Air-powered cars..... attn PV if he's still around.

"John" > wrote in message news:b7->
> If you are foolish enough to think compressed air will have enough energy
> to power a car for any distance, you should at least look into steam
> powered cars using a steam/water high pressure tank like they used in yard
> locomotives. They would be charged off the boiler on the facility and
> usually lasted for at least a half a day.
>
> John

This presupposes, I guess, that you are going to charge your vehicle with
air or steam at some point and try to make it to the next filling point
using
that charge only. I can't see that this would be a viable system

On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:18:07 -0600, "hls" >
wrote:
<snip>
>In most of these systems, some of the problems can be solved, and others
>optimized. We need some nutter PhD to make a theoretical efficiency
>analysis of these systems, and then pick one and jump on board.
>
>We are just bumblefarting around.
============
In the US this may well be the case, however Europe is not
standing still. The MPG numbers in the following articles
are miles per *IMPERIAL* gallon and must be converted to US
MPG. See http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html
and/or
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fu...ter-d_850.html

FWIW
317 MPG Imperial = 317 * 0.833 = 264 MPG US
85.6 MPG Imp = 71.3 MPG US
80.7 MPG Imp = 67.2 MPG US


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...L1-review.html
<snip>
That’s VW’s 21st-century streamliner, the XL1, honed not for
speed but to achieve an astonishing 313mpg.
<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...13mpg-car.html

and these production cars are available at dealers showrooms
in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...s-on-sale.html

The reason these cars are not available in the US is a
separate thread.


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 06/02/2011 19:18, F. George McDuffee wrote:


> and these production cars are available at dealers showrooms
> in the UK.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...s-on-sale.html
>
> The reason these cars are not available in the US is a
> separate thread.


Notice they are all bar the hybrid, Diesels.

Even 10 years or more ago the Citroen ZX Turbo Diesel (1.9litre/100bhp
ish) I ran would return 55mpg (Imperial Gallon) just about no matter how
it was driven.

I did like that car, and next family car we have will certainly be a
diesel again. Especially now petrol here is 1.30+ gbp/litre.

Wayne....

"F. George McDuffee" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:18:07 -0600, "hls" >
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>In most of these systems, some of the problems can be solved, and others
>>optimized. We need some nutter PhD to make a theoretical efficiency
>>analysis of these systems, and then pick one and jump on board.
>>
>>We are just bumblefarting around.
> ============
> In the US this may well be the case, however Europe is not
> standing still. The MPG numbers in the following articles
> are miles per *IMPERIAL* gallon and must be converted to US
> MPG. See http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html
> and/or
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fu...ter-d_850.html
>
> FWIW
> 317 MPG Imperial = 317 * 0.833 = 264 MPG US
> 85.6 MPG Imp = 71.3 MPG US
> 80.7 MPG Imp = 67.2 MPG US
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...L1-review.html
> <snip>
> That's VW's 21st-century streamliner, the XL1, honed not for
> speed but to achieve an astonishing 313mpg.
> <snip>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...13mpg-car.html
>
> and these production cars are available at dealers showrooms
> in the UK.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...s-on-sale.html
>
> The reason these cars are not available in the US is a
> separate thread.

Those are impressive numbers. I moved to the US from Europe just
10 years ago. At that time, the smaller diesels were getting great
economy. These seem to be even better.

The politic here seems to be, again, to bumblefart around, make big
talk, do little.

Diesel would solve some of our problems of petroleum dependency
since synthetic diesel is no trouble to make. But you have noticed the
reluctance of the American system, blamed on the EPA I guess,
to embrace more diesel vehicles.

hls wrote:
>
> "F. George McDuffee" > wrote in
> message ...
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 16:18:07 -0600, "hls" >
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> In most of these systems, some of the problems can be solved, and
>>> others
>>> optimized. We need some nutter PhD to make a theoretical efficiency
>>> analysis of these systems, and then pick one and jump on board.
>>>
>>> We are just bumblefarting around.
>> ============
>> In the US this may well be the case, however Europe is not
>> standing still. The MPG numbers in the following articles
>> are miles per *IMPERIAL* gallon and must be converted to US
>> MPG. See http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html
>> and/or
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fu...ter-d_850.html
>>
>> FWIW
>> 317 MPG Imperial = 317 * 0.833 = 264 MPG US
>> 85.6 MPG Imp = 71.3 MPG US
>> 80.7 MPG Imp = 67.2 MPG US
>>
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...L1-review.html
>>
>> <snip>
>> That's VW's 21st-century streamliner, the XL1, honed not for
>> speed but to achieve an astonishing 313mpg.
>> <snip>
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...13mpg-car.html
>>
>>
>> and these production cars are available at dealers showrooms
>> in the UK.
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...s-on-sale.html
>>
>>
>> The reason these cars are not available in the US is a
>> separate thread.
>
> Those are impressive numbers. I moved to the US from Europe just
> 10 years ago. At that time, the smaller diesels were getting great
> economy. These seem to be even better.
>
> The politic here seems to be, again, to bumblefart around, make big
> talk, do little.
>
> Diesel would solve some of our problems of petroleum dependency
> since synthetic diesel is no trouble to make. But you have noticed the
> reluctance of the American system, blamed on the EPA I guess,
> to embrace more diesel vehicles.
>
>
A mate of mine works in engine development and has said that the latest
small Diesel engines are far more efficient the those that came before,
so much development having been done in recent decades on what had
before been a relatively undeveloped power plant compared to the effort
that went into improving petrol engines. Having said that he also
mentioned that there is renewed interest in improving petrol engines as
they are far easier to make meet the latest round of emissions
regulations, Diesels are becoming increasingly more expensive to make
meet the new regulations especially the cost of the exhaust treatments.

"David Billington" > wrote in message
news:4d504db1$0$2537

> A mate of mine works in engine development and has said that the latest
> small Diesel engines are far more efficient the those that came before, so
> much development having been done in recent decades on what had before
> been a relatively undeveloped power plant compared to the effort that
> went into improving petrol engines. Having said that he also mentioned
> that there is renewed interest in improving petrol engines as they are far
> easier to make meet the latest round of emissions regulations, Diesels are
> becoming increasingly more expensive to make meet the new regulations
> especially the cost of the exhaust treatments.

The more powerful diesels for automobile use, like the hot Mercedes system,
are apparently very hard to make meet US pollution standards. The last
time I paid any attention to this car, it was necessary to inject liquid
urea
to make them pass. This would be a bit of an annoyance, I would think.

hls wrote:
>
> "David Billington" > wrote in message
> news:4d504db1$0$2537
>
> > A mate of mine works in engine development and has said that the latest
> > small Diesel engines are far more efficient the those that came before, so
> > much development having been done in recent decades on what had before
> > been a relatively undeveloped power plant compared to the effort that
> > went into improving petrol engines. Having said that he also mentioned
> > that there is renewed interest in improving petrol engines as they are far
> > easier to make meet the latest round of emissions regulations, Diesels are
> > becoming increasingly more expensive to make meet the new regulations
> > especially the cost of the exhaust treatments.
>
> The more powerful diesels for automobile use, like the hot Mercedes system,
> are apparently very hard to make meet US pollution standards. The last
> time I paid any attention to this car, it was necessary to inject liquid
> urea
> to make them pass. This would be a bit of an annoyance, I would think.

Urea injection is what Mercedes and other Diesel engines use to meet
European, Japan, Australia etc pollution standards. And they have been
doing it for some time. I think it is just this last year that US NOX
emission standards for diesels have caught up with the rest of the
world.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:54:58 -0600, the renowned jim
> wrote:

>hls wrote:
>>
>> "David Billington" > wrote in message
>> news:4d504db1$0$2537
>>
>> > A mate of mine works in engine development and has said that the latest
>> > small Diesel engines are far more efficient the those that came before, so
>> > much development having been done in recent decades on what had before
>> > been a relatively undeveloped power plant compared to the effort that
>> > went into improving petrol engines. Having said that he also mentioned
>> > that there is renewed interest in improving petrol engines as they are far
>> > easier to make meet the latest round of emissions regulations, Diesels are
>> > becoming increasingly more expensive to make meet the new regulations
>> > especially the cost of the exhaust treatments.
>>
>> The more powerful diesels for automobile use, like the hot Mercedes system,
>> are apparently very hard to make meet US pollution standards. The last
>> time I paid any attention to this car, it was necessary to inject liquid
>> urea
>> to make them pass. This would be a bit of an annoyance, I would think.
>
>Urea injection is what Mercedes and other Diesel engines use to meet
>European, Japan, Australia etc pollution standards. And they have been
>doing it for some time. I think it is just this last year that US NOX
>emission standards for diesels have caught up with the rest of the
>world.

Urea injection is in the new GMC diesel pickups.. Sierra 3500HD


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

hls wrote:
>
> "David Billington" > wrote in message
> news:4d504db1$0$2537
>
>> A mate of mine works in engine development and has said that the
>> latest small Diesel engines are far more efficient the those that came
>> before, so much development having been done in recent decades on what
>> had before been a relatively undeveloped power plant compared to the
>> effort that went into improving petrol engines. Having said that he
>> also mentioned that there is renewed interest in improving petrol
>> engines as they are far easier to make meet the latest round of
>> emissions regulations, Diesels are becoming increasingly more
>> expensive to make meet the new regulations especially the cost of the
>> exhaust treatments.
>
> The more powerful diesels for automobile use, like the hot Mercedes system,
> are apparently very hard to make meet US pollution standards. The last
> time I paid any attention to this car, it was necessary to inject liquid
> urea
> to make them pass. This would be a bit of an annoyance, I would think.
>
>


The diesels don't meet the particle emmisions requirment . The Urea
nonsense is another costly but useless thing required by the EPA. The
usual thing is to put water in the tank and in cold weather put water
with alcohol.

John

> wrote in message
...
> http://zeropollutionmotors.us
>
> Or on the web,
> The Air Car
> cuhulin

That particular link is no good, Cuhulin. Their account has been
closed.