy involved somewhere.

[fredintoon]

It's like blowing on your soup to cool it down.

- - - it says the off gassed air is cold enough to use for AC. So what is causing the air to drop temp so much? More energy involved somewhere.

Hi DGXSER,
gases get colder as they expand. In an internal combustion engine the gas ignition temperature is up in the thousands of degrees. By the time the gas has expanded in pushing the pistons down it's temperature has dropped down into the hundreds. In a compressed air engine the high pressure gas is at room temperature so by the time it has expanded to push it's pistons down it's cold enough to run the AC.
Back in the 1920s compressed air engines were real popular in model airplanes, later on the same style engines used CO2 cylinders out of soda siphons; they all had the same problem, they got so cold they froze up.

[CatatonicBug]

Hence the reason those cans of dusting spray get frosty after a few seconds of spraying.

[DGXSER]

Hey Bug, those air cans are a very similar or really the same principal, just a different substance. The propellent, a refrigerant very similar to what is in newer cars, in those cans is what cools so quickly when the pressure is reduced, just like in any air conditioning system. It takes no where near the pressure drop to produce the same temp difference.

I was thinking that Fred, but wow, the pressures required to get that much temperature drop from air.....that would be some REAL energy to compress that much air to that pressure. For soem reason, I do not have personal memories of those air engines, or the CO2 ones. Your not old Fred, just REALLY experienced!!

[jmnjrpa]

Trying to stay calm--

This is exactally what we do NOT need. Every energy conversion takes a sizable loss. IE from gasoline to electricity to fan motor results in 2 losses. From gasoline to vehical motor equals 1 loss.

With this STUPID idea there are 4 losses!

From petroleum to electricity
to drive air compressor
to fill storage tank
to drive vehical.

On top of all that it is glued together!

[cywelchjr]

I understand your thoughts Rasputin. Fuel cell technology has the most promise in my mind, primarily because it uses resources every one has on hand.

Here in the US, there is a big push for all new commercial buildings to be "energy neutral" by 2030. Yet, every thing I see that can help achieve it is a nre and additional technology to what already goes into a building. So it seems we are not truly reducing the energy the building takes in its life cycle, just moving some or even alot of it to different, off site resources.

Back to the car, it says the off gassed air is cold enough to use for AC. So what is causing the air to drop temp so much? More energy involved somewhere.

I forget the law involved, but when you take pressurized air and let it expand it cools, just as when you compress it you get heat out of it. I'm guessing since the air likely comes out a lot faster than it goes in, it's a matter of basically trying to regain the heat lost as it cooled after being compressed.

[cywelchjr]

Hi DGXSER,
gases get colder as they expand. In an internal combustion engine the gas ignition temperature is up in the thousands of degrees. By the time the gas has expanded in pushing the pistons down it's temperature has dropped down into the hundreds. In a compressed air engine the high pressure gas is at room temperature so by the time it has expanded to push it's pistons down it's cold enough to run the AC.
Back in the 1920s compressed air engines were real popular in model airplanes, later on the same style engines used CO2 cylinders out of soda siphons; they all had the same problem, they got so cold they froze up.

I think they still have them around, they call the "air hogs" and they run off compressed air.

[Pat Kelly]

this may be sort of off topic

It's similar to the theory that electric cars are the solution. Takes fuel to produce the electricity. If it's battery powered ti takes fuel to mine the elements to make the battery. The battery case is made of plastic (petroleum product?). Takes fuel to transport the components to assemble the cars.

The solution is to live, work, and shop in a small area that you can walk to.

As a truck driver I travel to many cities. I see person A get in their car and commute to work miles away, near where person B lives. Person B commutes to work near person C. Person C commutes to where person A lives.
See the answer?

I must be a non-conformist. I've always lived near my work. I may drive over 100,000 miles a year but I commute less than 1,000

[latexeses]

Didn't theoretical physics give us the nuclear reactor?

They just put a solar plane into the air that was able to maintain flight overnight. It has solar panels enough to charge its batteries up durring the day.

There is no way I am in favor of burning 1.5 gallons of gas to make one gallon of gas.

The reason I posted was to show a relatively inexpensive mode of transportation being tried.

Inovation is good. The more they learn the better things become.

I didn't intend to start a debate about perpetual motion. Sorry everybody.

[DGXSER]

Roger, I hope no one is saying the idea is not valid or worth investigation. With the recent events in the Gulf, there is bound to be a big push on new technologies, it follows every instance where petroleum is given a bad wrap.

Reality is energy can not be created or destroyed, I'm pretty certain that physics law still exist. The solar stuff is really interesting. I am working on a project where we will use solar to heat the hot water for an entire commercial building, and the solar energy, cobined with refrigerant characteristics to get cooling without using energy to compress it. I've also installed some photovoltaics. All interesting technologies, just VERY spendy for the PV and the solar panels. So it gets difficult, especially in this economic climate, to invest the funds when the life cycle cost of the technology is substantially more than the cost of a standard system and the energy it takes to run it for its life span. I think that is what is being thought through here, what is the TOTAL effect of the technology.

[Pat Kelly]

I have been looking into solar to run my swimming pool pump. No need to store in batteries. Just run the pump during the day.