The car of the future: compressed air

[Obamot]

If it can reassure you bernardd, none of my posts have been deleted (I checked). The problem is that there are at least three sons talking about the same subject.
For the rest, guys, everyone "seems" to stick with these positions. It is your right, just as - if that is the case - it would be a perfectly legitimate right for someone who has worked or who knows through his contacts a techno to defend it, especially if he is of the technical level required to do so. I don't see why we should therefore hide or make believe that someone is hiding ... There is no shame in that.

What interests the reader, it is not so much this kind of quarrels which ends up getting drunk, but the technical debate around the compression / relaxation cycle and the calculations (if not the tests when they exist) which allow prove the claims.

From this point of view, although having done everything not to take a position, it is clear that there are two points which deserve a weighting in enthusiasm:
- the real margin of progress which will not be able to explode the laws of physics (whatever the mode of propulsion).
- the quality / price ratio of the techno used and its real feasibility.
- the fact that both air propulsion and any other mode have their limits and that it would be better not to be more royalist than the king with real performance, because I am convinced that the user of a vehicle, must absolutely be informed by buying it of its intrinsic limits.

My marketing teacher had this formula: "the best marketing campaign in the world for the worst product would make this product disappear all the faster from the market"

We could add: still it should be put on sale there will always be time to notify when the time comes. And there the user feedback will be essential ...

If they are confident there is absolutely nothing to worry about!

[Alain G]

Obamot

When we pretend things, we must be able to support them otherwise we get away.

Our fooling friend is part of the consortium paid to promote pout pout and destroy the arguments of the opponents.


Bad news for him, he can't fool everyone!


Sure that his meeting yesterday with his promotion team on the web, did not give much to contradict me.


The poutpout (Air Pod) is a scam and everyone needs to know to avoid getting caught.


As my words can in no way harm Christophe's site since by registering I am responsible for my comments here and not him, I would not miss any opportunity to tell the truth about compressed air!


bairnard would have done better not to push too much on the compressed air and probably that the comments would have been mixed instead of the conclusion that the AIRCRAFT CAR is a SCAM.

Good night!

[Obamot]

... don't get upset for so little huh we understood your message 5/5!

If that were the case, it is a waste of time, since on the forum "off", the performances contradict those of the technical sheet!

So there is no longer the problem

For the rest, I would like to believe in arguments that I am able to understand with my "technical background" which is not cutting edge in this area. I just see that there are major oppositions on both sides, which - thank you - urges caution!

Then your goal is reached! We will see the rest .. (or not ..)

It is clear that if I were an investor, I would not put a penny of € uro without having made a test race: for example 200 km ... with a non-hybrid ... and recharging made with measure by electric meter to correctly estimate consumption.

[bernardd]

If it can reassure you bernardd, none of my posts have been deleted (I checked). The problem is that there are at least three sons talking about the same subject.

No need to be reassured :-) Everything is fine for me. I just find out who I'm dealing with.

There was a problem Friday on the site, posts of the night arrived to me after I made answers.

But I had made an answer when I studied a precise point, dedeleco took again a point from my answer, on the Marshall plan, which shows that it was visible, but it is currently no longer visible: where has it passed?

For the rest, guys, everyone "seems" to stick with these positions.

When all the models of physics show that there is a domain of functioning, I stick to it.

For the rest, I hate whining and gossip. I'm not used to people thinking in my place and being told what to think.

What interests the reader, it is not so much this kind of quarrels which ends up getting drunk, but the technical debate around the compression / relaxation cycle and the calculations (if not the tests when they exist) which allow prove the claims.

This summer I made a whole subject starting from the basics and presenting the global vision of the pressure and decompression processes, summarized here:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post174664.html#174664

For the moment, no theoretical error has been found, and chatelot16 now falls on the same values, even if he is not used to the expression "energy efficiency" ;-)

But I would almost have to take it up for a summary, given the number of diversions introduced.

From this point of view, although having done everything not to take a position, it is clear that there are two points which deserve a weighting in enthusiasm:
- the real margin of progress which will not be able to explode the laws of physics (whatever the mode of propulsion).
- the quality / price ratio of the techno used and its real feasibility.
- the fact that both air propulsion and any other mode have their limits and that it would be better not to be more royalist than the king with real performance, because I am convinced that the user of a vehicle, must absolutely be informed by buying it of its intrinsic limits.

Totally agree, that's why you have to start from theory to know the limits.

My marketing teacher had this formula: "the best marketing campaign in the world for the worst product would make this product disappear all the faster from the market"
We could add: still it should be put on sale there will always be time to notify when the time comes. And there the user feedback will be essential ...

Also agree. And learning marketing and industrial production for a small company of technical enthusiasts is difficult, I know from experience.

Seeing people who act in an intelligent direction being insulted and defamed cannot leave me in the dark.

[Alain G]

MD ... and their car remains a scam no matter the comments!


The first prototypes made more sense, the AirPod is a scam!

They are right to push this model knowing that it does not stand up! Surely a good reason to postpone the release of a more realistic prototype and further delay the production date to further fool some investors!


Nothing stands in the way of this project except the scam!

[bernardd]

I just found the post that I couldn't find anymore: you were right Obamot :-) It was on a different thread, but I hadn't paid attention that I had changed and the engine couldn't find it.

As in this thread, a famous report known to be false was cited:

Here are some real figures:

Missed ! These figures have been identified as false since the end of 2009. What if you checked the calculations before propagating errors?

And besides, these errors have already been discussed on this forum there is little, it seems to me?

Berkeley University Mistakes - December 07, 2009


But since you talk about it, there is a funny thing with this document:

We thank Emilie C Mathieu and four anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. The work was supported by the European Recovery Program and by a grant from Vulcan, Inc. We thank Jim Boyden for discussions and assistance.

What is this "European Recovery Program"? Europe crashed without us being warned?

The answer is there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

The marshall plan is still active! Tool of political struggle and having served to overwhelm the French industry with American products: what a reference!

What is Vulcan inc? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Inc.

It is Paul Allen, ie the political arm of micromou.

And the only brand presented in comparison with MDI is daimler-benz.

Highly independent, all of that, right?

Why are the economic arm of the USA and micromou so interested in publishing false figures with the "berkeley" brand, for a technology that they think has no chance anyway?

Bizarre ...

[Obamot]

Yes, but the idea is still to be pragmatic. And that is a concept that should benefit everyone.
If it turns out that a techno is useful but its field of application is poorly chosen: you might as well be imaginative and find one that would work perfectly (I'm not saying that for someone in particular, eh ...).
Let's be realistic, with comparable engines, air propulsion does not have the compression ratio of a diesel! So be careful ... since there are some who have already prepared tar and feathers (and I would not be the first to change color )

Alain G: did I say what I thought of MD? Apart from the fact that it should not be "easy" every day to work at home ... That it is a team that tries to promote "inventions" by making their place. I don't care about the rest, they are old enough to take responsibility. Basically, I still have doubts about the reliability of the approach, given all the points that have been raised. I hope for them that they are just not too "optimistic", compared to what they are able to achieve ...

If they got confused (or worse if there is a will to despoil): I wish them to pull themselves together and react quickly before going further (especially if they are not sure of their product / s like that) possibly seems to be the case with KLM / Air France, where they delivered prototypes instead of finished products ...). Finally, if they are afraid of not delivering a turnkey product for reasons of confidentiality. I do not understand their fears as long as they say that they are in a pre-industrial phase and that they have all the patents ...

Moreover, since their vehicle is already developed. That they already have a concept of a hybrid vehicle, why not clearly make an electric vhc. It would be very beneficial with a "featherweight" body chassis. To get out of the supposed rut, they would just have to add batteries and electric traction, just to see ...
And keep the "compressed air" application where it develops its best potential. You just have to want it!

So obviously the warnings that you give on the basis of information collected and by appealing to your intuition and your knowledge is all correct, especially if we are based on the fact that "clouding is dangerous ground" .

So here, everyone now knows where it is! Let's be Zen!

Ooooooooommmmmmh!

[bernardd]

Yes, but the idea is still to be pragmatic. And that is a concept that should benefit everyone.

To discover in a document with gross errors, that the Marshall plan still exists in 2010, and that it finances this type of study, in common with micromou, it is a fact. And a surprising fact.

Regarding the usefulness of compressed air as a renewable energy medium, it is also a fact.

In static application, for electricity storage, initiatives have been numerous for years, but confined to the somewhat closed world of "electric utilities". Examples of actors:

http://www.espcinc.com/

http://www.generalcompression.com/gcaes.html

http://www.pbenergy.com/caes.htm

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/

http://www.sustainx.com/isothermal_cycling.html

http://www.enairys.com/

Compressed air storage is as efficient and cheaper than pumping up water in dams, which caps at 70-75% efficiency. For example :
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blo ... er-storage

With pumped-hydro storage there are some losses from the pumping (and from evaporation of water from the upper reservoir), but a remarkable 70-85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water uphill is typically recovered when the water flows back down .

Enairys speaks of 70% efficiency for small storage, with a power of the order of 10kW.

SustainX displays results between 80% and 90% for industrial storage.
http://www.sustainx.com/isothermal_cycling.html

There is a company that uses hydraulic pumping / turbining by replacing compressed air with a mobile concrete mass lifted by pressurized water:
http://www.launchpnt.com/portfolio/grid ... orage.html

In mobile application, there is only MDI I know in development currently published, but the publication by GM, Honda and Volvo of their air car design projects, with even the victory of the GM project compared to battery projects, this sends an important signal.

It is clear that a compressed air cycle works: static applications show that the achievable performance on a renewable cycle are very good, between 70% and 85%.

A heat engine has been running for years, and it is first a double compression engine (volume then chemical and thermal) and then decompression.

A renewable cycle of compressed air for a vehicle is simply a "cutting" of the heat engine, by moving the compression to an onshore, static site, and keeping only the decompression and storage part on board.

The fact that it works is obvious.

The question today only concerns the financing of industrialization and the level of efficiency, including economic efficiency, achieved with "mass" technology, bearing in mind that the theoretical limit demonstrated by static applications is very high.

Let's be realistic, with comparable engines, air propulsion does not have the compression ratio of a diesel! So be careful ...

What do you think the pressure in a diesel engine is? Before combustion and after combustion?

All piston engines are proof that the use of compressed gas is simple and efficient.

By separating the compression and decompression phases known on a heat engine, and keeping only the decompression phase in the on-board engine, we just make disappear the efficiency limit of the heat engines, which is less than 50% by the losses of heat, and about 10 to 15% in a real car in urban use: not hard to do better with compressed air.

[Obamot]

Double message published in error, see the update below

[Obamot]

In mobile application, there is only MDI I know in development currently published

I do not see what is the validity of what they published? It is not as if they are a "scientific body". It seems to me that we are very far from it. Whenever we get feedback (Les Mines in France, EPFL in Switzerland) the same thing is said: caution with performance or big optimism ... And don't tell me that they are "sold" ", It would go very badly. Because if so, they would not have co-developed "Solar impulse", the solar plane ...

So no. Although I understand what you mean and where you are coming from: and from this point of view, we cannot prove you wrong. It's clear.

But when I say pragmatic, I was not talking about some sort "Eco-footprint" real performance, but pure performance: those that are needed somewhere to "to be safe" on the road (in the current configuration of road traffic "in everyday life".

Because for the rest, we agree that the thermal engine is next to the plate, that was not my purpose.

Other than that, I don't think I linked my words with the "Marshall plan"

Compressed air storage is as efficient and cheaper than pumping up water in dams, which caps at 70-75% efficiency. for example

Here too you are right, except that you have to take into account that the electricity spent to do this is at night, when consumption is very low (at least in Switzerland, where you heat up at night with fuel oil and not with electricity as in France ... with what catastrophic yield by convection elsewhere ...).

Then we can argue that the current directions are bad ... But as long as the directions have not changed yet, we are stuck.

So yes, I would agree that we should change the paradigm ...!