by kolm » Thu 22 Mar 2007, 10:23:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')No one is claiming that a air powered car would be more practical, more efficient, or a better option than a FF power car. Just that it might get us from point A to point B after the FF cars are gone.
Whats so hard to understand about that?
That's easy to understand. However, it is hard to see any relevance in such a statement. You can replace 'air powered car' with 'horse', and it works out, too. You could even insert 'appropriately genetically engineered hamsters', and the statement keeps kinda true.
If you claim that this is even remotely practical, I'm very sceptical. I do not know of any laws regarding efficiency of of pneumatic energy storage, but I would assume that even the ideal gas law will place a hefty penalty on all such trials. Not even to mention that a back-of-envelope calculation suggests that energy density will be at the very least ten times less than lowest-cost lead acid batteries.
It was hard to find three years ago and might be completely vanished today, but they had a hilarious 'test drive result' somewhere. They drove ~
7km (IIRC) with their car; then their whole air tank was empty. Then the magic started; they started to extrapolate like "Well, if the car would weight only half, and the air friction would be zero, and some flying pigs would carry it over hills" and came out with an
expected reach of
250 km. Brilliant guys, those are. After that stunt, I lost all interest in their promises. Even a lemon-powered golf cart would seem more realistic to me than this compressed hot air.