Posted by Eeyore on June 7, 2009, 3:35 pm
Joesepi wrote:
> What would supply the energy to compress the air
Electricity typically.
> and why would we not just
> run that energy source a directlly as possible to avoid more energy losses
> in an inefficient storage system?
I see you're not as gullible as some. The air compression simply introduces
extra losses and inefficiency. PLUS it sounds deafening.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address
Posted by Joesepi on June 7, 2009, 9:39 pm
I was leading up to that. The whole thing has to be a joke. Interesting
technology that may pay off but until we find compressed air mines, just a
poor battery.
> I see you're not as gullible as some. The air compression simply
> introduces
> extra losses and inefficiency. PLUS it sounds deafening.
> Graham
> --
> due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
> adjustment
> to my email address
>
Posted by Richard W. on June 7, 2009, 11:10 pm
>I was leading up to that. The whole thing has to be a joke. Interesting
>technology that may pay off but until we find compressed air mines, just a
>poor battery.
>>
>> I see you're not as gullible as some. The air compression simply
>> introduces
>> extra losses and inefficiency. PLUS it sounds deafening.
>>
>> Graham
>>
They must have some way of liquefying carbon dioxide that is quick and easy.
A 50 pound bottle of it is about $5.00. When it's in liquid form there is a
lot more in the container that if it was just compressed air. Isn't this a
better way to go. Also most large cities have gas plants to service
hospitals and the welding industries.
Also you could store a quantity at your house. Just change tanks and have
them switch out like welding shops do. A truck comes by one a week and swaps
empties for full ones. Depending on your use you could have delivery once a
month or every other week.
Just a thought. So what's wrong with it?
Richard W.
Posted by Joesepi on June 8, 2009, 1:20 am
What is wrong with it is, the energy to compress a gas is a lot more than
you will ever get out of it, expanding it.
What would the point be in wasting all that energy on a vehicle that is only
a "cool gadget". Petroleum is a lot more efficient and has a much lower
carbon footprint if you don't waste half of it on silly energy storage
convesrion schemes.
Try a fuel cell if you feel the need to waste some energy.
> They must have some way of liquefying carbon dioxide that is quick and
> easy. A 50 pound bottle of it is about $5.00. When it's in liquid form
> there is a lot more in the container that if it was just compressed air.
> Isn't this a better way to go. Also most large cities have gas plants to
> service hospitals and the welding industries.
> Also you could store a quantity at your house. Just change tanks and have
> them switch out like welding shops do. A truck comes by one a week and
> swaps empties for full ones. Depending on your use you could have delivery
> once a month or every other week.
> Just a thought. So what's wrong with it?
> Richard W.
Posted by robert bowman on June 8, 2009, 3:03 am
Richard W. wrote:
> Just a thought. So what's wrong with it?
Check the airgun or paintball sites for discussions of CO2 properties.
http://ddbonline.ddbst.de/AntoineCalculation/AntoineCalculationCGI.exe
This site will run the Antoine equation on CO2 using the units of
measurement of your choice. The short answer is you can get too much
pressure from liquid CO2, and that pressure will fall off badly as the
ambient temperature drops.
We won't even go into the hysteria caused by releasing CO2 into the
atmosphere.
XML site map