Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:Fuels

Expand Messages
  • esbuck@aol.com
    I agree that batteries are not the most promising fuel , but when the government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they don t want
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree that batteries are not the most promising "fuel", but when the
      government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they
      don't want to be told they were wrong.

      Personally, I like air. It is very inexpensive; using a lot of it will
      not distort international commodity markets. It is non-toxic and does not
      burn. One can store about 1 kWhr in a cubic foot of tankage. If you want a
      4-seat car to go 200 miles with no noxious emissions, take a crew-cab
      pickup truck and fill the bed with 60-70 cubic feet of compressed air. Air
      tanks can be refilled much quicker than you can charge a battery, so you can
      refuel at a gas (air) station and not pay for a special parking place to
      recharge for hours. Range, with fast refill, is unlimited. Performance can be
      very sprightly. There are no expensive batteries needing periodic
      replacement/recycling. Everything involved is proven technology, using no scarce
      or toxic materials. One can also make an air hybrid, with an IC engine to
      compress air if you can't find a station.

      NIST and DoE will tell you that air is a loser, that batteries are the way
      to go. They seem to ignor hard experimental evidence. In 1930, the
      Germans built a diesel-pneumatic locomotive which was more efficient (saved 26%
      in fuel) than a diesel-electric. Use wind turbines to compress air -- it
      is easy to store -- to feed vehicles with on-board tanks. A hundred years
      ago, there were air-powered street cars which outperformed the electrics and
      required no overhead wires. Unfortunately, their designers were not very
      sophisticated about thermodynamics.
      **************Dell Studio XPS Desktop: Save up to $400 - Limited Time Offer
      (http:/
      /pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222466512x1201463496/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D3)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mgulk1234
        Hi,   The wind seems to be useful but does not offer what is desired ideally. The problem with the wind energy is the low scales of the power, unsteady
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
         
        Hi,
         
        The wind seems to be useful but does not offer what is desired ideally.
        The problem with the wind energy is the low scales of the power, unsteady nature, unpredictablity of wind source and maintenance requirements. 
         
        There is a better option satisfying all those. Only, historical attempts towards an over expectation like solving an exciting mystery limited the capacity of imagination, mainly due to the fear regarding engineering career of skilled ones.
         
        Esentially misconceptions are clarified and a sound theory set precisely. Then the results on engineering simulation program is fascinating. Ojectives are achieved successfully. Soon the models in simulation program will be built physically for particular industrial applications.

        Here is the Future Eenergy overcoming these too:
        Ggravitational Prouplusion (more than gravity force field on mass):
         
        - no carbon emission, no global warming impact
        - oil independence, teady and uniform availablity ditributed evently to all geographies,
        - lean and smart structures (engine and vehicle) and therefore cheapest
        - superior mobility,
        - magnification of gravitational force field is availble so  no limit for superior power generation,
        - high attainability for both a complete or plug-in support unit for superior efficiency.
         
        Basically it is similar to the wind mills by logic but quite different structures are used, because this time the force field is a raditing one to capture power unlike wind which is convecting or flowing air mass where its kinetic energy is converted to useful power by hitting the blades/wings of the propeller to generate power.
         
        The theory and know how with description of Novel Engineering Design Models are being introduced. The structures are not disclosed yet due to IPR and legal processes in progress:
         
        http://sites.google.com/site/EnerGravity
         
         
        Interst from industry to tailor particular applications (such as combustion engine substitute and even grid support) are welcome.
         
         
        Thank you.
        Sincerely
        MG

        --- On Thu, 7/9/09, esbuck@... <> wrote:


        From: esbuck@... <esbuck@...>
        Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re:Fuels
        To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 7:33 PM








        I agree that batteries are not the most promising "fuel", but when the
        government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they
        don't want to be told they were wrong.

        Personally, I like air. It is very inexpensive; using a lot of it will
        not distort international commodity markets. It is non-toxic and does not
        burn. One can store about 1 kWhr in a cubic foot of tankage. If you want a
        4-seat car to go 200 miles with no noxious emissions, take a crew-cab
        pickup truck and fill the bed with 60-70 cubic feet of compressed air. Air
        tanks can be refilled much quicker than you can charge a battery, so you can
        refuel at a gas (air) station and not pay for a special parking place to
        recharge for hours. Range, with fast refill, is unlimited. Performance can be
        very sprightly. There are no expensive batteries needing periodic
        replacement/ recycling. Everything involved is proven technology, using no scarce
        or toxic materials. One can also make an air hybrid, with an IC engine to
        compress air if you can't find a station.

        NIST and DoE will tell you that air is a loser, that batteries are the way
        to go. They seem to ignor hard experimental evidence. In 1930, the
        Germans built a diesel-pneumatic locomotive which was more efficient (saved 26%
        in fuel) than a diesel-electric. Use wind turbines to compress air -- it
        is easy to store -- to feed vehicles with on-board tanks. A hundred years
        ago, there were air-powered street cars which outperformed the electrics and
        required no overhead wires. Unfortunately, their designers were not very
        sophisticated about thermodynamics.
        ************ **Dell Studio XPS Desktop: Save up to $400 - Limited Time Offer
        (http:/
        /pr.atwola.com/ promoclk/ 100126575x122246 6512x1201463496/ aol?redir= http:%2F% 2Faltfarm. mediaplex. com%2Fad% 2Fck%2F12309% 2D81939%2D1629% 2D3)

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Forbes Bagatelle-Black
        BTW: I approved this message because it was a direct response to another posting, but I am always suspicious when someone claims to have a solution to all our
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 10, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          BTW: I approved this message because it was a direct response to another posting, but I am always suspicious when someone claims to have a solution to all our energy problems but does not offer ANY details as to what that solution is. Did I miss something?

          MG, would you care to elaborate a bit as to what your proposed energy solution is?

          Cheers,

          Forbes

          --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, mgulk1234 <mgulk1234@...> wrote:
          >
          >  
          > Hi,
          >  
          > The wind seems to be useful but does not offer what is desired ideally.
          > The problem with the wind energy is the low scales of the power, unsteady nature, unpredictablity of wind source and maintenance requirements. 
          >  
          > There is a better option satisfying all those. Only, historical attempts towards an over expectation like solving an exciting mystery limited the capacity of imagination, mainly due to the fear regarding engineering career of skilled ones.
          >  
          > Esentially misconceptions are clarified and a sound theory set precisely. Then the results on engineering simulation program is fascinating. Ojectives are achieved successfully. Soon the models in simulation program will be built physically for particular industrial applications.
          >
          > Here is the Future Eenergy overcoming these too:
          > Ggravitational Prouplusion (more than gravity force field on mass):
          >  
          > - no carbon emission, no global warming impact
          > - oil independence, teady and uniform availablity ditributed evently to all geographies,
          > - lean and smart structures (engine and vehicle) and therefore cheapest
          > - superior mobility,
          > - magnification of gravitational force field is availble so  no limit for superior power generation,
          > - high attainability for both a complete or plug-in support unit for superior efficiency.
          >  
          > Basically it is similar to the wind mills by logic but quite different structures are used, because this time the force field is a raditing one to capture power unlike wind which is convecting or flowing air mass where its kinetic energy is converted to useful power by hitting the blades/wings of the propeller to generate power.
          >  
          > The theory and know how with description of Novel Engineering Design Models are being introduced. The structures are not disclosed yet due to IPR and legal processes in progress:
          >  
          > http://sites.google.com/site/EnerGravity
          >  
          >  
          > Interst from industry to tailor particular applications (such as combustion engine substitute and even grid support) are welcome.
          >  
          >  
          > Thank you.
          > Sincerely
          > MG
          >
          > --- On Thu, 7/9/09, esbuck@... <> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: esbuck@... <esbuck@...>
          > Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re:Fuels
          > To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 7:33 PM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I agree that batteries are not the most promising "fuel", but when the
          > government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they
          > don't want to be told they were wrong.
          >
          > Personally, I like air. It is very inexpensive; using a lot of it will
          > not distort international commodity markets. It is non-toxic and does not
          > burn. One can store about 1 kWhr in a cubic foot of tankage. If you want a
          > 4-seat car to go 200 miles with no noxious emissions, take a crew-cab
          > pickup truck and fill the bed with 60-70 cubic feet of compressed air. Air
          > tanks can be refilled much quicker than you can charge a battery, so you can
          > refuel at a gas (air) station and not pay for a special parking place to
          > recharge for hours. Range, with fast refill, is unlimited. Performance can be
          > very sprightly. There are no expensive batteries needing periodic
          > replacement/ recycling. Everything involved is proven technology, using no scarce
          > or toxic materials. One can also make an air hybrid, with an IC engine to
          > compress air if you can't find a station.
          >
          > NIST and DoE will tell you that air is a loser, that batteries are the way
          > to go. They seem to ignor hard experimental evidence. In 1930, the
          > Germans built a diesel-pneumatic locomotive which was more efficient (saved 26%
          > in fuel) than a diesel-electric. Use wind turbines to compress air -- it
          > is easy to store -- to feed vehicles with on-board tanks. A hundred years
          > ago, there were air-powered street cars which outperformed the electrics and
          > required no overhead wires. Unfortunately, their designers were not very
          > sophisticated about thermodynamics.
          > ************ **Dell Studio XPS Desktop: Save up to $400 - Limited Time Offer
          > (http:/
          > /pr.atwola.com/ promoclk/ 100126575x122246 6512x1201463496/ aol?redir= http:%2F% 2Faltfarm. mediaplex. com%2Fad% 2Fck%2F12309% 2D81939%2D1629% 2D3)
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • mgulk1234
          Hi Forbes,   Thank you very much for the careful review of my message and posting it to the group whereas still you had complaints regarding very details
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 10, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Forbes,
             
            Thank you very much for the careful review of my message and posting it to the group whereas still you had complaints regarding very details of the design structures.
             
            I appreciate your points. In fact I am a bit stressed in between two difficult situations opposing each other.
             
            One is exactly your response on desire of visual appearance of the design structures where you are right.
             
            The other one is the serious advises from legal consultants regarding the IPR and copy rights issues on our special designs.
             
            Consequently, I am not very sure how I can keep the group informed about our works with optimistic results in hand in a completely different area than today's popular ones while still not risking the leakage of confidential knowledge.
             
            I am following the professional advises in one hand and trying to keep my connection with the group on the other hand.
             
            Therefore, I am very sorry that I can't provide restricted particular design drawings and simulation animations with calculations, but I provide generic info as the proof of the theory and declare/demonstrate the results of engineering simulation program as optimistic findings. These are available in our mini website at:
             
            http://sites.google.com/site/EnerGravity
             
             
            As a result, could you please let me know how you or another friend were in place of me how were you going to provide info?
            - If you provide entire details, wouldn't you be wondering IPR issues?
            - If you were considering security of the legal rights of an invention/innovation were you going to provide entire details without finalizing patent issues and so?
             
            A part of purpose of my postings is a kind of call to the industry for partnership to built tailored prototypes together. Can anyone from the industry reply my message?
             
            Finally, please let me know what would be the best and fairest way to express the info and knowledge I meant in my previous message in such a situation.
             
            One comment:
            the problem might be the number of different suggestions we receive everyday where there are some really has only function making a useless crowd. I apologize if my message also appeared like that. But there is a serious research study, survey, technical work and careful analysis including theory behind our work. I repeat here again that this technology is really something else and it is worth to review our easy web pages. I am ready to discuss all points and answer questions. Also grateful to show your understanding that we are not ready to undisclosed special details of the technology we offer.
             
            Fortunately I would say, the solutions with the approach we use can bring us many different design structures doing the same work that is capturing energy from a steady force field (like gravity) very much like capturing power from wind energy. Essentially the primary difference is that wind power is related to convection and kinetic energy transfer from flowing air mass to blades/wings of wind mill whereas the steady force field is a radiating one and required completely different solution.
             
            Finally, please have a look at Besslerl's behaviour on his invention. Also think about how segway owners were strict before they launch their device. Many other examples are like that.
             
             
            I believe a professional skilled engineer can recognize without a major difficulty that the technology I suggested is something else. But, the difficult thing is that probably no engineer has such an expectation nor would like to spend time to read and think about it to understand and so on.
             
            I apologize if my suggestion disappointed the people with their expectation.
             
            Our point is to find strong partners from the industry and go further together to introduce the prototype for particular applications. I feel we have to keep the structures undisclosed until we will be able to show physical prototype provided that we also will have been secured IPR issues.
             
            I expect the group members here to encourage their network in the industry to contact with us to contribute emergence of a new technology in the industry.
             
            Any suggestion that I should do now?
             
            Thank you very much for your time and understanding.
             
            Sorry for the inconvenience if there is any whereas we didn't mean so.
             
            I hope these make sense.
             
            Sincerely,
            MG
             
             
             
            --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Forbes Bagatelle-Black <diarmaede@...> wrote:


            From: Forbes Bagatelle-Black <>
            Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re:Fuels
            To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 9:32 AM








            BTW: I approved this message because it was a direct response to another posting, but I am always suspicious when someone claims to have a solution to all our energy problems but does not offer ANY details as to what that solution is. Did I miss something?

            MG, would you care to elaborate a bit as to what your proposed energy solution is?

            Cheers,

            Forbes

            --- In future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com, mgulk1234 <mgulk1234@. ..> wrote:
            >
            >  
            > Hi,
            >  
            > The wind seems to be useful but does not offer what is desired ideally.
            > The problem with the wind energy is the low scales of the power, unsteady nature, unpredictablity of wind source and maintenance requirements. 
            >  
            > There is a better option satisfying all those. Only, historical attempts towards an over expectation like solving an exciting mystery limited the capacity of imagination, mainly due to the fear regarding engineering career of skilled ones.
            >  
            > Esentially misconceptions are clarified and a sound theory set precisely. Then the results on engineering simulation program is fascinating. Ojectives are achieved successfully. Soon the models in simulation program will be built physically for particular industrial applications.
            >
            > Here is the Future Eenergy overcoming these too:
            > Ggravitational Prouplusion (more than gravity force field on mass):
            >  
            > - no carbon emission, no global warming impact
            > - oil independence, teady and uniform availablity ditributed evently to all geographies,
            > - lean and smart structures (engine and vehicle) and therefore cheapest
            > - superior mobility,
            > - magnification of gravitational force field is availble so  no limit for superior power generation,
            > - high attainability for both a complete or plug-in support unit for superior efficiency.
            >  
            > Basically it is similar to the wind mills by logic but quite different structures are used, because this time the force field is a raditing one to capture power unlike wind which is convecting or flowing air mass where its kinetic energy is converted to useful power by hitting the blades/wings of the propeller to generate power.
            >  
            > The theory and know how with description of Novel Engineering Design Models are being introduced. The structures are not disclosed yet due to IPR and legal processes in progress:
            >  
            > http://sites. google.com/ site/EnerGravity
            >  
            >  
            > Interst from industry to tailor particular applications (such as combustion engine substitute and even grid support) are welcome.
            >  
            >  
            > Thank you.
            > Sincerely
            > MG
            >
            > --- On Thu, 7/9/09, esbuck@... <> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: esbuck@... <esbuck@...>
            > Subject: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Re:Fuels
            > To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com
            > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 7:33 PM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > I agree that batteries are not the most promising "fuel", but when the
            > government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they
            > don't want to be told they were wrong.
            >
            > Personally, I like air. It is very inexpensive; using a lot of it will
            > not distort international commodity markets. It is non-toxic and does not
            > burn. One can store about 1 kWhr in a cubic foot of tankage. If you want a
            > 4-seat car to go 200 miles with no noxious emissions, take a crew-cab
            > pickup truck and fill the bed with 60-70 cubic feet of compressed air. Air
            > tanks can be refilled much quicker than you can charge a battery, so you can
            > refuel at a gas (air) station and not pay for a special parking place to
            > recharge for hours. Range, with fast refill, is unlimited. Performance can be
            > very sprightly. There are no expensive batteries needing periodic
            > replacement/ recycling. Everything involved is proven technology, using no scarce
            > or toxic materials. One can also make an air hybrid, with an IC engine to
            > compress air if you can't find a station.
            >
            > NIST and DoE will tell you that air is a loser, that batteries are the way
            > to go. They seem to ignor hard experimental evidence. In 1930, the
            > Germans built a diesel-pneumatic locomotive which was more efficient (saved 26%
            > in fuel) than a diesel-electric. Use wind turbines to compress air -- it
            > is easy to store -- to feed vehicles with on-board tanks. A hundred years
            > ago, there were air-powered street cars which outperformed the electrics and
            > required no overhead wires. Unfortunately, their designers were not very
            > sophisticated about thermodynamics.
            > ************ **Dell Studio XPS Desktop: Save up to $400 - Limited Time Offer
            > (http:/
            > /pr.atwola.com/ promoclk/ 100126575x122246 6512x1201463496/ aol?redir= http:%2F% 2Faltfarm. mediaplex. com%2Fad% 2Fck%2F12309% 2D81939%2D1629% 2D3)
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >



















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Ron Cochran
            I would love to know more about this air car idea. It seems to me that whether you talk about a BEV or an air-driven car, but of them essentially run on
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I would love to know more about this air car idea. It seems to me that
              whether you talk about a BEV or an air-driven car, but of them essentially
              run on electricity (either the electricity to charge the battery or the
              electricity to run the air compressor), so either could be just as "green".
              We are just talking about alternative ways to store that energy from
              electricity. Air has some immediate advantages: proven, rugged technology;
              no $20,000 battery to up the initial car price or to fail unexpectedly; fast
              refill/recharge potential, etc. I would love to see some calculations
              comparing these two, but I do not know how to do them. The primary question
              would seem to involve the efficiency and cost of compressing air vs. the
              efficiency and cost of charging a battery. I believe that it has already
              been shown that the range of an air-driven car would be at least comparable
              to that of a BEV.

              Best,
              Ron

              The best sermons are lived, not preached - Tennessee Mountain Wisdom

              -----Original Message-----
              From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              esbuck@...
              Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:34 PM
              To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re:Fuels

              I agree that batteries are not the most promising "fuel", but when the
              government has spent $Billions on largely fruitless battery research, they
              don't want to be told they were wrong.

              Personally, I like air. It is very inexpensive; using a lot of it will
              not distort international commodity markets. It is non-toxic and does not
              burn. One can store about 1 kWhr in a cubic foot of tankage. If you want
              a
              4-seat car to go 200 miles with no noxious emissions, take a crew-cab
              pickup truck and fill the bed with 60-70 cubic feet of compressed air. Air

              tanks can be refilled much quicker than you can charge a battery, so you can

              refuel at a gas (air) station and not pay for a special parking place to
              recharge for hours. Range, with fast refill, is unlimited. Performance
              can be
              very sprightly. There are no expensive batteries needing periodic
              replacement/recycling. Everything involved is proven technology, using no
              scarce
              or toxic materials. One can also make an air hybrid, with an IC engine to
              compress air if you can't find a station.

              NIST and DoE will tell you that air is a loser, that batteries are the way
              to go. They seem to ignor hard experimental evidence. In 1930, the
              Germans built a diesel-pneumatic locomotive which was more efficient (saved
              26%
              in fuel) than a diesel-electric. Use wind turbines to compress air -- it
              is easy to store -- to feed vehicles with on-board tanks. A hundred years
              ago, there were air-powered street cars which outperformed the electrics and

              required no overhead wires. Unfortunately, their designers were not very
              sophisticated about thermodynamics.
              **************Dell Studio XPS Desktop: Save up to $400 - Limited Time Offer
              (http:/
              /pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222466512x1201463496/aol?redir=http:%2F%2
              Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2D3)


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Arcologic@aol.com
              Compressed air cars are nice, but not any special deal. I collected some useful information from the following site: _Compressed-air energy storage -
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 16, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Compressed air cars are nice, but not any special deal. I collected some
                useful information from the following site:
                _Compressed-air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
                (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage#Physics_of_isothermal_co
                mpressed_air_storage)

                A handy formula for the energy stored in a pressurized tank of gas (air,
                for example) is--

                E = 100 P V ln (Pa /Pb) (This is for a constant-temperature cycle.)

                The energy will be in kilojoules. (Divide by 3600 for kilowatt-hours.) P
                is the storage pressure in atmospheres and V is the volume of the tank in
                cubic meters. Pa /Pb is the expansion ratio, of the order of 20, maybe a
                little better. For 20,

                ln (20) = 3.0

                Now you have enough information to calculate the energy stored in a tank or
                tank cluster. Let's try an example--

                P = 700 atmospheres = 10,300 psi
                V = 2 cu.ft. = 0.0566 cu.m.
                ln (Pa /Pb) = 3

                Then E = 11,900 kilojoules = 3.3 kWh

                This is the theoretical, at 100% efficiency. A reasonable value might be
                2 kWh, at 60% efficiency.

                A very efficient car should be able to get about 10 miles per
                kilowatt-hour (at the shaft). So this tank should take a well-designed car (twice as
                good as a Prius) about 20 miles.

                From the web site, an advanced kevlar or carbon fiber composite tank should
                weigh about 72 pounds per kilowatt-hour. This is about the same specific
                energy as a battery.

                The big joker is-- the cost of this tank is likely to be about the same or
                more than the equivalent battery pack. Very expensive. A very high-tech
                tank.

                Final note: The process is isothermal here. That means a heat source
                must be available to warm the compressed air as it expands.

                Ernie Rogers



                In a message dated 7/15/2009 8:48:49 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:

                Posted by: "Ron Cochran" _rcochran@... _
                (mailto:rcochran@...?Subject= Re:%20Fuels) _iamchemist _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/iamchemist)
                Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:15 pm (PDT)


                I would love to know more about this air car idea. It seems to me that
                whether you talk about a BEV or an air-driven car, but of them essentially
                run on electricity (either the electricity to charge the battery or the
                electricity to run the air compressor), so either could be just as "green".
                We are just talking about alternative ways to store that energy from
                electricity. Air has some immediate advantages: proven, rugged technology;
                no $20,000 battery to up the initial car price or to fail unexpectedly;
                fast
                refill/recharge potential, etc. I would love to see some calculations
                comparing these two, but I do not know how to do them. The primary question
                would seem to involve the efficiency and cost of compressing air vs. the
                efficiency and cost of charging a battery. I believe that it has already
                been shown that the range of an air-driven car would be at least comparable
                to that of a BEV.

                Best,
                Ron



                **************S T R E T C H your technology dollars with great laptop
                deals from Dell!
                (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081712x1201714210/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2
                D5)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • esbuck@aol.com
                Isothermal air compression requires heat exchangers and, in practice, may be only 15% efficient. The trick is to use adiabatic (isentropic) compression,
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 16, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Isothermal air compression requires heat exchangers and, in practice, may
                  be only 15% efficient. The trick is to use adiabatic (isentropic)
                  compression, conserving heat. Ref: U.S. Patent Number 5,832,728. In 1930, a
                  diesel-pneumatic locomotive used 26 % less fuel than a diesel-electric
                  locomotive, using adiabatic compression. One could easily convert an existing IC
                  vehicle to be an air hybrid or purely compressed air. Compress the air with
                  a wind turbine, and it is totally zero-emission. Air is cheap and
                  non-toxic, easily stored without scarce, toxic materials, and the tanks will not
                  have to be replaced/recycled as batteries are. Recharging at a gas (air)
                  station can be as quick as refueling with gasoline, so long range with minimal
                  infrastructure is feasible. Parking is expensive enough without requiring
                  battery chargers at each space.(Over a few hundred miles, a bike is faster
                  than an electric car)

                  For large scale applications, such as utility load-leveling, batteries are
                  not feasible, but air is. For off-grid locations (eg. an island or a
                  village in Africa) a wind turbine driving an air compressor could provide
                  compressed air energy for vehicles, power tools, heating and air conditioning,
                  pumping water, etc. An air driven generator could provide electricity as
                  needed. As a bi-product, one gets "free" distilled water for drinking.
                  **************S T R E T C H your technology dollars with great laptop
                  deals from Dell!
                  (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081712x1201714210/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2
                  D5)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ron Cochran
                  How does one accomplish adiabatic compression? Ron ... From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 16, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    How does one accomplish adiabatic compression?

                    Ron

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                    esbuck@...
                    Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:23 AM
                    To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: Fuels

                    Isothermal air compression requires heat exchangers and, in practice, may
                    be only 15% efficient. The trick is to use adiabatic (isentropic)
                    compression, conserving heat. Ref: U.S. Patent Number 5,832,728. In 1930,
                    a
                    diesel-pneumatic locomotive used 26 % less fuel than a diesel-electric
                    locomotive, using adiabatic compression. One could easily convert an
                    existing IC
                    vehicle to be an air hybrid or purely compressed air. Compress the air
                    with
                    a wind turbine, and it is totally zero-emission. Air is cheap and
                    non-toxic, easily stored without scarce, toxic materials, and the tanks will
                    not
                    have to be replaced/recycled as batteries are. Recharging at a gas (air)
                    station can be as quick as refueling with gasoline, so long range with
                    minimal
                    infrastructure is feasible. Parking is expensive enough without requiring
                    battery chargers at each space.(Over a few hundred miles, a bike is faster
                    than an electric car)

                    For large scale applications, such as utility load-leveling, batteries are
                    not feasible, but air is. For off-grid locations (eg. an island or a
                    village in Africa) a wind turbine driving an air compressor could provide
                    compressed air energy for vehicles, power tools, heating and air
                    conditioning,
                    pumping water, etc. An air driven generator could provide electricity as
                    needed. As a bi-product, one gets "free" distilled water for drinking.
                    **************S T R E T C H your technology dollars with great laptop
                    deals from Dell!
                    (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081712x1201714210/aol?redir=htt
                    p:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2
                    D5)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Arcologic@aol.com
                    Sharing an email from Ron, About compressed air or any other fuel-- remember that the energy you need is a lot. The two cubic foot tank I played with had 3.3
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 16, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sharing an email from Ron,

                      About compressed air or any other fuel-- remember that the energy you need
                      is a lot. The two cubic foot tank I played with had 3.3 kWh of energy
                      (11,900 kilojoules), a little less if released suddenly. This compares to
                      only a large cup full of gasoline, and is also the energy in about five pounds
                      of RDX high explosive.

                      In other words, if the compressed air tank we are talking about were to
                      "let go" into pieces suddenly, it would blow the car to smithereens.

                      Ernie Rogers




                      In a message dated 7/16/2009 8:39:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                      rcochran@... writes:

                      Hi Ernie,

                      Wow! Thanks for clearing this up. So, essentially this approach does not
                      seem to be very practical for a highway speed vehicle at all. The amount of
                      energy stored per (expensive) tank appears to be too low to be workable.
                      The MDI Website makes this all sound a lot more practical (urban range 180
                      Km)

                      Thanks for the information/calculations and the Wikipedia link (I did go
                      and
                      read it).

                      Best,
                      Ron

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                      Arcologic@...
                      Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 2:24 AM
                      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: Fuels

                      Compressed air cars are nice, but not any special deal. I collected some
                      useful information from the following site:
                      _Compressed-air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia_
                      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage#Physics_of_isoth
                      ermal_co
                      mpressed_air_storage)

                      A handy formula for the energy stored in a pressurized tank of gas (air,
                      for example) is--

                      E = 100 P V ln (Pa /Pb) (This is for a constant-temperature cycle.)

                      The energy will be in kilojoules. (Divide by 3600 for kilowatt-hours.)
                      P
                      is the storage pressure in atmospheres and V is the volume of the tank in
                      cubic meters. Pa /Pb is the expansion ratio, of the order of 20, maybe a
                      little better. For 20,

                      ln (20) = 3.0

                      Now you have enough information to calculate the energy stored in a tank
                      or
                      tank cluster. Let's try an example--

                      P = 700 atmospheres = 10,300 psi
                      V = 2 cu.ft. = 0.0566 cu.m.
                      ln (Pa /Pb) = 3

                      Then E = 11,900 kilojoules = 3.3 kWh

                      This is the theoretical, at 100% efficiency. A reasonable value might be
                      2 kWh, at 60% efficiency.

                      A very efficient car should be able to get about 10 miles per
                      kilowatt-hour (at the shaft). So this tank should take a well-designed car
                      (twice as
                      good as a Prius) about 20 miles.

                      From the web site, an advanced kevlar or carbon fiber composite tank
                      should
                      weigh about 72 pounds per kilowatt-hour. This is about the same specific
                      energy as a battery.

                      The big joker is-- the cost of this tank is likely to be about the same or

                      more than the equivalent battery pack. Very expensive. A very high-tech

                      tank.

                      Final note: The process is isothermal here. That means a heat source
                      must be available to warm the compressed air as it expands.

                      Ernie Rogers



                      In a message dated 7/15/2009 8:48:49 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                      future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:

                      Posted by: "Ron Cochran" _rcochran@... _
                      (mailto:rcochran@...?Subject= Re:%20Fuels) _iamchemist _
                      (http://profiles.yahoo.com/iamchemist)
                      Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:15 pm (PDT)


                      I would love to know more about this air car idea. It seems to me that
                      whether you talk about a BEV or an air-driven car, but of them essentially
                      run on electricity (either the electricity to charge the battery or the
                      electricity to run the air compressor), so either could be just as
                      "green".
                      We are just talking about alternative ways to store that energy from
                      electricity. Air has some immediate advantages: proven, rugged technology;
                      no $20,000 battery to up the initial car price or to fail unexpectedly;
                      fast
                      refill/recharge potential, etc. I would love to see some calculations
                      comparing these two, but I do not know how to do them. The primary
                      question
                      would seem to involve the efficiency and cost of compressing air vs. the
                      efficiency and cost of charging a battery. I believe that it has already
                      been shown that the range of an air-driven car would be at least
                      comparable
                      to that of a BEV.

                      Best,
                      Ron



                      **************S T R E T C H your technology dollars with great laptop
                      deals from Dell!
                      (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081712x1201714210/aol?redir=htt
                      p:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2
                      D5)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links





                      **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
                      steps!
                      (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823307x1201398715/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=
                      JulystepsfooterNO62)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dave Cline
                      Tribe, Sorry to step in so late, and maybe this branch of the stream of consciensness has already been drained... Perhaps air compression tech for travel is
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 17, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tribe,

                        Sorry to step in so late, and maybe this branch of the stream of
                        consciensness has already been drained...

                        Perhaps air compression tech for travel is not all it's puffed up to
                        be. But what about general home based energy storage? Imagine a buried
                        tank, much larger and lower pressured, that could be used as an energy
                        storage facility. Perhaps economies of scale apply here.

                        Would 500 cubic feet suffice? An 8 foot wide by 10 foot long cylinder
                        could hold 500 cubic feet - the size of a large septic tank.

                        Using Ernie's handy equation and assume only 1000 psi for the 500 cuft
                        tank and Ernie's expansion factor:

                        P = 500 cu. ft. = 14.16 cu.m.
                        V = 1000 psi = 68 atmos.
                        KJ = 100 P V ln (Pa /Pb)
                        ? = 100 x 68 x 14.16 x 3

                        80 kWh = 288,864 KJ / 3600

                        Wow! 80 kilowatt hours stored in a septic tank in your back yard.

                        How many kWhs can the batteries of the average solar PV home
                        installation hold? Surely not 80. Maybe 20?

                        Now, given Ernie's conservative conversion rates less than 1/2 of that
                        80 are usable. But this is just conjecture at this point.

                        But I wonder if such a system is more or less prone to malfunction and
                        degradation? One would still need the energy input (solar, wind, off
                        peak grid, biomass) but maybe such a system would last beyond the 2012
                        collapse <grin>.

                        From Wikipedia:
                        "Compressed air energy storage technology stores low cost off-peak
                        energy, in the form of compressed air in an underground reservoir. The
                        air is then released during peak load hours and heated with the
                        exhaust heat of a standard combustion turbine. This heated air is
                        converted to energy through expansion turbines to produce electricity.
                        A CAES plant has been in existence in McIntosh, Alabama since 1991 and
                        has run successfully."


                        -Dave C.


                        > Re: Fuels
                        >
                        > Posted by: "Arcologic@..." Arcologic@...   ernsdesk
                        >
                        > Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:24 pm (PDT)
                        >
                        > Sharing an email from Ron,
                        >
                        > About compressed air or any other fuel-- remember that the energy you need
                        > is a lot. The two cubic foot tank I played with had 3.3 kWh of energy
                        > (11,900 kilojoules), a little less if released suddenly. This compares to
                        > only a large cup full of gasoline, and is also the energy in about five
                        > pounds
                        > of RDX high explosive.
                        >
                        > In other words, if the compressed air tank we are talking about were to
                        > "let go" into pieces suddenly, it would blow the car to smithereens.
                        >
                        > Ernie Rogers
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > In a message dated 7/16/2009 8:39:23 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                        > rcochran@... writes:
                        >
                        > Hi Ernie,
                        >
                        > Wow! Thanks for clearing this up. So, essentially this approach does not
                        > seem to be very practical for a highway speed vehicle at all. The amount of
                        > energy stored per (expensive) tank appears to be too low to be workable.
                        > The MDI Website makes this all sound a lot more practical (urban range 180
                        > Km)
                        >
                        > Thanks for the information/calculations and the Wikipedia link (I did go
                        > and
                        > read it).
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > Ron
                      • tps
                        Cost of the tank: diameter 4 length (tangent-tangent) 39.6 P=1000 psig T= 80 F Material: Carbon steel WEIGHT DATA Shell 36900 LBS Heads 3200 LBS Equipment&
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 20, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Cost of the tank:

                          diameter 4'
                          length (tangent-tangent) 39.6'
                          P=1000 psig
                          T= 80 F
                          Material: Carbon steel

                          WEIGHT DATA
                          Shell 36900 LBS
                          Heads 3200 LBS

                          Equipment& setting: $78,800
                          Total material & manpower cost: &162,600

                          --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, Dave Cline <davecline@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Tribe,
                          >
                          > Sorry to step in so late, and maybe this branch of the stream of
                          > consciensness has already been drained...
                          >
                          > Perhaps air compression tech for travel is not all it's puffed up to
                          > be. But what about general home based energy storage? Imagine a buried
                          > tank, much larger and lower pressured, that could be used as an energy
                          > storage facility. Perhaps economies of scale apply here.
                          >
                          > Would 500 cubic feet suffice? An 8 foot wide by 10 foot long cylinder
                          > could hold 500 cubic feet - the size of a large septic tank.
                          >
                          > Using Ernie's handy equation and assume only 1000 psi for the 500 cuft
                          > tank and Ernie's expansion factor:
                          >
                          > P = 500 cu. ft. = 14.16 cu.m.
                          > V = 1000 psi = 68 atmos.
                          > KJ = 100 P V ln (Pa /Pb)
                          > ? = 100 x 68 x 14.16 x 3
                          >
                          > 80 kWh = 288,864 KJ / 3600
                          >
                          > Wow! 80 kilowatt hours stored in a septic tank in your back yard.
                          >
                          > How many kWhs can the batteries of the average solar PV home
                          > installation hold? Surely not 80. Maybe 20?
                        • chorete2003
                          I am so glad to have stirred the controversy about the poossibilies of non electric energy storage. Very good to see that air storage is been calculated. The
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 21, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I am so glad to have stirred the controversy about the poossibilies of non electric energy storage.
                            Very good to see that air storage is been calculated.
                            The only and serious problem is the danger of explosion, that can be minimized as in modrn steam boilers by a multitube construction.
                            But I still do not see any comments on the Soda Locomotive type of storage that most probably WOULD be competitive with battareies.
                            The Soda used was too dangerous, because it was not baking soda but
                            Sodium Hidroxide or caustic soda.
                            But Calcium Cloride wich, is absolutaely safe, would get the same energy .
                            Chorete
                          • murdoch
                            - This adiabatic compression you mention sounds important as an efficiency measure to know about. - Once the air is compressed using the best method, and ready
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jul 24, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              - This adiabatic compression you mention sounds important as an
                              efficiency measure to know about.

                              - Once the air is compressed using the best method, and ready to drive
                              a car, I have not seen real-world evidence of an existing air car that
                              can go more than a few miles. I'd love to see such evidence, but
                              until I do, I am skeptical as to range and real-world performance.

                              - As to the diesel-pneumtatic approach you mention, this does not
                              appear to be an air-car. It appears to be a hybrid
                              air-vehicle-fossil-fuel-vehicle.

                              If it could get improved efficiency (mileage) then fantastic, I would
                              leave to see them around, but it does not appear to be an air car
                              strategy. Are you saying it's a serial hybrid (where the air pressure
                              would work on its own once the energy is stored as air pressure)? My
                              initial impression is more that you're talking about some sort of
                              parallel hybrid, almost like using a Nitrous boost on a race car.

                              [Default] On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:23:16 EDT, esbuck@... wrote:

                              >Isothermal air compression requires heat exchangers and, in practice, may
                              >be only 15% efficient. The trick is to use adiabatic (isentropic)
                              >compression, conserving heat. Ref: U.S. Patent Number 5,832,728. In 1930, a
                              >diesel-pneumatic locomotive used 26 % less fuel than a diesel-electric
                              >locomotive, using adiabatic compression. One could easily convert an existing IC
                              >vehicle to be an air hybrid or purely compressed air. Compress the air with
                              >a wind turbine, and it is totally zero-emission. Air is cheap and
                              >non-toxic, easily stored without scarce, toxic materials, and the tanks will not
                              >have to be replaced/recycled as batteries are. Recharging at a gas (air)
                              >station can be as quick as refueling with gasoline, so long range with minimal
                              >infrastructure is feasible. Parking is expensive enough without requiring
                              >battery chargers at each space.(Over a few hundred miles, a bike is faster
                              >than an electric car)
                              >
                              >For large scale applications, such as utility load-leveling, batteries are
                              >not feasible, but air is. For off-grid locations (eg. an island or a
                              >village in Africa) a wind turbine driving an air compressor could provide
                              >compressed air energy for vehicles, power tools, heating and air conditioning,
                              >pumping water, etc. An air driven generator could provide electricity as
                              >needed. As a bi-product, one gets "free" distilled water for drinking.
                              >**************S T R E T C H your technology dollars with great laptop
                              >deals from Dell!
                              >(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1223081712x1201714210/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Faltfarm.mediaplex.com%2Fad%2Fck%2F12309%2D81939%2D1629%2
                              >D5)
                              >
                              >
                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >------------------------------------
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • csceadraham
                              ... Adiabatic means without heat transfer . The air gets hot as it is being compressed, and goes into a tank hot, and stays hot in the tank throughout the
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jul 25, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/12889
                                murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:

                                >
                                > - This adiabatic compression you mention sounds important as an
                                > efficiency measure to know about.

                                "Adiabatic" means "without heat transfer". The air gets hot as it
                                is being compressed, and goes into a tank hot, and stays hot
                                in the tank throughout the time the vehicle is running on that
                                fuel load.

                                This depends on the tank walls' being good thermal insulators
                                on that timescale. Consider thermos bottles. They can keep
                                soup hot from morning to noon. The day after, not so much.


                                --- G.R.L. Cowan, ('How fire can be domesticated')
                                http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/
                              • Arcologic@aol.com
                                My two cents-- it is too much trouble to store the heat of compression-- insulation is too costly and the heat too temporary. Common practice is to use heat
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jul 26, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  My two cents-- it is too much trouble to store the heat of compression--
                                  insulation is too costly and the heat too temporary. Common practice is to
                                  use heat exchangers to lower the work required to compress the air in the
                                  first place. There are recent patents on storing the compression heat by
                                  adding water to the air. As the air expands, the water vapor condenses,
                                  giving the heat back.

                                  I like the idea of having a small heat source to warm the air before
                                  running it through the motor. I am reminded that power plants do the same trick
                                  with steam. Steam is produced for a second stage in a combined-cycle
                                  plant. The steam is brought up to second stage running temperature with gas
                                  burners up-stream of the steam turbine.

                                  Oh, I guess I'm rambling. Air cars are a questionable enterprise anyway.

                                  Ernie Rogers



                                  Posted by: "csceadraham" _csceadraham@... _
                                  (mailto:csceadraham@...?Subject= Re:%20Fuels) _csceadraham _
                                  (http://profiles.yahoo.com/csceadraham)
                                  Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:22 am (PDT)


                                  --- In
                                  _http://autos.http://autos.http://authttp://autos.http://autos.http://autos._
                                  (http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/12889)
                                  murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:

                                  >
                                  > - This adiabatic compression you mention sounds important as an
                                  > efficiency measure to know about.

                                  "Adiabatic" means "without heat transfer". The air gets hot as it
                                  is being compressed, and goes into a tank hot, and stays hot
                                  in the tank throughout the time the vehicle is running on that
                                  fuel load.

                                  This depends on the tank walls' being good thermal insulators
                                  on that timescale. Consider thermos bottles. They can keep
                                  soup hot from morning to noon. The day after, not so much.

                                  --- G.R.L. Cowan, ('How fire can be domesticated'-
                                  _http://www.eagle.http://www._ (http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/)




                                  **************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your
                                  score. See now!
                                  (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323048x1201367271/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgI
                                  D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62)


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.