Engineering students from India create air-powered motorcycle
Click above to watch the video after the break
Just over a year ago, we reported on an air-powered moped that was built using carbon fiber tanks originally intended for firefighting use. Apparently, the idea has occurred to a few other people as well, as a group of engineering students from India have just completed another compressed air-powered motorcycle using a small 100 cc motorcycle as a starting point. Arshdeep Singh, one of the Air Bike's designers, says:
"Our professors had asked us to create something which nobody has done so far and is also pollution free. Something which is economical and affordable to a common man. So we thought of inventing a bike, which runs on air. There is no combustion in this bike as it does not use any petrol, diesel or anything."At this point, the bike isn't all that practical. Top speed is limited to just 18 kilometers per hour, but the team hopes to improve on the figure in future versions. Want to see and hear it run? Click past the break for a video.
[Source: Green Launches]
Video:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
FitFan 4:50PM (5/09/2009)
You still have to use electricity to compress the air. Is that cleaner than using electricity to recharge a battery? Maybe the environmental impact is less because you don't have to manufacture and recycle the batteries.
Reply
Nick 6:29PM (5/09/2009)
Maybe batteries would be more expensive, heavier, and take longer to charge.
An air tank can be filled in 2 minutes using an electric compressor. It'd be good to know what the efficiency is in comparison.
required 7:34PM (5/09/2009)
Compressed air is a battery. Here are some more air vehicles: http://www.google.com/search?q=air+car
downtoearth 8:25PM (5/09/2009)
It is likely less environmently friendly since air compression/decompression losses are significantly larger than charge/discharge ones.
Wikipedia in its article about the air car also quotes the source saying it run out just after 7 km.
Indeed, no batteries are needed but repeated efficiency losses may simply compensate against this gain.
required 10:46PM (5/09/2009)
downtoearth is wrong, it is not less less environmentally friendly. It is just a tank of air whereas a traditional battery is a box of toxins. Also it holds onto its energy much longer then a traditional battery which losses power rapidly (so you can leave it parked and unplugged for long periods of time, something you can not do with a traditional battery).
downtoearth 5:04AM (5/10/2009)
required 10:46PM (5/09/2009):
> downtoearth is wrong, it is not less less environmentally friendly.
> It is just a tank of air whereas a traditional battery is a box of toxins.
Can you spell R.E.C.Y.C.L.I.N.G?
Hybrid batteries are recycled.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/should_we_be_wo_1.php
Waste you produce at home is not.
So your waste is likely much more environmentally dangerous than hybrid batteries.
> Also it holds onto its energy much longer then
> a traditional battery which losses power rapidly
Rapidly? What does it mean "rapidly"? How rapidly?
The next thing is that vehicles are left unused for really long periods of time very rarely. And considering that electric cars will in fact be extended range electric vehicles, you'll simply use the gerenator. If you say it won't be started due to battery discharge, so neither will an ordinary engine in an ordinary car which also needs a small lead acid battery to be started.
(so you can leave it parked and unplugged for long periods of time, something you can not do with a traditional battery).
downtoearth 5:05AM (5/10/2009)
*generator
required 12:13PM (5/10/2009)
downtoearth, looks like you are having a hard time being shown that you are wrong. Sorry that I upset you in doing so. Both battery technologies can be recycled, however the one you seem to prefer is in fact much dirtier as it is literally a box of toxins. As for refuse, garbage, waste, and what not, it is produced by all mankind, something you seem not willing to admit. The self-discharge rate of the battery tech you seem to prefer is in fact quite rapid, especially at higher temperatures, whereas compresses air it is very low.
Tohe 5:07PM (5/09/2009)
I'll give them an "E" for "Effort".
Reply
jpm 6:31PM (5/09/2009)
At 11 mph, most bicyclists will be passing the motorcycle. But kudos to them for trying to build a clean motorcycle.
The mechanical engineering department at my school is school building stupid mini formula 1 cars.
Reply
required 7:50PM (5/09/2009)
yes but the tech can apparently do much better:
"with a possible 1000-mile range at 96 mph" http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html
Chris M 1:04AM (5/10/2009)
Hmm, MDI has been touting their "air car" for over a decade now, and has announced "start of production" to occur in almost every year since 2003 - and they're still not in production. They've always wildly exaggerated the capabilities of their vehicles, both in speed and range, but this latest one is the wildest exaggeration yet.
MDI did once make a 17 Km run in a prototype, then by using a series of fudge factors (Oh, the production model will have better aerodynamics, bigger tank, more efficient, higher pressure, etc.) they stretched that 17 Km up to 240!.
Lets just say I'd never consider investing in them.
jharlan 8:01PM (5/09/2009)
How did they compress the air? Did they use an electric compressor? I wonder if anyone gave any thought to where the electricity came from? A coal fired power plant? Just how green is it?
Reply
required 10:12PM (5/09/2009)
It's total environmental impact does depend on how clean the source energy is. It can be a zero-emission power sources such as wind or a high-emission power source such as fossil fuel. But either way, compressed air is a very clean battery, cleaner then lithium-ion is. A tank of air instead of a box of toxins.
GPR 10:28PM (5/09/2009)
I suppose you need to keep your replies short and to the point, since that peddle powered PC of yours uses so much of your energy.
What's with all the hate on engineering students doing something clever?
I don't think they released a press statement claiming this would save the universe.
harlanx6 11:26PM (5/09/2009)
All I did was ask some question GPR. The hate is coming from you.
Chris M 1:17AM (5/10/2009)
Probably electricity, there was a standard air compressor in their shop. I won't hazard a guess as to the source of electricity.
But that brings up a point. Using a standard 150 psi air compressor, the energy density is very low, that explains the slow speed and short range. Increasing the pressure would increase the speed and range, but that would also increase the cost of the tanks, and it would also increase the thermodynamic energy losses, making it less efficient.
harlanx6 7:18AM (5/10/2009)
These are all good questions. The work these students have achieved either can stand up to pertainent questions or it can't, but the questions need to be asked. It's just hard to find a free lunch when it comes to energy (unless you are Gorr).
required 12:16PM (5/10/2009)
Chris M, the latest tech utilize carbon fiber which makes for very lightweight tanks.
Chris M 12:47AM (5/13/2009)
required
Carbon fiber is light, but it is also very expensive. If you'll go back and re-read what I said, you'll note that I mentioned increased cost for higher pressure, not increased weight.