On Saturday 07 September 2002 05:13 pm, Christopher Meier wrote: > You misread. I was referring to the gas retailer's island gas pump, > not the electric fuel pump in a vehicle.
Oh, I see. My apologies. > Does the compressed air spin a generator that produces electricity, that > is used to run an electric motor that propels the car? You did just state > that "end result of that stored energy is electricity that powers the > electric > motor that moves the car". I apologize if this is the case, I assumed that > the air car is powered by a non-combustion air pump motor, fueled by > compressed air. > > If the compressed air results from a windmill or waterwheel transferring > mechanical power to an mechanical air pump, then how is the vehicle > then refered to as electric? Ahh, I get it now. I belive we are talking about two completely different things. If the air is used to generate mechanical power in a piston motor that moves the car than yes you are right that is not an electric car. A missunderstanding I was not talking about that kind of car. > I respectfully disagree. > > If a vehicle has an electric motor to propel the car, and the vehicle has > an onboard fuel cell, which draws on a hydrogen storage tank, then I'd say > the vehicle is a hydrogen powered electric drive vehicle. It could still > be loosely > termed an electric car since it has an electric drive motor, but it is a > series > hybrid. If it has an intermediate battery pack to better size the fuel > cell to > meet average load, then it's a charge maintaining series battery/hydrogen > powered fuel cell hybrid electric drive car. Indeed, here's where we differ in opinion. I consider fuel cell cars electric and quiver when people say (not you) "Ah electric, electric cars suck, hydrogen is the future" because what they call the "future" has exactly the same components as what they say "sucks", except with a slight permutation related to energy storage. For apodixis purpose lets say you have a car that has an electric motor coupled with the transmission and a power inverter/converter that has an input of 300 volts DC. Now lets say you have 2 black box energy storage devices with a (+) and a (-) terminals and are rated to deliver 300 Volts of Electromotive Force. The both work on exactly the same basic principle with a difference of: A) First box; the electrodes take part in the chemical activity to build up charge and act as a conductive path for that charge. The impotent chemicals are not replaced after the electrochemical reaction has taken place. Cell uses a combination of Lead, Lead Peroxide and Water fore electrochemical reaction. B)Second box; the electrodes don't take part in in the chemical activity to buildup charge, they just act as conductive path for the charge. The impotent chemical is replaced constantly after the electrochemical reaction has taken place. Cell uses a combination of Oxygen and Hydrogen for electrochemical reaction. Now let's say you drove you electric car for 3 years with the Box A as energy storage cell and after 3 years K Mart just started selling Box B(figures exemplar) that was 10x smaller and 30x lighter than the box you were currently using in your electric car would your car not be an electric car anymore if you bought the latest fad to store your energy? A fuel cell is just a newer way of storing energy that came out of the Space program but it uses the same fundamental chemical process as a battery does. So a fuel cell is more of a battery than not. > If something offboard compresses air, and the stored compressed air is > used on board the car to propel it via an air driven motor, then I can't > imagine how anyone could call that an electric driven car. Well if the "air driven" motor is and electric motor driven trough a dynamo than it can be called electric. If the air is not moving a dynamo to create Electro Motive Force than it's not an electric car. Hope I am not fueling more confusion, let me know if I do. Thanks. -- Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment. -Dr. Nikola Tesla
