Jump to content

Talk:Compressed air engine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randischieber (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 13 March 2010 (→‎This page should not exist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikia

I think one could create a CA Wikia (compressed air engine and vehicle Wikia). --Mac (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all "pure" technical information about air motors should be moved to "Air Motors". Any information about proprietary developments, particularly vehicle propulsion should have their own heading. In engineering terms an engine converts chemical energy to heat (as in a gasoline engine). Motors use their energy form directly without conversion, such as electrical motors and air motors. You don't say "I am going to put my blender engine on Frappe!", do you? If you want to verify this, talk to the PR person at Gast, one of the largest industrial air motor manufacturers. I don't think they will be satisfied that the industry that they helped develop is being redesignated by some marketing effort to equate this form of motor with an auto engine so that it will be better accepted in the market place. That issue can be put under "Compressed Air Cars". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.109.130 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not exist

It is a single purpose article devoted to Quasiturbine, which already has its own article, and yet the main topic of compressed air engines is covered in CAES. So either we move ALL that air engine stuff here (maybe not a bad idea) or kill this page. Greg Locock (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the first option is a good one. Greg Locock (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I need to find all the stuff about other air engines (the article makes some completely ridiculous statements) and stick it in. And then scale the quasiturbine puffery back in proportion. Greg Locock (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested the the recently expanded stub Pneumatic motor and the Pneumatic actuator article be merged with this article. The actuator page cites no sources and comments on the discussion question its credibility, but the pneumatic motor page does provide a reliable exploration of more technical aspects of the subject. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randischieber (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details missing

  • How do you check the efficiency of air powered motors?
  15% efficiency for air engine are annouced into brackets (end of the article): it seems low. Sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant 88 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the output (in one place horse-power in another torque...)?
  • More details are needed, so that we can compare these motors to other types (electric, combustion, hydro).
  • What are the benefits and drawbacks of these engines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashute (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, personally, contest this article's claim that the cylindrical piston is frictionless. This is a perjorative statement that cites an uncited Wikipedia paragraph as its source. Additionally, the source itself states that some of the air becomes heated in the engine as a result of the action of the engine, indicating that there is, indeed, friction involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.162.121 (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP and torque are not competing scales, they are separate measures; not interchangeable. It therefore may not be useful or even possible to use a consistent term across the entire article.

Each motor is, naturally, unique. It is therefore impossible to compare 'these' motors to 'other types'. There are general characteristics that will hold true across most air motors, but this is like saying we need more details about combustion engines, which includes a weed-whacker, a diesel power-plant, and the gamut in between. The range is too diverse to (a) hold true for most models, and (b) include anything but the most superficial level of detail.

The most important things you need to know about any air engine are the following:

Creating useful work?

It creates useful work by expanding compressed air. - if it needs somebody to compress the air, which requires work, then it doesn't create useful work, it just moves it from one place (or time) to another. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decompression of pneumatic bladders in microgravity environments can create useful work, utilizing both the vacuum of space and if necessary thermodynamics of fluids. Aditya.m4 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALL energy used to run the compressor is converted to heat?

"ALL energy used to run the compressor is converted to heat due to friction." This statement makes no sense. Obviously, some of the energy is converted into air pressure. Also, most of the heat generated by a compressor is due to compression, not friction. --Dwane E Anderson (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that whole section reads like OR (or more accurately stuff someone made up). Greglocock (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Compressed_air_engine&oldid=349640176"