Do you think this will work in our Busses?

[Bill 340]

http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

[Oonrahnjay]

    They're talking about 125-175 miles.  I'll believe 12 - 17 miles when I see it.

[gcyeaw]

 They clalim zero polution, but that means they have a polution free method of running the compressor that charges the car..I want to see that  plan along with the polution free manufacturing process for the car as well as the compressed air equipment and the power source for that.  It's really deferred polution..not polution free.

[Iceni John]

The saddest part of this charlatanism is that a sizable proportion of the population will actually believe it.   It's more a reflection of the endemic level of scientific illiteracy and simple ignorance that the present "educational" system (sic) is fostering.   Are people encouraged, or even allowed, to question anything any longer?   Maybe government wants a stupid ignorant populace that can be easily subjugated and controlled . . .

Damn, this depresses me.

John

[buswarrior]

Unfortunately, our own classmates may be included amongst the ignorant, and in large numbers.

An education doesn't mean you understood, or choose to expend the effort trying to understand, especially as the years go by, and we can carefully ensure we are not challenged as to our self inflicted stupidity.

If a few of those teachers from the past could call the class back together and ask a few hard questions...

happy coaching!
buswarrior

[artvonne]

http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

  The neat thing about liquefied fuels like gasoline or diesel is that mixed correctly with air and ignited it explodes, making a much larger volume of compressed gas. Even liquefied inert gases like CO2 or Nitrogen would run longer than compressed air. Apparently none of the creators thought to see how long a pneumatic power tool would run off a tank of air, but even with a really large tank its not long.

  2 to 3 minutes to recharge the tank? Apparently these same clowns never filled a car tire, or saw how hard it can be to find air.

  Its not that conceptually it wont work, its that they are hyping its capabilities far beyond reason. I would think a mile or two would be tough.

[Jeremy]

Even liquefied inert gases like CO2 or Nitrogen would run longer than compressed air.

Yeah, the environmentalists would love that. Where do you think those gases would go once they've been through the engine??


I agree with the thrust of the comments about the claims made almost certainly being exaggerated. But some of the cynicism is based on ignorance as well; air-powered vehicles have been around for years and make a lot of sense in some niche applications (vehicles used inside buildings etc). Once electric vehicles were only used in the same niche applications, but now are increasingly practical for real-world usage in cities and for short journeys.

In the UK, buses partly powered by compressed air were in use years ago - compressing air as a way of storing energy has advantages over using batteries or spinning up a flywheel, so is used in some regenerative braking systems on stop-start vehicles. And I've read that Honda is experimenting with compressed-air cars as well - so it's not just mad professors and alternative-energy cranks that think there's some potential there.


Jeremy

[gcyeaw]

Even liquefied inert gases like CO2 or Nitrogen would run longer than compressed air.

Yeah, the environmentalists would love that. Where do you think those gases would go once they've been through the engine??


I agree with the thrust of the comments about the claims made almost certainly being exaggerated. But some of the cynicism is based on ignorance as well; air-powered vehicles have been around for years and make a lot of sense in some niche applications (vehicles used inside buildings etc). Once electric vehicles were only used in the same niche applications, but now are increasingly practical for real-world usage in cities and for short journeys.

In the UK, buses partly powered by compressed air were in use years ago - compressing air as a way of storing energy has advantages over using batteries or spinning up a flywheel, so is used in some regenerative braking systems on stop-start vehicles. And I've read that Honda is experimenting with compressed-air cars as well - so it's not just mad professors and alternative-energy cranks that think there's some potential there.


Jeremy

Jeremy,
  I didn't mean to suggest these ideas have no merrit (well maybe not) , I just take offense at the outrageous claims made. It does make sense to use this technology where it is suited. And, as you said, it's not new, just recycled and updated. Just be honest about the claims, it might even be more convincing if they were.

[Seangie]

I'll take a compressed air generator

If you could get the air compressor on the bus to hook up to a separate air storage tanks for the "air generator" it would be an interesting scenario-

Take some thing like a gast air powered gear motor turning an electric motor to create some power.

fun idea in my head but I am sure someone who is far more scientifically minded will have a calculation showing the inefficiency of such a system.

[muldoonman]

Hook that bad boy up to a politician and run forever. You would have to put a governor on it or it would overspeed with all that hot air and blow your leggs off.

[artvonne]

Yeah, the environmentalists would love that. Where do you think those gases would go once they've been through the engine??

 Jeremy. CO2 is in our atmosphere, always has been. Its naturally occurring. In fact, with every breath you exhale, you exhale a large quantity of CO2. Companies that sell liquefied gases such as liquefied CO2, take the gas right out of the air, compress it into liquid states and store it in tanks. Some gases like Acetylene are manufactured, but CO2, O2, Nitrogen, Argon, Neon, etc., are pulled right out of the ambient air.

 Running CO2 through an air motor and releasing the gas back into the atmosphere is totally non-polluting, as the gas was in the atmosphere to begin with. The problem, from any environmental concern, is the amount of energy used to process the gas, and what kind of energy was used.

 Electric propelled cars, pressurized gas propelled cars, none could every claim zero pollution or low pollution as long as the energy driving them is coal of fuel based energy. In fact, a battery powered electric car, charged with power coming from a coal power plant, is the most ridiculous waste of energy that could ever be imagined, simply by the number of times energy is being converted to other forms. It would be much more efficient to have a coal fired steam car, rather than burn the coal 100 miles away to boil water, make steam, turn a turbine to drive a generator, factor line losses and conversion losses in energy transmission, run electrical power through a battery charger, to charge batteries, which in turn drive an electric motor into a transmission. I mean, if your going to burn coal, burning 4 times more to drive an electric car around and claim its emission free is so darn hypocritical it blows me away so many smart people have fell for it.

[Len Silva]

Paul,

I agree with you in theory except for the economy of scale.

I THINK, theoretically, that if you had a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant that was used exclusively to charge automobile batteries, then it might well be both less expensive and less polluting than gasoline.

Of course, you would have to consider the plant and infrastructure costs compared to that of gasoline, from the time it is pumped out of the ground until it is delivered to the automobile.

[ktmossman]

I THINK, theoretically, that if you had a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant that was used exclusively to charge automobile batteries, then it might well be both less expensive and less polluting than gasoline.

Not necessarily...

Here in the Atlanta area, all our electricity is produced from coal-fired power plants.  When the enviro crowd was trying to push a mandate for electric cars to cut down on pollution in the area, the govt. commissioned a study which showed that producing the necessary electricity to run an electric car from a coal-fired power plant created significantly more pollution than a moderately efficient gasoline engine in the same size car.  Electric cars are still rare in the Atlanta area...

[Oonrahnjay]

(snip) I THINK, theoretically, that if you had a multi-megawatt coal fired power plant that was used exclusively to charge automobile batteries, then it might well be both less expensive and less polluting than gasoline. 

       I've never seen a study that shows that there is any technology that even approaches that (and I've seen many that show we're obscenely far away).  And what do you do for people who regularly drive long distances?  The oversized golf-carts may be fine for grocery shopping but what do you do on an open road.  "Really" fully charging takes about as long as it does to run them.  Would you drive 100 miles and then sit 2 hours while it charges, then 100 miles and 2 hours, etc. until you get to your destination?  Electric cars are a REALLY bad choice for many driving situations.

[Iceni John]

The current (!) fad for electric and hybrid cars is just that, a cynical exercise in marketing aimed at ignorant and gullible sheeple who will fall for anything.   Anyone that can think knows that diesel cars can easily get better fuel economy than hybrids.   The manufacturers really don't care whether their product actually is "Green" or "Saves The Earth"  -  as long as anough suckers buy into it they're happy.   Every time I see a Toyota Priapus I think about the power of marketing over common sense.   How much longer can this idiocy continue?

John