How Can We Design a Compressed Air Car for 300 km Travel?

[gumpfer]

Let's compare two ways of compressing air. Typically it is squeezed mechanically into a smaller volume. Or there is pressure equalization, filling a volume from a higher pressure volume. (A third way to compress air is by directly heating it.) Any way you do it, for a given weight of air at a given set of conditions, to get a certain pressure there is the same amount of heat involved.

But heat and temperature aren't the same thing. Scuba tanks are filled by pressure equalization. Filling them too fast is not safe because a lot of heat develops quickly and there's no time for it to dissipate. Over-pressuring the tank is the result.

My design goal is to turn this phenomena to my advantage. The potential for a normal amount of air to develop more pressure than expected because of very fast delivery is easily explained.

In mechanical compression the compression and resulting heating takes place in the compressor, not the plumbing or tank. Air is delivered fairly slowly to the tank after substantial cooling has already taken place. In pressure equalization, the compression and same resulting heating all takes place in the tank.

Textbooks warn about keeping oil out of the plumbing. A few drops of oil in a closed pipe that is suddenly filled with high pressure air might explode and burst the pipe. This class of phenomena can be advantageous but oil is not needed.

Imagine a normal piston compressor feeding a tank that is pre-filled to 200 psig. This tank (not the compressor) is the source for compression by equalization of a smaller volume. For the sake of fast equalization the smaller volume to be filled from this source is placed inside the tank. This is the equalizer.

The intake pipe extends into the tank and is closed by a series of two check valves with a space between them. The intake pipe has to be large enough to accomadate the amount of atmosphere that will enter the equalizer at slightly above atmospheric pressure.

In the intake pipe between the two check valves is a large port that is open and shut by a fast acting valve that can be controlled by some convenient means.

When the equalizer is full of atmosphere the big valve on its side opens and if not for compression heat the resulting pressure would be about 199 psig in both tank and equalizer. But thermal equilibrium is not reached as quickly as pressure equalization. If the equalizer is well insulated there won't be time for the "no work" final result of free expansion. The rush of tank air into the equalizer compresses the air in the equalizer and the compression heat is trapped in the equalizer by the closure of the valve. If the valve were left open for a long time, thermal equilibrium would be reached and the resulting pressure in both tank and equalizer would be slightly less than 200 psi. But this is a way of overshooting equilibrium and the whole tank has contributed a little of its heat to the contents of the equalizer which blast into the tank en masse.

The sudden departure of the equalizer contents creates a momentary depression or relatively low pressure zone at the equalizer's intake check valve and the next charge of atmosphere enters under its own impetus with the help of the compressor which is only acting as a supercharger. Not resisting tank pressure.

The air compressor as we know it is an outdated machine. Simplistic thinking about compressed air has people assuming that pressure is just pressure, never mind the details. But the pressure in any container can change according to the motion of the air inside. Still air gives the maximum reading on the pressure gauge, that is static pressure. If the air moves in the tank, the pressure goes down till the air stops moving. There are any number of ways to get air into a tank. As the skeptics inform us, trying to design a more efficient air engine is a waste of time. A cheap way of compressing air is what is needed.

The equations for pressure equalization are simple but hard to find. They are implied in a few air brake manuals but spelled out in only a very few.

The condition of a given batch of air is constant as defined by the combined gas laws pv/t = Constant.

Full equalization of two conditions (waiting for thermal equalization too) results in the sum of the two original constants. pv/t of the compressing source + pv/t of the compressed destination = a new pv/t.

For the process I'm talking about we don't wait for thermal equalization so the sum of the two original pv/t conditions = the sum of the two new pv/t conditions.

Thanks for the forum.

Gumpfer

 

[redargon]

The equations for pressure equalization are simple but hard to find. They are implied in a few air brake manuals but spelled out in only a very few.

The condition of a given batch of air is constant as defined by the combined gas laws pv/t = Constant.

Sorry, I got a little bored and didn't read through your entire essay, but I thought you might like to have some more information about the combined gas law: It's combined, it's about a gas, but it only applies to ideal gases. Real gases can be taken into account by using a compressibility factor, otherwise your equations break down at high pressures and (low)temperatures

also, if you're getting your theory from air brake manuals, I'm a bit worried. Try wikipedia or your local library for a good text on thermodynamics, they're easy to find.

 

[gumpfer]

The equations for pressure equalization are not spelled out in any thermodynamics textbook I have seen, nor in any compressed air textbook I have seen. I was hoping to hear from people who are interested enough to read my post, if you're too bored to read my post before responding to it then perhaps you are trying to keep yourself awake by insulting an idea you have not thought about? No thanks, I am bored with skeptics who know all without investigating first.

 

[RonL]

The equations for pressure equalization are not spelled out in any thermodynamics textbook I have seen, nor in any compressed air textbook I have seen. I was hoping to hear from people who are interested enough to read my post, if you're too bored to read my post before responding to it then perhaps you are trying to keep yourself awake by insulting an idea you have not thought about? No thanks, I am bored with skeptics who know all without investigating first.

Well I did try to read your post, and like redargon, could not follow it all the way through, but I do think you are trying to describe this concept (or basically a jet ejector system) which I think has merit.



http://www.aircaraccess.com/images/magkvalv.jpg

Ron

 

[redargon]

The equations for pressure equalization are not spelled out in any thermodynamics textbook I have seen, nor in any compressed air textbook I have seen. I was hoping to hear from people who are interested enough to read my post, if you're too bored to read my post before responding to it then perhaps you are trying to keep yourself awake by insulting an idea you have not thought about? No thanks, I am bored with skeptics who know all without investigating first.

yes, but the fundamentals of pressure equalization has to do with thermodynamics: Boyles Law, Ideal gas law etc. I was just hoping you were open enough to accept some constructive criticism about how the combined law may (or may not) be applied and how this can be adjusted for by using compressibility factors. I'm not being skeptical, because I did not read through your whole post, but your approach to the combined gas law jumped out at me and I thought I'd offer some insight.

P.S. I tried reading through your post again and started getting confused (I'm apparently no the only one). Maybe you could add some sketches and also the equations of pressure equalization that you have so that we can discuss those as well and so that the idea is a bit more accessible to everyone.

 

[gumpfer]

Here's the sketch Ron linked to.

This is old stuff, based on patent no. 2030759 but complicates it. My idea is to simplify that idea by Bob Neal (1936, now in public domain) not complicate it.

The patent shows a tank with an intake pipe entering and dumping air into the tank through two check valves. That's all. No explanation of why it should work, but the inventor did show a working model in order to get the patent. This sketch adds hardware to make it maybe seem feasible. I don't know about the jet pump idea though, the compressor in the tank that supplies drive air might have to move a lot of air and I'm saying it can be done very simply.

The general idea of the "Neal tank" is to make a new kind of compressor that doesn't resist the pressure that's in the tank already but puts atmosphere into the tank "somehow" and let's the compression take place by equalization with what is already in the tank. The "somehow" is the question. The energy source is the internal energy or heat of the incoming atmosphere adding to the pool of energy already in the tank.

Info on air brakes is not to be sneezed at, it stops trains so it had better be right. But the reduction to math is not easy to find. I did find it though about 1.5 times. And it's easy math.

PV/T = constant. Roughly. I know air is not an ideal gas but all the books use this for all practical purposes. So if a fixed quantity of air (a certain weight, a fixed number of molecules) has a condition pv/t, then if you change its pressure, volume, and or temperature, the value of pv/t will remain constant. The subnotations used below refer to different conditions with each separate batch of air being a different condition. For example 1 is atmosphere of a certain pressure, volume and temperature. The subnotation 2 is compressed air of a certain pv/t, a different constant. The subnotation 3 is a new condition referring to the new condition of a new batch of air, the mixture of the first two. This assumes complete pressure equalization and thermal equalization.

But if you don't wait for equilibrium then the result is two new conditions. For example if you fill a scuba tank (condition 1) from a higher pressure tank (condition 2), then the result is a hot scuba tank and a slightly cooled source tank. Conditions 3 and 4. Complete equalization is if you have perfect insulation on both tanks, leave the valve open, and wait for thermal effects to spread out through the combined volume of both tanks till all is equal. That doesn't happen (except in Joule's experiment which proves the energy is conserved, there is no external work done), you take your warm tank with you, the scuba filling station doesn't have time to reclaim their lost heat.

So I'm talking about a simple math I learned from air brake manuals because no one else cares about pressure equalization except odd stuff like player pianos and pipe organs and ear doctors. Google it--I'm not exaggerating. Pressure equalization is an ignored aspect of science except for stopping jillions of tons of train. Thermal effects aren't important in that application because large events are being handled by equalizing relatively large volumes with other relatively large volumes through a small pressure differential. My application involves equalizing a relatively large high pressure volume with a relatively small low pressure volume. It is the difference in size and pressure between the two conditions that creates a drastic surge of heat between the two check valves in the tank. The equalizer is suddenly filled with tank air and if it doesn't get super hot than why do we have to fill scuba tanks slowly? Overshooting equilibrium is dangerous, so it has to be done inside the tank.

Here is the math.

Complete equalization (aka free expansion, unbalanced expansion, unresisted expansion, partially unresisted expansion; discovered by Joule and once called "Joule's Law"):

P₁V₁/T₁ + P₂V₂/T₂ = P₃V₃/T₃

Incomplete equalization (call it a surge-driven equalizer):

P₁V₁/T₁ + P₂V₂/T₂ = P₃V₃/T₃ + P₄V₄/T₄

To be perfectly honest, even the air brake manuals didn't have the last equation, since they ignore thermal effects until a pipe bursts, then I guess they have to clean oil out of their pipes so it won't keep happening. I think if the first equation is true then the second one is also correct. When you mix two pv/t conditions, you add them together to get the new condition.

This is derived mathematically from Boyle's Law, Charles Law, and the combined law, nothing mysterious. If you can ignore thermal effects then you just delete all the T's from the equations. My idea is to make the thermal effects do something with a forward surge past equilibrium and then not allow the disturbance to return. There is no time for full equalization; the heat causes all the air between the check valves to blast into the tank and a depression is left behind in the equalizer so that the compressor is only working against very little pressure instead of tank pressure.

Thanks again for any constructive criticism.

Gumpfer

 

[Peter T.]

Hi friends,

maybe following story has something to do with the issue:...A friend of mine had nearly a flat and hot tire at his car. He drove to a gasoline station and tried to fill it up. At 1,7 bar that tire exploded. The service man said, that this would happen sometimes. ..Ok... the tire was hot (100 C.?) The surrounding temperature 15 C. According to the rule of Gay-Lussac the tire should have a temp. of 500 C, to have a pressure of 5 bar...where normally tires can blow up.
Where is the trick? Is it the time you need to fill up tanks (tires)?

Peter T.

 

[mgb_phys]

A friend of mine had nearly a flat and hot tire at his car. He drove to a gasoline station and tried to fill it up. At 1,7 bar that tire exploded. The service man said, that this would happen sometimes. ..

Most likely he had damaged the tire by driving on it while it was flat and started a crack somewhere.

 

[boab]

This is a bit outdated reply to the thread, but I thought that kandelabr had a good idea with using air to drive his ideal car.
What I think was lost in the discussion was applying compressed air drive beyond its practical design limits, such as cost, range, size, etc. I've more than once thought of making "a small" vehicle using compressed air myself. It'd be unique, relatively simple to build, and fun to make something different. However...efficient it would not be. Nor would it have a very long range. A compressed air driven engine is nothing more than a steam engine in principle, without the heat in the boiler. Consequently it has to have the boiler filled by a compressor.
I was somewhat surprised at the negative comments though on some aspects of his idea...out of hand. There are air powered forklifts, and they were used extensively in coal mines at one time. Why, because they work in the environments where there was a chance of a spark causing an explosion, or in contaminating the working environment atmosphere. Those requirements made them practical to use.
If IC engines are so much more practical than compressed air, why are so many things like jack hammers compressed air powered. There's no practical reason a jack hammer couldn't be IC, and there are some, but on the whole, compressed air still rule in practicality for use in jack hammers and various hydraulic applications.
On the other hand, trying to replace an IC engine in a car, as wasteful and inefficient as it is, with a compressed air powered engine is not practical. Same applies to electric cars that use batteries, or fuel cells. "I LIKE" electric motors in cars. In certain aspects they have many advantages over IC engines. One of which is the efficiency of the motor which runs about 90%, verses say 23% for IC's. BUT, the batteries to power the motors are heavy, costly, have a low power density, and need replacement every 4 or 5 years. They also have to be charged from an outside source. Usually from just about as inefficient a charging source as the IC itself.
Fuel cells...they are lighter, extremely expensive, and require specially prepared fuels that must be absolutely clean of containment's. They also do not have rapid response, or high load capabilities.
And again, in the case of the hydrogen fuel cell, it requires the making of the hydrogen which does not occur in nature in large quantities in pure form. And again, the hydrogen making process is about as bad as running an IC engine in the first place. This is ignoring the fact that such a hydrogen economy will require a whole new development in infrastructure to supply it.
So in short...what have you "REALLY GAINED" when you drive your non polluting electric or fuel cell car? Actually, very little. The best electric car batteries have only about the energy storage of a gallon and a half of gasoline.
In many cases, it pays to look to the railroad and marine industries for efficient power systems. Someone in the thread mentioned diesel locomotives driving electric traction motors. More efficient than having it done by a mechanical drive train, and has been around since the 50's. Notice that hybrid cars are now powered by the same basic system. They use the best of both.
If you think about it, the horse was a pretty good way to travel. A bit slow, labor intensive, and a methane polluter, but it lasted for thousands of years before being outdone by the IC engine. There was a reason for that mode of transport lasted so long. It fit the need, and was practical at the time.
If you really want to get a clean mode of transportation, nothing beats the old fashion sail. It all depends on what you consider practical, and staying in the limits of that mode of power generations efficiency curve.

Boab

 

[kandelabr]

excuse me, boab, but i don't get what did you actually wanted to say.

anyway, I'm still developing my engine: there's only one problem left to be solved and then i can launch my autocad.

 

[boab]

If you don't get what I was trying to say, that is okay. I wish you luck on the project.

Boab

 

[kandelabr]

If you don't get what I was trying to say, that is okay. I wish you luck on the project.

Boab

thanks, i appreciate that.

 

[RonL]

This is a bit outdated reply to the thread, but I thought that kandelabr had a good idea with using air to drive his ideal car.
What I think was lost in the discussion was applying compressed air drive beyond its practical design limits, such as cost, range, size, etc. I've more than once thought of making "a small" vehicle using compressed air myself. It'd be unique, relatively simple to build, and fun to make something different. However...efficient it would not be. Nor would it have a very long range. A compressed air driven engine is nothing more than a steam engine in principle, without the heat in the boiler. Consequently it has to have the boiler filled by a compressor.
I was somewhat surprised at the negative comments though on some aspects of his idea...out of hand. There are air powered forklifts, and they were used extensively in coal mines at one time. Why, because they work in the environments where there was a chance of a spark causing an explosion, or in contaminating the working environment atmosphere. Those requirements made them practical to use.
If IC engines are so much more practical than compressed air, why are so many things like jack hammers compressed air powered. There's no practical reason a jack hammer couldn't be IC, and there are some, but on the whole, compressed air still rule in practicality for use in jack hammers and various hydraulic applications.
On the other hand, trying to replace an IC engine in a car, as wasteful and inefficient as it is, with a compressed air powered engine is not practical. Same applies to electric cars that use batteries, or fuel cells. "I LIKE" electric motors in cars. In certain aspects they have many advantages over IC engines. One of which is the efficiency of the motor which runs about 90%, verses say 23% for IC's. BUT, the batteries to power the motors are heavy, costly, have a low power density, and need replacement every 4 or 5 years. They also have to be charged from an outside source. Usually from just about as inefficient a charging source as the IC itself.
Fuel cells...they are lighter, extremely expensive, and require specially prepared fuels that must be absolutely clean of containment's. They also do not have rapid response, or high load capabilities.
And again, in the case of the hydrogen fuel cell, it requires the making of the hydrogen which does not occur in nature in large quantities in pure form. And again, the hydrogen making process is about as bad as running an IC engine in the first place. This is ignoring the fact that such a hydrogen economy will require a whole new development in infrastructure to supply it.
So in short...what have you "REALLY GAINED" when you drive your non polluting electric or fuel cell car? Actually, very little. The best electric car batteries have only about the energy storage of a gallon and a half of gasoline.
In many cases, it pays to look to the railroad and marine industries for efficient power systems. Someone in the thread mentioned diesel locomotives driving electric traction motors. More efficient than having it done by a mechanical drive train, and has been around since the 50's. Notice that hybrid cars are now powered by the same basic system. They use the best of both.
If you think about it, the horse was a pretty good way to travel. A bit slow, labor intensive, and a methane polluter, but it lasted for thousands of years before being outdone by the IC engine. There was a reason for that mode of transport lasted so long. It fit the need, and was practical at the time.
If you really want to get a clean mode of transportation, nothing beats the old fashion sail. It all depends on what you consider practical, and staying in the limits of that mode of power generations efficiency curve.

Boab

I think I have a clear understanding of what you are saying, however I think very high pressures in larger containment is not the best solution.

Kandelabr has made many comments that fall completely inline with most of my thoughts, and I want to commend him for withstanding the many negative and criticizing comments of some.

Your comment about a steam engine "A compressed air driven engine is nothing more than a steam engine in principle, without the heat in the boiler. Consequently it has to have the boiler filled by a compressor." leads me to ask a question.

Considering a propane system of proper design, will build to a pressure of close to 300 psi if it is in direct sunlight on a 100 degree day, with no work being performed, now will the gas vapor not drive a compressor for some duration, starting an air compression cycle ?? If several compressing and expanding units are working on the same power shaft and they are inside the propane tank, will they not deposit waste heat in the now cold liquid, thus continuing the cycle??

I believe kandelabr is alluding to this type of heat/work relationship and one key is that everything is working on one shaft, any movement at all results in compression and expansion taking place at the same time. Air brings heat in, it is transferred into motion and work transferred out keeps the system from overheating.

Ron

 

[chayced]

Ron,
Have you ever put your hand on an air compressor discharge line? It's hot because of heat of compression. This is not free energy, it's work done by the compressor that ends up as wasted heat. The same applies in reverse, as you expand a gas it absorbs heat from the environment, but this cannot be more heat that it gave up when it was compressed. If you are dealing with a liquid like propane, then you are adding a phase change in either direction, but the principle is the same.

You don't gain anything, from heating your tank that you didn't already lose when you compressed your air.

Sorry, but that's just how it works.

 

[russ_watters]

boab, as far as I can tell, all of those air powered devices you mentioned lack a tank and that's part of the reason that their usefulness is completely unrelated to whether a car could be air powered.

 

[RonL]

Ron,
Have you ever put your hand on an air compressor discharge line? It's hot because of heat of compression. This is not free energy, it's work done by the compressor that ends up as wasted heat. The same applies in reverse, as you expand a gas it absorbs heat from the environment, but this cannot be more heat that it gave up when it was compressed. If you are dealing with a liquid like propane, then you are adding a phase change in either direction, but the principle is the same.

You don't gain anything, from heating your tank that you didn't already lose when you compressed your air.

Sorry, but that's just how it works.

I really have to wonder what you are thinking when you read my comment ??
The compressor is inside the tank, immersed in the liquid and all heat of compression is absorbed, what happens when propane is heated ? it builds pressure.
You now have both high pressure air and high pressure propane. Can they both perform work? I hope you answer yes.

The rest of the design is all about, how much compression and how much expansion, and how the heat is exchanged within the two systems as they counter flow through the heat exchangers.
On the compression side heat flows into the propane, and on the expansion side heat moves out of the propane.

Is there any difference between heat liberated from compressed air and heat liberated from burned fuel?

The air and propane are isolated from each other, the air is an open system and the propane is a closed system. Work has to be performed in order to keep the propane from overheating. The work out is exactly equal to the difference of air temperature drawn in and the temperature of the air discharged.

Ron

 

[chayced]

The compressor is inside the tank, immersed in the liquid and all heat of compression is absorbed, what happens when propane is heated ? it builds pressure.

The higher the discharge temperature of the compressor the harder it has to work to pressurize the air. The cooler the discharge temperature the less it has to work, but this also reduces the amount of heat transferred to the propane. All you really have is a compressor which is also acting as a propane heater.

Can they both perform work? I hope you answer yes.

Sure, but you lose energy initially from the compressor. Nothing gained.

The rest of the design is all about, how much compression and how much expansion, and how the heat is exchanged within the two systems as they counter flow through the heat exchangers.

Even with counter-flow heat exchangers that are infinitely long with no resistance, the best you can ever achieve is for each fluid to reach the others initial temperature. (With the same heat capacity and flow-rate of each fluid.) Nothing to win here.

On the compression side heat flows into the propane, and on the expansion side heat moves out of the propane.
Ron

So what you are really saying is that the propane is only a heat transfer medium.

Is there any difference between heat liberated from compressed air and heat liberated from burned fuel?

Yes, you have to put the energy into the air with a compressor, you don't with the fuel.

The air and propane are isolated from each other, the air is an open system and the propane is a closed system. Work has to be performed in order to keep the propane from overheating.

What is performing this work? As you have described it, the air compressor has nothing driving it, it just exists. Now if the propane is driving the air compressor, then it is the energy stored in the tank of propane that drives the whole thing. So you recoup part of your losses by heating the propane tank. You don't win anything because the tank had to be cooled in the first place when it was compressed. Also when start taking propane out of the tank it cools off. So all you are doing is regaining some of the losses that occurred when the propane tank was compressed.

The work out is exactly equal to the difference of air temperature drawn in and the temperature of the air discharged.

No it's not. The propane tank does not magically refill itself. You are trading potential energy in the tank for a reverse brayton cycle on the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_cycle

You lose energy in the process one way or the other. All you have is a machine that uses compressed propane to cool off air. Not a very efficient AC.

 

[dr dodge]

I have to note a couple things here.
If you are using outside air to compress, it will have very high, and to a large extent unpredictable varying levels of water. it could be good, or bad, but it will be there.
so now we have all stainless steel components or monel for corrosion resistance. (big $$$)
500 bar (~7500 psi) is significant. The tank discussion aside, lines, control systems, valving all would need to be big, thick and heavy walled. lots of hard steel, very little flexable stuff.
Please remember the standard is usually safety factor of 3-5, that's 22000-36000 psi (1500-2500 bar)
given an ideal gas (and with the water content it's not) if the tank was 10 cu ft, there is basicly 5000 cu ft of gas crammed in there. If a tank ruptured, that gas volumn would expand out rapidly. anything less than a perforated cage covering every pressure member would be foolish, from a safety point.
this is pneumatics in a hydraulic pressure relm, and the variable displacement motors the OP described are already in use with hydraulic systems in heavy equipment.
I have sketched numerous variations of this kind of process on my own time, but, due to the size, weight, and safety concerns this system is better suited as a stationary energy storage unit. A simple car would weight as much as a dump truck.
think, slow compressor (one stroke/day) lowers the heating, multistage compressing (still at 1 stroke/day) and buried/walled in high pressure containers.
I can tell you one thing for sure, I work on a daily basis with pressures in that range (up to 15kpsi gas, 72kpsi hydraulic) and if you take it for granted, someone wil get hurt or die.
(once a device failed at 15k (due to stupidity) and the 2" stainless cap took a big chunk out of the blockhouse wall, and then went thru the wall sending 3/8 bolts flying like 30/30 bullets, NOT FUN!)

dr

 

[mgb_phys]

levels of water...so now we have all stainless steel components or monel for corrosion resistance.

Only for the compressor - the compressed air would be dry

The tank discussion aside, lines, control systems, valving all would need to be big, thick and heavy walled. lots of hard steel, very little flexable stuff.

The tanks in cars are carbon fibre, the lines to the motor and the motor operate at lower pressures.

If a tank ruptured, that gas volumn would expand out rapidly. anything less than a perforated cage covering every pressure member would be foolish, from a safety point.

The carbon tanks are designed to unravel safely rather than puncture.
The actual energy stored is relatively low and is easily distributed.

The same argument has been applied to electric cars, that they are unsafe because firefighters in an accident might be electrocuted cutting through a wire - presumably the ff love approaching a burning gas tank.
If you tried to introduce a gasoline powered car today with the same safety standards that you need to handle gasoline in the chemistry lab - it would also be impractical.

 

[dr dodge]

- propulsion
to use as much energy as possible, i'd need an air motor that would work on all pressures from 450 to 1 bar, .

that is not low pressure.

how would the compressed air be dry, if you are sucking it out of the atmosphere? upon cooling it would condense in the tank. to much and it would hydro-lock your motor. if you are drying the air, then add more efficiency roll-off.

it doesn't matter if the construction of the tank unravels or not (which I would have to see to believe), fittings, lines, brackets, and control systems and all things not firmly fastened would become projectiles

good ideas, wrong application (automobile)
and yes, fire fighters approach anything on fire, its their job
being a bit dramatic, perhaps?

dr

 

[mgb_phys]

how would the compressed air be dry, if you are sucking it out of the atmosphere?

Pretty much the same way it gets dry on any other industrial compressor. Traps and mol-sieve

fittings, lines, brackets, and control systems and all things not firmly fastened would become projectiles

After the regulator everything else is at lower pressure. The brake lines in cars at higher pressure but we don't ban brakes in case they become projectiles.

and yes, fire fighters approach anything on fire, its their job
being a bit dramatic, perhaps?

It was a statement by some politician (from an oil producing state?) that electric cars should be banned because firefighters might be electrocuted cutting into them.

It's amazing that a substance I wouldn't be allowed to have in an ugrad lab (explosive, volatile, known carcinogen etc) and in a research lab a small test tube of it would require me to file MSDS sheets, work in a explosion proof fume cabinet with lab coat, goggles and gloves - yet I can fill up 10gallons of the stuff at the supermarket and drive around with it inside my car.

 

[dr dodge]

there is no regulator if, as the op stated, the 450 bar would be the first stage of the engine, so he would have the torque required.
removing water thru conventional means will remove some of it, not all of it.
as it is removed, your efficiency decreases. any moisture is still going to promote corrosion
I don't think that electrics should be banned, but they should have proper labeling as such, a main disconnect on the outside, like a race car, and the public should be tought the dangers.

and as far as the gasoline statement, I could say the same about alcohol
I need an MSDS, a flammable closet, etc but can buy it drunk at the booze store
thats because corportate liabilities require us to over protect the morons of the works, or pay high insurance payments

dr

 

[xxChrisxx]

I don't think that electrics should be banned, but they should have proper labeling as such, a main disconnect on the outside, like a race car, and the public should be tought the dangers.

dr

I would LOVE to see that when you pull up to a red light.

*CLICK*
No electricity for you.

 

[RonL]

As with most things, lots of internal detail not easiley seen at first look, don't lose sight of what I said 300 psi max. and low side 0 psi (maybe lower) everything inside is in motion and full of stored potential energy which gives a flywheel effect to carry each cycle to completion, and then well tuned check valves that control high and low pressures.

The size of compression and expansion is not as important as speed of cycles.

In the interset of safety I tend to think of this as a smaller, constant power battery charger for electric cars.
In a fixed location, a cold air and electric power unit, much the same as heat pumps that already exist, (only the real difference is heat is used for work instead of being dumped as waste.)

RonL

After a little thought, everything in the design in of equal importance. It will be critical for everything to move through transitional states at an appropriate speed to allow heat transfer at the proper rates.

 

[dr dodge]

chris...you are evil
i like it...lol

dr

 

[kandelabr]

let me present you my ideas again, a bit updated this time.

first, i do not intend to use a pressure reducing valve as this represents a pure loss. my engine would work with pressures from 450 to ~20 bar; if i leave the last 20 bar out (the engine would still work at that pressure, just wouldn't have enough torque), i lose around 2-3% of energy for propulsion, but not for the next compression.
with every pressure between these it should develop a variable torque of 5 to 30 Nm. the amount of torque produced would be simply controlled by a valve and a servo-motor. since 30 Nm is not enough, one pair of gears (say ratio 4.5:1 or 5:1) will have two good effects: increase torque on wheels (135-150 Nm is enough and is there from the very 0 RPM) and reduce leakage of air while accelerating due to higher speed of the engine (less time for leaking). note that i really don't want a gearbox nor a clutch (and so far don't need any of these). besides that, the very core (the turbines) are no larger than 20 cm in diameter and 30 in length, which leaves a lot of space for air tanks. due to this small size the forces exerted by the pressure are kept low and also the problems with rotary vane devices (like friction due to centrifugal forces, bending stress on vanes, etc.). i only have one problem left to solve, see below. if you're interested in details, i can post some more.

yes, the pressure is huge, but valves and pipes should not be the problem. a pressure washer's hose is not a very huge thing, but easily handles 150 bar. moreover, there is enough space for hoses and valves and flow rates are quite low so there's no need for some bizzarre cross-sections.

we already discussed the tanks. so far i trust the standards. amen.

the problem i mentioned is the humidity. i only know stuff about humid air at an atmospheric pressure. see this topic: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=364602"
the first attempt at a solution was to exclude the water from the air during the expansion:

• a hot and humid air starts to expand
• it expands to a temperature just above freezing; water condenses
• since water isn't a problem for a vane turbine (ice is), it's simply removed from the process and ends up on the road
• dried air heats up and goes to the next stage

in this case only the first one or two stages would be critical - pressure ratio should not exceed, say 2. all i'd have to do is watch not to expand too much at once. oh yes, and there's some heat transferred from the condensing water, which makes the expansion more isothermal, thus doing more work.

but as i see, moisture can be removed during compression. i would like to know more about this, so if you have any links, please, post them here. but i wouldn't want to waste extra energy during compression because of humidity. drying can be done for free.

please keep in mind I'm not working on a compressor right now. compressors already exist, cars don't. when i finish the car, i'll come back with new ideas for a compressor (during a class i sketched a compressor with no clearance volume)... later.

merry christmas y'all.

 

[mgb_phys]

A couple of points.
A pressure reducing valve doesn't waste anything, and ou are proposing having a valve on the engine to control speed anyway - it's much easier to run at more constant speed and pressure reduce the tank.
The safety factor of a pressure washer hose is low because water doesn't exapan much - the energy stored (an hence the anger) of a substance under pressure depends on how much strain is involved.
Turbines probably aren't the best solution. Most air car designs use piston engines - they are much easier to build and give all the torque you need without a complex gearbox.
The only seals are the piston rings which currently work very well even in the presence of exploding fuel - sealing pistons against 150psi air is pretty trivial.

I don't even want to go into the thermodynamics of how you are somehow heating the air by exapanding it - but basically air cars are going to work in hot dry climates a lot better than cold wet ones.

 

[kandelabr]

A couple of points.
A pressure reducing valve doesn't waste anything, ...

are you sure? consider this equation for isothermal expansion:

W = m R T ln(p₁/p₂)

say p₂ is constant (atmospheric pressure). mass m is defined by car's tanks. higher initial pressure means more work.

or the other way: according to this equation, which represents lost work (losses of exergy)

W_lost = T_surr Δs,

a change in entropy is directly proportional to lost energy and you can be sure throttling is irreversible and so entropy increases.

Turbines probably aren't the best solution. Most air car designs use piston engines - they are much easier to build and give all the torque you need without a complex gearbox.
The only seals are the piston rings which currently work very well even in the presence of exploding fuel - sealing pistons against 150psi air is pretty trivial.

please note that i wrote turbines in italics, because my engine is not a turbine - it's a set of customised rotary vane pumps in reverse direction - http://journal.fluid-power.net/journal/issue10/fig2.jpg" .

why NOT piston engines?
simply because of losses. if i wanted to have variable torque, i'd have to reduce pressure. see above.

I don't even want to go into the thermodynamics of how you are somehow heating the air by exapanding it - but basically air cars are going to work in hot dry climates a lot better than cold wet ones.

i don't know what do you mean by "heating the air by expanding it". if air expands adiabatically, it cools down. relative humidity increases with lower temperatures and when it reaches the dew point, water starts to saturate.

there are pros and cons in both hot and cold climates:
hot:
+ more heat available from the environment
+ possible collection of heat from the sun
- greater humidity
- smaller density of air in tanks

cold:
+ greater density of air in tanks
+ more heat could be added from the heat reservior in a car - more energy from the same mass of air
+ smaller humidity
- no heat from the environment
- freezing of water

which one is better? it looks like it's quite a complex problem, but i don't feel like it's very important right now - it'll definitely work in both.

should i better close this thread? i think you guys don't follow it anymore. these posts are starting to get random. some are repetitive, the others are wrong. this is the other one.

 

[dr dodge]

the whole compression/release for work process is very tied to the temp of the air. So, what would be the best efficiencies would be to cool the ambient air as much as possible. this increases density, helps remove water, and then gives you the most "gas per stroke" as possible. If the heat induced in the compression is allowed to abate, then that cool pressurized gas is used to fill the 2nd stage pump, very high density/pressure could be stored. always at Earth temp. because that is the easiest temp to maintain with no energy. heat then could be added at the time that work is being done, but even if it was not, because the density of charge was high at compression efficiencies should still be higher that would normally be

dr

 

[mheslep]

Fun air moped conversion episode on National Geographics Planet Mechanics series recently.
http://natgeotv.com/uk/planet-mechanics/videos/new-vehicle-delivery
http://natgeotv.com/uk/planet-mechanics/videos/air-propelled-sandwich
http://natgeotv.com/uk/planet-mechanics/videos/heart-of-the-problem
http://natgeotv.com/uk/planet-mechanics/videos/air-tanks
http://natgeotv.com/uk/planet-mechanics/videos/air-motors
300 Bar vehicle. They build the bike on the show. The younger guy Stansfield has an aero degree.

 

[RonL]

The higher the discharge temperature of the compressor the harder it has to work to pressurize the air. The cooler the discharge temperature the less it has to work, but this also reduces the amount of heat transferred to the propane. All you really have is a compressor which is also acting as a propane heater.

"...The higher the compression ratio, the more heat that is moved into the propane"




Sure, but you lose energy initially from the compressor. Nothing gained.

"...The energy is not lost, it increases pressure in the propane"


Even with counter-flow heat exchangers that are infinitely long with no resistance, the best you can ever achieve is for each fluid to reach the others initial temperature. (With the same heat capacity and flow-rate of each fluid.) Nothing to win here.

"...Do not lose sight of the fact that all actions are happening on a single shaft, if the propane gas has a set point of 300 psig, this pressure starts driving the main motor which in turn starts the compression of air, flywheel rotation, generator motion, all secondary expansion and recompression."


So what you are really saying is that the propane is only a heat transfer medium.

"...This is correct "



Yes, you have to put the energy into the air with a compressor, you don't with the fuel.

"...If air is brought in at 100 F and compressed 10:1, the air pressure builds as the pressure of the propane decreases and the liquid gets colder. The compressed air is now able to do work on the same shaft which is already in motion, The air can be expanded to a very cold state." ...(The energy is in the air) "energy can be stored". If each cubic foot of air is dropped in temperature by 150 degrees, what amount of energy is being removed??


What is performing this work? As you have described it, the air compressor has nothing driving it, it just exists. Now if the propane is driving the air compressor, then it is the energy stored in the tank of propane that drives the whole thing. So you recoup part of your losses by heating the propane tank. You don't win anything because the tank had to be cooled in the first place when it was compressed. Also when start taking propane out of the tank it cools off. So all you are doing is regaining some of the losses that occurred when the propane tank was compressed.

"...A number of ways to get started, if you have time the heat is absorbed from the atmosphere or the sun, you can also heat a resistance element with a battery, or you could hand crank the air compressor to some start point.
As for the propane it starts an expansion process as soon as it begins to turn it's motor(s) and put motion into the power shaft..."



No it's not. The propane tank does not magically refill itself. You are trading potential energy in the tank for a reverse brayton cycle on the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brayton_cycle

"...Your right, it won't refill itself magically, it is based on the law that says heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold, now if you do not have time to waite, you can rely on the motion of your system driving the generator or you might draw off of a battery.
No matter how you do it, speed of transfer will depend on the span of high and low temperature..."

You lose energy in the process one way or the other. All you have is a machine that uses compressed propane to cool off air. Not a very efficient AC.

"...I think you have missed the whole concept, the propane is the power of the system and the temperature of air in and air exhausted is the sum of energy that must be discharged in some form of work.
The mass energy being cycled inside, might be a 1,000 times greater than what flows in and out with the air flow..."

P.S. I still can't figure out this multi quote thing.

RonL

 

[chayced]

"...I think you have missed the whole concept, the propane is the power of the system and the temperature of air in and air exhausted is the sum of energy that must be discharged in some form of work.
The mass energy being cycled inside, might be a 1,000 times greater than what flows in and out with the air flow..."

P.S. I still can't figure out this multi quote thing.

RonL

You still have to compress the propane in the first place. All you are doing by heating the propane tank as you expand the propane is regaining a small amount of the energy initially wasted when compressing the propane.

 

[RonL]

You still have to compress the propane in the first place. All you are doing by heating the propane tank as you expand the propane is regaining a small amount of the energy initially wasted when compressing the propane.

chayced, I'm thankful for your comments and questions and will try to get to a point of understanding or clearification, between our thoughts.
I feel that the diccussion needs to move to another place, as I made comments in this thread because of kandelabr making a statement of components working on a single power shaft. I thought our thoughts were more in line with each other.
In the absense of any comment or question from him and the statement that the thread has moved too far from his OP, gives me the impression I have crossed a line.

Thanks
Ron