-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Car powered by Compressed Air
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I did a 45 minute presentation on alternative fuel vehicles in 2006 and this car made the list then... Like the Human Car, it's going nowhere fast. They are great in concept. But the market simply isn't going to accept them. It's unfortunate, really. The technology already exists for us to move past fossil fuel transportation. We just don't want it.
I do!
What else was on your list?
It might catch on if it were pressed through traditionally used-car sales channels instead of new-car channels. So if this dealer were to go about and sell this to used-car dealers then they could make these things available. Possibly they could also enter the rental car industry.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Electric bicyclesI do!
Honda's Hydrogen Civic (You could drink the exhaust)
Electric Trains
Cities planned with pedestrian-only centers (like the original EPCOT)
Trash-powered external combustion engines
All kinds of stuff...
I have the whole presentation on a thumb-drive somewhere. It also dealt with why relying solely on our national reserves is a very short-sighted solution for a very quickly approaching problem. Our consumption rate is simply too high to be sustainable for more than a few years. But that's a whole other topic of conversation.
I am not too impressed myself. Storing mechanical energy, like air or flywheels, just isn't very efficient compared to chemical storage like batteries or fuel.
The real problem I see is that, at least in the USA, people expect one vehicle to do everything. A vehicle that is excellent for one transportation purpose is stupid for others. For example,
A short commute to work daily, with a batch of small crucial errands.
Getting quickly and on schedule between big cities.
Taking the family on a road trip to visit relatives scattered across Texas.
Investing in technology for one purpose, the first example but not the others, isn't really going to do much good. Producing electric bullet trains like we did the "freeway" system, and a rental vehicle market aimed at the occasional long trip in groups, would get us much further.
Living on a quaint little tourist attraction of an island as you do, you may find things very different. But Great Britain is already a leader in "carbon footprint" reduction.
Tom
If you happen to find that, I would love to see it. What do you think of the Hyperloop?
This is true, but is the price was attractive enough, it might pay for itself if you fall into that niche. But there lies the problem...
Not exactly.
It has to be so much more attractive that we also invest in a system of compressed air recharging stations. A vehicle doesn't exist in a vacuum, it needs a huge support system that nobody is willing to support until there is a market for it.
Tom
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Like any other form of mass public transportation, it's an awesome idea that needs more play. Why we don't have cross-country bullet trains, I'll never know. Americans are very short-sighted in their transportation visions. We want more personal freedom, even though it leads to increased congestion and gridlock. No one likes traffic, but no one wants to actually do anything about it.
"Build wider highways! That way we can fill them with more cars!"
It's stupid.
This is a very old idea.
Early factory trucks ran on compressed air when competing technologies were relatively spendy (electric, IC engine, steam). But they suffer from inherent inefficiency, which is why they died a natural death.
Without using advanced quantificated laser calucus.....
- It takes much more energy to compress the air than can be extracted from it.
- Energy density is low.
- "Refueling" is trickier.
- Liquid air (proposed in the video) has huge handling problems.
kaoticprofit
Active Member
I can see how a car that runs on compressed air would be relatively useless. Flying like the Jetsons will be the super highway of the future. They already have a patent for large drones to recharge on top of utility poles.
I think we don't know how good we have it without cars dropping through our roofs. Bring back the horse, and scrap the lawnmowers.
Not everyone is crisp, white, professional George Jetson flying off to his job in the big city.
We'd also have drunks in badly maintained aircraft trying to rocket over us when they run out of fuel.
No thank you.
Tom
kaoticprofit
Active Member
I seriously doubt that flight paths would be over peoples houses. If it were up to me, I'd limit all man made modes of transportation, mandate that people all have their own little homesteads, and remain the hermit that I am. And yes! bring back the horse and buggy, and use goats ans sheep to keep the weeds down!
Who will enforce the flight paths?
My mother in law took a neighbor off his Harley with a broom because he cut across her lawn while the kids were outside playing.
Tom
Wow! This is totally cool. I like it a lot. Yes, I can see it being used, for example security guards could use it as a "go about", those who have safe local roads could use it, these look like they have enough power to not only be used for local or suburban traffic, they could be golf carts and other devices and there is no doubt the technology will improve both application and power.
It could also become a hobby rage to the extent that special zones could be setup just for the enthusiasts of this type of vehicle. And "gated" retirement communities would be interested as well.
My only concern is that promoters who want to sell things would come up with a vehicle that is sold as a "toy" or for those under the age of 16. These clearly have enough punch to be considered an actual transportation/auto device, not a toy. I don't want to see kids zooming down my street in these, with Barbie themes or Batman.
UPDATE: However, I did just read Revoltingest's comments and sort of let down my enthusiasm. But with enough investment, the "technology" could improve a lot.