Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
...although hydraulic DOES convey more torque/power, I'd prefer pneumatic because AIR is free (at least EPA hasn't taxed it yet) and a leak is neither costly (except for hose repair/replacement) nor possibly flammable.
...it's just a question of "how much" UMPH is needed that separates them.
|
I like the idea of compressed air, the problem is auto detonation when pressures exceed 500 PSI in the presence of any kind of combustible lubricant.
Of course that would not apply to Nitrogen, or any other inert gas, that would actually be an on board fire extinguisher.
I believe the hydraulic option would be necessary for a normal sized passenger vehicle. It may be possible to use tap water, or at least distilled water for your hydraulic fluid, which addresses any leak issues.
I like the compressed air option for very lightweight vehicles where weight is a prime issue, and a liquid drive for heavier vehicles that would be more like what we drive today.
Neither of those opinions are fixed in stone and my opinion would change when I could see direct comparisons of efficiency between both designs. The "spring" effect in compressed air concerns me as far as overall efficiency is concerned and efficiency must be comparable to a conventional transmission for the system to provide the true potential benefit.
Taking a small weekend trip, will be back tomorrow evening to check this thread.
Good points my friends.
regards
Mech