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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:
XL5

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org... A gas engine burns 100% non renewable gas, plug power is not totally gas/coal and is more efficient in using that gas. I think the real issue is size, power and safety, thats why very few mopeds and scooters are used.

Even if mini coopers were $5000 few people would have them unless thats all they could afford. Parents have one kid and suddenly need an suv.

If you were to halve the weight of your car, you would save 4 times the gas, thats why the aircar is possible. Your electricity bill is still going to be lower then your cars gas bill, you pay for electrical power output, not waste power at the plant.




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:14 AM
link   
-sigh-

First off - I come from a small island just off Europe where space is at a premium, and driving a two tonne behemoth to work and back just doesn't cut it.

Petrol (gas) here is $6.86 a gallon. If we're talking economies of scale then a compressed air powered vehicle for me would cost 75% less to run than a conventional powered car.

Secondly, the notion that you can't compress air unless you use fossil fuels is total fallacy.

The simple fact is that the technology is there to use photovoltic and wind power to charge batteries to store energy that CAN be used to run an air compressor. Yes its not widespread (yet) and yes the initial outlay might be expensive but its still possible. There are other renewables that can be used to generate electricity too, biomass, methane from landfills etc.

As for Nygdans point about swapping the emissions from an engine to the emissions from a power plant - if the power plant is wave powered, solar, wind driven, hydro-electric or even nuclear then the emissions are cut out completely.

Even conventional power stations can have their emissions scrubbed to reduce pollution.

All this stuff is all out there, its just a question of having the time, patience and thoughtfulness to implement it and get it right.

Still, as the saying goes, theres none so blind as those who can't see.

[edit on 29/0107/07 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

As for Nygdans point about swapping the emissions from an engine to the emissions from a power plant - if the power plant is wave powered, solar, wind driven, hydro-electric or even nuclear then the emissions are cut out completely.


Thank you!!!


Someone finally gets it. You don't NEED to burn fossil fuels for energy. You know that Nygdan, why even bring it up?! I'm pretty sure that a small compresor can fill up a 8 Gallon tank to 150 psi in a few minutes, by energy from a non-polution source (solar, hydro, wind, etc). And that it would be fairly cheap to do at your own house. I admit, I'm not an engineer, but that's what makes this such a great idea, because weird ideas always come from left field!

Plus, you're not thinking of the bigger picture, Nygdan. Once the car gets going, the axles can power a generator which is capable of storing energy into batteries, as well as energy for the on-board air compressor! They almost help each other out! Add some fans into the design, that's another source of power. And don't forget to add the solar panels on top just for good measure.

Could a belt driven generator, fans (that spin from the wind), and solar power, not be enough to power a small air compresosr? It's obviously not a perpetual machine (not even close), but I do think it would be much more efficient than anything we've done before.

But, again, I'm no scientist.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Nygdan: I would like to inquire if it is remotely possible that the law of thermodynamics may not be universally true... in the next million years, is it possible that we could find some way to violate it? I feel it is a non-zero probability of occurance. This has little bearing to the discussion, but people always bring up the Law of Thermodynamics as if it were inviolable.

From our understanding of physics at this current spot in space-time, you are entirely correct... we cannot violate the Law of Thermodynamics. I am not confident a person enough to say we know how everything works in the verse.

Onto the actual subject... I was not advocating the sense of a system that you get more out of than you put into it. Arcane Demesnes actually details my point of view on the subject. It is ill-conceived to rely on a single energy source, and far less lossy to have a redundant system that reinforces itself. It might not be a perpetual machine, but if well designed enough, it would serve far better than just a "GAS" or "SOLAR" Or "AIR COMPRESSED" engine.

Problem being, no car manufacturer would ever want to design such an efficient system, as it would mean that any customer would tend to buy just ONE vehicle; the one with the most versatility.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
While I won't argue that fossil fuels don't add emission to the atmosphere to create enough electrical energy infrastructure to meet our wheeled transportation needs is going to create the same ammount of emissions. With current materials and technology, you simply can't create enough solar cells, wind generators and nuclear powerplants to meet the needs much less the demands of our projected automotive growth over the next 50 years. It's going to take a combination of these 4 systems and some major improvements in effeciencies to keep humans in affordable transportation. This also includes mass transit systems.

Here in Austin, Capitol Metro, our local, subsidized bus based mass transit system would require me drive 12 miles just to get to the closest park and ride stop for pick up. With traffic this would extend my work day by 1.5 -2 hours, I can drive my self to nearly anyplace in Austin nearly as quick it would be to drive to the bus stop only to wait for the bus to drive me into the city. This work commute is by no means the hardest that folks have to face here in Austin which I believe is typical of most American urban centers except some of the older cities like NYC,Boston and Chicago.

Unless, you're making at least $50k per year, there's no way you can even afford an effeciency apartment in the urban center. So most white collar workers who work downtown are forced to live in the suburbs to find affordable housing. This pattern again is repeated throughout the US.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
what ever happend to micro hydro electrictity tiny amounts of fluid passing



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by Soitenly
Where does this electricity come from? Coal fired plants, and you think there is some wasted heat there? Yeah. Not extremely effecient as the discussion would led patrons to believe.


WTF are you guys on?!

Here, a portable electric air compressor: 2HP and will fill to 100 PSI.
www.epinions.com...

And there are TONS of those cheapr and more expensive out there. That particular model will fill a 4 gallon tank at 100 PSI in 10 seconds it says. The DiPietro motor only needs 1 PSI to over coem friction, and the rest is used for power.

AIR IS CHEAP!

And if you have any doubts about power from an engine the size of a 10"-12" speaker, well...



www.abc.net.au...

The engine has been tested in a moving vehicle where it reached speeds of between 50kph and 60kph uphill. It has a range of 16km on a 100 litre cylinder but takes only a couple of minutes to refuel. As far as cost is concerned, 15 cents of air will get you 3.2km.


that's about what...$1.00 per gallon (depending on how much electricity costs you)? And if you have a free electricity power station (ie. Windmill, Solar, Hydro, whatever), then it basically costs you nothing. Especially since you can FIT a compressor IN YOUR CAR. It'll take up less space than batteries, that's for damn sure!


I am 100% with you dude!!

You could probably fuel this with a foot pump AND - have a piston linked to one of the drive wheels so as it rides along it also pumps air into a, separate, second tank which can be used to transfer this air to the "drive" tank. I think that the amount of fossil fuel it takes a power plant to be able to run a compressor BIG enough (relatively small in fact) to pump air into the tank will be practically negligible in the greater scheme of things and CERTAINLY less that it takes to move today's cars 300km!! So yeah, a LITTLE more fossil fuel at the power station = a LOT more fossil fuel saved at the "pump" - make sense?

We have to think out the box here. It is like going back 40 years and laughing at someone who says "hey - we will be able to fly into space soon" - yeah right - impossible huh!!

There are probably a lot more ridiculous ideas out that that work! So in 10 years time, when this is "normal", what will we then say? Will we have all these comments reversed and have public apologies published. Who knows - I think it is possible with a minimum amount of fuel used to run the compressors and this will save a HUGE amount of fossil fuel in the long run. So - isn't that more logical than saying "hey, it will use more fossil fuel at the power plant to 'pump' all these cars up" but without thinking about the long term savings of such fuels. (short sightedness?) I believe we are in an age where it is really premature to judge anyone regarding any idea that they have a working example of. It’s will become an example of don’t step on the toes of the person whose @ss you will ultimately end up kissing. Give the ideas a chance to reach fruition before trying to debunk something you may ACTUALLY have zero idea about and try and get by on what we may deem or assume is logical!!


[edit on 29/1/2007 by shearder]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The air pressures they 're talk about using aren't 100 psi or 1000 psi but 4500 PSI. I worked with a military spec, 3-stage, high pressure air compressor to fill 2 300 cu.ft air cylinders to 3000 psi and it would take 40 minutes to fill those cylinder from 1000 PSI to 3000 PSI.

Yes, you can turn over an new air driven motor with 1 PSI differential but 1 PS1 will not drive a 2000 lb car forward. It will take a massive volume of air at 100 psi to move the car forward. 60KPH= 37 mph. Thats a lot slower than most posted speed limits here in Texas even in town. And once those cylinders wear or get scored, that motors efficiency goes down dramatic due to air pressure lost past the drive mechanism. In a dust particle free world it might last but not out in the real world.

If all the energy from all the solar cells and wind chargers in the world today were used to make nothing but replacement cells and chargers, they couldn't make enough energy to even replace themselves with current conversion efficiencies much less increase their numbers. This is a simple engineering fact. Nuclear energy looks promising but it has it's drawbacks ie spent nuclear waste.

The most important step we as individuals can do to reduce our carbon footprint in the world is to reduce energy demand through conservation and improved efficiency.

Believe it or not your car isn't your biggest energy user, your house is buy a factor of at least 2. Your home is usually either heated or cooled 24/7. When I had an electric bill, it usually was twice my gasoline bill per month. And believe me, I had the works, programmable thermostats for heat pump and water heater, extra insulation, attic fan, fully insulated hot water lines and the smallest most energy efficient fridge I could get away with. All my lights were replaced with compact florescent bulbs. My bill was about 1/3 less my neighbors but was I still paid twice the gas bill for my 4 cylinder powered compact truck.

We talking about energy as if it were the greatest shortage we're facing but it isn't. Clean, potable water is the greatest shortage that mankind is facing. Global warming ha! If don't start using water more efficiently, more people will die of water borne diseases then all the deaths related to global warming. It's estimated 5 million people die every year from diseases related to the clean water shortage. That means every year , an urban area the size of Houston gets wiped out.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
The air pressures they 're talk about using aren't 100 psi or 1000 psi but 4500 PSI. I worked with a military spec, 3-stage, high pressure air compressor to fill 2 300 cu.ft air cylinders to 3000 psi and it would take 40 minutes to fill those cylinder from 1000 PSI to 3000 PSI.


It seems you haven't read the websites yet...





The recharging of the car will be done at gas stations, once the market is developed. To fill the tanks it will take about to 2 to 3 minutes at a price of 1.5 euros. After refilling the car will be ready to driver 200 kilometres.



I doubt we'll need to do it at gas stations. Home compressors are just fine.



The car also has a small compressor that can be connected to an electrical network (220V or 380V) and will recharged the tanks completely in 3 or 4 minutes.


That's a lot shorter than your 40 minutes. And nowhere on these sites do I see they need to fill the tanks to 4500psi, I think the tanks can only take 150psi anyhow.



Because the engine does not burn any fuel the car's oil(a litre of vegetable) only needs to be changed every 50,000Km.

The temperature of the clean air expulsed form the exhaust pipe is between 0 and 15 degrees below zero and can be subsequently channelled and used for air conditioning in the interior of the car.


all from: www.theaircar.com...

And that's just one manufacturer, with his own engine. The DiPietro Engine is the other one we've been talking about (the Rotary that doesn't need oil, the air is it's lubricant). I think the DiPietro is much better designed. But he started later, so he hasn't developed any car models yet.

I still dont see where you get the whole 4500psi thing from...That's a nutso psi to be sitting on top of!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Yes, you can turn over an new air driven motor with 1 PSI differential but 1 PS1 will not drive a 2000 lb car forward. It will take a massive volume of air at 100 psi to move the car forward. 60KPH= 37 mph. Thats a lot slower than most posted speed limits here in Texas even in town.


Well, first off, most 2000lbs cars weigh so much becaue of the engine and drive train.

So that won't be an issue, as well as a fiberglass or aluminium body. That's light stuff.

also, I think I typed wrong w/ the 60km/h. It says here:



During the following years, MDI decided to further develop its vehicles. The result is a clean, easy to drive, high performance car. MDI has achieved what the large car manufactures have promised in a hundred years time.

The end product is a light weigh vehicle that can reach speeds up to 220 km/h (even though the legal limit is 120.) A product that does not pollute like twentieth century vehicles and does not take a lifetime to pay off. Essentially, MDI has developed a modern, clean, and cheap car that meets most peoples needs. That is to say that 60% of drivers drive less than 50km a day, and 80% of those 60%, never leave urban areas.


Also the french guy's: www.theaircar.com...

220kmh = 136mph...that's almost twice as fast as I need to go.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

"The e.Volution will be able to travel about 124 miles (200 km) before being refueled with compressed air."

auto.howstuffworks.com...


the Mexican government has already signed a deal to buy 40,000 e.Volutions to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered taxis in the heavily polluted Mexico City.


Umm...Mexico is more interested in this Technology than SUV hungry americans?


Critics of the air-powered car idea say that the cars only move the air pollution from the car's exhaust to somewhere else, like an electrical power plant. These cars do require electricity in order for the air to be compressed inside the tanks, and fossil fuel power is needed to supply electricity.


I do not Agree with the above since Nuclear will be the biggest hydro maker (not fossil fuel)..although the Toxic waste is another matter altogether...



I own an Air compressor and to be honest I always wondered how come there were no engines than ran on compressed Air...also Looking at my son's Thomas the Tank Engine , I also wondered umm steam engines....

So after some searching:

en.wikipedia.org...


Steam-powered cars and electric cars outsold gasoline powered cars in many U.S. states prior to the invention of the electric starter.




This was 1923 people! Im sure efficiency has increased. To harness the power of air, steam and electricity the technology has to have improved and not stayed the same!

People with narrow vision towards new technology are the sames ones that predict stuff such as:


Theoretically, television may be feasible, but I consider it an impossibility--a development which we should waste little time dreaming about. - Lee de Forest



This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us. - Western Union internal memo



Airplanes are interesting toys, but they have no military value.
- Marshal Ferdinand Foch



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
The simple fact is that the technology is there to use photovoltic and wind power to charge batteries to store energy that CAN be used to run an air compressor.

Wind power CAN NOT replace fossil fuel burning, and solar cells also don't produce enough energy. They're simply not very good sources of energy for a national system. You can slap a solar cell on your house and do quite well, but thats very different from running a country's electricity.



As for Nygdans point about swapping the emissions from an engine to the emissions from a power plant - if the power plant is wave powered, solar, wind driven, hydro-electric or even nuclear then the emissions are cut out completely.

And since they're not solar powered, there's no loss of emissions. The vast majority of power plants are fossil fuel burning. Wind is a tiny percentage, solar power plants practically don't even exist, and hydroelectric plants are great, as long as you have a river to dam up, a plain to flood, and even still can't be run continuously. As far as wave power, its practically science-fiction, you can't have arrays that are big enough to be a worthwhile part of the solution.


Even conventional power stations can have their emissions scrubbed to reduce pollution.

And so do cars.


All this stuff is all out there, its just a question of having the time, patience and thoughtfulness to implement it and get it right.

No. Its not. Its a matter of wind, solar, and other 'alternative' energy sources simply not being good enough. They are too unreliable, too expensive, and don't generate enough energy to be workable. Yes, you can have these things supplement the current regime, and they can replace part of it, but there simply not capable of replacing the whole thing. So if you buy a car that runs off of compressed air, you are accomplishing nothing.


arcane demesne
You don't NEED to burn fossil fuels for energy

I am well aware that there are other forms of energy out there. Fact is, if you want to use a car with compressed air, then you are wasting your time, you are burning more fuel to compress the air than to drive the car.


Once the car gets going, the axles can power a generator which is capable of storing energy into batteries, as well as energy for the on-board air compressor!

Yes, you can generate energy some of the energy that way. Just like electric cars today generate some of their electrical energy. Even they still need to either be powered up by plugging in, or by being powered by the gas engine. You can minimize your loss, sure.


Thecolddragon
I would like to inquire if it is remotely possible that the law of thermodynamics may not be universally true

No.

but people always bring up the Law of Thermodynamics as if it were inviolable.

Any mechanical solution that requires we break the laws of physics is a non-solution. Its an interesting theoretical discussion sure. But you're just not going to put 10 units of energy into something, and get 20 out, or even 11 out. Hell, you can't even get 10 out, there's allways some loss, and its usually quite large.

Problem being, no car manufacturer would ever want to design such an efficient system, as it would mean that any customer would tend to buy just ONE vehicle;

Wouldn't it be better for the car and gas companies to sell you a car that requires you to use even more fossil fuel to compress the gas, than to let you buy the gas directly?
You don't need a conspiracy to make gasoline a great fuel source, nor a conspiracy to make compressed air an ultimately pointless one. I am sure that the PTB WOULD enact one to better themselves, but its not even necessary in this case.


shearder
I think that the amount of fossil fuel it takes a power plant to be able to run a compressor BIG enough (relatively small in fact) to pump air into the tank will be practically negligible in the greater scheme of things and CERTAINLY less that it takes to move today's cars 300km!!

No. It doesn't.
The gasoline is just 'energy'. If you use gas to transfer the energy to compressed air, then you, logically, are going to use more than if you just used the gas directly to power the car.
IF I need to burn 20 gallons of gas to get the power to compress the air, you've lost some of that energy, because you can't have perfect transference of the energy. You may as well have used the 20 gallons of gas in the car directly.

There are probably a lot more ridiculous ideas out that that work!

The air engine is not ridiculous. Its just not a better alternative to gas.

Give the ideas a chance to reach fruition before trying to debunk something

Refer to the previous comment about edison and lightbulbs. What if he made one lightbulb, and it failed, and he said 'ah well, i just need to give the idea some time to reach fruition' and done nothing?
He succeded because he analyzed his failures, that is to say, he was critical. We only get advancement by being critical of bad ideas.


auto.howstuffworks.com...
to replace gasoline- and diesel-powered taxis in the heavily polluted Mexico City.

Yes, notice. It will reduce car pollution IN MEXICO CITY, but not IN MEXICO.
Instead, you will have the towns where the power plants are located experiencing the pollution. You iwll have to build many many more power plants to provide the electricity to run the compressors to compress the air, and instead of having the pollution where, in a sense, it belongs, amoung the people that are actually using the devices, it will be whereever the government decides to stick them.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Nygdan:

You state that Solar, Wind and other alternative energy potentials are not as efficient as fossil fuels. This is not a value that is required to remain true indefinitely. You may be right now, but technology moves always forward... and there is much wind and solar power to be had. The waste of energy occurring on a daily basis in nature alone is mind boggling.

Systems of Efficiency are always in development, and if alternate energies are not viable alternatives now, you must be a prognosticator of some great re-known to claim they won't be in the future.

Likewise for the Law of Thermodynamics. True now? As far as we can rationally expect, you're absolutely correct. Problem is, the value of what mankind does not know outweighs the meager findings in the past 7,000 years.

It is egotism to assume that what seems inviolable now must remain so because it has in the past. By such logic, no progress would ever occur.

In summary... What has never happened holds nothing over what can happen. What is inefficient now is not required to remain so indefinitely.

Scaling efficiencies as well as exploring alternative ideas is how we improve the lives of all people on earth. Not by heedlessly folding to those that state the impossible with certitude.

Again... that being said, I'm always willing to see what happens, never willing to disbelieve in a possibility, but generally try to be pragmatic concerning reality. I feel all the alternatives presented are very possible alternatives with excellent merits.

I have my doubts as to the position of those responsible to overcome their greed and obsolete their own business models. After all, nobody wants to put themselves out of business.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I'm sorry but Nygdan - you just have a downer on this.

You say that things aren't efficient enough, you say that other forms of energy aren't good enough and you show no imagination and no forward thinking.

If the same amount of money was put into alternative energy research as it cost Ford to design, tool up and build its last production SUV then some - if not all - of the problems to which you refer may well have been overcome, and thats the simple truth of it.

But therein lies the problem. Too many naysayers not seeing a global picture, wanting the "quick fix" thats not there, and not prepared to give other ideas a go.

Heres a few gems to think about

Man will never go faster than 30mph as he will disintegrate.
Man will never break the sound barrier
Man will never land on the moon.

IF people had stuck to that way of thinking, where would we be today?

Now think again about these statements;

Compressed air isn't viable for an engine
There are no real alternatives to fossil fuels that are good enough for the job
There are not enough alternative energy sources available to replace/supplant fossil fuels.

Given the fact that the first three have all been done, I'd say dismissing the second three is - to use a common word on this thread - ridiculous.



[edit on 30/0107/07 by neformore]

[edit on 30/0107/07 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   
quote shearder:
I think that the amount of fossil fuel it takes a power plant to be able to run a compressor BIG enough (relatively small in fact) to pump air into
the tank will be practically negligible in the greater scheme of things and CERTAINLY less that it takes to move today's cars 300km!!
quote Nygdan: No. It doesn't.
The gasoline is just 'energy'. If you use gas to transfer the energy to compressed air, then you, logically, are going to use more than if you just
used the gas directly to power the car.

IF I need to burn 20 gallons of gas to get the power to compress the air, you've lost some of that energy, because you can't have perfect
transference of the energy. You may as well have used the 20 gallons of gas in the car directly.

Reply shearder: I disagree with you. There is no way you would burn 20 gallons of gas to fill the tank! - I believe we are missing the point and trying to figure out reasons why it shouldn't work. I don't know what it is that causes us to think this way- but there are economical ways to get the air into the tank. Like I said, most people would use an electrical compressor and THAT, EXPLICITLY, would certainly use less gasoline/coal consumed at a power station to power a compressor to fill the air tank so the vehicle would travel 300km than it would to power a car on gasoline to travel 300km.

quote shearder: There are probably a lot more ridiculous ideas out that that work!
quote Nygdan:
The air engine is not ridiculous. Its just not a better alternative to gas.

reply shearder: I was referring to perception of the idea. I do agree, in context with the rest of my post, this is a good idea. And perhaps not a better alternative to gas - for now!
quote shearder: Give the ideas a chance to reach fruition before trying to debunk something

quote Nygdan:
Refer to the previous comment about edison and lightbulbs. What if he made one lightbulb, and it failed, and he said 'ah well, i just need to give
the idea some time to reach fruition' and done nothing?
He succeded because he analyzed his failures, that is to say, he was critical. We only get advancement by being critical of bad ideas.

reply shearder: the engine works. if they made only one engine and didn't make another, then yes, it would not reach fruition - but as with Edison, they did make another and I would venture, another and another till it was working. It is not the "idea" that needs to reach fruition, explicitly, but the working version of the idea being accepted as a solution. Perhaps I was not clear enough - apologies.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I'm not trying to discourage the use of new and possibly better technology but I seen a lot of engineering illiteracy and unfounded optimism in this thread. Folks please do some research before you start putting labels on people.

I've been an avid reader of Homepower Magazine for about 10 years and the publisher/editor has been off the grid for about 30 years. They've got quite a number of well credentialed folks who write for the magazine. They're has been little mention of the air-powered car in the magazine. These are people who are living, eating and breathing alternative energy everyday of their lives. They are looking for practical and effective solutions to our energy needs that are available and affordable to the average man in the street that we can use now. They have openly embraced battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electrics as the next step in privately owned wheeled transportation.

If there was even the scintilla of promise in the AirMotor powered car these folks would have been shouting it from the roof tops but I saw one article about it 3 years ago and that's it.

My best guestimation is that we won't ever see a real world Air Motor powered production car to be sold to the public.

I suggest everyone who's interested in seeing what it takes to live the alternative energy powered life to go to Homepower.com and see how these folks are 'walking the walk' while the rest of us are just talking.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Well I'm sure its only a matter of time now until we invade Canada for their precious clean air.


Seriously though, I don't see tech like this being revealed until most of the oil is gone. The disruption to the economy would be too great. I imagine it would be an economical shockwave that would reverberate throughout every town in America. Millions and millions of auto workers would suddenly be put out of work. They would faze this type of thing in until all the "good ol' boys" and their oil cartels can cash out. Money is power and these families that control it have it by the trillions to burn.

On the other hand, theres the internet. i'm hoping that whoever develops the holy grail of complete free energy (most likely a tinkerer in his garage) is going to be wise enough not to try and cash in on it. Because the moment its sold (or even mentioned) its going to disappear and never be seen again. Im sure an oil company would gladly buy the idea for a 100 million bucks just to bury it. They'd make that back in one day. The only way would be to release it on video through something like youtube for free to the entire world. that may be the only way to get that cat out of the bag.

I dont think its going to be any government thats going to save this planet, its going to be creative individuals willing to share knowledge like this for free. Economic collapse of any government would never be allowed, think about that. Thats pretty much rule #1.

GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE OR IT WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY!



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
You state that Solar, Wind and other alternative energy potentials are not as efficient as fossil fuels. This is not a value that is required to remain true indefinitely

Sure, but its just not the case now.

The waste of energy occurring on a daily basis in nature alone is mind boggling.

Indeed, its why we need to keep trying to make solar cells more effiecient. If we could only just increase their efficiency somewhat, we'd be solving a lot of problems.

Likewise for the Law of Thermodynamics. True now? As far as we can rationally expect, you're absolutely correct. Problem is, the value of what mankind does not know outweighs the meager findings in the past 7,000 years.

I think we really have to stick with what we rationally know and can rationally expect. It serves no purpose or use to think that, even though, as far sa we know, it can't be done, that perhaps we're just wrong anyway and it can be done.
Also, again, lets remember, we are talking about expecting to get more energy out of a thing than was put into it. Its just not going to happen.

I have my doubts as to the position of those responsible to overcome their greed and obsolete their own business models

But what if people said 'cars will never catch on, the horse breeders will never allow it'?


neformore
you just have a downer on this.

Its the logical conclusion. It does not work. It does not do what we want it to.

You say that things aren't efficient enough, you say that other forms of energy aren't good enough and you show no imagination and no forward thinking.

I have no imagination because I realize that this thing doesn't work??? I can imagine it working, but that does nothing.

If the same amount of money was put into alternative energy research as it cost Ford to design, tool up and build its last production SUV then some - if not all - of the problems to which you refer may well have been overcome, and thats the simple truth of it.

Thats a load of huey. Millions of dollars are spent each year on alternative energy research.
And what is the point of saying 'we might be able to make this work, with more research'? Its true, it might be made to work, but as of now, it doesn't. As of now, if you buy a compressed air car, you are doing more damage to the environment. People asked, 'why doesn't everyone use these things', they don't because its a bad idea.

Too many naysayers not seeing a global picture, wanting the "quick fix" thats not there, and not prepared to give other ideas a go.

If anyone wants the quick fix its the people saying 'make these cars the dominant car, now, switch over all energy production to wind and solar, now'. ITs simply not going to work. It doesn't matter how 'noble' an idea may be, if it don't work, it don't work. ITs hardly being an 'unimaginative nay-sayer' to point that out.

Heres a few gems to think about
[
I really don't car about what other people have said is immpossible. Its pretty damned obvious that you've got to burn more gas to charge these air tanks than if you had just driven a regular gas car, or even if you had just used an electric car that plugs into the wall.

IF people had stuck to that way of thinking, where would we be today?

We'd be absolutely no where if people just said 'well, maybe there will be a miracle and it will work'. No, we get no where by that. All the advancement that we've had has come from constant criticism and rejection.

Compressed air isn't viable for an engine

Never said it.
Anything that can move a piston can make an engine. Dwarves doing push-ups can run an engine. Gunpowder can run an engine. Vigorous pelvic thrusting can run an engine.

There are no real alternatives to fossil fuels that are good enough for the job

Its a freaking fact. There might one day be better alternatives, but right now, there ain't.

There are not enough alternative energy sources available to replace/supplant fossil fuels.

Never said it.
Clearly, there is more energy screaming out of the nuculear inferno that is the sun than exists within the entire earth. Solar power is cheaper, cleaner, and better in nearly all ways save one, we cannot harvest it efficiently enough, nor consistently enough. I am not saying its physically immpossible when i say we 'can not do it', I am saying that, as of right now, it ain't happening, and it don't look so great for the future. We need to keep trying, and I am sure that we wil eventually get there, but thats a heckuva lot different from 'we can do it right now' or 'we are doing it right now'.



shearder
There is no way you would burn 20 gallons of gas to fill the tank!

The numbers are really irrelevant. If you burn X amount of gas, you get X amount of energy. If you use that energy to compress air, that air will NOT be able to be used to release that X amount of energy. It will only ever release a much smaller amount.
Indeed, we're using an amount of gas to release X amount of energy, to make X - some amount of electricity, and then using that to compress air, which will have X - an ever greater amount of energy, and then upon release, it will only release X - yet another greater amount of usable energy.
You're trying to tell me that X - a great amount is the same as X?
Of course its not.

I believe we are missing the point and trying to figure out reasons why it shouldn't work

Its not the reason why it shouldn't work, its the reason why it doesn't work. Any advancement requires that we understand why something doesn't work in the first place.

Like I said, most people would use an electrical compressor and THAT, EXPLICITLY, would certainly use less gasoline/coal consumed at a power station to power a compressor to fill the air tank so the vehicle would travel 300km than it would to power a car on gasoline to travel 300km.

No, it will not. How the heck could it? No matter what happens, you are in the end trying to get the energy to move the car. If you burn the gas you get energy. You can either use that to run the car, OR to turn turbines that create electricity at a power plant, loosing some energy, transmit that electricity across the country via power lines, loosing some energy, run the motor of an aircompressor, whcih looses some energy, then compress the air, store it, and release it, which also looses some energy, and use that energy to run the car.
It is clear that you will use more energy to run a turbine, power line, compressor motor, and then a car engine, than to run just a car engine.

It is not the "idea" that needs to reach fruition, explicitly, but the >working version of the idea being accepted as a solution

But edison's bulbs didn't fail because they weren't accepted, they simply weren't a solution. The air engine, as a device, works, but the system of using electricity to run compressors to compress air to store to be released to run cars, yeah it mechanically fucntions, but it doesn't reduce emissions, which is the 'solution' that we are looking for.


Millions and millions of auto workers would suddenly be put out of work.

And millions and millions more would be hired to produce the air cars, and millions and millions more hired to convert current power plants into solar, wind ones, and millions and millions more hired to build new plants from scratch, etc.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Nygdan, you make many valuable points and they are well thought out.

The point you are missing is that we will not have a viable alternate fuel until something drastic happens. You have to have your head up your arse to not know this.

It is simple.

Fossil fuel you sell it to the public as they use it.

Solar (or other free energy) you sell them the infrastrucure once. Then no more.

We wont have fossil fuel replaced until the ones holding the purse figure out how to make as much money on some other form of fuel. Its really simple stuff.

The bottom dollar is all that matters, the human factor was removed long ago.


Please excuse my typos, I have a laptop with failing keys.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Nygdan, you make many valuable points and they are well thought out.

The point you are missing is that we will not have a viable alternate fuel until something drastic happens. [/quite]
If by something drastic you mean a significant increase in the effeiciency of solar cells, or a drop in price of alternative energy products (or instead a big increase in the price of fossil fuel), then I'd agree.


It is simple.

Fossil fuel you sell it to the public as they use it.

Solar (or other free energy) you sell them the infrastrucure once. Then no more.

People aren't going ot have solar cell plants in their backyards. You're going to need to have the electrical energy pumped in from scattereed solar power plants throughout the country. You'd charge for electricity just like now.

As far as solar cars go, the PTB could make more money by having solar power plants in the US, and then not have to pay foreign countries and companies to collect their oil, or even to have to pay to collect the oil. IF the solar cell idea can be made workable, there is a HUGE profit potentially in it, and, I think, that THAT is what is going to result in any big switch over.

But, again, the big problem, solar cells don't work at night, and if you stored your energy as batteries, you'd need batteries the size of cities.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join