Slashdot Mirror
The Air Car Nears Completion
torok writes "According to an article on Gizmag, Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, has developed a car that runs on compressed air. It costs less than $3 USD to fill a tank on which it can run for 200 to 300km. The car will cost about USD $7,300 and has a top speed of 68mph. About once every 50,000 km you have to change the oil (1 liter of vegetable oil). Initial plans are to produce 3,000 cars per year."
Wow
According to an article on Gizmag, Tata, India's largest automotive manufacturer, has developed a car that runs on compressed air.
Well, if you eat a lot of Tandoori, this is a great use for that compressed air.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
...how do you compress the air??
Did half-life 2 teach us NOTHING about the dangers of compressed air cannisters?
4, ... 3, ... 2, ... 1, ...
Seriously, how many brilliant inventions have we heard of lately, and how many of those vanish just days after being announced?
Mexico has been using this tech for several years now, though this is a bit smaller than the taxi vans.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I think they are full of hot air.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Well, at least cars blowing up when their tank is shot with a bullet will be realistic now, even if there isn't a fireball...
Wonder what will run the auxiliary things we expect, like radios, etc.? An air-powered alternator?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
90 m^3!
I doubt the car has even a couple of cubic meters below it.
I assume they mean that air which is 90 m^3 at STP would be compressed.
In any case, this must be vaporware.
It seems too good to be true.
Pun not intended about aircar and vaporware.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Browse at -1 to keep an eye out for abuses.
3...
2...
1.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
this looks like the ultimate in vaporware, an as yet unavailable vehicle and runs on "air" might as well run on magic aether or unicorn blood. you can't even see air. pfft.
...space scientists say
That reads more like a press release than any kind of tech article. It also sounds too good to be true, like some of the tech announcements from North Korea. I hope that its real, but I'll believe it when I see it.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Not only a sound of derision, but a sound my young cousins make when driving their air cars. Sometimes when playing air guitars and fighting air-fights. Can they be ahead of the curve?
What does it cost to compress the air?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
According to WikiPedia there are other companies working on "Air Car" models and also it states that the MDI model, is not in production yet.
A car, where if you shoot the fuel tank (when full), it actually WILL explode!
Hollywood has been vindicated! Well, except for the whole fireball part.
Ryan Fenton
IC engines generate a lot of waste heat that can be used to warm the passenger compartment with little additional cost. On the other hand, IC vehicles need complicated a power hungry air conditioners to cool the passenger compartment during hot weather.
The compressed air powered car operates the other way around. Compressed air cools as it decompresses. The exhaust from this vehicle is below zero Celcius. That cold air acts as free AC. A heating system for a vehicle like this is going to be very expensive from a power consideration.
If these vehicles are not a scam then I think we can expect their adoption only in warm climates. In cold weather, I would not be surprised if the decompressed air freezes the components that transfer power to the wheels.
2-3 hundred kilometres - that's long downslope.
Squirrel!
So.. it costs like 5-10$ to fill a single scuba tank. Where do they get their $1.50 figure from? There is no mention of how that figure is arrived at at all.
:/
Running a two stage compressor for 3-4 hours will probably cost more than $1.50
And "Zero-pollution"? Can we have some truth in advertising please? Using the car causes pollution, plain and simple. Maybe it's 1/10th or maybe less of a petrol car but at least be honest about it and let us know exactly how much pollution it does cause. It's certainly not 0. Saying so leads to people assiming that this is some kind of crank.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Even if this really works, it does not take the energy that it takes to compress the air into the equation. This is the same as cars running on hydrogen. A hydrogen car has zero (harmful) emissions, but not many efficient ways to generate hydrogen are known at this time. Compressing air probably involves combustion-engine driven air compressors, so I don't see the real benefit here. But most likely the whole story is BS anyways..
Why do these new technology cars always implement features not related to the technology they're trying to demo?
I can understand the glued frame maybe (if someone can explain to me why welding a metal frame would be heaver than gluing it). As well as the fiberglass body. (though those two things would prevent me from using it as anything more than a toy, personally)
But why does it need to have "voice recognition, internet connectivity, GSM telephone connectivity, a GPS guidance system, fleet management systems, emergency systems, and of course every form of digital entertainment." As well as "information reports that extends well beyond the speed of the vehicle, and is built to integrate with external systems"
If the underlying technology is good, they should be able to put it into a conventional car. You can get super mileage to a $3 fill with gasoline, too if you're willing to travel in something small and light enough to run on <~10 hp engine. Heck, if it's small and light enough, you won't need any fuel at all, but you won't be very safe commuting in a solar racer.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
The thing is there isn't just a lot of compressed air lying around. Thanks to thermodynamics, it costs more to compress the air than what we get out of it when we uncompress it. And it's probably oil or coal burning plants that compress the air. So this isn't solving anything. The reason gasoline is so useful is that it's already been made by nature, so we can get energy out without putting very much energy in. So that only leaves compressed air as a useful energy storage device, and I have to suspect that the other alternatives (hydrogen, fuel cells, electric) do better in that department.
And I thought this idea was a bit over the top.
Why bother.
Remember in grade school arithmetic when the teacher would tell you to "check your work" to make sure answers werent preposterous?
3 dollars to move a _car_ and _passengers_ that distance? Then I ought to use this same technology to build a generator. Instead of taking the kids to soccer practice, lets make electricity and put the power companies out of business.
Its not that cheap, they are fudging the numbers, etc, etc, etc.
Not that I don't like alternative energy study, and news about it. I just don't like it when crap like this gives us greenies a bad reputation. Its fodder for Fox News and George Bush to feed their mindless droves and keep them thinking "oil.. oil.. oil..."
Why stick up for big business?
So could Washington, D.C. Plenty of hot air there!
The French guy who invented the car has been working on it for years. The car has been announced several times before and they are able to produce working prototypes. This counts as one of those technologies that is almost there but there is some small, pesky, won't-go-away, details that keep it from being economic. In that regard, it is similar to the plant that converts turkey guts to oil. The process works but isn't quite there.
The best thing about this car is that air-conditioning is very easy and costs no energy. As the air decompresses in the engine, it cools off. Directing that air into the cabin would provide air-conditioning with just about no effort.
If this actually comes into being, there are some really neat side-benefits of this sort of thing. Principally, as compressed air is not only easy to generate, it can be generated *AND* stored locally. That means that it can be done via "renewable" energy (solar and wind) *as they are available*.
As electricity is easy to generate locally - but not easy to store in sufficient quantity - you can't really have solar panels that will always be available to charge your electric car. However, you *can* have solar panels which fill your compressed-air tank, and then refill your can whenever you need.
Overall, that means a completely petroleum-free energy source for cars. Even if you don't believe that man is behind global warming, the thought of removing most of the automotive-produced pollution has got to be an appealing thought, with the idea of never paying a utility company (gas OR electric) to refuel your can again as a nice bonus.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I heard Ford has just developed a new shade of red paint! That's kind of like automotive innovation...
You know, I'm starting to get the idea that it really WOULD kill the editors to actually edit something. This is of course proof that the Firehose cannot make up for the failings of idiot editors.
Now, if there were no links in TFA, then torok would have an excuse for not knowing that this vehicle was actually developed by Moteur Developpment International, or MDI. If you visit their site you can read MDI's press release about their deal with Tata. But in fact not only the technology but the entire vehicle was designed by MDI. Not only have they been using them in Mexico (Mexico City is the most polluted city on the planet) but they've been using them for some years in Spain.
Shame on you torok, and shame on you ScuttleMonkey. The former for falsely attributing the vehicle and technology to the undeserving; the latter for not doing his job and checking the story for validity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'd like to see how this car does in crash testing. Sure, it's easy to make a light-weight car that can be pushed around with some compressed air, but designing one that doesn't kill all its occupants the first time it hits someone walk across the street, let alone a Hummer, is a bit trickier. Where is this car going to be produced? India? I somehow doubt the safety standards are all that high.
...when it comes in a model like this: http://thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/ford_f650 .jpg
300 liters of 200 bar air has an energy content of about 35MJ or just about the same as 1 liter of gasoline. Even giving some credit for higher (perfect?) efficiency and some energy recovery through environmental heating, it seems to be a stretch to suggest that any reasonable useful car could run 2-300 miles on this. Actually, the energy content is probably a bit lower since they'll need some overpressure to run the engine (maybe 50 bar or so?). And I don't really want to be sitting in the car when they fill it. The heat generated by filling the tank is pretty much equivalent to burning a quart of gas in the trunk.
[humor]Yes, I am kidding, there are ways to alleviate the heat generation like compressing outside, slow filling,...[/humor]
This was part of the Future Car series last month on discovery. It looked like a neat car that would be good for running around the inner city.
.. "Hey there is an generator connected to the compressed air engine .. so we can use that to power an air compressor .. and then we will never run out of compressed air to power the car."
Unfortunately the Future Car people managed to screw up the presentation by saying something along the lines of
There was some interesting stuff on that series, but in general each episode was 30 minutes of wank for 15 minutes of information.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Actually, there's no big conspiracy. Inventors are not disappearing. There are generally three reasons why you'll hear about it then nothing else:
/. will post very "first announcement" kind of things. The actual product is years or decades away from the market, and thus there's not a lot to be said.
/.'s rather short attention span (I mean really, how often are there good followups here?) and that's what you get.
1) It's all hype, no substance. There are plenty of inventors that try to hype things to get capital that they really have no idea how to make work. Sometimes they are even out and out frauds.
2) The product is a long way off. Often
3) The product doesn't do as well as expected. Some things sound really cool and then just don't pan out. They go to market and flop.
Take any one of those and combine it with
So get some perspective, and save the aluminium for wrapping leftovers.
Those are some bodacious Tatas.
This has been talked about before. The car was developed in Europe. Here is the developer's web site
An Australian company has developed an interesting new air powered engine:
5 .htm
2 46620391.html
3 1.htm
http://www.engineair.com.au/
I've seen it in operation on a science tech program:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s107206
It has some immediate potential:
http://www.engineair.com.au/development.htm
and:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/25/1093
Of course there are difficulties associated with deploying a new technology:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s11835
Whichever way you look at it, it's true. I'm not.
I've been following the air car for a while, it sounds like a great idea, the problem is that the engine is still a heat engine, so only about 1/3 of the energy used to compress the gas can be extracted, so even if the gas can be compressed to the same energy density as li-ion cells, you have to carry 3 times as much of the stuff.
Deleted
"The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0 - 15 degrees below zero"
... these cars are going to contribute to global COOLING?
You mean
Hmmm, wait a minute, is there an obvious engineering solution? - what if we make sure there are an equal number of these cars and the old-style internal combustion cars on the roads at the same time - will the heating and cooling effects cancel each other out?
Damn. I read that headline and thought my flying car was almost ready.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
AirCar!!!!
2007!?
But, where are my frck_n moonboots?!!?
air? ehh, I don't buy it. I think it's much more likely that this car is somehow able to harness the massive forces of repulsion generated from those that happen to lay eyes on the hideous design of this thing.
ôó
Not to nitpick or anything, but seriously, that's not fast enough. You'll be run off the road in many western states if you drive under 70.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
BTW, the tanks are the real problem. Cheap, light, strong, pick any two. :-)
-Jay-
"So.. it costs like 5-10$ to fill a single scuba tank"
Is that the price in India, USA, UK, or where? As these cars are going to be set up for India, I am interested to know the Indian cost. Is this what you were referring to?
Does that sound like a bit big of a tank to anyone else? That's a cube with nearly 15-foot sides... Or do they mean that's how much air is there after it expands? In which case, it doesn't seem like nearly enough.
Pesky kids let the air out of your tires, just fill em back up with your fuel... or run out of fuel, fill from your tires.
I saw this on The Science Channel and I knew instantly that I had to have one.
I'm going to put solar panels up to power the compressor.
Then I plan to drive around to all the gas stations, pull up to the pump
sit there a minute then proclaim "No, I don't think so." as I pull away with a huge shit eating grin.
FU to all the mega corporations that have made it religion to rape the little people into utter poverty.
Live free or die! (Through recycling)
Unlike hydrogen, the electricity needed to run the compressors is easy, efficient and cost effective to generate and distribute. And India is moving forward on nuclear power plants which would generate that electricity with very little emissions (although not without waste).
This will cut into his oil profits.
Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
If you have ever been to India you can see that this is infact a great idea. It sucks for America, sucks HARD, but Indian strees are swamped with three-wheeled-pull-start-lawnmower-powered Rickshaws and the air is noxious. These cars would be an excellent replacment for those and taxi companies could use the GPS features to the benefit of all. Not every invention has to only solve problems you know about to be good.
... awesome.
The smog laws in America are almost pointless when you consider it's GLOBAL warming and India/Mexico are basically shitting into the atmosphere. If they can make this work
In order to reach the pockets of compressed air, found far beneath the surface of the ground, it would be neccessary to drill and destroy the surrounding enviroment.
Or we could just make our own compressed air by burning coal or oil, which would essentially use the compressed air like a type of energy transmitting device, like a battery. While converting energy stored one way, to energy stored another way is wasteful, I think it would be a fair tradeoff because of that nice bumper sticker that let's one drive in the commute lane
as most traffic goes 70+ at times.
It's a story about fantastic technology or science from India. Note. Many other stories about fantastic technology or science from India have turned out to be fake.
68mph will get you flipped off and why do the efficient cars have to look like ass?
The capitalistic douche bags that will do anything to keep a new technology (a threat to their entrenched interests) from entering the market, no matter how good it is.
The idea of evil capitalists supressing technology is a hollywood fantasy. If I invented a car that runs on water today, there's not a single thing that Exxon or GM could do to keep me from selling it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This sounds like ... vaporware!
*ducks*
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Air is a pretty good power source for the same reason that factories use air power, it's easy to make, it's pretty cheap, and most importantly, when it leaks it doesn't make a mess all over the product, think of how many oil leaks your car has at any given time, or you fill up your gas tank and it's hot so it pushes it on the ground, or the vapor alone escapes the system. minus the vegetable oil they use for lube(biodegradable) air is just air. it's almost always cleaner than what you started with.
Sure they can, if they patented it first, or bough the patent from another inventor. Maintaining a patent is cheap compared to the loss in market share if somebody actually sold this technology.
Except have you killed.
200km at 68mph...
Thats nearly 125mi at 125kph!
... was just granted the distribution rights to compressed air in the USA. They will sell you enough compressed air to go 200 km for $60.00.
Since wind is variable, as is solar, they could literally store the energy by compression.
Another way to do a similar thing is to use PV solar cells to generate electricity to split H20 - but watch out for di-hydrogen oxide, that is lethal! - or to have wind turbines do the same thing - and then use fuel cells.
If done properly, it could be interesting.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
who saw the headline and thought they were talking about the Moller Aircar? Did no-one else experience the small spasm in disappointment when they realised that flying cars were not, in fact, the order of the day?
Canthros
I can't wait to see what kind of fart can exhaust the ricers will fit to this thing.
After being thrown big gobs of money and classy but wild hookers, both Houses of Congress passed a law which Dubya quickly signed into law banning the use, sale, or importation of cars running on compressed air in the United States. Reportedly Dick Cheney is throwing a huge bash tonight to celebrate the law...
As with absolutely any other kind of energy source. Nothing has a 100% efficiency.
No, IT IS solving something. Not only centralising the processus can make it more efficient (as pointed out by others). Centralising the process, also make 1 single point to modify when you need to upgrade the technology.
Today, there *are* alternative to fossils fuels, namely biofuels : like bio-diesel or bio-ethanol. They are both renewable and thus have some advantages over fossil fuels.
*BUT* you can't just replace the fuels. The car engines have to be compatible. That means that you have to change car engines / buy new cars. And have a new distribution infrastructure to bring the new kind of fuel to the cars, etc.
Whereas with a centralized plant, you 'just' have to upgrade the plant. The change is transparent to the users. They continue to fill their car with compressed air, completely independently of the technology used behind (it can be coal, or nuclear, or solar, or wind powered, or microwave beamed from outer space, etc. whatever is the current best compromise of both affordable and ecological)
It has been made by the nature, a long time ago. It's not reversible. You cannot regenerate it today, at least not on a short time frame.
The usage of gasoline is very problematic when conpared to renewable energy. It's not a cycle, it's a one way only processus. You suddenly release into the atmosphere a huge quantity of carbon and such that were never there in any near past era. There is a net global change in the environment, and although we didn't perfelty prove its exact impact down to the last decimal, we have to show prudence against such change (at least because we *are* not capable to prove the exact impact - in such lack of exhaustive understanding, it is a huge risk to introduce additional perturbation in a system that is delicate enough).
We must by all mean try to move to another form of energy whose overall impact on the environment is neutral. For that you need two things :
- Renewable alternative source of energy (which more or less always count on the sun in a direct or indirect way to input energy into the system, not counting on a substance of finite supply)
- An infrastructure that can easily accept a change of energy used. Current gasoline based engines aren't optimal because they directly feed on the fossil fuel (or at least a chemical derivative). To change the fuel you must change the car it self. Whereas currently proposed methods (like compressed air from TFA, or hydrogen, or electricity) have the advantage of only being a medium between the engine and the plant where the actual fuel is burned. To change the fuel, you 'only' have to upgrade the plant.
This article addresses point number 2.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
So where does the water vapor come from before it's compressed in the car's tank? Yes, from the atmosphere. So you're removing water vapor from the atmosphere then releasing it, there's no net increase.
When you burn oil or coal, you're releasing carbon that has been sequestered underground for eons, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Well by the third or fourth dupe you'd expect to start seeing something.
With automotive stuff, I think it likely that there are two primary factors that slow things down. Firstly there's the infrastructure. There's a huge setup to support gas sales through the world. Changing to H2 or compressed air, redox battery or whatever is difficult because there's a chicken-and-egg problem with supporting infrastructure. Redox battery technology was technically viable about 20 years back and has a very simple usage model.
Secondly, the automotive manufacturers don't really want to change. They'd rather limit their "innovations" to changing round headlights to square, then back again a few years later.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
This great invention was announced 10 years ago, still hasn't been completed and is still around.... Duke Nukem Forever
all these "future cars" have to look soo ugly as well? Most people already buy cars based on looks so why not make these cleaner cars more attractive?
...but used as a commuter car, they'd be lucky to hit 40mph durring rush hour.
moox. for a new generation.
I recently visited Gujarat, India - where about 40% of vehicles on the road used CNG with most areas now having a CNG gas filling stations.
n tentid=58608
/
It comes out very cheap in India, about 1Rs per Km roughly equivalent to 0.3 cents per mile.
Govt. of India is now mandating all its public transport buses to run on CNG - http://www.automotiveworld.com/WCV/content.asp?co
Also Ford released its new Ikon 2007 with a CNG model - http://business.techwhack.com/2040/2007-ford-ikon
Haven't you seen The Simpsons? Even grim death wasn't enough to keep Vincent Price from hocking his crappy wares.
to have "weapons of mass destruction."
Air strikes will be launched on 24 hours notice from the President.
When asked about the US-India nuclear cooperation deal, the President said, "What deal? We don't cooperate with terrorists!"
Meanwhile, oil shares rose on the news of imminent war with India.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Patents are a matter of public record. Head on over to USPTO.gov, and show me the invention that solves the energy crisis. We've all heard the myth of the miracle carburetor for decades that's supposed to increase mileage by 200%, but it simply doesn't exist.
The other thing that this "supressed technology" conspiracy fantasies ignore is the fact that there is no monopoly on cars. If GM (whose market share is down to about 23% in the USA these days) had a way to offer a vastly better product than their current product line, you'd better believe they'd do it as fast as they could, because that's the way to make money. You can't grow by being on the defensive against new technology.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, oil conglomerates and big business will sit idly by as the 'air' car steals their profits. Yeah, right. Even if this 'air' car works, it will never see the light of day. Some corporation will buy it and burn the blueprints. Of course, the gov't will not interfere. After all, corporations and gov't are merely quid-pro-quo whorehouses sold to the highest bidder. When the gov't needs illegal wire-taps, Verizon and Sprint allow them secret rooms to listen in on calls. When Haliburton (and KBR) need more revenue, the gov't hands out no-bid contracts. When the gov't dislikes literature, Wikipedia bans the book "America Deceived". We The People had our gov't (and our 'AIR' cars) sold out from beneath us. This all sounds like hot air to me.
Final link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
One of the arguments against solar and wind is "So what do you do when the sun doesn't shine and the wind won't blow?" Easy, you compress air when you can then use it as a power source when it's dark and still!
Just hope we don't run out of air!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
"As the isothermal process is reversible, the efficiency of compressed air storage approaches 100% and the equation above represents the maximum energy storable. In practice the process will not be isothermal and the compressors and motors have losses." Actually, it is quite efficient.
y _storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energ
It used a skateboard and common cans of whipped cream. It never did propel me anywhere, but it was delicious.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Head on over to USPTO.gov, and show me the invention that solves the energy crisis.
How about this?
You just need to find a way to harness the cat's kinetic energy in a usable form.
A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
typical industrial air compression gives 10-15% yield, in other words 7x to 10x the energy in compared to work you get back. Winding a spring or using air is a crummy, lossy way to store energy. An 80L SCUBA tank can provide 4 HP for not quite seven minutes, end of story. Companies are founded using this scam, sometimes unknowingly, to get investors.
Damn, they don't even try to hide the fact that it's vaporware these day.
And I'm personally fed up of people who constantly buy hummers and other biggers car just to be the heavier of two in case of collision and hope for a better survival rate.
- First, there's no proof that just by picking the biggest car you're on the safer side. There have both been very bad reviews of some asian manufacturer of SUVs, and very good tests of Smarts. The size isn't a guarantee. Reading the tests in specialized press is the only sure way.
- Second elevated car fronts are more likely to kill pedestrian. Maybe you live in a country were nobody moves around with anything else than a car except within the confines of one's home. But here in Europe the streets are shared with pedestrian, biker, cyclists, etc. SUVs noses are much more deadly for them than regular cars.
- Third what will those people do once everyone has bought a Hummer ? Start driving around in tank, just to be sure in case of collision with an hummer ? Some sort of mutually assured destruction running amok there... with the environment as the by standing victim.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The point is you can have the pollution happen somewhere else - most likely at the top of a really high stack where the wind blows it away, with the solid stuff precipitating out and the NOx and SOx getting removed by water. If you want something engine driven instead of a human powered vehicle and you want a lot of them in a tight space it's a good idea.
Two problems: 1) you have to feed the cat. 2) cats are toxic.
Nice try, though!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
More to the point, Exxon and Mobil would probably corner the market on distilled water and water distribution firms in a matter of days. Then start telling you how their water has a higher concentration of the wonder element, H2Go, and how it keeps your tank cleaner.
Is that your tire going flat, or is your tank leaking?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Oh I'm sure they could have the government put up some barriers. Like some new impossible to pass safety standards. For an analogy, see how the entertainment industry keeps new talent off the air...unless their agent is a Scientologist or something. They successfully killed the minidisc before it could hit the market. There are lots of ways of keeping something off the market.
What?
http://www.theaircar.com/thecar.html
--
Get renewable: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I've actually done work on something like this for a science project- a compressed air powered engine. In my research, I stumbled upon a French inventor and saw the video of his compressed air powered car. Not a concept, an actual working prototype.
The difficulty in using compressed air instead of an explosion to move the piston is in the dwell time of the piston in the cylinder. He has a patented system of rods to connect the piston to the crankshaft for increased dwell time and longer stroke.
Like a diesel engine, the torque can be adjusted on the fly by leaving the valve open longer during the downstroke. It's really pretty cool and naturally, I can't find the web site now.
The other major obstacle is the air tank. the French prototype used a single carbon-fiber sphere to hold the pressure.
I don't remember the details of the thermodynamics. Maybe someone else can enlighten us, but I recall that it's not very efficient. Heat loss is generated during compression that is lost to the environment, then more inefficiency as the tank is cooled during operation.
The thermodynamics are the killer. Like the Stirling Engine, this has been tried many times in the last hundred years or so. It never gets very far.
--
Have some fun and help feed my family. Visit http://www.rlt.com/ today!
It's sad that one can actually secure a patent on something like that.
Simple enough URL.
http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html
----------
How about an airZOOKA! http://www.backyardartillery.com/soft/
-Jay-
The other thing that this "supressed technology" conspiracy fantasies ignore is the fact that there is no monopoly on cars.
... had a way to offer a vastly better product than their current product line, you'd better believe they'd do it as fast as they could, because that's the way to make money.
No, there is something much more effective. It's called High Barrier to Entry, and it is extremely effective at keeping out small car manufacturers, with expensive safety tests and regulation compliance (read, lawyers fees) etc (basically all of the lame attempts by American auto manufacturers to keep the Japanese out of the American car market by corrupting the political process). Unfortunately, the Japanese were smart enough to change their manufacturing process fast enough to keep up with the regulatory changes, and had the financial fortitude to push on through the pain.
If GM
Bzzzt, wrong, but thankyou for playing. The way to make money in the car business (like any other) is to make sales. In GMs case they do this through a dealership network. The dealership network makes almost no profit from the initial sale of the car, and nearly all of the profit through service and maintenance, in which they sell small products at ridiculous markups. When GM trialled the EV1, the dealerships realised that an electric motor has very little maintenance costs, and so there was no profit in selling them.
Second, to make cars requires a large investment in manufacturing equipment. Billions of dollars in fact. This investment is amortised over a long time horizon. If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment, something no CEO is going to be willing to explain at the next shareholder's quarterly.
There is more to business than just product.
- Nothing to see hear.
... "Due to the absence of combustion and, consequently, of residues, changing the oil (1 litre of vegetable oil) is necessary only every 50,000 Km.".... later...
..."How does it work?"...The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change is only necessary every 31.000 milesso why do they use both Km and miles on the same page?(also: normally the people that use miles also use ,'s instead of .'s for separating thousands) besides it should be 31.069 Miles anyway ;p
oah nevermind, this is /. no one actually reads the article! -.-
"or something"? That's awfully open-ended. You're right, though, there's only 6.5 billion people on this planet who are "or something".
Sure they did.
If they go ahead with this, perhaps GM can make the cup holders.
> There seems to be no heating system for passenger comfort. ...
> That's probably not a problem in most of India,
You have got it completely backwards!
Running the air-conditioning system full up will *increase* the mileage of a car powered by compressed air, because a Turbine system run by compressed air will get a better efficiency if you have a heat exchanger that raises the temperature of the frigid expanded air in intermediate stages.
If this technology wasn't completely unusable due to the lousy efficiency, it would be ideal to operate in a hot climate.
There's also foreign companies, some of which are government backed. Let me guess, all other countries are in on the conspiracy too, right?
The reason they do this is because upfBzzzt, wrong, but thankyou for playing.ront costs are easier for the customer to understand, however, it also leads to losing some profits because of intelligent customers who buy after-market parts instead. If an electric vehicle really cost so much less to maintain, it'd be VERY easy to market - simply jack up your sticker price, but offer free maintenance for the next 2 decades. Customers LOVE to see the word FREE, and FREE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS! looks even better. Show your customers a price chart of how much it would cost them to maintain a vehicle bought from your competitor, vs the money they'd be saving by buying from you. While you're at it, have some charts handy depicting the projected growth curve of fossil fuels over the next 20 years, vs the relatively low cost of grid electrical energy. It's not hard to develop a workable business model around a vehicle which has low maintenance costs, and you'd make a killing in the long run.
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong.
Your arrogance would be amusing, if it weren't so horribly misplaced.
air cars don't work
What?
Barney, what says we get some borontosaurus ribs.
Ehhh sounds good to me Fred, coming Dino?
--
How could they be funny without any flatulence jokes?
Dutch ovens work by being surrounded by hot coals, not by compressed gas.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I-294 and I-355 still have fast parts at that time
I blogged on this a while back. Kyoto was modeled on the Montreal Protocol and now both are in bad shape. Here's a fresh link in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/worldbu siness/15warming.html to look at if you want to read the
blog which links to an older and now subscription only article http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/heir-of-leader ship.html.
I agree. And since I don't have mod points, I'll quote you and say that I agree.
I wonder if the patent owner could extract a fee from laser manufacturers because their product could be used to infringe on his invention (a-la Canadian CD-R fee)
On the other hand, if you want to joke about French cars, go ahead.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Fark ran pretty much this same article in July 2005: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink =1576530
As I (o4tuna) pointed out then, it was from a June 2003 press release.
The 3000 cars/year thing is just their strange licensing scheme...
Yes, there is nothing to stop you selling it. Many ideas have been killed through greed though. Classic example is of a ceramic alloy that was patented, wears less, cheaper to make and better fuel economy when used for engine parts. Who bought the patent for it from the inventor's ? BHP billton. Wonder why ?.... The alloy has been used in one car engine to date from memory and that was a mercedes and it cost them a fortune.
There are plenty of things that companies do regularly to suppress competitive or disruptive technologies:
- buy the patents and hire the inventor
- write competing patents and entangle the inventor in patent litigation
- for a lot of long-term research, suppress research funding and/or discredit the field so that an initially good idea never gets developed much further
- create uncertainty about the expected costs, reliability, or safety of products
- create regulatory barriers
- even if you manage to make a product, interfere with distribution and marketing
While some bogus products ("200% fuel efficiency carburator") have made bogus claims about being suppressed in some of these ways, nevertheless, the above are standard business strategies. Microsoft has actually provided excellent examples for many of them.
Usually, companies try to go for the "we buy the technology for a few million dollars and let it die" route, because it's the least amount of hassle and risk and keeps everybody happy.
And I think I've seen Adam and Jamie using scuba tanks to do Bad Things to brick walls....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
gzip -9 air
EOF
Not to be a dickwad, but couldn't they just kill you? Maybe with a car bomb for instance.
Joints that are glued together.. no steel? no roll cage? no "OH Shit!" handles? Are you kidding? With idiots like me on the road?
I'll take the H2 please
No words of wisedom here.
I noticed the article mentions it takes advantage of the "atmospheric temperature" to re-heat the engine and increase road coverage. How well would this car operate in mild to extremely cold temperatures. I suspect that in India, the ambient temperature never gets below 55F, worst case scenario. Of course, I base this on a quick glance at the India Weather Underground website, which covers most of their regions.
If it can't handle adverse conditions, its worthless to me. The 68mph limit would almost be bearable if this thing can do what it claims, plus I'm sure they'll be able to ramp the speed up as they enhance the technology over time. However, another thing that concerns me is how wretched this thing looks, who would buy this it looks like a badly put together Winnebago.
But I did find this improved model from the good old days. http://www.buychoice.com/prodDetail.cfm/23261,Bugg y%20Heater,MX2. Back
then you just packed hot stones from the hearth.
You're right that they can't really stop you from selling it. But they can convince legislature to pass laws to prevent your vehicle from being considered road worthy. They can launch a propaganda campaign, make your product look bad, and run you out of business. They can buy up your engineers, your management, heck, even enter into contracts with your suppliers. Think about all the dirty little tactics that Microsoft used, then add politics to it. Like for example, convince some lawyers to sue your product for every little defect. Or convince legislature to tighten the regulations for your product--for your parts supplier, your resource supplier, etc. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. But most of these tactics have been used before. And there's nothing preventing big companies from using them to kill off competition.
Why is ethanol so popular these days as an alternative fuel as opposed to other green fuel solutions? Ethanol is only a small (albeit a significant) step away from oil, yet it's being touted as the fuel that will save the planet. It's because corn farmers have a huge presence in DC. They saw an opportunity to increase the worth of their crop, and they jumped to get legislatures' attention. Don't ever underestimate the power of lobbying.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Compressed air is not a power source, since the energy has to come from some other source, such as electricity. Storing energy as compressed air is not a more efficient process than storing electricity inside a battery. There ARE electric cars today with more range than the Air Car. And they are not all ultracompact cars but some more reasonable formats. So we have already a technology that is simpler, proven, has better performance, it is likely to be much more reliable (fewer moving parts) and has constant performance (a vehicle run by compressed air will lower its performance as it runs out of "gas"). I'm not completely sure it is cheaper today, but it certainly will be as batteries progress (they have been progressing at a steady 10% increase in capacity or decrease in cost every year for the last few decades, it is expected that the trend continues). The Air Car is not so proven, and the manufacturing costs will surely go up as they near production (they always do). I'm not saying this project has no value, but investing the same money and effort in developing electric cars will certainly produce better results faster.
>If I invented a car that runs on water today, there's not a single thing that Exxon or GM could do to keep me from selling it.
Oh yeah? Prove it! Just go ahead, invent a water-powered car and prove it!
So you are immune to bullets?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
There was a segment on Beyond Tomorrow (Aussie science show) that had 2 cars that run on compressed air. This was around July 2006.
n chaircar.htmls ieaircar.html
http://www.beyondtomorrow.com.au/stories/ep17/fre
http://www.beyondtomorrow.com.au/stories/ep17/aus
The air tanks are carbon fibre reinforced from memory.
The air we breathe is already polluted. So taking the air and compressing it concentrates the pollution. Then, it follows, releasing them to the atmosphere is polluting!!! It might sound like a silly argument, but that's exactly what happens with nuclear reactors (OK, they crate particularly long lasting radioactive elements, but nobody cared when the source radioactive elements were in the environment, where they were taken from in the first place).
I can't make heads or tails out of this story. It looks too good to be true, and the links feel suspicious to me. --And no, I don't put any faith in Discovery Channel stories ever since I watched a piece on breast implant science which had a super-positive bullshit spin on it and was funded by one of the actual manufacturers of silicon implants. The Discovery Channel just plain sucks, but it's hard to recognize this because it's so easy to sell bullshit under the guise of the all-mighty 'documentary'.
So can somebody please do the math and figure out if this Air Car idea is even possible? This is the area where the Slashdot crowd shines; Research, Thinking and Networking.
Thank-You!
-FL
How much energy does it take to drive a car of that size 200 or 300 km at, say, 50 km per hour? How much would that much energy cost as electricity?
Is should be well under $3 for this idea to hold up, since we can expect inefficiencies in the conversion from electricity to compressed air to mechanical motion. Indeed some air compressors run
Usually, companies try to go for the "we buy the technology for a few million dollars and let it die" route, because it's the least amount of hassle and risk and keeps everybody happy.
Patents expire after 15 years. They're also a matter of public record. So I really don't see how any single company can suppress a given technology on a permanent basis.
Now network effects... those are real, and huge.
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
sounds like you did not bother to visit theaircar.com
*I* don't bother to visit say perpetual-motion sites, either.
But...
-- videos of pre-production demos prove they are roughly as far along as teslamotors, "beyond pure scam"
-- free air-conditioning of XLNT quality is worth something, in Phoenix or the tropics
-- the claim is that the body architecture provides better insulation, as a side-effect
-- the articulatng piston, 70-degree TDC allows the cmp-air to flow in
-- allowing the air to re-warm from ambient air and go through pistons again
--- makes the A/C better, you don't really want subzero air directly
--- makes the efficiency better than just from a single-cycle from 300 BAR
-- the hybrid option to run the engine as I/C, but the cmp-air tanks will last longer than batteries
ESPECIALLY because heat kills batteries, in Phoenix or the tropics.
It's the year 2000. But where are they flying cars? I was promised flying cars! I don't see any flying cars! Why? Why? Why?
Yeah, you laugh now but don't even think for a second that the governments of the world (USA, ahem) don't have such plans on the board.
jcr, meet Lobbyist. Lobbyist, meet jcr.
Ahh, see now... you dashed my hopes! I thought for sure you were going to show me that someone was actually able to secure a patent for the Buttered Cat Paradox.
(And yes I am aware that Mythbusters "busted" the "toast always lands buttered-side down" proposition)
... is just vaporware.
In America, a 25MPG car can run about 250Km on about 6 gallons of gasoline for $15. How much does gasoline cost in India?
--
make install -not war
So, if I've got this right $3/300km = 1.609344 U.S. cents per mile. And filling up my tank with gasoline right now at $2.50 per gallon and getting a generous 30 miles per gallon = 8.33333333 U.S. cents per miles. Is my math correct? Is this thing 5 times more (economically) efficient than current cars? Why the hell doesn't everyone have this. I know it's fiberglass and small, and if you made ICE powered cars the same way they'd be more efficient... but not 5 times as efficient. I don't think I've ever seen anything with this level of economy for only $7,300
What am I missing here?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Hi! I'm the "Bzzzt! You're wrong!" fairy!
I tell people who say that phrase or any variant that they sound like cocks and nobody likes them!
So guess what? You sound like a cock and nobody likes you!
Yay!
As I read the article on this cpmpressed air power car:
Tank stores 90M3 of air this would be 90000liters.
Car travels 200 to 300 Km per tank. We will use 200Km or
200000 meters
200000 meters / 90000 liters = 2.22 meters per liter of air
at normal atmospheric pressure. Not sure of this vehicles weight,
but this just does not seem likely to me. Surely this vehicle would
have to provide a minimum of 1 to 2 HP to the road under acceleration or
clinbing modest grades. The must be a conversion between HP and
Cubic feet or liters of air/minute at a given pressure, which would have
to be much greater than STP to produce useful work. This looks like a
"No-Go" to me.
compressed air is a swell way to store energy but this is not a new way to get mechanical energy out of available resources. The result would be "air stations" with air compressors running constantly. Without a better way to generate usable power the air car just moves the source of pollution. not to mention the bang factor.
Support bacteria, the only culture most people have.
a ceramic car engine? damn. thats probably the rarest car in the world
You mean like the prius? The ultra polluting green car? The problem with relying on batteries for a 'green' car is that the waste products of battery production are, in a word, horrific, and it completely nulls the point of the electric car. Not to mention that the gas mileage of the prius is much less than advertised, simply because very, very few people accelerate that slowly and keep their speed down to 55 mph on the highway. It's actually closer to 48 mpg.
see, that's the trick here.
the small company that couldn't isn't actually producing the thing, the *licensed* the design to a much larger firm, in fact, the larger manufacturing firm in india, Tata motors
http://www.tatamotors.com/
*they* have all the lawyers and money to do all the required tests to get the cars accepted in other countries.
guess Ford and General Motors soon shall see their bottom line flounder
The Second Law begs me to ask the question to be asked - where does the energy come from to compress the air? Gasoline? Natural gas? Solar? Hydro? Wind? Where does the efficiency come into play when it comes to the energy used to compress the air in the first place?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
iso = same
thermal = temperature
isothermal = same temperature
With isothermal expansion and compression, the temperature doesn't change. The process is inefficient to the extent that the temperature does change; so the trick is to keep that from happening.
Here's a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_compressor
""Charles's law says "when a gas is compressed, temperature is raised". There are three possible relationships between temperature and pressure in a volume of gas undergoing compression:
* Isothermal - gas remains at constant temperature throughout the process. In this cycle, internal energy is removed from the system as heat at the same rate that it is added by the mechanical work of compression. Isothermal compression or expansion is favored by a large heat exchanging surface, a small gas volume, or a long time scale (i.e., a small power level). With practical devices, isothermal compression is usually not attainable. For example, even a bicycle tire-pump gets hot during use.
* Adiabatic - In this process there is no heat transfer to or from the system, and all supplied work is added to the internal energy of the gas, resulting in increases of temperature and pressure. Theoretical temperature rise is T2 = T1Rc((k-1)/k)), with T1 and T2 in degrees Rankine or kelvins, and k = ratio of specific heats (approximately 1.4 for air). The rise in air and temperature ratio means compression does not follow a simple pressure to volume ratio. This is less efficient, but quick. Adiabatic compression or expansion is favored by good insulation, a large gas volume, or a short time scale (i.e., a high power level). In practice there will always be a certain amount of heat flow, as to make a perfect adiabatic system would require perfect heat insulation of all parts of a machine.
* Polytropic - This assumes that heat may enter or leave the system, and that input shaft work can appear as both increased pressure (usually useful work) and increased temperature above adiabatic (usually losses due to cycle efficiency). Cycle efficiency is then the ratio of temperature rise at theoretical 100 percent (adiabatic) vs. actual (polytropic).""
Here's a question: Will the air be compressed if it isn't for this car? If not, then it isn't adding pollution.
Except have people kill you and destroy all written records of your idea.
Would it not be possible to leverage at least part of this technology to improve performance on typical diesel/gasoline powered or hybrid cars? In my simple mind, I see the process of slowing down (breaking) involving borrowing some of the kinetic energy and storing it as compressed air. Then, the next acceleration could use the stored energy to take some of burdon off the engine. I see this as a huge benefit in city driving where stopping and starting is more predominate.
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
Well obviously, dumping a few heavy metals into the environment is preferable to releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. I'd rather have mercury poisoning than live in a world that's a few degrees warmer. ;)
IIRC, the advertised MPG were maximum values, which I have heard are achieved from time to time. It really does not matter, though, because Detroit is still pumping out cars with <20MPG gas mileage. Even the Prius' worst case scenario doubles that figure. So, while it is not a solution to the problem, it is certainly a step in the right direction.
As for the pollutants in the batteries, you certainly have a point. Compressed air is certainly better than battery acid for the environment. Either way, anything that makes individuals less reliant on petrochemicals has to be a good thing.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Nah, they'd just get the hippies astroturfed to demand a ban on dihydrogen monoxide.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They successfully killed the minidisc before it could hit the market.
The minidisk is on the market, and Sony spent a pile of money promoting it. You can still get them, but very few people would choose them over an iPod.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why is ethanol so popular these days as an alternative fuel as opposed to other green fuel solutions?
Easy conversion to existing motors and distribution networks. While the oil companies might have trouble getting their desired cut, you could have minor modification to your existing car, minor changes to car assembly lines and go to the same fuel station to buy your fuel, where you put it in your car the same way and then drive the same way.
I'm not saying that these are good reasons, or that ethanol is actually a better choice, just why it is a popular choice.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Depends upon which gallon you use. And which gas are you thinking of? Nitrogen? Propane? :-)
I would venture the GP was puzzled that three-quarters density of 4.54 kilos is 2.5 kilos rather than 3 kilos. I have always got 4.54 litres in every gallon of fuel I have bought. But then, my cars require petrol, rather than some gas.
What's that? It is a gas when it goes in the combustion chamber? I use a fine spray of droplets, you insensitive clod!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I hope doze god ol boys at Acoustic development are beter at the ole Phisiks shite than you are
This ofcourse is great news, another clean-car.. Only problem for me with most of these so called clean-cars is that they are so ugly and I wouldn't be caught dead in one of them.. Now if they could convert my Jeep cherokee '96 to a clean-car I would do it immediatly (I'm already running it on LPG which ofcourse is a bit more clean than running it on petrol or diesel)..
The history page shows pictures of this dream of a hybrid-engine, totally air-driven in-city: http://www.theaircar.com/genealogy.html It's not easy to find - the development roadmap details how they intend to reach the dream: http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html The technical details page reveals that they get 13% of the energy back by regenerative braking at present: http://www.theaircar.com/tecno.html Living in Phoenix, AZ the excellent free air-conditioning sounds SO good. Typically you sit at a stoplight, and your exhaust is heating and polluting your environment, which means your I/C-engine/air-conditioner needs to work even harder to fight the heat. With a stoplight-full of air-cars, your "waste cooling" would actually make your neighboring car somewhat COOLER - kind of the inverse of a bunch of Penguins(grin) in Antarctica.
Compressing air with a windmill is a perfect application. With enough storage capacity at home, you would truly be free of evil energy companies. The intermittent nature of wind power lends itself perfectly to compressing air.
Wow, this could really work!
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
You're completly wrong. Those laws will only determine the *total* amount of energy of a collision.
What is the most important thing for the survival rate of an accident is *how* this energy will be dissipated (mainly : the distance on which the deceleration happens, and which part take up the most energy).
- Some parts have to progressively bend to slow the deceleration. Rigid engines are bad because they don't slow anything. The nose of the car has to bend progressively, thus adding it's length to the deceleration distance.
- Other parts have to stay rigid to protect the people. Namely, the habitacle has to stay rigid. If it bend, the people inside will be crushed. And the asian models I mentioned above had a rigid engine and a pliable habitacle. In case of collision, what happened it that the engine bloc when straight trough the car and crushed any crash dummy along its path.
If a collision happened against a better designed car, this other's car engine bloc would have bent a little bit (at least the part that is at the level of the SUV's the sur-elevated bumper) and it's main compartment would have stayed rigid as it decelerated while progressively puhsing the SUV's motor thru the SUV's driver face). Granted the deceleration wouldn't be as smooth as what would be if the other car's engine could progressively bend (thus adding its length to the total decelerating length), but by avoiding its driver to be crushed by the engine, it give more chances of surviving even if this cars wasn't the biggest contributor to the impact in term of kinetic energy. Now with the opposite : 2 badly designed SUVs thing could be even worse, with the added inertia (and thus added kinetic energy), the rigid motor of one of them could even have been pushed through the SUV out of the other side.
As I said, the only way to be sure it to read the results of crash test for a given car before buying it.
- Last but not least, in-car impact deceleration equipment helps : seat-belt that pre-tensions, air-bags on every possible position, etc. In europe, most countries have laws that makes all of this obligatory, but I don't know the status in the USA.
- Bull shield in front of SUVs is stupid.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Thank you,
I was taught both the metric and imperial systems in an Australian school in the 70's, at the time my father was a mechanical engineer on the "metric conversion board", fer-christ-sake. My first "real" part-time job was a "pump jockey" at the local petrol station when petrol went from gallons to liters (~$0.09 / liter), 1 gallon = 4.54 liters is burned into my neurons.
The US system is for the US, I don't even remeber such strange units of measurement exist until I see something that says "gallon(US)", I dare say my adult kids would think anything other than metric is not only strange but absurd (and I tend to agree).
Disclaimer: I was unsure of the density of petrol and "guessed" it was ~0.8.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
and who is going to compress the air ? Will they use organic slaves, or diesel motors ?
" if we compress that amount of air to 300 bar, we will be able to reduce its volume to 0.3 m. And it can be compressed even further."
You into string theory?
Otherwise it is very hard to take your technical sounding argument seriously.
Just the excuse politicians needed to start taxing air.
Just becasue you are right about some points doesn't make him wrong. He is right about barrier to entry, I am not driving a Tesla right now nor will I be anytime soon. Becasue you can cite one example doesn't effect his point.
You are right about the 20 years idea but wrong becasue it requires a MAJOR change in the business model and its not going to happen without alot of blood. Fucking Ford couldn't even finish adopting target costing in their managerial accounting and now their fucked. If you think GM will throw away what has supported them just because it IS a good idea you're crazy. Detriot is RUN on the concept that it is easier and cheaper to buy a congressman than to update thier business systems.
About "If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment" and "I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong." It is true that recovring capital costs is important to business. Once they have been depricated maybe it will matter less but some companies use machines that are over a hundred years old. How can you imagine that the plant manager isn't going to shit bricks if you tell him your going to tear out the fucking walls on a dream?
Look at their reports.
GM makes zero money on cars.
It makes all profits through finance lending.
What dealers make is what dealers can make selling any brand of car, besides a GM.
If the dealer makes 1% on the finance, while GM makes the 5% then its GMs bread n butter.
GM could sell an EV1 at 5% profit, direct to door delivery if it wanted to without dealers, if people just
paid via a loan financer. If there is zero maintenance then GM wouldnt care if every dealer went broke or sold toyota, if they can
sell 5-10% profit financed EV1s direct to door delivery.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The air car was developed by MDI international from the efforts of the inventor Guy Nègre. More information on the development can be found at http://www.theaircar.com/aboutmdi.html
Tell me, sir. Did your mother drop you on your head or were you just born stupid.
Here is a hint, there isn't a big market in India for electrically heated seats either.
How does it keep my feet warm in the scorching heat. Jezus H. Christ.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In Soviet Russia air blows you!
A gold ring costs hundreds of dollars therefore a chain made of steel rings is going to cost a fortune.
You are comparing the price of a niche luxury item with mainstream production costs.
Air compression ain't that expensive, it is used all the time in industry to power lots of equipment.
I would suggest that the cost of filling your scuba tank is that high because A: you would hate it if it smelled like regular compressed air (think rancid oil) B: the guy running the stand wants to make a fat profit C: the guy selling it saw you coming and knew he could charge you $5-$10 dollars for stuffing air into your own tank.
Basic lesson: price you are charged does NOT equal the cost of production.
Trust me, if your estimates were truth business wouldn't be using so much air compression in production. High powered air tools are becoming the norm and use far less elec then their directly electrically powered cousins. The reason for this is extremely simple. The compressor engine can be optomised for efficiency rather then having to be designed to fit on the tool your holding. It can run 24/7 using a tank to offset peak loads and it can be located somewhere were you don't mind it making a sound like, well nothing quits make a racket like an air compressor.
The zero pollution finally is about the amount of pollution generated at the point of use and compared to petrol cars it does indeed come close to zero.
The only people who would assume that such a claim is a crank are the same one who think global warming can be disproven because it is snowing. People with a brain KNOW without being told what is meant by this "zero emission" claim.
Anything after all polutes, a simple bicycle has a CO2 emitting engine and nasty brake pads.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
We may use an electrical compressor. Yes, the energy comes from a powerplant runnings on oil/gas/coal/nuclear power/etc., but a powerplant is a hell of a lot less polluting per watt than a normal generator/car.
We have plenty of good ways to store solar energy as hydrocarbons (or at least, plants do). The food chain depends on it (except for some unusual examples like thermal ocean vents).
The intrinsic problem is the rate of collection and the effort required to extract that energy. Crude oil is the product of natural processes that have effectively done the thermal depolymerisation (the "turkey guts into oil" reaction) for us. Alas, crude oil represents the product of many millions of years of these processes. We are consuming it at a far greater rate than the biosphere produced it (and the conditions which produced it are gone, in the main).
I think investment in this area is essential. If nothing else, other forms of energy capture do not provide us with viable feedstocks for the manufacturing industries. As oil production dwindles, its role as a feedstock for the plastic, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries is going to become far more of an issue than it's energy content, particularly if we crack fusion or some other energy panacea emerges.
There are some interesting advances in producing algae that are 50% oil by weight. If you could make this work on a small to medium scale, the oil companies ought to be widdling themselves. Or buying up large tracts of desert to put growing frames in (not that they don't already own lots of desert).
Nuclear and solar power. And wind. Geothermal. Just don't burn the damned oil.
And the taxis do exist and are called "ecotaxi".
Thanks for playing.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Wife: "What is it honey?"
Husband: "Some jerk let the car down last night!"
Does that book come with a tinfoil hat or do you need to make your own?
And what's the primary means of obtaining hydrogen today? From fossil fuels. The reason so much research is being done into hydrogen is because it maintains the market for the oil barons. It has a lot of PR value - all those wonderful, and scientifically verifiable, quotes about the exhaust from hydrogen engines being nothing but water vapour.
It's good for local emissions as well - zero particulates, zero nitrogen oxides, no sulphur, etc. Absolutely great for meeting strict emissions regulations with no consideration whatsoever about what kind of emissions have to occur elsewhere to generate the stuff.
These reasons are why it's become a poster-boy for politicians with a vested interest in oil. You can pronounce at great length how green your credentials are, all the while smiling inside about how your Exxon shares will remain stable. That's assuming the technology can be made to work - and if it can't, well, you still looked green for the voters, didn't you ? And it distracts attention away from all those dangerous alternate energy sources which have the potential to remove power from oil companies, because many of them depend on a vast distributed production infrastructure composed of low-cost capital, instead of being founded on geographically concentrated extraction zones which are easily defended and require vast investments to exploit, placing them out of the reach of the little guy.
You think they want to lose their power to a bunch of algae farmers (or avocados, or palm oil, or rapeseed, or any oil crop)? Compete with a production system that can increase its output every year because biological organisms reproduce themselves for not much more than water and dirt? Have people *gasp* turning to local producers for their fuel instead of a big multinational No sir. Which is why Bush laid out $1.2 B in 2003 for the hydrogen initiative.
No you're thinking of NASA. Or possibly NASA
Dude, you totally pwned that guy. He was all like "I have these rational points, let me share them to you and pretend I have something past an elementary school education." and then Uwere all like BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!! and that other dude was all like OMFGWTF!? ANd you were like BAZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT WRONG!!!!!! and he was all like "but..." and you were like BZZZZZZZZZZT WRONG!!!!!! u r my hero! Your rhetorical skills are the best!!! U should run for president, but the corporations will nut let U. They would totally be like "You want to run for president? BZZZZZZT WRONG!!!!!!!" and that wold sux. so u shuld just keep posting on slashdot n when someone is being all dumb and shit, U shold be like BZZZZZZZT WRONG!!!!!!!
I agree with some of that: the molecules in "petroleum" are way to difficult to duplicate to simply burn them when we could use them better.
... though in the second case I do not want to get credit for proposing it, since in a short time the guy in charge with rationing will be arrested by the same angry crowd that now demands "green" power and will be shipped to Romania for execution.
How about: how much energy is needed to manufacture, maintain and recycle a solar panel or a wind mill compared to the energy they produce ? Solar and wind solutions are useful only in the same way gasoline is useful: to get energy without being connected to a power line.
There are two solutions I see: research and get more efficient engines and generators, or rationalize
Kinda nice to have a spare tank in the tires, though.
There are two solutions I see: research and get more efficient engines and generators, or rationalize ... though in the second case I do not want to get credit for proposing it, since in a short time the guy in charge with rationing will be arrested by the same angry crowd that now demands "green" power and will be shipped to Romania for execution.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Check out www.theaircar.com
From the website... The dual energy system "The Series 34 CATs engines can be equipped with and run on dual energies - fossil fuels and compressed air - and incorporate a reheating mechanism (a continuous combustion system, easily controlled to minimize pollution) between the storage tank and the engine. This mechanism allows the engine to run exclusively on fossil fuel which permits compatible autonomy on the road. 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." Huh?
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
If your car doesn't work, just sink it in a pool and trace the bubbles to the source.
Disclaimer: IANAME
After working in factories for 15 years, every mechanical engineer I've talked to tells me that plant compressed air is the worst way to use power.
It's the most expensive (in terms of power) to make, and to transmit (what sort of baby-poop do you use when pulling black iron pipe?).
The reason they use it is that the equipment that uses it is cheap to build and maintain compared to its electrical brothers.
Count the number of parts in an air cylinder and the number of parts in a linear actuator (ball screw or linear motor) of the same force and stroke.
If someone came up with a way to make compressed air that cheaply, they'd make a lot more money by selling the tech to Toyota than to Toyota's customers.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Might not be a monopoly, but certainly an oligopoly. Tucker introduced cars with headlights that turn with the two front wheels. This was back in the 40's back before he got screwed over by the big 3. I think about a year ago was the first time I saw this idea reintroduced, on a Lexus.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
It's more like one car colliding at 120 mph into a stationary car. It's better than colliding at 120 mph to a wall, but worse than going 60mph to the wall.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I don't see any reason that production costs couldn't be comparable with India ...
We've got Japanese, Korean, and French made economy cars in the US - why not Indian?
Of course that would drive the demand for petroleum way down and then we'd have to subsidize Halliburton, et al.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Interesting idea, but using vegetable oil as a lubricant is totally retarded. The vegetable oil will polymerize long before 50000km coating all the moving parts and likely seizing the engine.
Otherwise I would have taken it seriously, however using vegetable oil as a lubricant destroys any credibility the product might have had.
P.S. The article is much more readable in lynx, the text loads almost immediately, even on dial-up, and the ad spam is completely avoided.
It's actually even simpler than that. Where's the first caucus for the primaries? Iowa. Guess what grows there?
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
Calling people dicks unnecessarily in polite discussion is uncalled for. Ad homonym attacks are counterproductive and rightfully make you look like an asshole and instantly lower your position in any debate. Is an ad homonym attack when you try to attack someone's statement by substituting words they said with different words, with different meanings, but the same pronunciation? Shirley, if that is so we can all agree that ad homonym attacks are quite inappropriate.
It's true that being an asshole when dealing with a dick will lower your position in most cases. But in fact there are many positions dicks and assholes may assume with respect with one another. Some will tell you that the dick will still get the best of the exchange, but in reality it's all a matter of preference.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
What about winter? I'd imagine you won't get much heat out of this car :P
You'd rather have mercury poisoning than a warmer planet?
"Mercury damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects" (Wikipedia.org)
Honestly, I hope your post is a joke. At least humans can adapt to a warmer planet. Your comment is insane.
The very fact that this required an explanation makes it just that much funnier... Bravo!
I don't have the numbers but likely someone here does.
I remember storing energy in batteries and retrieving it are around 90%. Likewise good electric propulsion motors are near 90%.
Considering that both electics and "Air" cars use electricity to put the energy into the vehicle. How does the conversion cycle compare Joules in, to motive power out?
I am willing to bet that electrics are ahead of compressing/decompressing through a heat pump efficiencies.
Energy as electricity seems to be a big part of future transportation, the question is what makes the best storage medium. Batteries, Hydrogen, Compressed Air? My bet is on batteries. I get a lot more excited about new battery technology than hydrogen/air developments.
The P.H.E.V. car was already completed by Korea in 2000 but the U.S. didn't report on it until 2005. Gee thanks CNN for that "timely" report. http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/03/30/spark.air.car/i ndex.html
Personally, I think that there is no way that any auto maker or oil company in the world will let these cars take over the roadways. Not when there is still 2 trillion gallons of oil still in the earth's crust. 2 trillion times 3 or 4 dollars a gallon equals a bunch of greedy bastards who don't care about the world they are leaving the children. All they care about is "getting mine and getting it now".
Hate to disappoint, but Barrier to Entry is a completely valid point. Citing Tesla Motors as an example against it proves nothing, since Tesla hasn't stood any test of entry yet. They've produced a single model vehicle (that I'm aware of) and gotten some additional funding, but are effectively still a niche company like custom made motorcycles or something. That isn't a success story (in a sense of truly making change in the auto industry), and certainly hasn't broken the barrier to entry. Look at Tucker, or for that matter Edsel (actually owned by Ford and it still failed) and DeLorian (less valid example since it failed for slightly more complex reasons--including criminal charges for John DeLorian) for more realistic examples.
"Foriegn companies, some of which are government backed" are exactly the success stories you've seen. Datsun (Nissan), Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, these guys rolled into the market having a huge customer base which effectively removed the Barrier to Entry because they had a large cash base to project from. Barrier to entry doesn't apply to these examples because they were already big companies. It applies to the guy making custom cars out of his garage that comes up with a great idea but can't ever get it to the streets "en-masse" because he can't break out of the custom niche without millions or billions of dollars to get started manufacturing and through safety inspections.
Radically changing your manufacturing process will cause a loss in investment. Saying the GP is wrong doesn't make it so. If you change your process, you spend money to retrain, to buy new equipment, and to get rid of your old equipment that still had some value to your company (unless it was broken) which doubles the loss because it's no longer producing products. It's a huge consideration in why car manufacturers don't do more radical designs except as "concept cars" for shows.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I mean, the car may be easy to MAINTENANCE, but what the hell is that? Oil changes? Tune-ups? If you smash your hybrid electric thingy ma bob, it's going to cost you a lot more to fix the car then a traditional one, given the scarcity of the products and the technical skill and tools needed to fix them. You're just plain wrong.
Also, you're sales pitch completely goes against what car manufacturers want. Cars have become dispensable. You smash it, and buy another. 20 year maintenance? They don't want people driving for 20 years with the same car. They want you to buy a new one A.S.A.P. Repeat customers are a huge value to business. Jack up the prices? Then why would people want to buy it? You can't begin to tell me the high price and high cost of REPAIRS outweighs routine maintenance like trivial oil changes and gas savings. It's not hard to develop a workable business model around a vehicle which has low maintenance costs, and you'd make a killing in the long run. Do you know how complicated it would be to develop this model? Have you ever developed a business model on such a grandiose scale? Can you imagine the sources and information you'd have to piece together to project fossil fuel prices? And pitch that to your manager? The board? The costs of so much research? This would take a year just to DEVELOP the plan, nevermind implement it...and the costs? HAH! Good lord you'd need a massive project team for that one. Nevermind you'd be pissing off your partners, you know, the fuel industries and suppliers like current parts manufacturers. It ain't that easy buddy. If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong. Do you understand capital acquisitions and depreciation and ROI? How is he wrong?
won't argue you'll won't get air conditioning, but that cooling of air as it decompresses in fact hinders the efficiency of the process and lowers useful energy yield. won't argue the car won't roll for awhile either, just that it's a HUGE waste of energy (back to my SCUBA tank example, it takes 5.5HP for over 20 minutes to fill those tanks to get 4 HP for less than seven minutes.
Standard solar cells can generate about 20x the energy used to manufacture, maintain and recycle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
In the best locations wind power pays back well over 100x the energy used to manufacture, maintain and recycle them. The problem with wind is that some areas have a much higher payback than others however depending on the basline you can still get a lot of energy.
"The most comprehensive study to date[27] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW (~54,000 Mtoe), or over five times the world's current energy use and 40 times the current electricity use. The potential takes into account only locations with Class 3 (mean annual wind speeds 6.9 m/s at 80 m) or better wind regimes, which includes the locations suitable for low-cost (0.03-0.04 $/kWh) wind power generation and is in that sense conservative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Good points, you're actually better off with a Ford/PSA tdci engine which will get you up to around 65-70 mpg under normal driving.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
FTA "It is predicted that the factory will produce 3.000 cars each year, with 70 staff working only one 8-hour shift a day. If there were 3 shifts some 9.000 cars could be produced a year." Really? Well, goodness me.
What is crazier is that there are multiple patents for the same concept. Which goes to show that the patent office don't know what is going on.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6505576.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6557495.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6651591.html
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6701872.html
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
Either way, it's just as bad for a Frenchman.....
So can I sue Kevin Amiss and Martin Abbott when I accidentally blind my cat with a laser using their method?
I am not a number - I am a free man!
Huh? Hydrogen can be produced by many means, especially by any process which generates electricity. That means solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear, or even vegetable oils can be used to generate hydrogen. You can set up your own personal solar-powered electrolysis plant at home if you want to. Sure, it might be produced by fossil fuels too, but it's not limited to that.
Besides, even if it is produced by fossil fuels, 1) it's more likely to be produced with coal, since we have tons of coal here in the US and it's dirt cheap unlike oil, and 2) it's FAR more efficient to burn fossil fuels in a huge power plant and create power than to burn fossil fuels in millions of tiny mobile internal-combustion engines.
I never thought I'd be defending one of Bush's actions on Slashdot (even such a minor one).
Correction:
.
70mpg / 34.6MJ/l / 48% / 3.785 l / gal * 1.6km / mile = 1.78 km/MJ
1.78 km/MJ * 0.278 MJ/kWh / $0.13/kWh = 3.8 km/$ , or $79/300km
SEriously. even if you could get over al the problems with the car such as explosion, old tanks and blah blah blah. this will never see the market. the oil companies will wave a bunch of money in his face and then the car will disapear forever and never be seen on the market again.
If you haven't crashed yet...... your not going fast enough.
even if the stupid car work and you could get over all the problems such as exploding or old tanks and blah blah blah. the car will never see the market. the oil companies will come wave some money in the inventors face and it will never see the light of day again.
If you haven't crashed yet...... your not going fast enough.
That's exactly my point. A culture that considers CO2 the most dangerous "pollutant" that we have to worry about, is truly insane. CO2 is about as much of a pollutant as water is. In high enough doses, both will kill you, but the amounts released by man have no effect on public health whatsoever.
I wish we had a symbol for sarcasm like the question mark or exclamation point. How about the percent sign. It would go like this:
While we're on the topic of CO2 pollution, I'd like to complain about all the H2O pollution% I live in what used to be a desert, but the unrestrained release of H2O into the local environment has totally destroyed it% Everywhere I go, I see people just spraying H2O right onto the ground% The damage caused by this is obvious% Instead of rocks and sage brush, everywhere I look, I see grass, flowers, shrubs, and trees%
OK, that looks kind of funny.
Bloody Fremen zealot...
Your brain is not a computer.
*deep, deep sigh*
:|
iqu
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
The articulated connecting rod on the engine is brilliant. Goes to show where a design can go when someone takes a completely different approach to a problem. The old, solid connecting-rod design of engines worked fine for 100+ years until engineered materials have been developed to tackle the problem of how a reciprocating engine has a different requirement for when you create power during the combustion phase.
Tisha Hayes
Is anyone else disappointed? I read the headline and through that my flying car was finally hear. Even after reading the summary I was still hopeful that we were talking about some sort of hovercraft.
I can't help but feel cheated by this story.
Of course the actual story is still promising. I'd be curious to know what sort of acceleration you can get out of one of these, what the max weight load is and if it has heat as well as A/C.
Also, if these things are so cheap and efficient, why wouldn't Tata make a more aggressive run at it? I mean 3,000 cars a year is nothing. Why doesn't Tata, approach a major leader who's been spouting off about reducing foreign oil dependency for the past 2 State of the Union Addresses (not that I want to name names) and tell him to put his policies where his mouth is?
Near the very bottom of http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html there is the table-section "Three-stage expansion with reheating with air at ambient temperature" When you quote "4 HP for less than seven minutes" - was that with three-stage expansion ? "Unpriced externalities" of inner-city air pollution include say the HEALTH CARE for the kids who get asthma due to the pollution, I have read about that in several independent places. So if the HUGE waste of energy was not quite so huge, and you include the pollution externalities, then the "whole system" economics might tip, hmm ?
Just remember Tucker, his car was decades ahead of the times in safety and reliability. The auto industry was less than amused. Just think of all the lives his cars could have saved if the industry with government help hadn't drove him out of business first. The power of lobbying doubtfully made any difference considering the oil lobby is a thousand times larger and richer.
Its DRM kept it from becoming anything more than a blip. They have a much cooler toy (though a bit pricey, and where's the digital in?) now. The minidisc serves a different purpose than the iPod. It can record in the real sense, but the DRM prevented you from making any real use out of it. They seemed to have lightened up a bit. Where can you plug the mixer into an iPod?
What?
To hop up my air powered car with high flow air valves and liquid co2 tanks for the higher energy density, straight pipe out the side to drop the backpressure, personally I see any form of automotive technology as a challenge to see if it can be made faster for cheap.
for what it's worth
joudanzuki
an electric vehicle really cost so much less to maintain, it'd be VERY easy to market - simply jack up your sticker price, but offer free maintenance for the next 2 decades. Customers LOVE to see the word FREE, and FREE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS! looks even better. Show your customers a price chart of how much it would cost them to maintain a vehicle bought from your competitor, vs the money they'd be saving by buying from you. While you're at it, have some charts handy depicting the projected growth curve of fossil fuels over the next 20 years, vs the relatively low cost of grid electrical energy. It's not hard to develop a workable business model around a vehicle which has low maintenance costs, and you'd make a killing in the long run.
... or NOT.
BWA HA HA HA HA. Educate the customer in the calculation of TCO as a sales strategy. That's so crazy it just might work
>>If you radically change your manufacturing process to produce a better car, you lose your investment in the current equipment
I don't know where you're getting that idea, but it's wrong.
Did your brain have a seizure in the middle of that reply, or do you just not know why that idea is wrong?
Your arrogance would be amusing, if it weren't so horribly misplaced.
Where do you suggest that I place my arrogance?
- Nothing to see hear.
Who cares? If you smash it, it's the insurance company that pays for the repairs. At worst you may end up with a slight increase in insurance rates. Moreover, any accident requiring extensive internal repairs will probably be a write-off anyway, and cars which only require cosmetic repairs aren't going to be any harder to fix than they currently are.
So offer better deals on leases instead. Or limit the warranty to 6 years instead of 20. Whatever. The point is, there's dozens of different ways you can make money off a product, and only a buffon would believe that car companies are suppressing new technology because they're afraid that they may have to change their business model.
Give me $100,000, 2 months, and a staff of 3. I'll spend a month partying in Cuba, a week recovering, and have a workable business model on your desk before the 2 months is up.
Most of the machinery would be usable for the new vehicles. Much bigger changes in tooling have had to be made in the past, when transitioning to the use of new materials such as fibreglass, titanium, and carbon fibre, yet companies did it willingly. So he's wrong in his assumption that this would require a major retooling, and he's wrong in his assumption that companies aren't willing to retool when necessary.
...those cool flying we were supposed to have, like the ones on The Jetsons?
Who's hiding the anti-gravity stuff? I know someone out there knows about it.
You know they don't want us to have it so we can continue buying oil. The bastards.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
Seriously though. even if you could get over al the problems with the car such as explosion, old tanks and blah blah blah. this will never see the market. the oil companies will wave a bunch of money in his face and then the car will disapear forever and never be seen on the market again.
If you haven't crashed yet...... your not going fast enough.
Aww sweetie, did I hurt your feelings?
- Nothing to see hear.
Nonsense. I do most of my own maintenance and repair work. Stuff that I can't handle, my mechanic can. I'm not sure where this "complexity" myth comes from. Not to mention that an electric vehicle would actually be LESS complex, and require less maintenance.
Right, because you do all your repair work on your car I guess that makes sense that the entire spectrum of consumers will be able to do the same? You're a dolt. I do my repair work in house too. Oil changes, tire changes, hell I know someone that does my brakes for free. Most people don't have that technical capability, don't know anyone that does, or they just don't want to bother with fixing their car themselves. Honestly, if you compare the fuel savings +. maintenance costs + initial purchasing costs + repair/parts costs a fuel saving gas car will save you more money than these fancy hybrids/electrics. And most people want to save money.
Who cares? If you smash it, it's the insurance company that pays for the repairs. At worst you may end up with a slight increase in insurance rates. Moreover, any accident requiring extensive internal repairs will probably be a write-off anyway, and cars which only require cosmetic repairs aren't going to be any harder to fix than they currently are.
Agreed on the smashing, but honestly, if parts break within the engine, which they occasionally do by themselves without crashing you will pay more for that special part and the repair work. What about all the electronics? How are you going to diagnose those problems and better yet fix them. Unless of course you possess the technical know-how on how to fix those special new components which I highly doubt many people will want to learn or already know, you won't be able to. Other fender bender type work will be as you said "aren't going to be any harder to fix than they currently are" but the engine parts will be special and more expensive. Guaranteed.
So offer better deals on leases instead. Or limit the warranty to 6 years instead of 20. Whatever. The point is, there's dozens of different ways you can make money off a product, and only a buffon would believe that car companies are suppressing new technology because they're afraid that they may have to change their business model.
I agree with you, but if there are dozens of business models and your company wants the best, how are you going to know which one will actually work. Remember, you aren't pitching this idea to the general populace or /. community, you're pitching it to managers, the board, etc. They want numbers, not nonsense and crap you can pull out of your arse.
Give me $100,000, 2 months, and a staff of 3. I'll spend a month partying in Cuba, a week recovering, and have a workable business model on your desk before the 2 months is up.
Bullshiat. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now.
Most of the machinery would be usable for the new vehicles. Much bigger changes in tooling have had to be made in the past, when transitioning to the use of new materials such as fibreglass, titanium, and carbon fibre, yet companies did it willingly. So he's wrong in his assumption that this would require a major retooling, and he's wrong in his assumption that companies aren't willing to retool when necessary.
Right because there are laws that made mandatory requirements to force companies to change their products, again, "when necessary." Also, you know that Ford has bought out many dealerships AND repair shops. Now they'll have to purchase new equipment, tools, and train personnel on how to fix the components of the car. I can tell you haven't done repair work on cars say from the 70s and then done some serious work on the cars of today. With the multitude of electronic gizmos, you need special machines just to diagnose the problem. Fixing it is a hell of a lot worse given the strange tools/equipment and labor required and even the positioning of the parts you need to get
It hasn't been done yet because the product doesn't exist yet. Give it a decade or two.
A basic diagnostic computer costs between $300 and $800. I spent $350 on mine.
Not that it's the same thing (as the French cowardice Meme) but a lot of the world's problems can be reasonably blamed on the way the French and British bungled the peace after WW1. Too tough on the Germans helped ensure WW2. Screwed up dividing the Ottoman Empire (didn't listen to Wilson) and led to decades of fun in the Middle East. Then after the Suez Crisis both nations washed their hands of everything leaving the US (with our lack of foreign policy experience) to try to keep it all together while they give us shit. Yeah the French lost 3 million, that is sad, but it was French Generals ordering mass waves assaults into German machine guns at Verdun that caused those dead.