It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The new ENGINE is here and it RUNS on AIR!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Im sorry, but I had to crack up laughing when I read this news.

Do you know what you get when you take a steam engine, run it for a bit, then try and try to stop the boiler? Whatever energy is left IS a compressed air engine.

And it sure as hell isnt going to run very far on that.

Compressed air is not a feasable fuel source. It's something hobbyists play with sometimes, becuase yes, as mentioned, it is the fundamentals of how a piston works, and can be used to demonstrate that to kids.
But compressed air as a fuel source? rediculous.

I'm sorry, it's just too rediculous to take seriously. Go get a can of compressed air, link it to a steam piston, and see what happens... you run out needed pressure in almost NO time at all.

Compressed air, you may have enough pressure to start a piston cycle, but a sustained power source? Not a chance. Unless you like replacing the air tanks every half mile. Not to mention, who's going to pressurize and store the tanks for you? Do you have any idea how large a fuel station would have to be if they were to store fuel pods above ground? The reason gas stations are so small right now is because the fuel can be stored out of sight. Even hydrogen can be stored out of sight, same with diesel, bio-diesel, even propane can be stored in one large tank because it doesnt require high compression. And electricity can just be provided on sight.

Simply put compressed air as a power source for vehicles is just not a feasable option.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by johnsky]




posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The internal combution engine is a big waste of energy. The heat produced from the energy usd to propel the pistons is mostly a total loss. Ideas like this are a step in the right direction.

Then you get people thinking short term that state its a death trap? If all the vehicles on the road were of this same size and weight it would actually be much much safer. You dont have nearly the energy expended in a collision with two light-weight vehicles as you do with say to heavy ones. Think to go carts hitting each other as oppossed to two semi-trucks.

If this technology could be put to use efficiently we could eventually use something similar and charge them at home using solar/wind or other alternate energy when that becomes more usable.

I love the internal combution engine as much or more than anyone. If you ever rode a road racer motorcycle capable of 200 mile an hour putting 180 hp to the rear wheel you understand the love. Like a force of nature. It needs to die though before it kills all of us.

Edit for the above poster: Did you read the article about this engine? If you did you would realize it is beyond your current scope of understanding.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
windmills & sailboats operate on the force of air too.

i just think that air forcing a piston to transfer that energy is so inefficient
as to be impracticle.
but the idealistic 'promise' thats held out, is an exciting idea for attracting lotsa investment/venture capital.....is a 21st century perpetual motion equivelent but without the absurdity attached to it...Yet!

beware of 'buying' into the dream



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio


i just think that air forcing a piston to transfer that energy is so inefficient
as to be impracticle.


That is why they use a pistonless engine. It is a rotary, and I know how they work and this is the perfect concept for a compressed air engine.

When you know how the rotary engine works you have to think, man this is what this baby was made for! It may be just a dream...

Then again...maybe not.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky

Compressed air is not a feasable fuel source. It's something hobbyists play with sometimes, becuase yes, as mentioned, it is the fundamentals of how a piston works, and can be used to demonstrate that to kids.
But compressed air as a fuel source? rediculous.

I'm sorry, it's just too rediculous to take seriously. Go get a can of compressed air, link it to a steam piston, and see what happens... you run out needed pressure in almost NO time at all.
[edit on 27-1-2007 by johnsky]



Well you obviously never looked at the link to the site that I posted did you, because the vehicle on it has a range of 300k on a single tank, which is more than enough for a typical days driving on an urban cycle.

And just so you know the word you used is spelt this way - ridiculous. Its an apt description of people who want to try and trash things without actually reading about them first.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
However, I think if gasoline were to dissapear tomorrow, millions of people would be out of work worldwide, and this industry does not seem like it would create enough jobs to fill the gap. I strongly believe that is actually the primary reasons governments do not push energy companies for these alternative fuels. Gas station peoples, the truck drivers, the people who work at the refineries and wells, as well as the support personell for each of those sites, such as HR staff, janitors, maintenance personell, mechanics and a variety of data processors and other financial personell.

Not saying it justfies anything, just saying that is what I believe to be the true cause of why governments and the oil companies pretend they see and hear nothing about certain alternative technologies.

I mean the only way for that many people to lose their jobs and NOT drastically effect the worlds stability is either the replacing industry creates at least close to the equivalant amount of jobs lost, or those individuals of the population just kind of dissapear... as in pop. reduction.

Ethanol industry is kicking off the ground because it probably employs more people than it would displace. And the fact that this technology is technically still in its toddler phase (cant say infancy its been out there for at least twenty years) shows that further development has quite the more potential for more efficient fuel, such as the cellulosic process of creating ethanol.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It seems to me that this is still not a viable Idea. It takes a whole lot of energy to compress air. As a matter of fact a air engine will only have as much energy as what was used to compress the air. I still feel that there is a better way. Unless you were using a large solar array to run a compressor the energy used to compress it would come from other means, most likely coal or nuclear. This is not a new Idea, remember the model airplanes that ran on air, there were ones that could be pumped and ones that ran on a co2 cartridge. They never impressed me much.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Actually, we've known the most efficient means of creating rotary motion from stored energy is the electric motor for about 100 years. The most efficient means of releasing stored chemical energy is the internal combustion engine. The combination or hybridization of the two has been doing just fine in naval vessels and locomotives for a very long time. A 80 hp gas engine can drive a generator to charge a battery bank that will run a full size automobile at twice the efficiency of 160 hp gas engine alone. The reason we haven't used ice/electric motor hybrid in passenger cars is cost per unit and because the big automakers understood that the gas/electric combo would out last gas alone engined models by a factor of 2x. Ever notice how auto manufactures cars all seem to fall apart after about 100-200k miles. Ever try buying parts for a car older then 10 years old? It's going to cost you. An interesting side effect of electronic fuel injection is the cylinder wear was dramatically reduced. Some engines were still within acceptable specs after 160-200k miles. The big automakers have known how to build cars the would virtually last a generation(20 years) without major repair for about 40 years but they're not in the business of building cars that last, they're in the business of building replacements. Sorry bastards.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Not such a bad idea.

I saw a video of one of these in action, I don't know if it was the same company, but their biggest hurdle at the time was build a strong, yet lightweight tank. They were experimenting with composites. And the car was pretty fast.

Imagine pulling into an "air Station". And either filling up your compressed air tank. Or sliding out YOUR empty tank, and replacing it with a prefilled tank.

SO, how do the empty tanks get refillied?

Each individual "air station" can be powered on-site. By Sunshine, windpower, and other emergency sources, like methane, or Ethanol.

I congratulate people like this for thinking, trying, and most of all, doing.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I've heard of this and I'm a car guy, so trust me on this. Electric cars are much more practical than compressed air cars. Air cars just have terrible range and they are much less efficient to power than electric cars. The only advantage I would see for them is in drag racing. You could have a very small motor, but if you let the air out of the tanks fast enough it could make huge horsepower.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
crgintx is quite correct concerning the invention of worldshaking technologies.

Tucker manufactured cars to last for as long as possible, making the quality of his vehicles as high as possible. He was put out of business by the major manufacturers because they didn't want everyone owning a Tucker Car which would not need repair for a generation or more.

There are many fields and corporations that have incredible market force behind them, and incredible investment in keeping all those employed. As such, all those people also like to keep their jobs, so on the whole will encourage their companies to quash any such inventions, effectively meaning that no ground-breaking technology will ever come to market.

That is, unless it makes more jobs. We as a culture are afraid of obsoleting entire industries when we are constantly discovering new ways to do so. Essentially, our capitalist culture thrives and requires a static and dependable future.

Cars that don't run on petrol, Reducing power to essentially free, Molecular Manufacturers... if any of those things are to be possible, millions to hundreds of millions will have to lose their jobs.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
LoneGunMan said:



If this technology could be put to use efficiently we could eventually use something similar and charge them at home using solar/wind or other alternate energy when that becomes more usable.


I am sure a windmill can be made to compress air if the mechanical advantage was right, a big windmill connected to a tiny piston pumping air into a tank is feasable IMO.

Another thing that can be done too is that when the car goes downhill, some of the braking power can be used to re-pressurize the tank instead. The compressing air can be used as a brake, perhaps it can be used for most of the braking power?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Hey how about making the breaking sytem pump the air into the tank?
Why waste the enrgy you just created when you can use it for fuel production??
Henry Ford designed the gasoline engine to utilize the residues of dstilation of petroleum which were burnt off from stacks at the refinery in those days.....in other words the gasoline engine is from its outset, a waste burner!
Who knew?
I think the breaking systems of vehicles are much ignored in the utilization,and the conservation of the energies we employ to get the damn things moving in the first place!Efficiency is not a high priority in terms of energy conservation,,,,,
A large central flywheel of some wieght is a simple example of storing the energy which we dribble off by utilizing a friction based breaking system...
Can anyone see where this reaches deep into our energy philosophy from its outset?
We have dissapated the entire amount of oil produced energy we have used to transport ourselves ,in nwasted heat and friction trying to stop.
the vehicles when we desire to dismount or reach a traffic light.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed into different versions of itself.....



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
However, I think if gasoline were to dissapear tomorrow, millions of people would be out of work worldwide, and this industry does not seem like it would create enough jobs to fill the gap. I strongly believe that is actually the primary reasons governments do not push energy companies for these alternative fuels. Gas station peoples, the truck drivers, the people who work at the refineries and wells, as well as the support personell for each of those sites, such as HR staff, janitors, maintenance personell, mechanics and a variety of data processors and other financial personell.


Possibly the most misconstrued thing I've heard for this argument...

How many companies in the US let go of their employees so they can manufacture in China or Mexico?

Did farmers complain when machines pick the vegetables for them, reducing gathering costs?

Serisouly, it would be no different. I'm just as liberal as the next guy, but you CHOOSE your jobs, you're not forced to work there. I eralize this isn't the topic of my original thread, but I need to stress that that argument is a farce.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   


"There is no other motor as good as ours, years of research and analysing other motors around the world gave me the confidence and obligation to say so. Obligation in the sense that people have been waiting for ages in relation to efficiency in order to take care of our environmental situation.

100% more efficiency than our competitor is a very serious claim and should not be confused with some kind of publicity stunt were the interest is purely to try and make money out of some ridiculous claim.

The invention has a long list of important improvements over other motors.

The concept has the capability to change the method we use for transportation, apart from the benefits of energy saving in stationary applications."

We have verification of its performance
We have patents issued
It has outstanding efficiency
It has constant high torque
It has low parts count
It has low number of moving parts
It is compact and light
It has virtually no friction
It has virtually no vibration
It has smooth speed control characteristics
Only 1 PSI of pressure is needed to overcame the friction

THAT'S CORRECT ONLY 1 PSI !!


from - www.engineair.com.au...

It's TINY, LIGHT, and gives PLENTY of TORQUE.

video - youtube.com...

DiPietro's is the best I think I've seen so far. I saw a video of one of his little golf carts PULL a car: youtube.com...


[edit on 1/27/2007 by Arcane Demesne]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Serisouly, it would be no different. I'm just as liberal as the next guy, but you CHOOSE your jobs, you're not forced to work there. I eralize this isn't the topic of my original thread, but I need to stress that that argument is a farce.

The problem exists in that not everyone in an industry has the time, luxury, or finances to retrain into another industry. It is a very real concern when a technology disrupts an entire sector of the market, because while it may mean profits for the people up top (And incentive to adopt), it also means a lot of very angry people who may be out of work.

Technology has and does replace people, it just so happens that the rate is strictly controlled by market forces. They allow only as much change as the system can handle. Thusly, no world shaking changes that sweep the country.

Any changes that happen will be adopted slowly, methodically, and usually over the span of a decade.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by shizzle5150
It seems to me that this is still not a viable Idea. It takes a whole lot of energy to compress air. As a matter of fact a air engine will only have as much energy as what was used to compress the air.


Why does everyone still say this?!


Watch those links I just previously posted. You get 200km worth of air, for the cost of about $2.00 USD to completely fill up the tanks. And it only takes abotu 3 minutes to fill up. Do you people even read/watch the links before posting!?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
bergle said:



Hey how about making the breaking sytem pump the air into the tank?

That's exactly what I mean, for simplicity sake, suppose you had a wheel attached to a compressor piston, you could turn this wheel easily when the air tank compression is low and the air-port to the compressor is opened up, but if the compression was high or the air-port was partially closed (you'd need to close the aperture if air pessure is low in order to brake) you would have a hard time turning it, hence a brake as it forces air into the tank, or the small aperture.
That would slow a vehicle down, while re-charging the air tank.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The videos look quite promising, though it is relevant to note that the BEYOND TOMORROW video was filmed back in 2004.

In the recent 3 years, I have not heard much about the technology, so I must wonder if there has been much progress or if it has somehow stifled.

I wonder if they hit some snag in the development process?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
TheColdDragon

That's a great note, I didn't realize it was so old...


But who knows, maybe they stumbled upon something that could revolutionize everything, and they're keeping it secret until all the prototypes are done and patents have gone through...

I really liked DiPietro's engine (the rotary one). It could work with pretty much any gas or liquid...very versatile. Hope he hasn't been squelched.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join