|
Q&A received until now on other forums.
Q:
1. Does the increased pressure in the inner cells really make up for the increased size and weight of the overall structure associated with the outer cell layers?
2. Do you see the greater safety as resulting from the lower level of energy released if one cell fails compared to a single monolithic tank? If so, what happens if the failure of one cell results in over stressing adjacent cells?
3. I am not at all comfortable with a system whose safety depends on that large an array of individual valves and a control system which coordinates them. What sort of fail-safes in your design address these concerns? If one or more cells in a middle layer fail to pressurize properly, what is the effect on the inner layer cells associated with them?
4. How are the valves and pressure sensors in the inner layers tested and serviced?
A:
1. Increasing pressure = increasing wall thickness for usual tanks. In my patent the same weight is redistributed in inner cell walls, for safety. same weight of the tank but super safety. A bullet will cross the tank and will destroy few cells on his road and the rest of the cells will function with no problem. Inner cells have larger thickness walls.
2. Yes. The walls of the cells are calculated to resist the pressure difference between cell and worst case external pressure. Pcell=F/Scell, smaller S means at the same thickness higher pressure. I have a website explaining this.
3. If a valve or a group of valves fails only the corresponding cell are blocked the rest of the tank will function at a reduced capacity.
4. Big problem yes. For that reason the patent covers blocks of valves. More on jopatent. There are also constructive solutions for tanks made from blocks of cells that can be changed in case of failure.
Q:
Energy conversion efficiency of compressed air would be much less compared to the traditional flooded batteries. This means the size of panel array must be increased to generate the same amount of power drawn from a battery.
Do you have any cost analysis/comparison between a battery system vs compressed air system for residential use? I'm interested to know and I hope I can get rid of costly batteries. Maybe steel reinforced concrete will work as a tank also.
A:
1)Compressing air has usually 15% efficiency. Heat is the difference. Usually the heat generated can be converted back to energy (the Stirling engine 50% efficiency, gas turbines), or can be used for home use (air or water heating) so overall efficiency increases. More the thermodynamics of this tank has special properties allowing (for the moment in theory) thermodynamic systems with more than 65% efficiency.
2) Using conventional batteries means paying more for replacing batteries than for grid electricity (Pb batteries should be replaced after 500 cycles, lithium after 2000-3000) How much do you pay for gasoline on 100 miles. An air car needs 3$ compressed air. No pollution, it cleans the air (dust from air condenses in the tank and can be eliminated locally) and other advantages can be obtained. I'm writing an e-book on the subject (hope to have time to explain all the thinks I've found).
|