Note they say "200 to 300 km or 10 hours of driving", which indicates a range test speed of only 20 or 30 km/h, which is about 4 times less than the 100 km/h you have assumed, i.e. assuming friction losses going with the square of the velocity the COP could be as much as 4^2 = 16 times lower than the COP you computed, IOW a COP of 8/16 = 0.5 which is much less exciting!
Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cost per mile of CAT vs EV (was Re: Doubly disruptive?) > --- Michel > >> The energy balance for 300 L at 300 bars is as > follows: > >> At expansion time: >> In: 3 kWh compressed air intrinsic energy + 9 kWh >> heat from ambient > >> Out: 12 kWh mechanical > > Yes Michel, and even that low number assumes that it > all can be used, which it cannot; but you have not > been following (more likely refusing to believe) the > gist of the prior thread on this .... > > .... which is simply the fact that this calculated > limitation you studiously and accurately document > above does NOT seem to be what is happening in ACTUAL > practice. > > ... if we chose to believe the dozens of news stories > and eye-witness accounts. > > Something else must be going on; significantly over > and above the naive figures you are using: > > QUOTE: Its mileage is about double that of the most > advanced electric car (200 to 300 km or 10 hours of > driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in > cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than > 60Km. The car has a top speed of 105 kmph. > > http://trak.in/tags/business/2008/07/01/tata-motors-air-car-minicat/ > > OK how do you get 300 km of actual driving distance > out of 12 kW mechanical? Short answer: you don't. > > If you were going 100 kmph that would imply about 20 > kW of draw for a tiny car and for this van it would be > more like 30. So to go the 300 km of travel the energy > would need to be expended in the amount of ~100 kWhr, > which is approximately 8 time more than you suggest is > available from the air. > > That is one of the reasons why I consumed so much > bandwidth in the previous posts to make the point that > there is a very good case here for substantial OU > (COP=8). > > You may not want to believe that, but what other > choice do we have other than complete fraud ? Well, > there is one, sadly which is not total fraud but > close. > > My (wishful) suggestion was that it could be the > result of ZPE coherence via double phase-change - but > we also know that the vehicle does carry a small > amount of gasoline for startup; and that the company > could be (fraudulently) basing the surprisingly high > mileage in these reports on using all of that > gasoline, which I believe is no more than 3 liters. > > Even then (and yes that is more likely to be the true > situation) it is a case for celebration by some of us, > as it still disruptive to normal driving assumptions. > 100 km per liter is fantastic, but if that is how they > get it, then the company should be more forthcoming on > that *important detail.* > > But needless to say- as good as 100 km/l sounds (240 > mpg) it is not so much a cause for celebration (on > some alternative energy fori) as if there were real > ZPE coherence. I might even have to splurge on a case > of that fine French bubble Veuve Clicquot, if it were > not due to the gasoline. > > Jones > >
