Yamaha-frame bike with scuba tank makes Dyson shortlist [Runs on AIR!]

Phys.Org ^ | 11-06-2012 | Staff

[Oztrich Boy]

You can extend the range by towing one of these

[CanuckYank]

YAH right, until the environazis or the EPA decide to return your water storage area “back to nature” .....

[wonkowasright]

Why don’t we just put a seat on that and be done with it ? :-)

[chaos_5]

USFRIENDINVICTORIA
I know you said you are playing devil’s advocate and I think you mean well in your points but a huge red flag goes up every time I see one of those air cars and the “facts” associated with them. A quick stop over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density will show that the claim “Compressed air tanks have greater energy density than batteries” is FALSE (mostly)!

At 300 bar (4350 psi) compressed air has a specific energy density of 0.5 MJ/Kg

Others for comparison…
Gasoline 47.2
Lithium air battery 9
Lithium battery 1.8
Alkaline battery 0.59
Lithium ion battery 0.72
Lead acid 0.1

So, it may be better than an old fashioned lead battery not so in general.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I clearly got the energy density part wrong. I was going on (obviously faulty) memory.

Also, I hadn’t realized that the energy density of a lithium-air battery is so high. That’s very interesting.

I felt the need to play devil’s advocate, because I think that there’s too much of a tendency to politicize certain technologies on FR. To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

I realize that air cars, battery-electric cars, hybrids, etc. have been politicized by the “other side” — all part and parcel of the greatest boondoggle of all times (the AGW, carbon-credit, “green” energy subsidy, anti-coal, wealth-redistribution, knock-the-west-down-to-size, watermelon conspiracy). That does make it hard to be dispassionate about any technology that gets ensnared in that mess. I have a simple rule for approaching such technologies: if it’s subsidized, criticize; if it’s a product of free markets — then leave it to willing buyers and willing sellers.

As a confirmed gadget freak; if I had the mad money I might indulge myself with an air car, or air motorcycle, just to play with it.

[chaos_5]

To me, technological options should be judged on their merits; and not by a political litmus test.

Well, I couldn’t agree with you more on that point. Also, reading through your other post I have to say it is refreshing to see some looking at energy issues from a system wide prospective.

I don’t use the subsidized litmus test though since nearly every breakthrough technology is arguably subsidized in its infancy, especially if the technology is in the research phase and resaving government funding through university grants etc. Then there is the idea that you subsidize what you want more of and tax what you want less of. Clearly dumping billions of dollars into solar power companies that just go belly up is stupid.

Anyway, the writing is on the wall as far as alternative energy goes. It’s frustrating when people support it for ridiculous reasons like CO2 emissions instead of more reasonable terms like conserving finite and diminishing resources. But, honestly, I think the big dogs in power just use things like global warming to grab more power from the sheeple and artificially drive up the cost of energy to make alternatives more economically attractive.

Perhaps the end game is the same...

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"I don’t use the subsidized litmus test though since nearly every breakthrough technology is arguably subsidized in its infancy, especially if the technology is in the research phase and resaving government funding through university grants etc."

Agreed -- and thanks for the opportunity to clarify my meaning. This forum isn't designed for academic discussions; so I try to get to the main point, while often leaving aside a lot of important nuances. I've said on several other threads that subsidizing pure research is a legitimate government role. And often a case can be made for subsidizing applied R&D. There is almost never a case for subsidizing full-scale industrial operations. For instance, there should have been a lot more R&D in solar, before solar companies were subsidized -- enough to have a clear path to profitability.

In short, my litmus test is: if the production phase needs subsidy, complain. If a business can produce and market an air-powered motorcycle, without ongoing government subsidies -- more power to them. If they come cap-in-hand for a production subsidy -- then, we all have a right to complain.

[devolve]

"...how does the compressed air get compressed in the first place?"


"...maybe a little blow...."

-- Barack Hussein Obama II

[Hot Tabasco]

Cool! How’s it run in snow?

[steve86]

Two-stroke (offroad) making a huge comeback. Yamaha (and others) actually never quit making them. Also check out KTM, Husqvarna, Husaberg, Gas-Gas and others. Ossa has a new direct injection 2T that beats 4T in some emmisions metrics.

[steve86]

emissions

[Red Badger]

Since air must have ‘heat’ to expand, I’d think it runs rather slower in the cold than the summer........