Jones Beene wrote:
Wesley,
Given that liquid air can be produced safely in a vehicle owner's
garage, and given that liquid air, due to the efficiency of heat pumps
(COP =4) costs no more to produce that highly compressed air - maybe
less, and is safer for vehicle occupants in the event of an accident,
uses a lighter tank, has higher energy density, and so on.... why is
an "air car" (i.e. highly compressed air as opposed to liquid air)
preferable?
Obviously this is playing 'devil's advocate' - but can you counter
these arguments in favor of liquid air ?
Jones
This car has both a compressor on board and can refill from a high
pressure air bowsers that needs no petrol station. A public car park or
roadside rest area with power can refill it. With fusion the power
plant runs on one tank and recharges the others while its idling or
coasting and then under load draws on all the tanks to use the cold
fusion heat at 100% efficiency.
At these pressures there is little difference between compressed air and
liquid air but the legal difference is huge. Storing and handling of
liquid air is highly regulated in some places. If you stay below the
thresh hold you scare fewer people. The tanks can't explode if that's
your worry. Liquid air could explode like rocket fuel if it came into
contact with petrol in a two car collision. Cryogenic liquids can give
you a freeze burn over a large area. Compressed air would burn a small
area and push you clear of the air leak. With the tanks placed below the
passenger compartment it would be unlikely to breach the floor panels.
If there's enough force in the crash to rip the tanks loose and mix them
up with you; you would be dead anyway.
All round it's a good design.
