The Air-Powered Motorcycle by Jem Stansfield

Bicycle = a truly green ride

top speed > 18mph
range > 7 miles

"Bicycle = a truly green ride"

Well, duh. But there's no harm in having other options for people who, for one reason or another, won't ride a bike. Or not all the time, anyway.

I bet a commercial verison of such a scooter could have a much longer range and top speed. Can't expect DIY stuff to be top of the line.

this is a moped, not a motorcycle. it looks neat, I don't think it is very practical at this point but I'm sure there could be some improvements to come.

So let me get this straight, you use electricity to power a compressor (70% efficient?) to compress air to drive an ait motor (80% efficient?) to push the bike 7 miles?

Compared to an electric bike which can charge directly (90% efficient?) and then power the bike via an electric motor (90% efficient?) with no moving parts apart from the motor to wear. That can have a range of 10X what this hot air contraption does?

Perhaps treehugger should run an article on how much energy/time is wasted on dead ends like this when with some simple calculations it could be avoided.

JJ,

It's a DIY bike, range could probably be much longer.

I think the main benefit is that tanks are a lot less expensive than batteries, and they can be charged very quickly, as opposed to hours.

There's obviously a tradeoff in efficiency.

@ James

I agree that there is no harm with alternative options, and I respect the efforts of DIY—however, a heavy bike with a 7 mile maximum range seems far from anything spectacular, and extremely inefficient. I'd love to see the energy equivalent per mile compared to other modes of transportation.

@ Andy

Looks like they used a Moped chasis, but removed the pedaling mechanics, making it solely a motorcycle(removing any shred of efficient logic it may have had).

Wait - but gas stations have free compressed air. So this is clean, potentially green energy, WITHOUT having to do an infrastructure retrofit, as required by hydrogen.

Win!

I just have to correct the ignorant efficiency comments being made:

Electric is most efficient on the generator and motor within 90-98% each. Grid transmission is about 90%. Electric STORAGE is HORRIBLE and has always been the primary reason portable electric power never took off. The charge / recharge / storage losses on electricity are less then 20% and I'm being generous because I forget the horrible stats on batteries.

Compressed air tanks store power really well but are lacking on power density. They tie or beat batteries in the charge / recharge efficiency and totally kill them on lifespan. Higher pressures are their big problem; while efficiency, cost, toxic chemicals, and lifespan are the big problems with chemical batteries.

There are two companies that have working air systems already: the one I remember is theaircar.com. I think compressed air power is best suited to recreational watercraft... don't like the ideal of toxic batteries sinking.

I think it is really intellagent how Jem invented this motorcycle! You are all saying that it is not big enough but you have to start first and have the intellagence to know that it can be use in bigger things!
Catwomen

@BWJ-
Bicyces may not use any energy once you have them, but where do you think they come from? The material (steel, aluminum, titanium) has to be mined, which requires vast amounts of energy. Then it has to be smelted and refined, which also takes a ton of energy, then it has to be formed and welded and shipped, taking even more energy. Really green isn't it.

PS Carbon fiber solves some of these issues, but the drivetrain is still metal.

Novel, but obviously has not improved on the century's old bicycle. A electric bike is a more elegant engineering solution because it could be done with a lot less energy wasting components and it is a lot quieter.

Brian says:

"Bicyces may not use any energy once you have them, but where do you think they come from?"

Well, that's priceless. Let's compare "all that energy used" by building a bike versus building a car shall we:

1 bike: 20 lbs of steel.

1 car: 1200 lbs of steel.

Hmm. Which is the greener choice... I wonder....

But wait! A car seats 5, but a bike only seats one!

5 bikes: 100 lbs of steel

1 car: 1200 lbs of steel.

Well! That narrows it down a little bit, doesn't it?

Then you can pile on the lifetime energy used. Only 1/4 of a car's energy used is in its manufacture. Whereas uh, a little less than 100% of the energy that goes into a bike's lifetime goes into its manufacture.

Man, those bikes sure are ruining the environment!

Some day I'll learn to stop reading the comments...

BWJ:
Not everyone is fit and road worthy. Not every environment is good for you and safe. You're lucky you haven't been killed or maimed yet. It is NOT SAFE out there and that little plastic helmet will not stop a car/truck.

The converted moped, one-off, hand-made, air-powered scooter is not for you. Fine. Don't buy one. You'll be the only one on the planet that doesn't buy one though. It's amazing how many billions of converted moped, one-off, hand-made, air-powered scooters that one guy can churn out. All of the rest of us are going cruising the neighborhoods in style on our converted moped, one-off, hand-made, air-powered scooters.

I like it, because it shows yet another approach of 'having it done'...and also of using one's bran for something different than watching big brother shows on TV all day long

This is really getting a lot of coverage and rightly so, I think it’s great.

Why not use this system for re-generative braking. Use the engine and valves to compress air to assist braking...converting potential energy into compressed air (kinetic energy)…then use the compressed air to help get your vehicle moving again.

John B, where are you getting this 20% efficiency number for batteries?? That seems like a gross over-simplification! There is simply no way to sum up the efficiency of a battery powered system with one number like that. Firstly modern solid-state electronics can easily convert DC power at efficiencies >95% for nearly all loads, meaning the chargers CAN be made very efficient. The battery's ratio of energy in to energy out would depend on chemistry, temperature and, most importantly, charging/discharging rate, which is completely a function of the designed use. Battery internal losses are (approximately) proportional to the square of the charge/discharge current times the internal resistance of the battery. A 20% battery efficiency would be more typical of a small consumer application, like a cordless phone, than an electric vehicle.

For anyone unhappy with the DIY compressed air vehicle, there is a more manufactured approach here:

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/

complete with some (poorly supported) efficiencies.

airpower beats electricity on this one.. no harmful batteries, and a 'recharge' time that's so fast it makes your eyes water...

the only downside is the non recyclability of the carbon fiber.. on the plus side: it's got an enormous life span.. I believe it is more harmful than aluminium in the long run... but the safety issues outweigh green in this case.. (and they provide a greater range as wel, so they make up for itl)

Are batteries more efficient than compressed air for energy storage?
Somebody offer some real proof, please, not just a seat of your pants evaluation.
Compressed air can be produced directly from the energy source, just like electricity.
But compressed air could be stored on a vast scale unlike our electrical grid where what isn't used is wasted.
Compressed air could not be used for everything, like heating your house, but it certainly could power our cars.
The Air Car goes 60 something mph and goes 60 something miles per charge.
Is it unreasonable to think that an air powered bicycle can be made that goes 30 mph and goes 30 miles per charge?
Remember, anything air powered is going to be a lot lighter than anything electrically powered.
And, no filthy batteries required.

FWIW, an air compressor would make a decent "dump load" for a wind turbine in an off grid system.

very cool, love the recharge time.

I am still looking for recharable while in motion vehicles. Why arent there dynamos , panals, or small wind turbines installed to help recharge as you drive. Passenger seats in cars could have pedals that help charge as you go, similar to the small led flashlights I have seen that require no baterries at all.

I still think the electric assist for bicycles is a better, more viable alternative.

The BionX system comprises a hub-mounted motor that only works when the rider is pedaling. This way anyone (even unfit people) can cycle uphill with less effort.

I'm not a sales representative of BionX, but I want to install one in my bike since I live in very hilly area. I do use my bike, but only for close places. The electric assist would increase the distance I can reach while pedaling uphill, and weighsd only 9 kg; far less than the compressed air system.

Great idea - great start for something that is sure to get big!

Glad to see a great use of brain power! While I still prefer my road bicycle for my mountain road commute, I would reconsider if those top speeds could be improved upon...

Jem is a gem of inspiration!

Glaringly absent is the crucial piece of information explaining how much pressure is needed to fill the tank. Additional info on how many Kw of electricity to achieve that pressure and volume would also be quite helpful.

Re: Andy's comments on efficiency. Yes, all that is true, but consider this: It should be incredibly simple to slave a belt-driven compressor to a home-made (or inexpensive commercial) wind turbine in order to "refuel" the tanks! This would make it a completely green vehicle, regardless of the inherent efficiencies involved.

Katy said, “Glaringly absent is the crucial piece of information explaining how much pressure is needed to fill the tank.” A whole bunch. nearly 3000 to 4500 pounds I'll bet. Yea and the other thing is what is he using for air engines. Using diving tanks you will not be able to fill them at your local petrol station and I cannot see 100 pounds of air pressure from a tank that small taking anyone over a few hundred yards. I'll bet those tanks are holding 3500 lbs and up. The only place to get those filled is at a diving shop or someplace that fills fireman’s air tanks and maybe the paint ball air tanks. I am very intrigued with the air powered bikes and cars regardless of the efficiency because there are many ways to refill the tanks via your own on board compressor powered by solar or some other means. My needs to run to town differ from others, but us who do not need to drive far to get to work or do our chores could benefit from something like this air power vehicle. A round trip for me to town and back is 10 miles, so there are many possibilities for me. I like the air powered vehicle because it has pretty good power and filling the air tank from my solar power, wind power or water power would continue to keep it green for me. In any case I like it and I wish when someone posted these machines they would do a better job describing the equipments parts. Many of us DIY would love to have some of the particulars. I have been looking for a decent air powered engine for a year now and I have not found anything close to what is in the cars or on the bikes. Neat device though!

The one thing everyone seems to have failed to have noticed, is that the air tanks used in the TV programme, BA tanks which are similar to diving tanks. If you had watched the programme properly, you would noticed that the tanks need to be at nearly 100 Bar pressure. This is extremely high. Needless to say, this pressure is way beyond the air supplied at any local garage. In fact you very specialised compressor, these are extremely expensive, even second hand ones.

The one thing everyone seems to have failed to have noticed, is that the air tanks used in the TV programme, BA tanks which are similar to diving tanks. If you had watched the programme properly, you would noticed that the tanks need to be at nearly 100 Bar pressure. This is extremely high. Needless to say, this pressure is way beyond the air supplied at any local garage. In fact you need a highly specialised compressor, these are extremely expensive, even second hand ones.

Could someone please explain to me what's so green about carbon fiber...besides the greenish hue of it's bonding agent?

I think that this is a fantastic idea. I can't wait to see what effect it has on our transportation system in the next decade or so.

Jem > The bike does not look like a Gem,.. STYLE No sorry Treehugger...PLEAZZE. 7 miles? Maybe in red for some firefightes on 2 wheels woking in a big corporation warehouse? Ok I still admire people like you Jem as I could not even fix the bike alone build one. Work some more and come back when compression has been reduced to fit within the bike's body. It still takes courage to build some tool like that.

With a Schrader valve and a bicycle pump you wouldn't need any electricity and you would always be ready to recharge the tank whenever it ran out. And you would still get the exercise you were missing.

Another great thing about this idea is that your 'batteries' will never run down on their own. The full tanks of compressed air can sit indefinitely and be ready for use at any time.

It is indeed great to learn about Air Compressed devises and the kinesis thorough that.
The day is not far off to see a pollution free(both chemical & sound)envoronment, and Vehicular movement .
TalluriVijaiKumar

Here is what I would do with the technology.

1. Incorporate the tank into the frame of the bike. The frame is a hollow aluminum tube, just pump air into it.

2. Do not add extra capacity for air, all you need is enough air to get up the next hill. Extra air capacity makes pedaling less appealing.

3. Add regenerative braking, to pump up the tanks on the way down the hill.

Now what you have is an optimized bike that you can cruise up a hill on.

4 (optional). Sell a range extending composite tank as an add-on.

What green eco’s don’t consider enough is the customer profile required to make alternate energy transportation attractive enough for people to buy. To give an example – urban pollution. Most people will agree it needs to be reduced and traffic jams and slow moving combustion engines cause all sorts of concerns.

What isn’t being understood is that technology solutions already exist through battery powered vehicles but they haven’t (yet) achieved popularity. The reason for this isn’t really technological – too much focus is on this issue. Even in London with an (ex) eco-friendly mayor – new technology alternatives are still rare.

Put plainly, for the last 3 decades people have been moving out of cities but commute to work often involving 40-60+ mile round trips. It can be cost effective implement public transport improvements in densely populated areas and these don’t need to adopt new technologies to be eco-friendly. Urban dwellers can already adopt new technology eco-friendly solutions but they don’t since public transport alternatives are available.

The customer profile eco-friendly technology needs to target is the rural and sub-urban commuter. Here the eco-friendly technology isn’t yet delivering – though the spiralling increases in oil prices may now give a profit incentive for this to now happen.

If it is to happen, the customers will be keen to make cost savings – they will be less concerned about environmental impact. Some performance hit could be acceptable but it will need to be small. There is an opportunity here that eco-technologists need to focus on. They’ll be successful when they decide to put profit first and target those customers keen to save money.

It’s money that’s going to drive customer willingness to change. If you’re prepared to jog or peddle to work you’re probably already doing it. Most won’t since the distances are too long and/or arriving to work covered in sweat isn’t an option.

Instead – there are questions eco-technologists need to answer for the commuter class – those most stung by rising prices and the (up to now) the demographic growth area.

Can I get to work in about the same time?
How much will I save?

Get the technology to deliver positive answers to people who’ll travel on motorways over a 20-40 mile distance and back (only part of which will be at slow speed) and someone is going to make a great deal of money. The public won’t worry about battery pollutants but they will like instant refuelling that air power could offer.

I’ve followed the aircar site for a few years. It’s claims offer a solution to these questions but apparently only India has bought in to the technology.

Anybody got any evidence about the aircar to explain why this technology isn’t being offered here? Air technology is (allegedly) far more advanced than this 18mph/7mile bike. The aircar site (http://www.theaircar.com/acf/) quotes cost saving stats already persuasive before the recent 30% hike in oil prices.

whats the age limet u built it u decided how much i like it a lot

That sounds great. Congratulations,

I feel Australian Air Engine will work better, and would give more mileage.

Position of air tanks may have to be changed and capacity increased too.

Very best wishes,

Ashok

to JJ:

It's not just the electric motor that it would have to carry, but also a hefty battery to push it to a 10x7 mile range.