Thread: Air Motor

They forgot to mention:
1. how big the tanks of compressed air are to make it run.
2. consumption rates.
3. tank pressure.

It is only good if you can fill the tanks up at home with your own private air compressor.

Originally Posted by cultana

They forgot to mention:
1. how big the tanks of compressed air are to make it run.
2. consumption rates.
3. tank pressure.

It is only good if you can fill the tanks up at home with your own private air compressor.

And even then, how much is it going cost you to run this air compressor?

...hmmmmm, well I'm certainly not an engineer, but how about linking the motor to a compressor generator and feeding that air supply back into the motor?

Well Ed I guess the nay sayers will quote the Conservation of Energy Law. But certainly there would be some lift available to offset the power requirements.

The Di Pietro motor, developed by Engineair in Brooklyn, Victoria, offers an outstanding reduction in air consumption compared to conventional air motors, and together with its high torque capability makes a mobile application such as the market burden carrier technically and economically feasible.

No doubt the compressed air tanks would hold a very high pressure,probably in excess of 2000psi [ or around 14 megapascal ] and with that I am not sure of how much benefit would be in using the exhaust in re compression here.

This is a very interesting concept. I can only just grasp the principal but he could be on a winner. We need thinkers like this bloke to be "outhere" ahead of us so we, as a race, can adjust and move forward.
My hope for him is that he can survive the "Knockers" and be able to succeed.
To get to supply those transporters at Melbourne Market would be a great start for him. With the way we are being brainwashed for fresh and healthy fruit and veg, to have an air powered vehicle passing by our next salad would have to be better than eating that same salad that has been exposed to 2 stroke exhaust from the existing transporters.
One question that comes to mind is.... What happened to Ralph Sarrich? Remember his Orbital Engine was going to be the power plant for every vehicle (well nearly)? What happened to him?

Originally Posted by hughie

No doubt the compressed air tanks would hold a very high pressure,probably in excess of 2000psi .

2000 psi? - I guess that rules out my $99 bunny special?

Oh god, the ameture inventor again.

If I had a dollar for every half wit with a half baked idea that's tried to sell it to me, then accused me of everything from anti-progress to trying to stealing their "world changing" idea I would be rather wealthier than I am now.

I had for a time the unfortunate combination of employment with csiro and moving in circles well polulated with these people. It's wonderful how ignorance of physics can allow the enthusiastic idiot to just assume the miriad problems will somehow get "sorted out" because they are just "details" and how they imagine they have come up with an idea no one else has had.

You lose efficiency when you compress the air. You lose it when the air expands. You need an energy source to compress the air. You need a safe way to store the air on board a vehicle moving at speed and potentially being hit hard and fast by something else. Ever seen what happens when an pressurised bottle ruptures or has it's top knocked off ? It's like a big F'n bomb.

The fact is the ford focus diesel runs on almost no fuel at all, leaves the prius miles behind (and is somewhat less likely to kill you), costs $25k full retail and you can refuel it and get it serviced anywhere. Why would you bother ?

Originally Posted by Ed Reiss

...hmmmmm, well I'm certainly not an engineer, but how about linking the motor to a compressor generator and feeding that air supply back into the motor?

Is that like the electric engine that runs a generator that powers the engine ?

ever decreasing semi perpetual motion ....

[ What happened to Ralph Sarrich? Remember his Orbital Engine was going to be the power plant for every vehicle (well nearly)? What happened to him?

[/QUOTE]



What happned to the Australian Sarich engine?

and then we have

The Hilton Centrifical Engine

and for the diehards

Rotary Internal-Combustion Engines.

I can see some applications where it would be handy and if it uses less air than other air driven thingies then good.
Being smart enough to build the thing he should have been smart enough to steer clear of the NO POLLUTION claim. Where is the air coming from? Perhaps a treadle compressor.

Originally Posted by Manuka Jock

Is that like the electric engine that runs a generator that powers the engine ?

ever decreasing semi perpetual motion ....

like I said MJ, I'm not an engineer (good reason for that!!!)

Couple of things.

I will never forget our teck teacher showing the class the sarich video, standing back saying nothing then asking us when it was over what we thought of it. Most of the class didn't get it, I of course stuck my hand up and listed the multitude problems it had. Mind I didn't spot all of them. I worked for a time with people who'd been involved in trying to solve the induction problems. I have the utmost respect for Phil Irving and as usual he spotted all that I did plus a dozen other issues I'd missed.

Wankel was a very clever engineer. A seal expert his origional design was fine, until the managers got at it, turned it inside out and stuffed it. It took 20 years to even begin to solve the problems they created. I've read several of his text books and he was a much smarter cookie than I will ever be.

The only sensible application for air engines is intrinsicly safe enviroments where electricity and combustable fuels present signifigant hazards. You consume energy to compress the air, you lose signifigant potential energy in compressing it and expanding it, you have less than 100% efficiency in the motor itself. There are just much better systems.

Consider pelletised aluminium doped with gallium, and water. Pass water over the alumium and it strips the oxygen to creat aluminium oxide. The gallium prevents the skin forming so the reaction continues. The hydrogen bubbles off in a controlled way and you dump it into your motor and drive your car. The car is about 300 kg heavier because of the fuel and the aluminium is reclaimed at a refinery located close to an efficient generator. Gallium is reclaimed. Total pollution load is signifigantly less than petrol car and provided infrastructure is in place the ecomonics get close to petrol.

Also search on "bluegen", an australian developed fuel cell system for home electricity generation from gas. Low emmissions, low cost.

Smart ideas are out there, but the world is full of ignorance and deciept.

I think the key point about this engine is that there is no pollution emitted by the engine itself. That is a MAJOR plus for working in environments such as the fruit markets.

I saw tis demonstrated on "The Inventors". The tanks are either carbon fibre or wrapped in carbon fibre for strength.

With the current push for PV solar panels there is no reason why the required capacity to compress air couldn't be met with electricity generated this way.

I find Damien's Reply somewhat perplexing. The man is not an amateur inventer - he is an Engineer. In any case does being an Amateur rule one out of inventing?
You also misse the point of this motor's current demonstrated use, I think, Damien. You cannot really compare it YET to the Ford Focus as ther is no road going version of it.

God help the world if everyone took your cynical view.

Originally Posted by damian

Couple of things.

Sarich was worse than a hair brained inventor, he was a con man who made $70 million dollars out of signing contracts he didn't honour and promoting an engine that would never be practical. I will never forget our teck teacher showing the class the sarich video, standing back saying nothing then asking us when it was over what we thought of it. Most of the class didn't get it, I of course stuck my hand up and listed the multitude problems it had. Mind I didn't spot all of them. I worked for a time with people who'd been involved in trying to solve the induction problems. I have the utmost respect for Phil Irving and as usual he spotted all that I did plus a dozen other issues I'd missed.

Wankel was a very clever engineer. A seal expert his origional design was fine, until the managers got at it, turned it inside out and stuffed it. It took 20 years to even begin to solve the problems they created. I've read several of his text books and he was a much smarter cookie than I will ever be.

The only sensible application for air engines is intrinsicly safe enviroments where electricity and combustable fuels present signifigant hazards. You consume energy to compress the air, you lose signifigant potential energy in compressing it and expanding it, you have less than 100% efficiency in the motor itself. There are just much better systems.

Consider pelletised aluminium doped with gallium, and water. Pass water over the alumium and it strips the oxygen to creat aluminium oxide. The gallium prevents the skin forming so the reaction continues. The hydrogen bubbles off in a controlled way and you dump it into your motor and drive your car. The car is about 300 kg heavier because of the fuel and the aluminium is reclaimed at a refinery located close to an efficient generator. Gallium is reclaimed. Total pollution load is signifigantly less than petrol car and provided infrastructure is in place the ecomonics get close to petrol.

Also search on "bluegen", an australian developed fuel cell system for home electricity generation from gas. Low emmissions, low cost.

Smart ideas are out there, but the world is full of ignorance and deciept.

Your tech teacher was Phil Irving??
Respect mate, respect!
I have two copies of 'Tuning for speed', one in the shed mostly covered in oily fingerprints, and a pristine copy on the bookshelf!