Air powered cars? Hmmmm

[nw843x]

This has been making the rounds here at work and it immediately pegged my woo meter. It is an interesting idea, but as always sems to be too good to be true.

http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

[fuelair]

If it can run on fossil fuel and is incredibly light and the diagram actually means something and...and...BUT... I am thinking woo too.

[tkingdoll]

7212

[Ziggurat]

This has been making the rounds here at work and it immediately pegged my woo meter. It is an interesting idea, but as always sems to be too good to be true.

http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

Not necessarily. The key here, of course, is that it may not be too good - in other words, it may be an improvement, but maybe not a drastic one. That wouldn't mean it's not worthwhile, though.

The idea that caught my eye recently was a 6-stroke engine (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=467). It sounds pretty cool, but the actual improvement might not be huge.

[MIKILLINI]

Just a bit off thread here, but a person at work told Me an interesting story his Father shared with him. His father had worked at this fuel/service station back in the the 60's and there was this particular gentleman who always bought his gas at this station and came every Thursday to fuel up his '66 Olds 88. He would use a tank of gas every week, so He would come, every Thursday like clockwork.
Well, this fella had not owned this car for even a year, and He informed the station owner it was in need of fixing and the dealership he bought it from took it for repair since it was under warranty and had to be done by a certfied dealer. The dealership gave him a loaner to drive, which was a '67 Olds '88. He fueled it up that Thursday at the station and went on his way. It was 2 weeks later when he returned to the station, and the manager asked what happened to him last Thursday, since the fella didn't come to fuel up. The Guy told him that he didn't need any gas until today, but even then he still had at least a 1/4 tank of fuel left. He said that he didn't do anything different about his driving and traveled no less than usual. The manager thought maybe the car had a smaller engine and took a look under the hood. It was the same size engine the fella had in his other car, but there was an attachment on the carburetor that the station manager had never seen the likes of before. He asked the other people around the station if they have seen this thing before, no one had ever seen anything like it before, either. The manager then called up the dealership and asked them about it and they told him they will be right over and to keep the car there. They brought down another '67 Olds 88 for the guy, handed him the keys and paperwork, told him to drive it until his car was fixed. All they would say about the attachment on the carburetor was it was experimental and it wasn't supposed to be loaned out. That was the last time they would acknowledge anything directed toward this carburetor attachment. It was also the last time any of them had seen this attachment ever again
Which means there have been things made, if followed through then up to today, you would see incredible MPG's that would be the norm. But somebody had bought out the patent rights or something of that nature to keep items off the market.

[davefoc]

Just a bit off thread here, but a person at work told Me an interesting story his Father shared with him. His father had worked at this fuel/service station back in the the 60's and there was this particular gentleman who always bought his gas at this station and came every Thursday to fuel up his '66 Olds 88. He would use a tank of gas every week, so He would come, every Thursday like clockwork.
Well, this fella had not owned this car for even a year, and He informed the station owner it was in need of fixing and the dealership he bought it from took it for repair since it was under warranty and had to be done by a certfied dealer. The dealership gave him a loaner to drive, which was a '67 Olds '88. He fueled it up that Thursday at the station and went on his way. It was 2 weeks later when he returned to the station, and the manager asked what happened to him last Thursday, since the fella didn't come to fuel up. The Guy told him that he didn't need any gas until today, but even then he still had at least a 1/4 tank of fuel left. He said that he didn't do anything different about his driving and traveled no less than usual. The manager thought maybe the car had a smaller engine and took a look under the hood. It was the same size engine the fella had in his other car, but there was an attachment on the carburetor that the station manager had never seen the likes of before. He asked the other people around the station if they have seen this thing before, no one had ever seen anything like it before, either. The manager then called up the dealership and asked them about it and they told him they will be right over and to keep the car there. They brought down another '67 Olds 88 for the guy, handed him the keys and paperwork, told him to drive it until his car was fixed. All they would say about the attachment on the carburetor was it was experimental and it wasn't supposed to be loaned out. That was the last time they would acknowledge anything directed toward this carburetor attachment. It was also the last time any of them had seen this attachment ever again
Which means there have been things made, if followed through then up to today, you would see incredible MPG's that would be the norm. But somebody had bought out the patent rights or something of that nature to keep items off the market.

In this world there is no shortage of magic carburetor stories. There is, however, a clear cut shortage of magic carburetors.

[TjW]

It's not woo, in the sense that the car actually runs.
It's vastly oversold. The range is short. Compressing air is a lossy process, so it almost doesn't matter how efficient the engine is, the well-to-wheels efficiency is going to be terrible.
The energy density and specific energy of compressed air is not very high, so it's not going to scale up very well.
One of the Neighborhood Electric Vehicles would be quieter, and has the advantage of being available now, from several different manufacturers.
These air cars have been around for the past ten years or so, and they're always just around the corner from a great marketing breakthrough.

[MIKILLINI]

In this world there is no shortage of magic carburetor stories. There is, however, a clear cut shortage of magic carburetors.

I have heard many, but this one was not made up, it actually happened.
I also remember watching a local news piece while I was in Arizona back in '89 about these 3 guys who transformed a '70 Chevelle to run on water. They claimed it cost no more than the price of gas at that time to run it.

[mhaze]

I have heard many, but this one was not made up, it actually happened.
I also remember watching a local news piece while I was in Arizona back in '89 about these 3 guys who transformed a '70 Chevelle to run on water. They claimed it cost no more than the price of gas at that time to run it.

No way!

What would keep it from sinking?

[TjW]

No way!

What would keep it from sinking?

Are you kidding? Man, it's hydrogen! If hydrogen can lift huge structures of aluminum trusses into the air, making a single '70 Chevelle float should be no problem. Though it might be easier with a Volkswagen Beetle.

[MIKILLINI]

No way!

What would keep it from sinking?

Wet pavement:They only took it out on rainy days.:rolleyes:

[robinson]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=616116#post616116

[LTC8K6]

The switched engine story is as old as Methusela. It's not true at all.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

The MDI Air Car has been ready for production for around 10 years now.

These stories are from 2000, and they were already old repeats of the claims.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/988265.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/992431.stm

[LTC8K6]

Big deal, Stanley Meyer made a water fueled car too. He and his supporters touted it loud and long.

It didn't actually work, but he made it.

[neutrino_cannon]

Could someone explain to me the advantage of a compressed air powered car in the first place?

Compressed air in the shop as a power source? Sure, it's very convenient, and allows small, inexpensive tools.

But in a car? Could you even get the same energy density in a compressed air canister as a battery or ultracapacitor, let alone gasoline?]

I can't see a huge advantage in the charge cycle either. Compression of a gas is a less efficient means of storing energy than, say, charging a battery because a large portion of the energy will necessarily be lost as heat.

Furthermore, you won't be able to use just any compressed air. The air will need to be compressed to very high pressures to be useful, and it will need to be completely dehumidified since any stray water vapor would immediately condense upon depressurization and ruin things.

I have no doubt that a a relatively competitive compressed air engine can be made; in fact I've seen them in model airplanes. What I doubt is that this isn't a stupid idea, given the existence of gasoline and electrical engines.

[robinson]

Could someone explain to me the advantage of a compressed air powered car in the first place?


Less weight, faster recharge, no toxic batteries to lug around. The cool air can be used for cooling the passengers. (Electric/battery cars suffer from the huge load required to run air conditioning.) Zero pollution from the car. Inexpensive to make and service.

[Cuddles]

While the car is running on fossil fuel, the compressor refills the compressed air tanks. The control system maintains a zero-pollution emission in the city at speeds up to 60 km/h.

Bolding mine. So the car burns fossil fuels but has zero emissions. The engine might work, but some of their claims about it are blatant lies.

[Thabiguy]

Bolding mine. So the car burns fossil fuels but has zero emissions. The engine might work, but some of their claims about it are blatant lies.

Yeah, that's some unfortunate wording that can indeed be misleading (and perhaps it might even be their evil intention to make it ambiguous in that way). To be fair though, I don't think that's the officially intended meaning. They explain it in more detail elsewhere on their page:

The duel energy engine, on the other hand, has been conceived as much for the city as the open road and will be available in all MDI vehicles. The engines will work exclusively with compressed air while it is running under 50 km/h in urban areas. But when the car is used outside urban areas at speeds over 50 km/h, the engines will switch to fuel mode. The engine will be able to use gasoline, gas oil, bio diesel, gas, liquidized gas, ecological fuel, alcohol, etc.
Both engines will be available with 2, 4 and 6 cylinders, When the air tanks are empty the driver will be able to switch to fuel mode, thanks to the car's on board computer.

So it would seem that by "the control system maintains a zero-pollution emission in the city at speeds up to 60 km/h" they mean that the system will automatically use fossil fuel for higher speeds, but not for lower speeds (unless manually overridden). Even if you never drive at higher speeds, you can still maintain zero-pollution emission - you'll just need to tank compressed air, not fossil fuel, just as with their "single energy engine". Presumably, the "dual energy engine" is intended for those who actually do expect to drive outside cities as well.

[LTC8K6]

The cool air can be used for cooling the passengers.

Except that the air got very hot when it was compressed in the first place...

[Big Al]

I don't think either electric cars or pnuematic ones will be environmentally effective until the means of generating the electricity to charge the battery or drive the air compressor are. Otherwise, you're just switching the source of pollution from the car to the power station.

[casebro]

Electric, Compressed air or hydrogen, and some other plans, are NOT engines but power storage concepts. Any gains from their use would be marginal, since power plants would still be needed to make the 'fuel' in the first place.

OOooo. I just got a brainstorm. Since there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of hydrogen, why not put miniature cracking plants in each car? Then run the car's engine on hydrogen fuel cells? This would remedy the major problem with handling, storing, compressing hydrogen. The engine would burn clean, making only water vapor emissions. If you can't see the flaws to my system, you ain't no skeptic....

[Thabiguy]

Otherwise, you're just switching the source of pollution from the car to the power station.

Exactly. That's the point.

Electric, Compressed air or hydrogen, and some other plans, are NOT engines but power storage concepts. Any gains from their use would be marginal, since power plants would still be needed to make the 'fuel' in the first place.

The point of such proposed alternatives to fossil fuel engines is not in miraculously cheapening transportation. It is in reducing pollution from emission in the cities, where people actually live and breathe.

Producing energy in power plants makes it possible to more effectively control emission of pollutants. Even more importantly, it allows to use other energy sources than burning fossil fuels - which get increasingly scarce and expensive - such as nuclear fission, which produces significantly less airborne pollution and offers considerably greater energy reserves.

[TjW]

Electric, Compressed air or hydrogen, and some other plans, are NOT engines but power storage concepts. Any gains from their use would be marginal, since power plants would still be needed to make the 'fuel' in the first place.

OOooo. I just got a brainstorm. Since there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of hydrogen, why not put miniature cracking plants in each car? Then run the car's engine on hydrogen fuel cells? This would remedy the major problem with handling, storing, compressing hydrogen. The engine would burn clean, making only water vapor emissions. If you can't see the flaws to my system, you ain't no skeptic....

And besides, it's already been done. Search for articles containing "fuel cell" and "reformer".

(But the hydrogen has to want to reform)

[Ladewig]

I have heard many, but this one was not made up, it actually happened.


How did you come to the belief that this story told by a co-worker was authentic?

[ponderingturtle]

In this world there is no shortage of magic carburetor stories. There is, however, a clear cut shortage of magic carburetors.

I have a magic carburetor, it casts cure light wounds 2 a day.

[MIKILLINI]

How did you come to the belief that this story told by a co-worker was authentic?

I have worked with him for 15 years now, and that I had worked and became friends with his father 11 years prior to that, both had previously worked at gas/service stations. They're down to earth people, and knowing them as well as I do, they are not ones to exaggerate something like this, his father passed away 9 years ago. With the price of fuel as it is now, he becomes angry when I offhandedly bring that incident up.

[Madalch]

I have a magic carburetor, it casts cure light wounds 2 a day.
You're lucky- mine will only do "dispel magic" once per week. I've never been able to tell if it's working or not.

[Ladewig]

I have worked with him for 15 years now, and that I had worked and became friends with his father 11 years prior to that, both had previously worked at gas/service stations. They're down to earth people, and knowing them as well as I do, they are not ones to exaggerate something like this, his father passed away 9 years ago. With the price of fuel as it is now, he becomes angry when I offhandedly bring that incident up.


I am not old enough to judge whether or not two weeks would be an appropriate amount of time for a 1960s dealership to repair a vehicle. But leaving that aside, I am left wondering why an auto dealership would be (1) using an experiental carburetor at all, much less on (2) a vehicle that could easily be mistaken for a loaner car and (3) which nobody noticed was missing for two weeks.

Given the number of motor hobbyists in the 60s and 70s, I am also surprised that no one else came up with a similar mileage-doubling carburetor.

[bruto]

The thing nobody ever seems to figure out in these magic carburetor stories ( apart, of course, from explaining the physics of it) is a practical reason for the suppression of the technology. Even if it had been economically reasonable to withhold it in 1960, what possible reason would anybody have to withhold it in 1980? And, considering that "magic carburetor taken off the market by the big interests" stories have been around since long before 1960, what developer in his right mind would have come up with another magic carburetor then, and sold the patent rights yet again? Anybody in possession of a truly effective way to gain mileage without penalty would be assured of almost unimaginably huge profits. And of course, considering how many people would be motivated to develop such a thing, it seems pretty unlikely that such a device, if possible has not surfaced again.

It's possible of course that Mkillini's friend was not lying, but it's also quite possible somebody was pulling his leg.

[neutrino_cannon]

Less weight, faster recharge, no toxic batteries to lug around. The cool air can be used for cooling the passengers. (Electric/battery cars suffer from the huge load required to run air conditioning.) Zero pollution from the car. Inexpensive to make and service.

I don't think so:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_engine#Energy_density_and_efficiency

Compressed air may give you similar energy density to batteries, but then batteries have pretty very low energy density compared to hydrocarbon fuels.

An air car may recharge faster than an electric one, but there's no way it could fuel faster than a gasoline powered vehicle.

There's also no way to use the engine to heat the vehicle.

Finally, there's no way in Hades that compressing air is an efficient means of energy storage. The car may produce no pollution, but the processes required to keep it on the road most assuredly will.

That gives you cost advantages, provided you don't make the pressure tanks out of the high performance materials required to give them competitive energy densities.

I'll take a gasoline powered hybrid.

You know what? Screw that. I feel so curmudgeonly I will take my horse and buggy.

[robinson]

An air car may recharge faster than an electric one, but there's no way it could fuel faster than a gasoline powered vehicle.


So? Two minutes isn't that long to wait for zero emissions and low cost. Of course since it also runs on fuel, it is also a gasoline powered vehicle, so it isn't an issue, is it?


There's also no way to use the engine to heat the vehicle.


Sure there is, you fire up the gas powered on board compressor. The heat generated by that is used for heating the vehicle. Kinda cool idea really.


Finally, there's no way in Hades that compressing air is an efficient means of energy storage. The car may produce no pollution, but the processes required to keep it on the road most assuredly will.

Not in France. They use Nuclear power for electricity. See
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2666616#post2666616

Of course it is a hybrid, so when you run it on other fuels, you still have pollution. Unless you use hydrogen or biofuels.


That gives you cost advantages, provided you don't make the pressure tanks out of the high performance materials required to give them competitive energy densities.

The website list all that information.



I'll take a gasoline powered hybrid.

The MDI is a hybrid, sort of. It runs on air, or fuel.

Check out the engineering they did on the engine. It is a marvel.

[neutrino_cannon]

Ooooooooohhhhh.

I get it.

It's a hybrid that uses a pneumatic secondary instead of an electric one.

Hmm...

Again, I have trouble believing that compression of air is a brilliant way to store energy, but what the heck do I know?

I do know that it's little and made of fiberglass, which itself will do wonders for fuel economy.

[bruto]

Ooooooooohhhhh.

I get it.

It's a hybrid that uses a pneumatic secondary instead of an electric one.

Hmm...

Again, I have trouble believing that compression of air is a brilliant way to store energy, but what the heck do I know?

I do know that it's little and made of fiberglass, which itself will do wonders for fuel economy.

I think it depends on the use and duty cycle. The hydropneumatic secondary system seems pretty promising. The concept is simple and hydraulics are pretty simple and not exotic. A hydraulic motor is easily reversed through valving to serve as a pump, making regenerative braking simple. For things like delivery vans, which do a lot of stopping, it makes sense. The fast charge corresponds with a fast discharge as well, so it's a no-go for cruising on the interstate, but could have significant benefits in an urban UPS truck. Which I guess is why UPS is actively pursuing the idea, and apparently has a prototype hydraulic hybrid vehicle on the road now.http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/ups_hydraulic.php

[Cuddles]

The point of such proposed alternatives to fossil fuel engines is not in miraculously cheapening transportation. It is in reducing pollution from emission in the cities, where people actually live and breathe.

It's not just this. Using electric (or pneumatic or whatever) cars means that the source of the electricity is irrelevant. With oil burning cars, you are stuck with having to burn something, whether that is fossil fuels or biofuels, and that means pollution and supply issues and, more importantly, means it is very difficult to swap away from your current fuel source. Electic cars simply don't care what happens beyond having a socket to charge from. You are free to change your fuel sources between fossil fuels, nuclear, renewable and anything else we think up without anyone ever noticing. It doesn't just remove the dependance on oil, it removes dependance on anything. The only way there could be a problem is if we stop having electricity, and I would think that if that happens a broken car is the least of your worries.

[The Don]

My experience of running cars of that age is that the state of tune can make a profound difference to the mileage. Routinely, getting the mixture right and carbs balanced could make the kind of difference to mileage you mention.

BTW, why would anyone wish to suppress such an innovative carb when the diesel engine (which can deliver similar fuel efficiency benefits) was allowed to slip through the net ?

[sinclairmcevoy]

I have worked with him for 15 years now, and that I had worked and became friends with his father 11 years prior to that, both had previously worked at gas/service stations. They're down to earth people, and knowing them as well as I do, they are not ones to exaggerate something like this, his father passed away 9 years ago. With the price of fuel as it is now, he becomes angry when I offhandedly bring that incident up.
I had a similar experience, with a different story. In fact, I read about the same thing in a couple of different places. It had to do with seeing a box on the road, making a decision to run it over, changing direction at the last second, then seeing a kid crawl out from under it. Phew! Lucky I changed my mind! I've heard a version or two of this carburetor as well. Everyone telling it SWEARS it is true. Urban myth............

[bruto]

One of the most obvious problems with the above magic carburetor story is that the device was supposedly in the hands of a dealer. Now we must presume that the dealership itself was not the inventor, but merely testing it, and that they therefore were parties to the suppression of a device that could have made them huge amounts of money, if they took the time to study it, or perhaps simply to steal it. After all, if it's a big secret whose existence shouldn't even be acknowleged, couldn't you just steal it and say "what magic carburetor?" Remember this is a car dealer! They'd probably steal the change out of your ashtray, but it doesn't occur to anyone there to do a little reverse engineering on a device that would make someone wealthy for life?

As a side note, though, around the same time as this story, my aunt had a Pontiac station wagon with what appeared to be the usual big V8 engine, but it was a semi-special model that was seriously detuned with a smaller carburetor and altered timing. It gave relatively decent fuel economy as a result (relatively, remember - getting 20 MPG on something like that constitutes a 40 or 50 percent gain!), and since the engine was still quite large, the performance hit was not so serious for normal driving. No magic, just tuning for economy on an engine so large that it could afford to lose a big chunk of performance.

[MIKILLINI]

I am not old enough to judge whether or not two weeks would be an appropriate amount of time for a 1960s dealership to repair a vehicle. But leaving that aside, I am left wondering why an auto dealership would be (1) using an experiental carburetor at all, much less on (2) a vehicle that could easily be mistaken for a loaner car and (3) which nobody noticed was missing for two weeks.

Given the number of motor hobbyists in the 60s and 70s, I am also surprised that no one else came up with a similar mileage-doubling carburetor.

(1) One of the heads on the engine had a hairline crack in it, they had first thought it blew a head gasket since coolant was getting into the oil. That's an extensive repair job and it was a few days before they actually started wrenching on it.
(2) My friend can only speculate what happened as to how this "experimental" loaner ended up at this dealership and how it got rotated into the loaner fleet.
Also, back then there were no computers to use for their database, so everything was filed on paper. Again, it would be speculation on his part as to how this was not noticed, but is a possibility that a mistake(s) could've been made in filing papers.

And given the numbers of hobbyists in this era, a high mileage vehicle would have been just a thing of curiosity, not of a focused desire, like today.
Hobbyists then preferred the horsepower/muscle of the car, and the older folk of the day liked the room and comfort a big car like an Olds '88 provided.
The price of gasoline in this era wasn't a concern at all, not when stations competed for customers through price wars in the range between .16 & .25 cents per gallon. Gas mileage was not a huge concern for most people then.

[bruto]

(1) One of the heads on the engine had a hairline crack in it, they had first thought it blew a head gasket since coolant was getting into the oil. That's an extensive repair job and it was a few days before they actually started wrenching on it.
(2) My friend can only speculate what happened as to how this "experimental" loaner ended up at this dealership and how it got rotated into the loaner fleet.
Also, back then there were no computers to use for their database, so everything was filed on paper. Again, it would be speculation on his part as to how this was not noticed, but is a possibility that a mistake(s) could've been made in filing papers.

And given the numbers of hobbyists in this era, a high mileage vehicle would have been just a thing of curiosity, not of a focused desire, like today.
Hobbyists then preferred the horsepower/muscle of the car, and the older folk of the day liked the room and comfort a big car like an Olds '88 provided.
The price of gasoline in this era wasn't a concern at all, not when stations competed for customers through price wars in the range between .16 & .25 cents per gallon. Gas mileage was not a huge concern for most people then.

If that were true, then the supposed suppression of the device also makes less sense. It also just happens not to be all that true. Places like JC Whitney, and the back pages of Popular Science, were always full of ads for devices to increase your mileage. The prevailing device was essentially a fuel pressure regulator, which would occasionally increase your mileage if your carburetor was seriously sick to begin with, but like most such nostrums, they depended mostly on owners being so invested in the idea of it that they would drive more economically to prove it. A true mileage increaser that worked without a penalty would have been a very popular gadget, well worth copying, stealing, or studying, even in the era of cheap gas.

Of course there's a third possibility, which is that the experimental loaner was indeed some kind of experimental vehicle running extra lean or otherwise tweaked for better mileage, and the reason it was never heard from again was that the experiment was not successful. It is, after all, possible to tune an engine for better mileage by varying cam profiles, timing, carburetor rejetting, etc., but if a month later it had holes melted in the pistons or burned valve seats, then no nefarious cabal of suppression is required to understand why it didn't become the car of the future.

[MIKILLINI]

Of course there's a third possibility, which is that the experimental loaner was indeed some kind of experimental vehicle running extra lean or otherwise tweaked for better mileage, and the reason it was never heard from again was that the experiment was not successful. It is, after all, possible to tune an engine for better mileage by varying cam profiles, timing, carburetor rejetting, etc., but if a month later it had holes melted in the pistons or burned valve seats, then no nefarious cabal of suppression is required to understand why it didn't become the car of the future.

This third possibility is more what I believe as to what happened. I shared this story so all of you here can weigh in on it, since I have not found anything similar to this "device" in My search. Many of you here are very astute and informative, and the place I can count on to get accurate information. As to the OP on here, it appears that the air-powered car has limitations; more limitations than what's on the road today. What looks to be on the right track is GM's Volt; It's a step up from it's EV-1, if I remember correctly, the EV-1 could only go 100 miles before it needed recharged. Whereas the Volt is claiming up to 640 miles on a 12 gallon tank without having to stop to refuel or recharge, generating (ok, bad pun) over 50 miles per gallon.

[Lensman]

One of the earliest references to a "trick" carburettor that was covered up is in this quote:

"I once saw a clipping from the Los Angeles Daily News. A man bought a heavy standard-make car in San Diego, filled her up, and drove her to Los Angeles. He only used two gallons. Then he drove to Agua Caliente and back to San Diego, and only used three gallons. About a week later the sales company found him and bribed him to make an exchange. By mistake they had let him have a car that wasn't to be sold - one with a trick carburettor."

That sounds awfully familiar!

It's from "Let There Be Light" a short story in the collection "The Man Who Sold The Moon", by Robert A. Heinlein - the book was first published in 1953.

[Ladewig]

I, too, consider the third option as possible.

(2) My friend can only speculate what happened as to how this "experimental" loaner ended up at this dealership and how it got rotated into the loaner fleet.
Also, back then there were no computers to use for their database, so everything was filed on paper. Again, it would be speculation on his part as to how this was not noticed, but is a possibility that a mistake(s) could've been made in filing papers.

A

What would a device that could double gas mileage be worth in the late 1960s? $100,000? $500,000? If I attached a $100,000 super secret device to a car, then I would know where that car and the keys to that car were at all times - especially if I were assigned to test the effectiveness of that device. I really find the idea that two weeks went by without anyone tracking down the car hard to swallow.

[Dorian Gray]

Poor Neil Peart.

[David Rodale]

Not to start a new argument, but the EV1 was a POS to put it mildly. Any talk of some grand conspiracy (i.e. 'Who Killed The Electric Car') is pure bunk. It was expensive, overrated, impractical, and a toxic waste dump on wheels among other things. GM lost a lot of money. My brother worked on the project. Until a completely new battery technology comes out, the EV will be nothing less than a play toy for the wealthy.

Things to consider comparing the air car to EV.
1) Cost
2) Simplicity of design
3) Maintenance (battery replacement etc.)
4) Overall efficiency.


I for one would seriously consider the MDI for commuting to work, likened to a motor bike on four wheels. However it's doubtful this vehicle will see U.S. shores anytime soon if not for any other reason than failing to meet safety crash standards.

As for the mysterious super carbs, I've been following these stories for over 25 years as it is related to my profession. They do not and never did exist. Read this:
fivsfraud.com This guy ripped off several people not once, but twice except the second time he skipped town with lots of money.

A very serious contender in new ICE technology is the Scuderi engine, an air hybrid.
scuderigroup.com

Having said all that, there are few ways to significantly enhance fuel mileage outside of OEM, although very few of the ones commonly seen advertised don't do much if any at all. One viable method is hydrogen assist which I use on my Durango.

The current crop of hybrids out there are not that great despite the hype and personally I'd never buy one. The next generation plug-ins will be better, but if the Scuderi engine pans out, electric hybrids may be just a passing fad. Technology will be moving quite rapidly within the next five years.

Bottom line: don't be too quick to poo poo the air car. Time will tell, but I believe it will be a common sight in other countries within a year or two. The MDI may be a plausible solution to urban transportation if the cost is kept low. The U.S. website is zevcat.com

A recent audio interview is available here:
podtech.net/home/2787/zevcat-mdi-and-the-air-car

[neutrino_cannon]

I think it depends on the use and duty cycle. The hydropneumatic secondary system seems pretty promising. The concept is simple and hydraulics are pretty simple and not exotic. A hydraulic motor is easily reversed through valving to serve as a pump, making regenerative braking simple. For things like delivery vans, which do a lot of stopping, it makes sense. The fast charge corresponds with a fast discharge as well, so it's a no-go for cruising on the interstate, but could have significant benefits in an urban UPS truck. Which I guess is why UPS is actively pursuing the idea, and apparently has a prototype hydraulic hybrid vehicle on the road now.http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/06/ups_hydraulic.php

As far as I can figure it, the primary advantage of a hybrid is the increased efficiency of regenerative breaking combined with the energy dense hydrocarbon fuel.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong, but doesn't the entire idea of a hybrid vehicle have suspect thermodynamics outside of regenerative breaking?

Aside from regenerative breaking (which is a fantastic idea and works very well), the whole idea of using the gasoline engine to run an electrical generator which runs an electric motor is suspect. I simply fail to see how converting the energy from one form to another via that set of steps is a better idea than simply running the gasoline motor to the drive train. Energy conversion always loses things in translation; why on earth would you do it that way?

[davefoc]

As far as I can figure it, the primary advantage of a hybrid is the increased efficiency of regenerative breaking combined with the energy dense hydrocarbon fuel.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong, but doesn't the entire idea of a hybrid vehicle have suspect thermodynamics outside of regenerative breaking?

Aside from regenerative breaking (which is a fantastic idea and works very well), the whole idea of using the gasoline engine to run an electrical generator which runs an electric motor is suspect. I simply fail to see how converting the energy from one form to another via that set of steps is a better idea than simply running the gasoline motor to the drive train. Energy conversion always loses things in translation; why on earth would you do it that way?

This is a common view, but I think it is essentially wrong.

The Prius hybrid saves gasoline in several ways.
1. It shuts the ICE off when the car is stopped.
2. It uses the battery for slow speed driving when an ICE is particularly inefficient.
3. It uses a special Atkinson cycle engine which is very efficient in terms of energy produced per energy consumed. (It is less powerful per pound than a normal ICE though).
4. It allows the ICE to run much more often in the sweet spot of its highest efficiency than the ICE in a non-hybrid car.
5. I think the aerodynamics may be somewhat better than average for a production automobile.
6. As NC mentioned the Prius uses regenerative braking.


Item four might be the most important factor in the high mileage that the Prius obtains in highway driving. As I understand it a normal ICE needs to be much larger than is actually required for freeway driving because it must have the power to accelerate the car at an acceptable rate. The hybrid can combine the electric motors with the ICE so a smaller ICE can be used. This has the advantage of reducing pumping losses. As I understand it, pumping losses are very significant for an ICE which is operating significantly below its maximum possible power output. Pumping losses refer to the energy losses incurred when the air is pumped into engine. Pumping losses are significant when an engine is operating in a mostly throttled down mode as is the case for a normal ICE powering a car at a steady state highway speed.

Reducing pumping losses are behind the scheme for improving mileage by shutting down cylinders when a car is operating in a mode where strong acceleration is not required.

[LTC8K6]

The new BMW M3, while not a hybrid at all, uses Brake Energy Regeneration to charge the battery and provide power.

[davefoc]

The new BMW M3, while not a hybrid at all, uses Brake Energy Regeneration to charge the battery and provide power.

This intrigued me enough to look for some more information on it.

Based on what I read in the BMW literature, regenerative braking is used to charge the standard battery when possible instead of the alternator. It seems like a small improvement. I think the load from an alternator is pretty small even with its field coils energized so that it is producing power.

The point of this feature seems to be to allow the alternator to be disengaged entirely in most situations to maximize the net horsepower of the drive train.

[bruto]

As far as I can figure it, the primary advantage of a hybrid is the increased efficiency of regenerative breaking combined with the energy dense hydrocarbon fuel.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong, but doesn't the entire idea of a hybrid vehicle have suspect thermodynamics outside of regenerative breaking?

Aside from regenerative breaking (which is a fantastic idea and works very well), the whole idea of using the gasoline engine to run an electrical generator which runs an electric motor is suspect. I simply fail to see how converting the energy from one form to another via that set of steps is a better idea than simply running the gasoline motor to the drive train. Energy conversion always loses things in translation; why on earth would you do it that way?

A quicker and less sophisticated response than some, but....have you ever seen a diesel-electric locomotive? Ever wonder why they have a big monster diesel engine but use it to drive electric motors? Internal combustion and electric motors have different torque characteristics. The most efficient way to run an internal combustion engine is at a steady speed, corresponding to its most efficient range. But a car does not run at steady speed. It stops and goes. To run a car using this engine, one must change the speed constantly, using clutches and gears to keep it within its usable range. An electric motor, on the other hand, delivers full torque from a standstill without gearing or clutches. At least some of the efficiency lost in the conversion of power is gained back by being able to run the drive directly, and by being able to run the engine at its optimum steady speed.

Whether current hybrids do this well enough, and save enough energy and pollution to offset their high cost and exotic materials, is another issue, but the concept certainly has a long history in the non automotive world.

[davefoc]

Looks like BMW plans to put their regenerative braking technology into a new Mini slated to get 72 mpg.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/05/25/forget-the-prius-mini-cooper-d-to-get-724-mpg/

The car isn't a hybrid but it does have an auto stop capability. This seems like a really nice feature for cars used in cities. Reducing the noise and pollution coming from cars stopped at intersections seems like it could be a significant boost for quality of life in cities.

[robinson]

A very serious contender in new ICE technology is the Scuderi engine, an air hybrid.
scuderigroup.com


Thanks for the link and info. Very interesting.

[davefoc]

The Scuderi engine looked interesting but I couldn't find mention of the building of a single prototype.

I'd have found the thing a lot more credible if there was some information about some prototype engines. I understand that computer modeling is nice but a real prototype would hugely improve the marketability of the patents they are trying to sell and it's not clear why they wouldn't have done that by now. Maybe they have and I missed it where they described information about the prototype or maybe they have and they have chosen not to release information about a prototype.

[mhaze]

Looks like BMW plans to put their regenerative braking technology into a new Mini slated to get 72 mpg.

http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/05/25/forget-the-prius-mini-cooper-d-to-get-724-mpg/

The car isn't a hybrid but it does have an auto stop capability. This seems like a really nice feature for cars used in cities. Reducing the noise and pollution coming from cars stopped at intersections seems like it could be a significant boost for quality of life in cities.

Beats my mini that does about 27. Might buy one.

[robinson]

Stephen Scuderi Says:
May 17, 2007 at May 17, 2007 - 12:09 pm

The first prototype will be finished in early 2008. A series of reports from the independent test laboratory will be published starting in approximately July 2007 and continuing through and up to the measured data produced from the prototype. These reports will include full-load testing for the naturally asperated and turbo-charged Scuderi engines, part-load testing for the same, air-hybrid analysis and many others.

http://airhybridblog.com/2007/05/10/engine-expo-day-three/

[davefoc]

I wish them well.

Towards the end of engineering career, I worked for a company that was designing a product without any particular commercial value that I could foresee. With hindsight, I probably should have just left, but I stuck it out to the end and we produced some nice stuff that worked but as I had suspected it had no value.

We had the same kind of professional looking hype that these folks have. This experience contributes to my suspicion of hype in the absence of proof of substance. Of course that doesn't mean this is the same kind of situation and I genuinely hope it's not.

In this thread or a similar thread a story about a six cycle engine (as opposed to a four cycle) was linked to. The two extra cycles were used to recapture heat energy by injecting water into the cylinder. It seemed like an interesting idea to me. The contrast in styles between the two development groups is interesting. In the case of the six cycle engine the inventor and principal developer built a working prototype using off the shelf parts without the benefit of a slick marketing campaign.

Here, you've got a company with lots of slick looking hype but no working prototype. It will be interesting to see how all this works out.

I hope for most of us (the ones who don't own lots of stock in oil companies) that one of the various ideas that are swirling around for more efficient engines works out.

[Cuddles]

Thanks for the link and info. Very interesting.

Just for the record, that wasn't me.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2669472&postcount=44

[robinson]

You are correct. I don't know how that happened. I think it was a multiquote response, and while editing I munged it up. I apologize. It should have been:


A very serious contender in new ICE technology is the Scuderi engine, an air hybrid.
scuderigroup.com