PDA

View Full Version : Motorbikes could “run on air” says Indian researcher



Bob
2nd July 2010, 00:08
According to research undertaken by the SMS Institute of Technology in Lucknow, India, motorcycles powered by a compressed air engine could cut emissions in developing countries by more than half.

Researcher Bharat Raj Singh discussed the prototype engine, which uses a compressed air tank to power a turbine. “If we can cut down total pollution in developing countries 50 to 60 percent, that may be a major quantity which can definitely reduce global warming”, adding “Compressed air tanks can be recharged with pumps running off solar or other renewable energy, making them a cheaper, eco-friendly alternative to hybrid electric vehicles”.

The prototype engine can run a bike at speed of up to 50mph for 30 minutes. It works by pushing compressed air into the turbine. As the air expands, it turns the turbine which powers the motorbike. The only waste product in the expanded air. The major challenge, according to Singh, is to develop a high-pressure tank to boost the running time of the bike to six hours – enough to travel for 150 miles before swopping tanks.

Neshi
2nd July 2010, 10:52
no way it can reduce global warming. Humans have such a small contribution already, that something like this will have no noticeable impact whatsoever..

That takes nothing away from the fact that this is a great development!

scumdog
2nd July 2010, 11:38
And the air would be compressed how?

Without creating any pollution?

bungbung
2nd July 2010, 12:21
If you can power your compressor from electricity generated from a renewable source hydro/wind/tidal/solar then you could be in business. Surely easier and more efficient to use that power to charge the battery on your electric bike though?

bogan
2nd July 2010, 12:28
If you can power your compressor from electricity generated from a renewable source hydro/wind/tidal/solar then you could be in business. Surely easier and more efficient to use that power to charge the battery on your electric bike though?

from a user point of view, but pnuematic bikes wouldn't use any battery chemicals cutting productions costs and environmental impact.

I read about the development of an earlier model which had pretty atrocious acceleration and top speed, though it looks like they have vastly improved them, interesting!

DR650gary
2nd July 2010, 18:27
Is that "Breaking Wind"?

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 19:18
Indian car manufacturer Tata (seriously...) have done a lot of work in this area

Here is an interesting exerpt http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/tata-and-berkeley-frigid-to-mdis-air-cars

...Tata Motors' vice-president for engineering systems S Ravishankar apparently told (media )that the company's efforts to add air-powered cars to its fleet are hung up by range limitations:

"Air is not a fuel, it is just an energy carrier. So a tank full of air does not have the same energy as a tank full of CNG. Any vehicle using only compressed air to run would face problems of range."

When asked whether this means that "the 'Air Car' project off?," Ravishankar declined to comment. Instead, Ravishankar added that excessive cooling of the air car's pneumatic engine is also presenting a challenge.

...analysis of the thermodynamics of MDI's AirPod concluded that the minicar is not energy efficient relative to electric vehicles, and unlikely to deliver on its promised 200-kilometer-plus range.


This article { http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2009/11/pneumatic-cars-and-belief-syst.html } agrees and has a downloadable thermodynamics spreadsheet for you to test your bias :yes:


In a motorcycle, if the compressed air tank were significantly lighter than the equivalent energy store of batteries then it may be viable

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 19:36
Here's the flip side:
http://complexitymetric.blogspot.com/2008/07/pneumatic-car.html

Purely compressed air cars are much much much more simple than electric or hybrid cars. That means they can be much much much lighter. Ultimately, it is the weight of a vehicle that most determines its energy demand.

It is easier to build high pressure tanks (we know and we have the materials), than it is to build batteries. The best batteries we have today use rare earth materials, our access to which does not scale with projected demands. Batteries are heavy. Batteries have limited life-spans. The best accept fewer than 500 charges. That is less than two years of nightly recharges! Batteries are super expensive. Each Tessla sports car has six thousand eight hundred laptop sized batteries that must be configured within a complex and expensive refrigerated enclosure with sophisticated charging and optimization control computers. Who pays for your knew batteries after two years? Where are they disposed? What is the ecological cost of mining lithium from mile high strip mines in Bolivia, of disposal and recycling, of carrying the weight of batteries around?

bogan
2nd July 2010, 19:51
Here's the flip side:
http://complexitymetric.blogspot.com/2008/07/pneumatic-car.html

Purely compressed air cars are much much much more simple than electric or hybrid cars. That means they can be much much much lighter. Ultimately, it is the weight of a vehicle that most determines its energy demand.

It is easier to build high pressure tanks (we know and we have the materials), than it is to build batteries. The best batteries we have today use rare earth materials, our access to which does not scale with projected demands. Batteries are heavy. Batteries have limited life-spans. The best accept fewer than 500 charges. That is less than two years of nightly recharges! Batteries are super expensive. Each Tessla sports car has six thousand eight hundred laptop sized batteries that must be configured within a complex and expensive refrigerated enclosure with sophisticated charging and optimization control computers. Who pays for your knew batteries after two years? Where are they disposed? What is the ecological cost of mining lithium from mile high strip mines in Bolivia, of disposal and recycling, of carrying the weight of batteries around?

Well viable battery vehicles have been made, they are expensive, but if air stuff is so simple, where is it?

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 20:08
Dear Bogan,
please disengage your 'rapid reply reflex' and read the first post I made and its links. The time spent doing so will be beneficial. It is possible you will learn some stuff. Or not.

Air vehicles are better described as 'lacking complexity', the problems to make them viable are not necessarily simple.

bogan
2nd July 2010, 20:24
Dear Bogan,
please disengage your 'rapid reply reflex' and read the first post I made and its links. The time spent doing so will be beneficial. It is possible you will learn some stuff. Or not.

Air vehicles are better described as 'lacking complexity', the problems to make them viable are not necessarily simple.

Dear Poisoned Cat Guy, the point I was making is that the problems to make them viable have not been overcome yet, who is to say that if these problems are to be overcome large amounts of complexity may need to be added, chemical catalysts to enable denser air storage springs to mind.

Did I take long enough to reply that time?

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 20:28
More time thinking rocket scientist fella. Boundless optimism will not change the laws of physics, or in this case thermodynamics.

bogan
2nd July 2010, 20:34
More time thinking rocket scientist fella. Boundless optimism will not change the laws of physics, or in this case thermodynamics.

whats your point, I can't even tell whether you're for or against air powered vehicles? intelligent debate requires points and facts to backup these points...

MIXONE
2nd July 2010, 20:36
I hope the lid is firmly nailed down on me before we have to ride shit like that!

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 20:42
Bogan, my point is that I notice that you often jump on hair-brained half assed ideas without doing much in the way of research. An unfounded belief in the power of the old #8 wire solution doesn't cut it.
I'm neither for nor against air power - ambivilent if you must - but I am interested in understanding the engineering. Pros and Cons

What what I've read about it and known for the last ten years, air power isn't going to be the magic bullet. Its an interesting diversion at best.
Likewise fuel cell technology - I wish it would be a viable answer but I don't think it is.


Anyway - when you suggest chemical catalysts to enable denser air storage springs to mind. I am reminded of the quote:

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

That is all.

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 20:44
Bogan, my point is that I notice that you often jump on hair-brained half asses ideas without doing much in the way of research. An unfounded belief in the power of the ole #8 wire solution doesn't cut it.
I'm neither for nor against air power - ambivilent if you must - but I am interested in understanding the engineering. Pros and Cons

What what I've read about it and known for the last ten years, air power isn't going to be the magic bullet. Its an interesting diversion at best.
Likewise fuel cell technology - I wish it would be a viable answer but I don't think it is.


Anyway - when you suggest chemical catalysts to enable denser air storage springs to mind. I am reminded of the quote:

"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


That is all

bogan
2nd July 2010, 20:58
Bogan, my point is that I notice yhat you often jump on hair-brained half asses ideas without doing much in the way of research. An unfounded belief in the power of the ole #8 wire solution doesn't cut it.

So this (below) counts as jumping on half assed ideas does it? rather thought it was the opposite myself.


Well viable battery vehicles have been made, they are expensive, but if air stuff is so simple, where is it?

Perhaps you have some pent-up rage against my optimism? also, if you ever feel I have not done enough research, please post some relevant stuff to prove me wrong.


"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

oh the irony :lol:

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 21:08
Did you read the links I posted about the Indian manufacturer championing this technology?
The French manufacturer MDI has produced air cars as have others. http://www.gizmag.com/go/3523/

THe mechanics are simple (not complex) however the efficiency doesn't stack up and therefore, outside of niche applications, these vehicles aren't commercially viable as a mainstream transportation solution.

I'm sorry I can't solve this one for you.


All of the low hanging fruit has been picked. We have measured all of the easy to measure stuff. We have stored and organized all of the easy to measure, store and organize measurements. We have built all of the equipment that that is easy to build. Even most of the stuff that is hard to build. We are increasingly, as a species, up against a complexity wall that keeps us from progress in almost every field of human endeavor.

bogan
2nd July 2010, 21:16
Did you read the links I posted about the Indian manufacturer championing this technology?
The French manufacturer MDI has produced air cars as have others. http://www.gizmag.com/go/3523/

THe mechanics are simple (not complex) however the efficiency doesn't stack up and therefore, outside of niche applications, these vehicles aren't commercially viable as a mainstream transportation solution.

I'm sorry I can't solve this one for you.



you still seem to be under the illusion that I think air cars are the way to go, I have no idea where you got that from as I posted the opposite. :confused:



All of the low hanging fruit has been picked. We have measured all of the easy to measure stuff. We have stored and organized all of the easy to measure, store and organize measurements. We have built all of the equipment that that is easy to build. Even most of the stuff that is hard to build. We are increasingly, as a species, up against a complexity wall that keeps us from progress in almost every field of human endeavor.

yeh, but now we have ladders ;)

schrodingers cat
2nd July 2010, 21:21
yeh, but now we have ladders ;)

Made presumably from super compressed dense air formed from a chamical interaction not yet discovered with the aid of our ladder

bogan
2nd July 2010, 21:24
Made presumably from super compressed dense air formed from a chamical interaction not yet discovered with the aid of our ladder

wow, kitty really wants a wee scrap tonight doesn't he. You're just lucky our internet is capped otherwise I'd lolcat the shit out of ya :rofl:

Urano
3rd July 2010, 09:20
there was a similar project related to a car, the "eolo", years ago.
it doesn't work.

simply, the main problem encountered was that the air as expands cools down too.
after few minutes the whole engine is completely frozen, and the car stops.
on the other hand you cannot "block" the cooling because in this way you'd stop the expansion that drives the engine.

it's about ten years and nobody found a solution, and i actually think there is no one.

Urano
3rd July 2010, 09:20
....................

Expert
3rd July 2010, 10:12
Sounds like a load of hot air to me.

pc220
3rd July 2010, 10:22
Sounds like a load of hot air to me.

you may have just discovered the solution.:Punk:

schrodingers cat
3rd July 2010, 10:56
there was a similar project related to a car, the "eolo", years ago.
it doesn't work.

simply, the main problem encountered was that the air as expands cools down too.
after few minutes the whole engine is completely frozen, and the car stops.
on the other hand you cannot "block" the cooling because in this way you'd stop the expansion that drives the engine.

it's about ten years and nobody found a solution, and i actually think there is no one.

Correct. There is no known way to circumvent the laws of Thermodynamics. To get the performance required you need greater pressure (too much heat loss compressing) and to get the range required you need greater volume = weight requiring more perfomance.

It would appear that they are trying to get around the issue of the air lines freezing by filtering (ie dry air) and using manifolds with multiple pressure vessels.

In a small low perfomance vehicle it is possible to get around these issues but as you scale up you encounter the laws of deminishing returns

Entropy is a bitch.

For a commuter motorcycle however it may be a possibility. Less than 165kg with rider and upper cruising speed of 70kph then maybe. It would be cheap to produce.
The hordes of 2 stroke 50cc scooters smoking around cities would be an imediate target

reemit
3rd July 2010, 22:48
Could get a clean burning fuel (meths), heat up some water to boiling point with it in a pressure vessel, push the superheated water vapour through a switched valve piston assembly. The oscillating piston movement could transfer to a small flywheel via a crank, big belt drive to the back wheel yr cooking with er. ... gas? maybe I should apply for a patent, call it the 'POS water vapour velocepede'.

reemit
3rd July 2010, 22:48
.................

schrodingers cat
4th July 2010, 08:53
Stirling Engine anyone?
Not much in the way of throttle response but maybe drive a generator, temporary storage buffer of large capacitors and and a hub motor and you may be onto something.

Actually, I'm facinated by rotary stirling engines.

Urano
4th July 2010, 19:16
Could get a clean burning fuel (meths), heat up some water to boiling point with it in...

stated that you have to burn something, at this point it's simpler to use the methane to drive a simple 4t engine...
same exhaust, less stages where you could lose efficiency into...

bogan
4th July 2010, 19:25
stated that you have to burn something, at this point it's simpler to use the methane to drive a simple 4t engine...
same exhaust, less stages where you could lose efficiency into...

:lol: considering he just described a steam engine I'm gonna assume he was joking, though steampunk is pretty awesome.

bogan
4th July 2010, 19:48
Actually, I'm facinated by rotary stirling engines.

they do look quite interesting (http://www.nemitz.net/vernon/SPARLVE.htm), anyone made one to get some efficiency figures etc?

davereid
9th July 2010, 22:02
Compressed air of course is not a source of energy, its just a store of energy. And not a very good one. 350 bar would provide an energy density about the same as a lead acid battery. But Boyles law tells us, as others have noted, that we will lose massive amounts of energy as heat when we compress the air, and will suffer extreme cold when we use the fuel. A dead end I think..