Re: compressed air
O.K. this is way off topic, but for a compressed air walking robot
check outhttp://www.prairienet.org/~cocatrez/ap033txt.htm#3.2.1
Here is a quote on compressed air tanks.
The 3000 PSI tanks are high pressure cylinders made of fiberglass-
wrapped aluminum ( SCI , Pomona, CA). They have a Department of
Transportation exemption and need to be pressure proofed every 3
years. They are expensive and it takes months to obtain them, but the
energy they contain is comparable to that of lead-acid batteries of
the same weight. They can be recharged at Fire Departments and at
commercial dealers of firefighting equipment ($15/cylinder).
check outhttp://www.prairienet.org/~cocatrez/ap033txt.htm#3.2.1
Here is a quote on compressed air tanks.
The 3000 PSI tanks are high pressure cylinders made of fiberglass-
wrapped aluminum ( SCI , Pomona, CA). They have a Department of
Transportation exemption and need to be pressure proofed every 3
years. They are expensive and it takes months to obtain them, but the
energy they contain is comparable to that of lead-acid batteries of
the same weight. They can be recharged at Fire Departments and at
commercial dealers of firefighting equipment ($15/cylinder).
--- In bolger@y..., "Dan Bollinger" <danbollinger@h...> wrote:
Dan,
Before you give up, keep in mind I admitted I'm over my head with the
estimate. You might call it a WAG (wild a**ed guess). I hope
someone more qualified will let us know if I'm on the right track or
not.
> For one thing, compare the
> cost of filling those 21 bottles at a scuba shop with the cost of
> gasoline or recharging batteries. Now if you had your own
>compressor
> it would be much cheaper. Dan
OT from boats. I've long wished we could find an alternative to
petrol powered personal vehicles. The best promise for decades has
been electric. The drawbacks are short range, lot's of weight in
batteries, and refueling problems. Until fuel cells are perfected
the weight and refuel problem are not likely to be solved.
Compressed air may just solve the problems sooner. I could have a
compressor at home for overnight recharge. 120 miles would get most
of us to work and back every day. For longer trips I could pull into
an "air station" and refill in minutes. The air station would have
large high pressure storage tanks and compressors to feed them. I
believe someone said in an earlier post the french vehicle uses an
air bottle the size of an 80 gal tank. If I could hook up a 4500 psi
hose directly to my 80 gal tank it would fill before I could get my
windshield clean!
On the pollution front. The air station could use the best locally
available power source to run it's compressors. At best a true low
pollution source. At worst a more effecient use of a dirty source,
along with industrial strength clean up.
Now back to boats.
Ray
> I'll admit I'm over my head with this stuff, it's just a fun mentalI'm with you, I think the idea is intruiging and has potential. I
> exercise. But let's say i'm in the ball park. For an afternoon's
> outing, say 4 hours I'll need at least 21 scuba bottles.
probably won't use it on my next boat! For one thing, compare the
cost of filling those 21 bottles at a scuba shop with the cost of
gasoline or recharging batteries. Now if you had your own compressor
it would be much cheaper. Dan
Dan,
I'll have to find the time to check the web site, that sounds very
interesting.
Assuming the 3200 cu ft at 4500 psi is the same measurment method as
used to describe scuba bottles I can make a conversion. If I remember
currectly big scuba bottles are 72 cu ft at 2850 psi. And assuming
it's simple math to make a conversion then:
(3200 / 72)* (4500 / 2850) = 70.18 bottles!
Just to work an off the cuff, non educated comparision. 120 miles at
city speeds, say 35 mph is 3.4 hrs of running time. A 1500 lb
vehicle is quite light. So a wild guess is the compressed air motor
is doing about the same duty as a small 4 cyl engine, or about 4
times the horse power I'd want to use in a small boat.
So since I'm using 1/4 the power for my boat I might expect to run
13.6 hrs on that stack of bottles, or about 11.6 minutes per bottle.
One of the problems with this guesstimate is that land vehicles only
use full power when starting from a dead stop, accelerating, or
climbing hills. Boat engines are running much closer to full power
all the time. So I might probatly won't even get the 11.6 minutes
per bottle.
I'll admit I'm over my head with this stuff, it's just a fun mental
exercise. But let's say i'm in the ball park. For an afternoon's
outing, say 4 hours I'll need at least 21 scuba bottles.
Anyone more qualified want to take a stab at this? If it would work
compressed air would have the advantage of steam's quiet running
without the heat and fumes from a boiler.
Ray
I'll have to find the time to check the web site, that sounds very
interesting.
Assuming the 3200 cu ft at 4500 psi is the same measurment method as
used to describe scuba bottles I can make a conversion. If I remember
currectly big scuba bottles are 72 cu ft at 2850 psi. And assuming
it's simple math to make a conversion then:
(3200 / 72)* (4500 / 2850) = 70.18 bottles!
Just to work an off the cuff, non educated comparision. 120 miles at
city speeds, say 35 mph is 3.4 hrs of running time. A 1500 lb
vehicle is quite light. So a wild guess is the compressed air motor
is doing about the same duty as a small 4 cyl engine, or about 4
times the horse power I'd want to use in a small boat.
So since I'm using 1/4 the power for my boat I might expect to run
13.6 hrs on that stack of bottles, or about 11.6 minutes per bottle.
One of the problems with this guesstimate is that land vehicles only
use full power when starting from a dead stop, accelerating, or
climbing hills. Boat engines are running much closer to full power
all the time. So I might probatly won't even get the 11.6 minutes
per bottle.
I'll admit I'm over my head with this stuff, it's just a fun mental
exercise. But let's say i'm in the ball park. For an afternoon's
outing, say 4 hours I'll need at least 21 scuba bottles.
Anyone more qualified want to take a stab at this? If it would work
compressed air would have the advantage of steam's quiet running
without the heat and fumes from a boiler.
Ray
--- In bolger@y..., "Dan Bollinger" <danbollinger@h...> wrote:
> > It looks like it will take a lot of bottles to go any distance at
> all.
> >
> >
> > Ray McQuin
>
> I checked at the French website for their air autos. Here's what
> they say for their 1500 pound car powered solely by CA.
>
> 3200 cubic feet of air at 4500 psi propels the vehicle at city
speeds
> for 120 miles.
>
> They use a special engine that has electronic air injectors.
> It looks like it will take a lot of bottles to go any distance atall.
>I checked at the French website for their air autos. Here's what
>
> Ray McQuin
they say for their 1500 pound car powered solely by CA.
3200 cubic feet of air at 4500 psi propels the vehicle at city speeds
for 120 miles.
They use a special engine that has electronic air injectors.
Air tools are notorious consumers of VAST quatities of compressed
air; highly inefficient. Some sort of piston motor would be a lot
better, but, of course more expensive. A steam engine, maybe? ;-)
They run on compressed air quite nicely.
-- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
air; highly inefficient. Some sort of piston motor would be a lot
better, but, of course more expensive. A steam engine, maybe? ;-)
They run on compressed air quite nicely.
-- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> My Pocket Ref (a great publication) says a 3/8" to 5/8" air drill
> needs 7-8 cfm, tho I suppose you could slow it down. That's at 90-
> 100 psi and only 25% load factor.
I just rechecked my off the cuff calculations, and they were wrong.
Reasonable efficiency on a compressor gives something like your
operator's results, which also calls into question my estimate of
power available. Would be considerably less.
My Pocket Ref (a great publication) says a 3/8" to 5/8" air drill
needs 7-8 cfm, tho I suppose you could slow it down. That's at 90-100
psi and only 25% load factor.
Reasonable efficiency on a compressor gives something like your
operator's results, which also calls into question my estimate of
power available. Would be considerably less.
My Pocket Ref (a great publication) says a 3/8" to 5/8" air drill
needs 7-8 cfm, tho I suppose you could slow it down. That's at 90-100
psi and only 25% load factor.
--- In bolger@y..., raymcquin@y... wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> > If I'm not mistaken, one scuba tank regulated to 150psi will get
> you
> > less than 1hp for less than an hour.
>
> I just checked with our diving bottle compressor operator. He uses
a
> compressor driven by a 5 hp motor that will fill a bottle in about
> 10 -15 minutes depending on size.
>
>
> I don't know how to calculate available work from a source of
> compressed gas. But I think it's safe to assume that the best you
> can do is get the same 5 hp for 15 minutes out when you use the air.
> That's if the compressed air motor is 100% effecient, not very
likely.
>
> It looks like it will take a lot of bottles to go any distance at
all.
>
>
> Ray McQuin
--- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
compressor driven by a 5 hp motor that will fill a bottle in about
10 -15 minutes depending on size.
I don't know how to calculate available work from a source of
compressed gas. But I think it's safe to assume that the best you
can do is get the same 5 hp for 15 minutes out when you use the air.
That's if the compressed air motor is 100% effecient, not very likely.
It looks like it will take a lot of bottles to go any distance at all.
Ray McQuin
> If I'm not mistaken, one scuba tank regulated to 150psi will getyou
> less than 1hp for less than an hour.I just checked with our diving bottle compressor operator. He uses a
compressor driven by a 5 hp motor that will fill a bottle in about
10 -15 minutes depending on size.
I don't know how to calculate available work from a source of
compressed gas. But I think it's safe to assume that the best you
can do is get the same 5 hp for 15 minutes out when you use the air.
That's if the compressed air motor is 100% effecient, not very likely.
It looks like it will take a lot of bottles to go any distance at all.
Ray McQuin
That's funny. In my experience carbon fiber DOES catostrophically
fail. You don't have the nice margin between yeild and ultimate
strength that metal does, it just lets go.
P.S. I like Bruce's trick with the compressed air drill. Imaginative.
If the efficiencies work out, it would be pretty cool. Lots of
bubbles.
fail. You don't have the nice margin between yeild and ultimate
strength that metal does, it just lets go.
P.S. I like Bruce's trick with the compressed air drill. Imaginative.
If the efficiencies work out, it would be pretty cool. Lots of
bubbles.
--- In bolger@y..., "Dan Bollinger" <danbollinger@h...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., mike_vacanti@h... wrote:
> > I wonder how these compressed air vehicles would behave in a
> > collision. I'm assuming the air would be stored at the same
> pressure
> > as a SCUBA tank or even greater. If the valve of one of these
tanks
> > got knocked off in an accident the tank would turn into a very
> > destructive rocket.
> >
>
> Well first off, the tanks are secured! They are also made of carbon
> fiber which doesn't catastrophically fail to the extent that metal
> does.
>
> I suppose that if we grew up with cars powered by compressed air --
> and the bugs had been worked out decades ago -- and someone
> introduced a NEW car powered by gasoline we'd say something like, "I
> wonder how these gasoline vehicles would behave in a collision? If
> the tanks were punctured, a fire or explosion would kill the
> passengers!" Yet we know that only a small percentage of collisions
> result in a fire (except in Hollywood were every one does).
If I'm not mistaken, one scuba tank regulated to 150psi will get you
less than 1hp for less than an hour. However, if you could recover the
wasted energy in the other 2850psi, there's a lot more available. I'm
not sure I believe my calculations as it seems it would take a 20hp
compressor to charge a tank in any reasonable time.
less than 1hp for less than an hour. However, if you could recover the
wasted energy in the other 2850psi, there's a lot more available. I'm
not sure I believe my calculations as it seems it would take a 20hp
compressor to charge a tank in any reasonable time.
--- In bolger@y..., bruce_hector@h... wrote:
> Weren't some early WWII torpedos powered by compressed air? If CA
can
> push a 21" torp 5 miles at 30 knots, reducing volume and pressure
> should easily get 5 knots and a range of 30 miles or so. 6 hours on
a
> scuba tank fill isn;t too bad. Keep a breathing regulator attached
> and in an sinking you could walk home!
>
> I will, as time permits, try to hook up the tank, regulator, air
> drill with prop combo and try it on Nymph. Results, propulsion or
> bubbles will be published here. Bruce Hector
Weren't some early WWII torpedos powered by compressed air? If CA can
push a 21" torp 5 miles at 30 knots, reducing volume and pressure
should easily get 5 knots and a range of 30 miles or so. 6 hours on a
scuba tank fill isn;t too bad. Keep a breathing regulator attached
and in an sinking you could walk home!
I will, as time permits, try to hook up the tank, regulator, air
drill with prop combo and try it on Nymph. Results, propulsion or
bubbles will be published here. Bruce Hector
push a 21" torp 5 miles at 30 knots, reducing volume and pressure
should easily get 5 knots and a range of 30 miles or so. 6 hours on a
scuba tank fill isn;t too bad. Keep a breathing regulator attached
and in an sinking you could walk home!
I will, as time permits, try to hook up the tank, regulator, air
drill with prop combo and try it on Nymph. Results, propulsion or
bubbles will be published here. Bruce Hector
> Is no one impressed with the idea of usingI seriously considered CA for my riverboat. It was a solution that
> compressed air as a source of motive power?
worked well for me. Quiet and low pollution. I could charge the
boat at the shore with the compressor in my shop 200 yards away. A
1/4" HP line would connect the two (under a highway!).
I looked at the whole package and compared it to electric. Both
could supply me with the same power and range. Both had about the
same installation cost. CA has a little more maitenance cost with
the HP compressor, but it was in my shop and that would be an easy,
winter chore. Electric was a tad heavier, but in a slow moving
displacement boat it wasn't a big deal.
In the end I choose electric. All the parts are off-the-shelf.
There was much less engineering required for electric and resale
value is higher. Electric has a much lower cost, those HP compressors
are VARY expensive.
Dan, here's some links:
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.html
http://globalstewards.org/aircar.htm
http://www.electricboat.com/
> An electric or compressed air engine stores energy produced by someTherein lies the definition between an ENGINE and a MOTOR. You
> other means. An internal combustion engine burns the fuel directly
> to produce the energy.
>
should have said Electric Motor, Compressed Air Motor and Internal
Combustion Engine. You got the definition right, but not the names!
--- In bolger@y..., mike_vacanti@h... wrote:
fiber which doesn't catastrophically fail to the extent that metal
does.
I suppose that if we grew up with cars powered by compressed air --
and the bugs had been worked out decades ago -- and someone
introduced a NEW car powered by gasoline we'd say something like, "I
wonder how these gasoline vehicles would behave in a collision? If
the tanks were punctured, a fire or explosion would kill the
passengers!" Yet we know that only a small percentage of collisions
result in a fire (except in Hollywood were every one does).
> I wonder how these compressed air vehicles would behave in apressure
> collision. I'm assuming the air would be stored at the same
> as a SCUBA tank or even greater. If the valve of one of these tanksWell first off, the tanks are secured! They are also made of carbon
> got knocked off in an accident the tank would turn into a very
> destructive rocket.
>
fiber which doesn't catastrophically fail to the extent that metal
does.
I suppose that if we grew up with cars powered by compressed air --
and the bugs had been worked out decades ago -- and someone
introduced a NEW car powered by gasoline we'd say something like, "I
wonder how these gasoline vehicles would behave in a collision? If
the tanks were punctured, a fire or explosion would kill the
passengers!" Yet we know that only a small percentage of collisions
result in a fire (except in Hollywood were every one does).
> I saw a TV special showing the small van they used for testing.Sounds like
> a great idea using compressed air in a what I think they calleda "Sterling"
> type of engine.The engine in question is a piston configuration and is a hybrid
compressed air motor and internal combustion engine. The Sterling
engine is strictly an external combustion engine.
I'm quite impressed!
Another interesting, quiet, low pollution power for vehicles is a flywheel.
Flywheels have been used to power buses in the past, at least
experimentally. They'd sit in the bus barn all night getting there big,
heavy flywheels spun up to speed and then they'd head out in the morning
rearing to go. I think the buses used electric transmission, and the
generator did double duty, running as a motor to spin up the flywheel at
the barn, but I may not be remembering right. It seems to me that flywheel
drive would work better in a displacement speed boat than in a bus, where
weight is more important. Just something else to think about...
Another interesting, quiet, low pollution power for vehicles is a flywheel.
Flywheels have been used to power buses in the past, at least
experimentally. They'd sit in the bus barn all night getting there big,
heavy flywheels spun up to speed and then they'd head out in the morning
rearing to go. I think the buses used electric transmission, and the
generator did double duty, running as a motor to spin up the flywheel at
the barn, but I may not be remembering right. It seems to me that flywheel
drive would work better in a displacement speed boat than in a bus, where
weight is more important. Just something else to think about...
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:06:00 -0400 (EDT), Cliff wrote:
> Well, I expected some hair-splitting on the introduction of the subject
> of compressed air motive power viz a viz pollution, but I also expected
> some mention of the subject! Is no one impressed with the idea of using
> compressed air as a source of motive power?
> ...
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
The denunciation of the young is a necessary part of the hygiene of older
people, and greatly assists the circulation of the blood.
<Logan Pearsall Smith>
Bruce:
I think you owe it to the group to try this thing out. Personally, I am
very curious about how far you would get, and how fast. This seems exactly
like a battery and trolling motor, but using a different energy storage
medium.
Chuck
I think you owe it to the group to try this thing out. Personally, I am
very curious about how far you would get, and how fast. This seems exactly
like a battery and trolling motor, but using a different energy storage
medium.
Chuck
> I'm no draughtsman, but I posted a cartoon of a "workable" air
> powered Nymph to the files on Bolger2. I'd like to hook it up
> sometime and see how far she'd go with it. Bruce Hector
>
>
>
I'm no draughtsman, but I posted a cartoon of a "workable" air
powered Nymph to the files on Bolger2. I'd like to hook it up
sometime and see how far she'd go with it. Bruce Hector
powered Nymph to the files on Bolger2. I'd like to hook it up
sometime and see how far she'd go with it. Bruce Hector
I'm in the auto service biz and I'm a sport scuba diver also. This
string made me think of hooking a scuba tank, easily portable, to an
1/2 inch air drill bolted or epoxied to the bottom of a small boat,
separated by an adjustable air regulator (which would serve as the
throttle). The quick coupler could pass through the hull. A 1/2"
steel rod could be chucked into the drill chuck and a prop welded on
the rod. If it was a reversible drill you'd even have reverse. I
don't know how effiecient it would be, but I know it would turn the
prop. Bruce Hector
string made me think of hooking a scuba tank, easily portable, to an
1/2 inch air drill bolted or epoxied to the bottom of a small boat,
separated by an adjustable air regulator (which would serve as the
throttle). The quick coupler could pass through the hull. A 1/2"
steel rod could be chucked into the drill chuck and a prop welded on
the rod. If it was a reversible drill you'd even have reverse. I
don't know how effiecient it would be, but I know it would turn the
prop. Bruce Hector
It seems to me an analogy can be drawn between compressed air and
electric engines vs internal combustion engines.
An electric or compressed air engine stores energy produced by some
other means. An internal combustion engine burns the fuel directly
to produce the energy.
All will pollute depending on the source of the energy and the way it
was used. All will have inefficiencies. Some argue that electric
pollutes less and is more efficient than direct use of internal
combustion because the power company burns it's fuel cleaner and more
efficiently than a small engine can. The same argument would apply
to compressed air.
The drawbacks I see for compressed air compared to internal
combustion in a small boat are that you will need a large high
pressure storage tank coupled to a reciprocating engine of some
kind. A fuel tank and internal combustion engine would take up less
space and weight.
The same space / weight argument applies to compressed air vs
electric. Batteries and electric motors are much smaller than air
tanks and engines.
To recharge a large capacity high pressure tank is going to take
quite a compressor running for a long time. To recharge a battery
takes a long time, but can be done with a small portable charger or
even in the right climate solar.
Cost would be prohibitive compared to electric or small internal
combustion engines.
Ray McQuin
electric engines vs internal combustion engines.
An electric or compressed air engine stores energy produced by some
other means. An internal combustion engine burns the fuel directly
to produce the energy.
All will pollute depending on the source of the energy and the way it
was used. All will have inefficiencies. Some argue that electric
pollutes less and is more efficient than direct use of internal
combustion because the power company burns it's fuel cleaner and more
efficiently than a small engine can. The same argument would apply
to compressed air.
The drawbacks I see for compressed air compared to internal
combustion in a small boat are that you will need a large high
pressure storage tank coupled to a reciprocating engine of some
kind. A fuel tank and internal combustion engine would take up less
space and weight.
The same space / weight argument applies to compressed air vs
electric. Batteries and electric motors are much smaller than air
tanks and engines.
To recharge a large capacity high pressure tank is going to take
quite a compressor running for a long time. To recharge a battery
takes a long time, but can be done with a small portable charger or
even in the right climate solar.
Cost would be prohibitive compared to electric or small internal
combustion engines.
Ray McQuin
<<Do you have a source for more detailed information about the
compressed air driven vehicles?>>
I saw a segment on the system on a program from France on cable TV. A
subsequent Internet search turned up very little, although basic
questions are answered. I think I put the words "compressed air
automobiles" into Google.
Cliff
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
(Last of the Red Hot DJs)
compressed air driven vehicles?>>
I saw a segment on the system on a program from France on cable TV. A
subsequent Internet search turned up very little, although basic
questions are answered. I think I put the words "compressed air
automobiles" into Google.
Cliff
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
(Last of the Red Hot DJs)
Well, those cars are very small, so I guess they must be capable of
60mpg with a conventional engine. So your tank is using 80+ gallons of
space to store the same energy as two gallons of gas. I suppose you
could count it as flotation, since if it's busted you won't be in a
condition to care whether you float or not.
60mpg with a conventional engine. So your tank is using 80+ gallons of
space to store the same energy as two gallons of gas. I suppose you
could count it as flotation, since if it's busted you won't be in a
condition to care whether you float or not.
--- In bolger@y..., kwilson800@a... wrote:
> OK, here's a web site for the company, I think.
>http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.html
> The motor is a 2-cylinder boxer twin, about 25 HP in a pretty
light
> vehicle. The tank is 300l (about 80 gallons), large but not
> unreasonable, at 4350 PSI, pretty high but not impossible. It
would,
> of course, require a special high-pressure compressor to recharge it
> (normal shop compressed air is about 80-100 PSI). They claim 125
> miles on a charge, again for a very light vehicle by normal IC
> standards.
>
> Just to make some faint connection to Bolger boats ;-) an 80 gallon
> tank is quite large for a small boat, and would have to be a simple
> shape, probably a sort of cylinder, to handle those pressures, so it
> couln't fit in the odd spaces down in the bilge like fuel tanks..
> Might work, though for larger craft. I'm not rushing out to buy
> stock, but it looks interesting and at least plausible.
>
> One point about outboards is that older 2-stroke engines dump a
> surprising amount of unburned fuel and lubricating oil out the
> exhaust. If you've got one, I'd suggest you at least burn fuel that
> doesn't have MTBE added (mainly a California problem). I like old
> machinery, but won't use other than a 4-stroke (or electric)
outboard
> for that reason.
>
> Keith Wilson
OK, here's a web site for the company, I think.
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.html
The motor is a 2-cylinder boxer twin, about 25 HP in a pretty light
vehicle. The tank is 300l (about 80 gallons), large but not
unreasonable, at 4350 PSI, pretty high but not impossible. It would,
of course, require a special high-pressure compressor to recharge it
(normal shop compressed air is about 80-100 PSI). They claim 125
miles on a charge, again for a very light vehicle by normal IC
standards.
Just to make some faint connection to Bolger boats ;-) an 80 gallon
tank is quite large for a small boat, and would have to be a simple
shape, probably a sort of cylinder, to handle those pressures, so it
couln't fit in the odd spaces down in the bilge like fuel tanks..
Might work, though for larger craft. I'm not rushing out to buy
stock, but it looks interesting and at least plausible.
One point about outboards is that older 2-stroke engines dump a
surprising amount of unburned fuel and lubricating oil out the
exhaust. If you've got one, I'd suggest you at least burn fuel that
doesn't have MTBE added (mainly a California problem). I like old
machinery, but won't use other than a 4-stroke (or electric) outboard
for that reason.
Keith Wilson
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.html
The motor is a 2-cylinder boxer twin, about 25 HP in a pretty light
vehicle. The tank is 300l (about 80 gallons), large but not
unreasonable, at 4350 PSI, pretty high but not impossible. It would,
of course, require a special high-pressure compressor to recharge it
(normal shop compressed air is about 80-100 PSI). They claim 125
miles on a charge, again for a very light vehicle by normal IC
standards.
Just to make some faint connection to Bolger boats ;-) an 80 gallon
tank is quite large for a small boat, and would have to be a simple
shape, probably a sort of cylinder, to handle those pressures, so it
couln't fit in the odd spaces down in the bilge like fuel tanks..
Might work, though for larger craft. I'm not rushing out to buy
stock, but it looks interesting and at least plausible.
One point about outboards is that older 2-stroke engines dump a
surprising amount of unburned fuel and lubricating oil out the
exhaust. If you've got one, I'd suggest you at least burn fuel that
doesn't have MTBE added (mainly a California problem). I like old
machinery, but won't use other than a 4-stroke (or electric) outboard
for that reason.
Keith Wilson
I wonder how these compressed air vehicles would behave in a
collision. I'm assuming the air would be stored at the same pressure
as a SCUBA tank or even greater. If the valve of one of these tanks
got knocked off in an accident the tank would turn into a very
destructive rocket.
Mike
collision. I'm assuming the air would be stored at the same pressure
as a SCUBA tank or even greater. If the valve of one of these tanks
got knocked off in an accident the tank would turn into a very
destructive rocket.
Mike
--- In bolger@y..., cliff25@w... wrote:
> Well, I expected some hair-splitting on the introduction of the
subject
> of compressed air motive power viz a viz pollution, but I also
expected
> some mention of the subject! Is no one impressed with the idea of
using
> compressed air as a source of motive power?
>
> I suspect the French have found that the system produces far less
> pollution that conventional engines. You run a compressor for a few
> minutes to charge you for another 100 miles of travel. Sounds
excellent
> to me. I'd like the sight of butterflies to greet my eyes once
again,
> just like mother nature intended, and the aroma of the green and
flowery
> world.
>
> It may be impractical to adapt it to waterborne vehicles, of
course, but
> then again, maybe not.
>
> Cliff
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
> (Last of the Red Hot DJs)
Do you have a source for more detailed information about the
compressed air driven vehicles? I did a few rough calculations, and
it seems that the pressures or the size of the tank would have to be
astronomical to give a reasonable range. Looks at first glance a
little like high-speed flywheels as an energy storage device - great
in theory, but very hard to make work in practice. OTOH, it
somebody's already doing it . . .
Keith Wilson
compressed air driven vehicles? I did a few rough calculations, and
it seems that the pressures or the size of the tank would have to be
astronomical to give a reasonable range. Looks at first glance a
little like high-speed flywheels as an energy storage device - great
in theory, but very hard to make work in practice. OTOH, it
somebody's already doing it . . .
Keith Wilson
--- In bolger@y..., cliff25@w... wrote:
> Is no one impressed with the idea of using
> compressed air as a source of motive power?
I saw a TV special showing the small van they used for testing. Sounds like
a great idea using compressed air in a what I think they called a "Sterling"
type of engine. It could be switched to gas/compressed NG/Propane for long
distances and back to compress air when in cities and 0-emissions areas.
When running on fuel, it could self charge the high pressure air tank or it
would take over night like the electric cars to re-charge. It would be
easier to retro fit service stations to have high pressure air supplies than
electrical chargers or hydrogen etc.
Good idea and I hope it catches on though they've been at it for a few years
and it'll take another 5 or more to get into the market place.
All in all, I hope it works for them. I too would like the skies in
Colorado a lot less hazy!
Jeff
a great idea using compressed air in a what I think they called a "Sterling"
type of engine. It could be switched to gas/compressed NG/Propane for long
distances and back to compress air when in cities and 0-emissions areas.
When running on fuel, it could self charge the high pressure air tank or it
would take over night like the electric cars to re-charge. It would be
easier to retro fit service stations to have high pressure air supplies than
electrical chargers or hydrogen etc.
Good idea and I hope it catches on though they've been at it for a few years
and it'll take another 5 or more to get into the market place.
All in all, I hope it works for them. I too would like the skies in
Colorado a lot less hazy!
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: <cliff25@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 4:06 PM
Subject: [bolger] compressed air
> Well, I expected some hair-splitting on the introduction of the subject
> of compressed air motive power viz a viz pollution, but I also expected
> some mention of the subject! Is no one impressed with the idea of using
> compressed air as a source of motive power?
>
> I suspect the French have found that the system produces far less
> pollution that conventional engines. You run a compressor for a few
> minutes to charge you for another 100 miles of travel. Sounds excellent
> to me. I'd like the sight of butterflies to greet my eyes once again,
> just like mother nature intended, and the aroma of the green and flowery
> world.
>
> It may be impractical to adapt it to waterborne vehicles, of course, but
> then again, maybe not.
>
> Cliff
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
> (Last of the Red Hot DJs)
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Well, I expected some hair-splitting on the introduction of the subject
of compressed air motive power viz a viz pollution, but I also expected
some mention of the subject! Is no one impressed with the idea of using
compressed air as a source of motive power?
I suspect the French have found that the system produces far less
pollution that conventional engines. You run a compressor for a few
minutes to charge you for another 100 miles of travel. Sounds excellent
to me. I'd like the sight of butterflies to greet my eyes once again,
just like mother nature intended, and the aroma of the green and flowery
world.
It may be impractical to adapt it to waterborne vehicles, of course, but
then again, maybe not.
Cliff
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
(Last of the Red Hot DJs)
of compressed air motive power viz a viz pollution, but I also expected
some mention of the subject! Is no one impressed with the idea of using
compressed air as a source of motive power?
I suspect the French have found that the system produces far less
pollution that conventional engines. You run a compressor for a few
minutes to charge you for another 100 miles of travel. Sounds excellent
to me. I'd like the sight of butterflies to greet my eyes once again,
just like mother nature intended, and the aroma of the green and flowery
world.
It may be impractical to adapt it to waterborne vehicles, of course, but
then again, maybe not.
Cliff
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/mmmkkk/
(Last of the Red Hot DJs)