Talk:Compressed-air vehicle

Untitled
Just because an energy source is renewable does not mean it does not produce Greenhouse gases. Biomass energy is renewable because is derived from plant matter, but the burning of biomass produces carbon dioxide.

The article also implies that nuclear power contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, which is incorrect.

Some numbers on the efficieny of compressing air using grid power to run these cars would be useful. How does it compare to the efficiency of using battery powered cars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.53 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mining uranium ore with heavy, oil-derivated fuel operated equipment releases green house gases.
 * Biomass energy generation is in the current "carbon cycle" and thus does not contribute to the rise in CO2.
 * but... detailed discussion are out of scope. The sort answer is, that for any energy storage technology (compressed air, batteries) the energy conversion process has to be taken into account.
 * (but even with gas and other fossil fuels, the carbon footprint is bigger then the CO2 release of the combustion, as fossil fuels need to be harvested, refined and distributed)
 * -- MichaelFrey (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Technology
Assuming electricity is the same at the plug, it must be compared to the other technologies in terms of:


 * 1) Cost to build, cost to run
 * 2) Charge/discharge efficiency
 * 3) Power density (power over volume) / specific power (power over mass)
 * 4) Energy density (energy over volume) / specific energy (energy over mass)
 * 5) Maintenance, reliability, failure modes, etc.

The environmental impacts also need to be quantified:
 * 1) Emissions and energy consumption due to manufacturing
 * 2) Emissions and energy consumption due to vehicle operation
 * 3) Emissions and energy consumption due to disposal

--Mac (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages
The article currently says "disadvantages are less well known because these engines are in pre-production phase". Then how in Hell do we know the advantages? There were several disadvantages listed a couple days ago, and they're gone, but the advantages section is intact. Both advantages and disadvantages can be known from pre-production testing, and you can't know one without the other. I'm going to revert the article, because this sounds like environmentalist agenda to me. Notice I am not going to delete anything from the advantages section. Professor Chaos (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CORRECTION: My bad, the section I saw was in Compressed-air car, not vehicle. These sound like articles that should be merged. The problem still remains, if the disadvantages are known well enough to be included in the car article, they can go in the vehicle article as well, until the articles are merged (if they are). I will copy the section to this article. Professor Chaos (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Three mechanical engineering students from San Jose State University
The paragraph about the air-powered motorcycle built by the mechanical engineering students doesn't seem notable or well-sourced. I think it should probably be deleted. Any objections? Dansan99 (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd go further and get rid of every entry that is not supported by RS, except torpedoes and fireless locos. Greglocock (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Untested Vendor Claims
In addition to the recommendation of Greglocock to get rid of every entry not supported by a reliable source, I would remove, for lack of notability, well-sourced facts that merely state what nascent vendors claim their own designs can do. As I write this, the article includes claims of 90% efficiency and a 140 km range on compressed air alone, taken from decade-old announcements of forthcoming products. Those products never appeared, and no demonstration has gotten anywhere near those figures. Bryangeneolson (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Compressed-air vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080401235339/http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au:80/watch/program_details.aspx?id_program=2096 to http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/watch/program_details.aspx?id_program=2096

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Compressed-air vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071103072003/http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html? to http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html;
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012052128/http://www.ecogeek.org:80/content/view/659/ to http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Compressed-air vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911042043/http://www.efcf.com/reports/E18.pdf to http://www.efcf.com/reports/E18.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popularmechanics.com:80/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html?
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecogeek.org:80/content/view/659/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Renaming of article ?
I was thinking we may want to rename this article to Pneumatic vehicle. Reason is that besides compressed air, compressed carbon dioxide may also be used in the vehicle. This has environmental advantages, see also: here

Question I have though is whether the engines that work on compressed air would also work on compressed carbon dioxide. Also, would this be more costly (i.e. do "ambient air to compressed carbon dioxide" tools exist, for everyday people) ?

Also, would this make the vehicle able to store more energy than with compressed air ? I assume so, since it's 60% denser, but I'm not sure. KVDP (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the place for original research. "Pneumatic vehicle" could be confused for the things blown through a tube.  Recommend we leave the original name, which arguably is bad, too, as it's not a common term. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The linked article is talking about capturing atmospheric CO2 and cracking it to produce carbon monoxide, which could then be used as feedstock for making combustible fuels. Since CO2 fire suppression systems regularly kill off unwary engine room personnel on board ships, it seems unlikely to find a new role in propelling vehicles - but that's my original research. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article indeed talks about cracking CO2 to produce carbon monoxide, which could then be used as feedstock for making combustible fuels. Still, the principle is the same (in both cases, the CO2 is captured from the atmosphere and carbon is hence temporarily removed from the atmosphere, hereby reducing the greenhouse effect a tiny bit).

KVDP (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Please don't rename the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Compressed-air vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html%3B
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218141158/http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-bikes-green-speed-air-powered-motorcycle-aims-to-smash-land-speed-record/ to http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-bikes-green-speed-air-powered-motorcycle-aims-to-smash-land-speed-record/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)