AIR CAR invented, goes 180 miles on 3-minute fillup, AIR PISTON engine!!

[Dems Will Win]

http://www.theaircar.com

Buses soon too. 42 factories around the world starting up in a franchise deal. Get your U.S. territory NOW! (only $10 mil)

Sucks in polluted air and filters it before it is released. Cleans the air as it goes down the street!!

No wires either--wireless headlights, etc.!



Here is the BBC taking a ride:

http://www.theaircar.com/media_videos.html

Would you buy one for $10,000?????

[Dying Eagle]

1. Hell yeah

I would love to buy that car, Lets hope it will see the light of day here in the US.

[MercutioATC]

2. Wanna take bets on it passing U.S. crashworthiness tests?

I can't see any way it could.

[Dems Will Win]

3. Sorry, already approved by the U.S. Euro Auto Standards

Ready to roll already legal. In fact air tank designed so it spilts, not explodes in crash! It will be on the road in France next year.

Seriously, anybody have $10 million to get a region and a factory?

[MercutioATC]

5. I wasn't aware of that.

Do you have a link? I can't seem to find that info on the aircar website.

[Dems Will Win]

10. I've talked to the main office extensively in Barcelona

Not everything is on the site. They passed the regs a while ago--which apply here as well.

As for the car companies stopping them--it's too late! They've already raised well over their original investment of $50 million and have their patents and have signed up 42 franchisees all over the world. The factories are being built right now and the patents have been issued.

TOO LATE FOR GM--Negre turned them and the other car companies down after Renault would not come to a deal.

BTW, they've been at the Paris Auto Show even and there's an onboard compressor that just needs a 220v plug and it fills in 3 hours.

Fill it up at night and no new power plants are even needed. (They just turn the voltage down at night--the boilers have to be kept going)

[NewJeffCT]

29. Out of curiousity, where are the 42 franchises based?

Are they spread out around the world? Concentrated in Europe?

[Dems Will Win]

32. All of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and I think some others in

Europe are sold out. South Africa, Mexico, Venezuela, India have franchisees and the Chinese were just over to the factory in France to take a ride, so they are expecting big things in China soon.

They told me they are not going to come and market in America until 2007 or so because they feel they have to be a success everywhere else first before they can sell to America and deal with the media here.

CNN on Global Challenge had a long report on the AIR CAR, BTW.

[lottie244]

33. Can the average guy buy stock in the company anywhere? How?

I sure would put my $10,000 savings into this investment.

[Dems Will Win]

36. Nope, I asked them that

Not public and won't be.

They want to maintain FULL CONTROL--and you can understand why!

$10 mil minimum investment.

[MercutioATC]

39. Congrats! I didn't think it could pass the U.S. crash tests,

it being so lightweight. I'd love to see them over here.

[hlthe2b]

18. Well, I'll buy lottery tickets this weekend! What a great thing to do

with any lotto millions!

[ClassWarrior]

50. I'll pool with you. Let's get a DU investment group going... PM me.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. More to the point...

would you invest 10 million in this thing? Somehow, I doubt any will be built at any price.

[LiberalEsto]

8. surplus SUVs

There are a hell of a lot of unsold SUVs sitting on dealership lots nowadays. They're offering huge incentives in otder to get rid of them.

Maybe this SUV surplus and the high gas prices will somehow let a little bit of light into the dim brains of U.S. auto executives. Or maybe not.

Let's hope for the best.

[Dems Will Win]

15. TreasonousBastard, please express those doubts to the

42 millionaires who already invested $5 million each so far...

[TreasonousBastard]

53. I did a little looking around, and...

it appears that air compression engines were used up to the 30's to power trains and local delivery trucks. The concept is not that new.

So, it seems that this is not simply another scam, as I first thought, but the investors are being used more to finish up the R&D than to actually build production facilities. Patents may have been filed and prototypes built, but production is far off.

If, and this is a big if, the thing actually ever works, the compressed air tanks aren't big enough to go very far-- maybe 5-10 minutes at highway speeds, so air filling stations have to be pretty much everywhere, even if the thing is restricted to local use. Gas station tire pumps won't help. Another investment similar to the chicken and egg problem of propane vehicles.

Might work, and might fill a niche market, but seems like a pretty iffy investment.

[Dems Will Win]

59. I would have to agree with everything you said

I was sort of kidding about investing right now.

Might as well wait until they are a little further along. They don't even want to market to America yet.

They still have to have a real production model with the new air tank giving them the big mileage, so until you see that, I would have to agree with Treasonous Bastard (love your moniker BTW).

I doubt the filling station problem would be that big a hurdle, plus the onboard compressor works overnight already.

Also another poster said a fillup would be $2 not 50 cents and that appears to be more accurate.

[Ilsa]

6. So, how will Exxon, Shell, and BP, etc, block this?

Especially if it passes safety criteria? Assassinate anyone working at a plant? Ask the pope to deny Communion to those workers? Flood the media with messages that "We don't want our soldiers dying for compressed air"?
I can hardly wait.

[Literate Tar Heel]

7. terrorism

"Driving an air car is supporting the terrorists."

[NewJeffCT]

13. nope - they will say the inventor is French

And that will give it the Kiss of Death in America.

[Ilsa]

46. Bing Bing Bing Bing Bing!

We have a winner! Great answer!

[mcar]

9. I'd buy one

They look great!

[Dems Will Win]

12. I forgot to mention

You go the 180 miles on approximately 50 cents worth of electricity...

It actually is the most efficient way to store electricity ever invented. Beats the hell out of batteries of all kinds. And the full power lasts as long as the integrity of the tank is maintained.

Say about 200 hundred years...

[Bozita]

19. Is that a 3 minute or 3 hour fill-up?

You've stated both.

[Dems Will Win]

26. 3 hour is the onboard compressor

Each region will have a network of air stations at stores. Those babies will fill you up in 3 minutes for about 50 cents.

Beats the $60 SUV fillup now doesn't it?

[msmcghee]

11. The air still has to be compressed.

It will take energy to do that. It will use more energy to compress the air than the cars will use - thereby wasting some energy. That's physics.

Will the compressor stations use electrical energy, diesel motors, what? The stations could generate a lot of pollution depending on the power source - even more than individual vehicles with their own late model low polluting gas engines.

The question is, can the compressor stations compress the air more efficiently and with less pollution - and still overcome the losses involved in the compression step. Compressing air generates a lot of heat. Even if they can recover some of that energy and re-use it in the compression process - there will still be energy lost in that step.

On edit: After reading the website more thoroughly, and seeing that the air will be compressed by an onboard engine, I'm sure this is a scam. At least it's a scam in the pollution reduction sense for sure - and also probably in the energy efficiency sense.

[mikehiggins]

20. Good questions

Obviously this would only work in metropolitan areas, but what a boon for those areas. I doubt cabbies could use them--most travel far more than 100miles in a day, and most cabs are on the road 24/7 so a three hour recharge time is pushing things.

The main argument the car companies will use is that the compressed air tank will be a bomb on four wheels but that argument has been overcome by the natural gas engines.

At any rate, there will be an energy loss but it will likely be much lower on a real basis than internal combustion engines and, like you mentioned, much of the heat generated by compression can be recaptured and used to generate electricity. Nowhere near perpetual motion but certainly much more efficient than the IC system.

I'm for it.

[Dems Will Win]

30. You're right Mike about the range

It's an AIR CAR in the city or suburb and then the gasoline hybrid side kicks in for the long trips. But you're no longer polluting the cities, you're cleaning the air as you drive down the street (just a little)

Also NO new power plants need to be built if most people compresses their air at night. Power companies just turn down the voltage, all power is still there and that's why they sell it cheaper then daytime and evening power. The boilers take 3 days to power up, you see...

Anybody else have any questions??

[fob]

52. "...air tank will be a bomb on four wheels..." You mean unlike 15 gallons

of gasoline strapped to the underside of your ass? :evilgrin:

[Dems Will Win]

21. You're correct you do lose energy

Compressing air and storing it in Negre's special tanks at extremely high PSI is simply the best way to store electricity.

So its far more efficient than using the same amount of electricity to charge a battery bank and charge an electric car which can go about 60 to 80 miles on a 3-hour charge. The AIR CAR will go 180 miles (one person) or 120 (full car) on the same amount of power, see?

You would need special air stations at mini-marts, run on electricity. They've built those as well at MDI.

Face it--you've just been introduced to the new Henry Ford.

And he's a Green!

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. Need Water Bath to Fill?

Will the Air Tank reqiuire immersion in a water bath to fill in 3 minutes like a SCUBA tank does?

[Tweed]

61. Of course

:eyes: Maybe you should check out the website...

[msmcghee]

63. Where's the beef?

Compressing air and storing it in Negre's special tanks at extremely high PSI is simply the best way to store electricity.

Show me any data that supports this statement. Every time energy is transformed from one form to another - as in electrical to mechanical motion or mechanical to compressed air, energy is lost.

Mechanical losses in compressors are usually the highest including mostly friction in bearings and against the walls of cylinders or the friction of air against the blades of fans. There is no practical way to compress air other than mechanically - and this system admits to using a mechanical compressor.

That doesn't even consider the impracticality of retaining the heat energy of the compressed air by extremely good insulation - or extracting it to further the compression of more air. Not a simple task to do efficiently. Eventually that heat must dissipate and much of the energy in the compressed air tank will dissapear with it.

This is a hoax. They have nowhere stated what part of the second law of thermodynamics they have figured out a way to bypass. They have no-where stated where their remarkably better efficiency comes from.

Don't you think they'd do so if they really had it figured out? There's no need to explain how they did it - they just need to point to the physics that they are using to realize the gains. When they do that - I'll listen.

[TreasonousBastard]

78. Sounds more like wishful thinking than a hoax...

since the total losses in the system only have to be less than in the present system to make it feasible.

Right now, up to 90% of the potential energy in gasoline is wasted through friction, waste heat, air resistance, etc. And that's after we've used energy and resources to pump, refine, and deliver the stuff. A gasoline engine only has around a 25% theoretical maximum efficiency, and by the time the rubber gets to the road in the real world, most of that is lost.

It takes a certain amount of torque, horsepower, dynes, or whatever, to move a certain mass. If someone comes up with a way to deliver that power more efficiently, good on 'em.

So far, schemes like steam, gas turbines, heat engines, fuel cells, and other wierder stuff, have all had fatal drawbacks. Some of them, like steam, Stirling engines, and even this sort of compressed air were tried but abandoned for more practical, if less efficient, schemes. Some, like fuel cells, may be the future of energy production.

Instinctively, I think that this idea won't work. Too many losses and inefficiencies. More than likely it will "sort of" work. But, he might have figured something out. It's happened before.

At least he's probably not a complete crank. If he's been designing F1 engines, he knows a little something about engineering.

[Dems Will Win]

35. The onboard compressor already works and has been tested

Not a Hoax. It admittedly does not reduce pollution much but at least it doesn't contribute to it in Air mode.

WIth air, you would still have the pollution from the plant--unless it were an offshore wind-farm or hydro or solar. But that plant pollutes anyway at night. Fill up at night and very little additional pollution while all those ICEs disappear from urban areas.

Please inform CNN, the BBC, Stern magazine and all the rest they've been HOAXED if you think that is true...

[cprise]

105. Also, France's electricity is 80% nuclear

I can see why this seems like an emissions winner to Europeans.

FWIW, the current stats on this Air Car are as good or better than fuel cell test vehicles. They both rely greatly on regenerative braking for their range, so highway range isn't great. FC proponents have also been going off about how FC cars will eventually work because of "all the advances" they expect in lightweight body construction. Well, any type of engine will benefit from strong, light construction and the aircar is no exception.

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. But what are the real 'current stats'?

Look at JustJersey's post #101. If you hunt around the site, the only real test, on a prototype car, gives a range of 7.22km! They're full of plans on how to increase it (it was a smaller tank, lower pressure, heavier car frame, etc.) but I can't see anything claiming they've really achieved their 200km range.

http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html

[cprise]

108. I have been following this for years

... and that page has been up for quite some time. That test car doesn't even have the new higher-pressure polymer tanks or regen. braking. Their primary concern is proving engine efficiency and usability.

FYI, this is not much unlike the hydraulic-powered car that Al Gore liked to talk about. So we'll just have to wait and see if they deliver.

[Tweed]

68. Check out POST #34

[mahatmakanejeeves]

93. perpetual motion

I was going to post a reponse to the original poster, but your points are what I would have said.

Unless someone can figure out how to compress air without using energy, I just can't buy the various claims that "this is the most efficient way to store electricity ever" or that driving this car will absorb pollution, or ... whatever.

There are a few reasons we've stuck with gasoline engines in cars for so long. Number one, fueling a gasoline-powered vehicle takes only a few minutes. You don't have to leave it on a charging station for several hours.

Number two, gasoline has tremendous energy density. That is, it packs a real wallop. Those of you who were around in the 70s recall being warned not to carry 5-gallon cans of gasoline in the trunk, as each gallon of gasoline has the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite. You put 20 gallons of that stuff in your car, and you can go hundreds of miles.

This car runs on compressed air. How much energy can you store in a tank of compressed air? That's a function of two things: pressure, and volume. Pressure is measured in pounds per square inch, and volume is measured in cubic inches. Multiply them to get pound-inches, which are units of energy.

Let's say you take a 20-gallon tank and pressurize it to 300 psi. A quart's about a liter. A liter's about 60 cubic inches. Therefore, a gallon's about 240 cubic inches. Twenty gallons is about 4800 cubic inches. Times 300 psi, you get 1,440,000 pound inches, or 120,000 foot pounds.

So I asked Mr. Google "energy in gallon gasoline" and got this:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html

Ah, they give the energy in Joules, but they also have a conversion table. Let me see: 1055 Joules = one British thermal unit = 778 foot-pounds. So our tank of compressed air, which hold 120,000 foot-pounds, has 120,000 ft-lb x 1055 J/ft-lb = 163,000 Joules.

From the referenced website, we see one pound of gasoline has 2.2 x 10**7 Joules: 22 million Joules. 2.2 x 10**7 / 163,000 = 135. That hardly seems possible, but it seems that there is 135 times the energy in one pound of gasoline as there is in a 20-gallon tank of air compressed to 300 psi. Since there are six pounds of gasoline in a gallon of gasoline, then it would take 810 20-gallon tanks of compressed air at 300 psi to store the same amount of energy that there is in one gallon of gasoline.

Can that be right? It's 1 a.m. Would someone else like to do the math and check for mistakes?

From the company's website:

"The tanks weigh 35 - 40 kg for 100 litres of air at 300 bars. In the MiniCat´s the tanks weigh 70 - 80 kg."

That's 200 liters at 300 bars. 200 liters is some 50 gallons. 1 bar = 0.987 atm or 14.5 psi. I will leave this as an exercise to other listers.

Bottom line: I think I'll keep my motorcycle.

[JPJones]

98. It's 6 x 10^6 joule, or less than 1/3 gallon of gasoline

For a tank that is 1 m long and 50 cm in diameter, or 52 gallons. Don't forget that you have to expend more energy than this to compress the air. If you burn fuel to do this, it simply can't be more efficient. If you used, say nuclear, solar or wind to compress the air, then maybe. After the fossil fuels run out, compressed air may be an efficient way to store energy, compared to batteries that are very heavy. It would have to operate at much higher pressures to be effective.

The nice thing about gas is that you get all that energy straight out of the ground.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

103. family Joules

Thanks for the reply.

If I were the manager of a plant at which bombs or fireworks were manufactured, I would absolutely want all the forklifts to run on compressed air. I would want to keep all fossil fuels and sources of igntion as far away as possible.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

109. typo noticed

Too late to edit now. I said:

"Ah, they give the energy in Joules, but they also have a conversion table. Let me see: 1055 Joules = one British thermal unit = 778 foot-pounds. So our tank of compressed air, which hold 120,000 foot-pounds, has 120,000 ft-lb x 1055 J/ft-lb = 163,000 Joules."

What I should have said:

"Ah, they give the energy in Joules, but they also have a conversion table. Let me see: 1055 Joules = one British thermal unit = 778 foot-pounds. So our tank of compressed air, which hold 120,000 foot-pounds, has 120,000 ft-lb x 1055 J/778 ft-lb = 163,000 Joules."

I also must add:

Huge, huge, shoutout to msmcghee and Gregorian for pointing out, repeatedly, what a hoax this is. Also to VTMechEngr for his two posts on the subject and to any of the others out there who own caluclators or took the hard courses in high school.

Want a hot stock tip? Invest in gullibility. There's just no limit.

It shouldn't take a BS to recognize BS.

Bah, humbug.

[arwalden]

104. Randi Had Some Comments About This Technology (Feb '04)

His commentary doesn't appear to be directly related to this company and this product... just on the "science" behind such fantastic claims.

http://www.randi.org/jr/022004demons.html#8

[LittleApple81]

14. I HOPE THEY LET THEM COME OUT. I want one, I want one!!! n/t

[pagerbear]

16. How interesting

....that no American media were listed among the worldwide newspapers and media outlets that had written about this car. Hmmmmm......

I for one think it looks like a great option, if it holds up its promises!

[mike1963]

17. This is BS. It's not thermodynamically feasible.

:grr:

[hlthe2b]

22. Perhaps... Can you expand on why that is?

I agree it sounds unlikely, but this is definitely not my area of expertise. From a lay standpoint, I recall we thought the same about many of today's technologies in the past...

[Peak_Oil]

24. It's an energy sink, that's for sure

but so what? If we have clean power generation, such as windmills, minihydro, solar.... that will provide the electricity to run the compressor and fuel the car with compressed electricity. It's way better than sticking our heads through the oil noose.

Or would you prefer we send our kids to kill for cheap oil? By the way, oil's not going to be as cheap as it is for very much longer.

[msmcghee]

67. So, why don't we now have electric cars . .

running from electricity . . . generated from offshore sources such as windmills, minihydro, solar?

They are basically saying that compressing air (with their technology) is a more efficient way to store electricity than batteries or fuel cells. Fuel cells are extremely efficient. They have virtually no mechanical losses.

The reason fuel cells are not in widespread use is because they cost too much money to manufacture so far - the materials etc. are expensive. But they are extremely efficient.

They are simply saying they've come up with an air compressor that's more efficient than fuel cells.

Compressing air is typically a very inefficient process with high losses. They nowhere give a hint as to how their technology avoids any of those mechanical (heat) losses. They seem to be hoping that the lay-person will be charmed by the prospect that it's a method no-one else uses (novelty must be good) - and that green lay-persons would believe that big oil would try to prevent this from being used.

Which I find quite silly. It is just like the thousands of claims every year for gadgets that double gasoline mileage - but the big oil companies are preventing this miracle gadget from getting to the market.

As long as people love to believe this stuff - there will always be folks willing to sell them some stock. This is a stock selling scam. Don't say you weren't warned.

[jmowreader]

112. Could we recover the heat from the compressor?

Pie-in-the-sky time: Compressors get damned hot.

Would it be possible to put a water jacket around the compressor and use that to pull the heat off for some other useful purpose?

[mike1963]

83. Please don't misunderstand me...I am IN the "oil business" and I'm also

an aeronautical engineer (since 1964). I am also totally against Shrub's crusade and I want him at least out of office and preferably in Leavenworth. My objection to this 'technology' is that it is impossible to store enough energy in compressed air to move an automobile any distance with any degree of efficiency - the numbers preclude it. I can quote a few formulae based on Boyle's and Charles's Laws to support my claim but it would take a while to write up a clear treatise that would be understandable to non-engineers. Not that I wouldn't LIKE for this to be a legit deal, I just don't believe it is.

[VTMechEngr]

94. I agree

sounds like BS to me

[Dems Will Win]

25. Then why were the patents issued,

and hundreds of newspaper and TV reports made?

Go look at the AIR CAR videos and the PSI rate and the engine design. And think about your mechanic shop and how compressed air runs all those different tools...

Also I have more complete info from the business plan that has all the test data.

Remember the air is super-cold, frozen as a liquid. The testing clearly shows the problems they've had since the first engine in '92 and how they solved each technical problem.

[One_Life_To_Give]

31. Read the Patents?

Have you read their patents? All new patents are public domain documents.

[Dems Will Win]

42. You know I haven't read the patents

Maybe you can look. It would have been in Spain or maybe France. How does that work??

Here is the test page that they do have online:

http://www.theaircar.com/tests.html

[msmcghee]

Patents are a joke.

Anybody can get a patent for almost anything. The patent office no longer judges applications on true novelty or functionality. If it doesn't blatantly violate an existing patent - it is awarded.

They figure it's up to the lawyers and courts to hash out any diffences - not them.

On edit: The patent office has become a huge boon to the security industry. It no longer protects inventions. It just issues documents that are included in the red-herrings (initial stock offering prospectuses for start-ups).

[mike1963]

84. You can patent ANYTHING, whether it is doable, workable or even possible.

Look at how many Perpetual Motion Machines have patents.
:eyes:

[Selwynn]

43. Umm? Huh?

[Selwynn]

44. Here's a press release:

On the 20th September a car with an air-compressed engine, invented by the Frenchman Guy Nègre, will be presented in London. The presentation will take place at 10 am in the Millennium Hotel (17 Sloane Street, Knightsbridge, London SW1). The aim of the event is to present MDI´s technology to the public before its imminent arrival on the market and to offer to businessmen and institutions the chance to take part in establishing the factories in the UK.

One of the many challenges of today's society is maintaining our lifestyle with minimal repercussions to the environment. This is why Guy Nègre has invented a "zero pollution" car which involves no combustion.

The MDI car can reach a speed of 68 mph and has a road coverage of roughly 124 miles -some 8 hours of travel- which is more than double the road coverage of an electric car. When recharging the tank, the car needs to be connected to the mains (220V) for 3 to 4 hours or attached to an air pump in a petrol station for only 2 minutes.

Economy and the ecological benefits are the main advantages for the client since the car´s maintenance cost is 10 times less than that of a petrol-run car, costing 1 pound for the car to travel for up to 8 hours or to cover 124 miles in an Urban area.

How does it work?

90m3 of compressed air is stored in fibre tanks. The expansion of this air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change is only necessary every 31.000 miles.

At the moment, four models have been made: a car, a taxi (5 passengers), a Pick-Up truck and a van. The final selling price will be approximately 5.500 pounds.

The Company

"Moteur Development International" (MDI) is a company founded in Luxembourg, based in the south of France and with its Commercial Office in Barcelona. MDI has researched and developed the Air Car over 10 years and the technology is protected by more than 30 International patents.

MDI´s expansion has just begun and they have already signed 50 factories in Europe, America and Asia. The company is offering 20 licences in the UK as exclusive manufacturing areas for cars as well as offering other licences in the nautical and public transport sectors.

The Factory

It is predicted that the factory will produce 3.000 cars each year, with 70 staff working only one 8-hour shift a day. If there were 3 shifts some 9.000 cars could be produced a year.

MDI is undertaking a long-term franchise business. The graphs show an important profit margin, which will be increased by the subsequent exclusive spare-parts market.

You can find more information on the Web page: www.theaircar.com or telephone [phone]

www.theaircar.com (English)
www.motordeaire.com (Spanish)
www.motormdi.com (Portuguese)

[DrWeird]

62. Sure it is.

What you need it one large, efficient, well maintained compressor at "filling" stations. As long as it's more efficient then hundreds of small engines, stoping-and-going at stoplights every single block, then you save fuel.

[SaveElmer]

23. Looks cool...but

Isn't compressed air prone to explode. How would it behave in a collision

[Dems Will Win]

27. Guy Negre (world's greatest automotive genius) designed the

tanks so they don't explode, they split along the seam in an accident and give you the raspberry...

[ladjf]

37. Sounds wonderful. My guess is that it's virtues are being

exaggerated. The concept of pressurizing the air by an on board compressor doesn't make sense. It take X amount of energy to compress the air. Then, during the decompression, or drive phase, the compressed air is decompressed. Total total energy for the job is
X to compress, Y to drive the car plus the energy inefficiency of the compression and decompression phases. Even if these were equal, the on-board batteries had required electrical charges. The sum of all this is going to produce results that are much less feasible that we are reading on this thread.

Nevertheless, I'm glad to see that alternatives are being thought about. Eventually, something will be developed. Might as well get it ready before the oil plays out.

[Tweed]

34. Here's how the car would react in an accident:

"How do the air tanks work and are there any issues with their safety?

One of the most frequently asked questions regards the safety of the air tanks, which store 90m3 of air at 300 bars of pressure. Many people ask whether this system is dangerous in case of an accident, and whether there is an explosion risk involved. The answer is NO. Why? Because the tanks are the ones already used to carry liquefied gases on some urban buses, and therefore make use of the technology that is already used to move buses on natural gas. That means that the tanks are prepared and certified to carry an explosive product: methane gas.

In the case of an accident, with air tank breakage, there would be no explosion or shattering, now that the tanks are not metallic. Due to the fact that they are made of glass fibre the tanks would crack longitudinally, and the air would escape, causing a strong buzzing sound with no dangerous factor. It is clear that if this technology has been tested and prepared to carry an inflammable and explosive gas, it can also be used to carry air.

A final matter with reference to the air tanks, is the improvement that MDI contributed to the original structure. In order to avoid the so-called 'rocket effect', this means to avoid the air escaping through one of the tank's extremities causing a pressure leak that could move the car, MDI made a small but important change in the design. The valve on the buses' tanks are placed on one of the extremities. MDI has placed the valve in the middle of the tank reducing the 'rocket effect' to a minimum."

[merh]

38. I want one!!! (eom)

[Gregorian]

40. Sorry. Old news. More BS.

Runs on compressed air. Great. Where's the compressed air come from? An engine. So the car runs on air that has been compressed by an engine. Where is the gain?
Here would be the very best possible gains, if this car were run in a situation where a compressed air infrastructure were in place whereby a large compression facility were located centrally.(Otherwise, even these benefits don't even follow.)

1)Localized air is not polluted, due to the fact that the engine is somewhere far away, compressing air.
2)Air compression is accomplished by a much larger engine than that in a conventional automobile, therefore by the laws of thermodynamics, it has greater efficiency than that of a typical automobile.

Period. That's it. Nothing solve. Same old story of combustion of petroleum.
IT IS NOT THE SOLUTION WE NEED.

[Andy_Stephenson]

45. Hydro...Solar...Wind and

tidal energy are clean and renewable. So why again won't it work?

[Dems Will Win]

49. It will work

If an electric car can go 60 miles on batteries, the AIR CAR can go even longer on plastic compressed air tanks.

Power production is not the issue here!

[Gregorian]

54. Power production IS the issue.

It takes energy to run an electric motor, or compress air. Go back one stage. Don't look at the car. Look at the energy required to run the car. As a mechanical engineer, I can assure you I know what I'm talking about. That's what I learned in school. I'm not a practicing engineer. That was years ago. But one doesn't forget the basics. This stuff is not obvious, but it's basic.
And in fact, with our current population, there aren't many schemes by which we can produce power cleanly. Right now, even if everyone I'll stay on subject. But we have a huge job to do, and we're running out of time, and we're swimming upstream.

[Gregorian]

51. Solar, hydro, will work.

This is not solar, or hydro, etc.

I'm tired. As a mechanical engineer, I don't have the time to educate. Get a degree in engineering, then you'll understand. It's the same as politics, in that it takes so much work to understand the facts. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be mean.

The compressed air takes energy to compress. The issue is, I believe what you meant, how we produce energy. There really are no benefits to compressing air. They have a scheme with a more efficient piston stroke. But essentially, there are two answers- produce power more cleanly, or use less power. But since everybody wants children, ie. more users, we have to increase our efficiency by factors. It ain't lookin' good.

[Andy_Stephenson]

76. Here is something else to ponder on

Changing World Technologies

http://www.changingworldtech.com/techfr.htm

[gasperc]

48. far less gas(or energy) is needed to compress the air

than the amount of gas it would take to drive 300km, so it would seem ALOT is gained.

Ok though, let's be real, this car isn't a Grand AM or a GM Envoy but a great commuter vehicle in alot of the congested urban cities throughout the world.

[Gregorian]

64. I'm struggling to be polite here.

I do know a bit about thermodynamics and energy production.

But one thing I will say, that every time an energy conversion is made, there is a loss. So to go from an internal combustion engine, to compressed air, isn't even as good as going directly from the first. Now, there are all kinds of variables, so it's very easy to continue this as an argument ad infinitem. But given all things constant, that is the case. It takes so much energy to move us around. The only thing, all things constant, that is of issue, is the production (if one wants to call it that) of energy. We aren't really producing anything. Just converting.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. I live in Seattle...

something like 85-90% of our electric power is hydro. It is renuable. It would be a win win. Now in oil or coal fired regions...the better alternative would be to use a hybrid.

[TexasBushwhacker]

85. Chill out Greg

This may not be a solution that cures ALL our problems, but you know what? IT DOESN'T HAVE TO! In certain situations, this car would be ideal and if the electricity that it uses to compress the air has been produced in a clean way (solar, hydro, wind, etc.) then that's one car that isn't adding to the NET pollution of the planet.

Here's a real world example. I live in Austin. Austin Energy will rebate $5 to $6.25 per watt, with a cap of $15K for a residential customer. Solar systems generally range in cost from $6 to $10 per watt. Peak usage in the summer can be as high as 5 kW at any given moment, so anything beyond 4 kW would be overkill unless you have a very big house. Nevertheless, in order to get the rebate, you must be connected to Austin's grid so that when your system is generating more electricity than you're using, your meter will be going BACKWARDS and Austin Energy will be buying your clean electricity back from you. You can install your solar system on your roof, or you can install it on a freestanding grid. A 120 square foot solar panel system (10' x 12') will generate 1400 to 1700 kWh of electricity per year.

So if I build a system that has enough generating power that I can recharge my own compressor at home, I'll be driving a car that's cleaning the air as I drive, and hasn't produced any pollution in the electricity generating process. PV systems pay for themselves in 7 to 25 years, but as long as it pays for itself at some point, what do I care?

I could go on, but you get my drift. I'm just one person, but if my net pollution is less than zero, that's good. It's especially good if it costs me less than traditional, POLLUTING energy sources. Multiply my use by 1000, 10000, 100000. Every unshaded roof in the US that isn't made of solar architectural roofing is a WASTE.

BTW, Austin Energy will rebate businesses up to $100K.

[tlcandie]

41. As usual, some do not want to take the time to research the site's

info for themselves. I hope that in the future they can use hemp versus fiberglass for the body! It looks like they've looked into everything and working with the aerospace industry to make it work and be more streamlined and efficient!

I don't think it is a hoax as France will be implementing the metro part I believe it said next year?

Designs for taxis, boats, truck type models and more are being tested! Thanks Dems Will Win!!!!

More info snipped from the site regarding its systems..:

<snip>

Compressed air tanks

One of the most frequently asked questions is about the safety of the compressed air storage tanks. These tanks hold 90 cubic metres of air compressed to 300 bars. Many people ask whether this system is dangerous in case of an accident and if there is a risk of explosion. The answer is NO. Why? Because these are the same tanks used to carry the liquid gas used by buses for public transport. The tanks enjoy the same technology developed to contain natural gas. They are designed and officially approved to carry an explosive product: methane gas.

In the case of a major accident, where the tanks are ruptured, they would not explode since they are not metal. Instead they would crack, as they are made of carbon fibre. An elongated crack would appear in the tank, without exploding, and the air would simply escape, producing a loud but harmless noise. Of course, since this technology is licenced to transport an inflammable and explosive gas (Natural gas), it is perfectly capable inoffensive and non-flammable air.

It is fitting, therefore, that MDI has reached an agreement with the European leader in aerospace technology Airbus Industries for the manufacture of the compressed air storage tanks. With a remote supervision arrangement, Airbus Industries oversees the making of the storage tanks at each MDI factory. The coiled carbon fibre technology used in the construction of the tanks is complex and requires a substantial quality control process which the multinational company, home of the Airbus aircraft, will provide for our vehicles.



Brake power recovery

The MDI vehicles will be equipped with a range of modern systems. For example, one mechanism stops the engine when the car is stationary (at traffic lights, junctions etc). Another interesting feature is the pneumatic system which recovers about 13% of the power used.


The body

The MDI car body is built with fibre and injected foam, as are most of the cars on the market today. This technology has two main advantages: cost and weight. Nowadays the use of sheet steel for car bodies is only because of cost - it is cheaper to serially produce sheet steel bodies than fibre ones. However, fibre is safer (it doesn´t cut like steel), is easier to repair (it is glued), doesn´t rust etc. MDI is currently looking into using hemp fibre to replace fibre-glass, and natural varnishes, to produce 100% non-contaminating bodywork.




The MDI engine works with both air taken from the atmosphere and air pre-compressed in tanks. Air is compressed by the on-board compressor or at service stations equipped with a high-pressure compressor.

Before compression, the air must be filtered to get rid of any impurities that could damage the engine. Carbon filters are used to eliminate dirt, dust, humidity and other particles which, unfortunately, are found in the air in our cities.

This represents a true revolution in automobiles - it is the first time that a car has produced minus pollution, i.e. it elimates and reduces existing pollution rather than emitting dirt and harmful gases. The exhaust pipe on the MDI cars produces clean air, which is cold on exit (between -15º and 0º) and is harmless to human life. With this system the air that comes out of the car is cleaner than the air that went in.



The chassis

Based on its experience in aeronautics, MDI has put together highly-resistant, yet light, chasses, aluminium rods glued together. Using rods enables us to build a more shock-resistant chassis than regular chasses. Additionally, the rods are glued in the same way as aircraft, allowing quick assembly and a more secure join than with welding. This system helps to reduce manufacture time.


Electrical system

Guy Nègre, inventor of the MDI Air Car, acquired the patent for an interesting invention for installing electrics in a vehicle. Using a radio transmission system, each electrical component receives signals with a microcontroller. Thus only one cable is needed for the whole car. So, instead of wiring each component (headlights, dashboard lights, lights inside the car, etc), one cable connects all electrical parts in the car. The most obvious advantages are the ease of installation and repair and the removal of the approximately 22 kg of wires no longer necessary. Whats more, the entire system becomes an anti-theft alarm as soon as the key is removed from the car.
<snip>

[Dems Will Win]

47. Forgot to mention

The cars are assembled in the back of the dealership and then driven out the front door by the customer. Only the engines are shipped from France.

Decentralized factories!

[thecrow]

73. When will they be available in the US?

Just a question.. :)

[denverbill]

55. Boy that's an ugly car. But I'd sure think about buying one!

I hope they actually deliver.

[trekbiker]

56. I dont buy it...

conservation of energy... perpetual motion machine

you simply cant get more energy out of a device than you put in.

think about it. hook this car up to your home 220V outlet for three hours and then travel 124 miles at speeds up to 68mph?? lets assume you are using the full 30amp circuit at 220volts. that would equate to a 6.6 KW compressor compressing air for three hours (which would cost about $2 at 10cents/kw-hour). lets assume perfect efficiency, no losses (which is impossible BTW) but lets assume this for the sake of argument. at around 62mph you would travel the 124 miles in two hours and use up the compressed air in the tank. three hours of air compression at 6.6kw would give 2 hours of output at around 9.9 kw which is approximately equivalent to 10 horsepower. and this would be in a perfect world with no losses in the compression charging of the tank or the output to drive the car 124 miles. Do you think a 10 horsepower car can go 124 miles at around 60 mph??? maybe... if you dont have to accelerate more than once.... or use the brakes.. or climb any HILLS.. and in reality the output would be more like 6 or 7 horsepower. Imagine trying to merge onto the freeway with a 7 horsepower engine?!?!??!!

I dont buy the stated performance figures for one second... this is a scam.

[Dems Will Win]

57. You're correct but

I said can reach speeds of 69 mph. You're correct, if you drive that fast the whole time you are out of power in a couple of hours.

Drive it at city stop and go speeds and it will last 8-10 hours. It's on the Web site, how long you can go at what speeds.

It does have a gas engine as part of the hybrid model for long, fast trips.

They are still improving and developing the final compressed air tank I understand. That's what will get the actual prototype up to the theoretical mileage--which they won't actually reach until then because the prototype had an old metal inefficient tank.

[kwolf68]

58. In a later story

The inventors of this car have mysteriously vanished and all their paper work was "destroyed" accidentally.

[AmerDem]

60. cool stuff!

I like it! :toast:

[Worst Username Ever]

65. I hope it isn't another segway. i.e. flop. n/t

[0007]

102. At least junior flopped when riding a segway.

I didn't know the segway was a bust, but does make sense since I haven't seen anyone using 'em.

[eleny]

66. Gee, "Old Europe" -- Who woulda thunk it?

eom

[joeprogressive]

69. How much would it cost for a home air compressor ....

that met the right kind of specs for this car?

[Dems Will Win]

70. They're built into the car

You do need a 220 volt outlet, however.

The earliest the air car could come to America however, looks to be at least 2007 or 2008...

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

71. Here are the links to the US Patents on the vehicle

Apparently the French inventor Guy Negre has taken out both European and US patents on the vehicle. The US patents below give a bit more explanation about the vehicle. It looks like one version involves a hybrid of air compression and internal combustion.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=5&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=guy&s2=negre&OS=guy+AND+negre&RS=guy+AND+negre

[Dems Will Win]

72. Wow! Very cool!

Thanks aint! Now I can say I have read the patents!

People should realize the car still has to reach production model status and MDI is working with other companies to perfect the air tank which they are still working on and there are several loose ends they are tying up, including getting promised funds from investors.

So don't expect to see these in the U.S. anytime soon.

We mostly have to see the working fibre-glass air tank giving the big mileage in a production model--and I don't have the most recent update on that problem.

Until then, the car cannot be sold.

[msmcghee]

74. Patents are a joke.

Anybody can get a patent for almost anything. The patent office no longer judges applications on true novelty or functionality. If it doesn't blatantly violate an existing patent - it is awarded.

They figure it's up to the lawyers and courts to hash out any diffences - not them.

On edit: The patent office has become a huge boon to the security industry. It no longer protects inventions. It just issues documents that are included in the red-herrings (initial stock offering prospectuses for start-ups).

Needless to say - patents on methods that don't really work are easier to obtain because they are unlikly to violate existing patents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. From the analysis by the Ecole Des Mines

(French univeristy of engineering) on the site:

"According to these many parameters, the results of the autonomy are included between 117 and 146 km (73 and 91 miles), downtown. At stabilized speed they vary, according to the parameters, between 115 km (at 50 km/h) and 670 km (at 20 km/h) = 71 miles at 31 mph, 416 miles at 12.4 mph. "
http://www.theaircar.com/Mines_reports.html

Obviously this is translated (from French, presumably). If "stabilized speed" means "steady speed", then 71 miles at 31mph, for a small car like that, may be a bit better than the equivalent petrol engine - a Smart Car (they talk about 60mpg, meaning, I think, an American gallon; so in the USA that would cost you about $2 too; whether that's an (efficient) steady 30mph, or 'average driving', I can't tell. One person has claimed 100 mpg - might be a UK gallon, so 80mpg in the US).

In Europe, it may save you money (since you won't pay fuel tax). In the USA it would be marginal.

Also note that the Ecole only tested part of the prototype (in June 2003). They had to estimate the eventual result.

[Selwynn]

79. My new question is: what makes this better than electric cars?

Let's not worry about whether its a scam or not for now. Let's just assume for the sake of argument it, or something like it someday, is a real deal.

Great - so how is it better than an electric car?

[Gregorian]

81. This car post really has me disappointed.

It's not the car. It's the energy used to make the car move. I don't know how much simpler one can make it. Whether it's air, or electric motors, they all get their energy from some source. Until we can compress the air, or charge the batteries in a way that is significantly less harmful than combusting petroleum, we aren't making progress. It's not magic- it takes energy to make a car move. That energy ultimately must be converted in some manner. There are presently no efficient, and renewable means by which to convert energy. Not on a commercial level.

You know, this has been an interesting revelation for me. I belong to a European art forum, comprised mainly of teenagers. And the majority of these kids are far far brighter than most mature American adults. I believe this says a lot about how America arrived at it's present state. The European schools are rigorous and thorough. This, I believe, is what this country is sorely lacking. The subject of energy conversion is something in which every American should be fluent.

[Selwynn]

86. I think you're being disingenuous in generalizing Americans as "stupid"

I think it's pretty insulting to talk about one thread as an "interesting revelation" about the stupidity of Americans. While you didn't use the word stupid, I'm struggling to read your post in any other way.

The first many posts on this thread were exactly like my first post - hopeful excitement without careful reflection. No big deal, has nothing to do with intelligence or insight or wisdom. It's just a bunch of people desperate for a breakthrough.

I sincerely doubt that most of the people here are as stupid as you seem to think. One reason I doubt that is because there are plenty of people on this thread alone talking about energy conversion. The biggest problem is that there's such ambiguous and unclear information about this "invention" that is fairly hard to know what to think.

I am certainly well aware that energy conversion is not magic. What I was asking is this: is invention and innovation along the path of electric vehicles further along than this path would seem to be, and if so, what would be the advantage of invention along this air approach as opposed to continuing innovation/invention along the line of the electricity approach?

I fail to see what's so obtuse about that.

Furthermore, the real hallmark of wisdom is knowing what you don't know, being honest about that, and seeking to know and know truthfully. I'll take 10,000 wise people like that than 1 "smart" person with a smug and condescending attitude acting as though he, she, or a particular class of people are so obviously superior.

Sel

[Gregorian]

88. Never mind.

Not worth the argument.

[Selwynn]

90. Yes, I'm sure I'm too stupid to understand.

[ParisFrance]

92. Gregorian I think you are right

[msmcghee]

91. American adults may or may not be less educated . .

. . about basic science than French teenagers.

But what's going on here is not a matter of intelligence or education. It's wanting to believe something because it feels good to believe it. Both the French and Americans do that.

In this case - a story about a compressed air engine that generates zero pollution feels good to liberal readers because we'd love to see the big oil producers squirm. We'd also like to see this administration forced by economics to eat some French crow. And this story provides just that possibility. So, many DU readers want to believe the story because it supports and reinforces their ideology - and that feels so good.

People believe what feels good and then use their brains to justify it. This thread is a perfect example. Gregorian didn't call anybody stupid - by pointing out facts he has violated your ideology. In return you have called him disingenuous, smug and condescending.

And life goes on as before.

[dumpster_baby]

87. You missed a MAJOR point here--flexibility of available source fuel

If you use air to power the car, you can compress the air using any number of possible fuel sources. For example, to compress the air, you could use natural gas, gasoline, coal, nuclear, wind, tidal, solar, etc. The thing is that once you have one or two alternatives to fossil fuels to compress air, if OPEC cuts supply, we are all insulated from that supply shock. So therefore the price of compressed air only goes up a little bit. And that is a Good Thing! See?

As to ignorant Americans, I completely agree!

[Gregorian]

89. There is one major problem.

That is, whatever is used to compress the air, can be used to power the car in the first place. There is an extra step of compressing air, which has inherent losses involved, which doesn't need to occur. And furthermore, there is a lot of extra equipment that goes along with compression, that is highly energy inefficient. Electric motors are efficient, and simple to produce. Cars are most likely not going to run on compressed air. That's about all I can say without going on and on. And it isn't as simple as it seems on first glance. There are all kinds of schemes that can help compressed air look better than I'm making it. Such as recompressing it for braking, which pales in comparison to regenerative braking done with electric motors. Or the special crank/piston configuration that this particular company has designed. But the overall concept is that it requires an extra step that is totally unneccisary. Time will bear it out, and I can say with high certainty that electric motors will be the future of primary movers. And they can also use whatever energy conversion is being used at the time. Except instead of goofing around with air, they use electrons. Far more effective.
But don't listen to me- the future will tell the real truth.


I decided to do a quick Google to see what others have to say about this. Here's the first thing I found- http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=34250

And the other links were just as damning. All saying exactly what I've said.

I want to say it's better than what we're doing now. But I honestly can't. There are so many hidden losses in this compressed air scheme, that just looking at the car, is meaningless. The car might get great mileage, but there's going on than meets the eye. I'll leave it at that.

[Donkeyboy75]

95. You're right, except for one thing.

You say that it would be more efficient to power the cars directly through solar or wind power instead of using the air compression "middle man." In theory that is true. But no method will power the car directly, so you'd have to have "wind power" or "solar power" stations. Solar power is difficult to store (although there have been recent developments), and wind power, to my knowledge, is stored as hydrogen if the electricity generated isn't used immediately, and to be honest I don't know much about the efficacy of hydrogen fuel cells. Storing compressed air, however, is easy. So you have to factor into the equation how efficient the storage of these energies are.

I agree 100% with you, though. Fuel cells are a much better bet for clean, cheap efficient energy.

[VTMechEngr]

96. EXACTLY

Gregorian has a valid point. Rather than waste energy to create electricity, then compress air, then use that to drive a car, just use the electricity. Compression cycles are very inefficient.

The compressed air comes from three sources:

Electric motor (powerplant)
Fossil fuel engine
Mechanical (waterfall)

Each is better used as electricity or a fuel than wasted to compress air.

Heres some graphics to explain this stuff.
Here is how much energy from the gas you feed your car actually makes it to move you down the road.

Yeah~! only 5.8%

Now think about this: Only 40% of the energy from the crude oil even got to your gas tank. 60% or so of the energy was lost converting from crude pumping to gasoline storage.

And you want to switch to something even less efficient?

Eventually, we will not have a choice, but I don't see this as a huge breakthrough. It would be easier to just use a battery pack and an electric motor.

[cprise]

107. Incorrect

Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro and tidal power cannot be used to fuel a vehicle "in the first place".

And one of the two basic problems with hydrogen fuel is that it works far better in a stationary generator. IMO, it's not suited for transportation... it's still "goofing around" with air, and a very impractical form of it. Normal compressed air could be the best compromise.

[Gregorian]

82. dupe

[Selwynn]

80. .

[NuttyFluffers]

97. totally love this.

captain obvious to the rescue (seems to be a lot of kind hearted, but misguided, scientists here who overlooked a step - called promotion). obviously they are going to have market people hype the PR on their website and in the news, obviously the market people won't have a grasp of the complete scientific implications when they say 'no pollution - perfect energy forever!' that should be obvious to us who live in a western modern consumer society. duh - of course there will be exaggeration to explain things to lay people. take a chill pill dudes, no one sensible is claiming this is the perpetual motion machine. remember: layman exaggeration ~ professional hyperfixation... both stupid. deal with reality, stop talking and listening across each other. you'll find that you agree more than not.

will it work? well gee, france has had a compressed air bullet train in use for many years now, so ... yes, it can work. it's theoretical existence in reality is established. all there was was room for improvement, though. they needed to compress the technology for automobiles, which they seem to have done. kudos, not surprised or insulted at all. kinda expected this to happen sometime - the micronization of air compression technology for transportation. micronization seems to be happening to everything anyways, so why not this? sweet. now they are within striking distance of making it to the market. but here comes the big problem!

infrastructure. politics.

the real reasons why internal combustion engine hasn't faded yet. you have to create an entire infrastructure to mass produce these cars (a very hard thing to do), and then you have to create a maintenance infrastructure (fuel, repairs, gadgets and gizmos) (another very hard thing to do). and, by far the most difficult, the politics. replacing huge infrastructures steps on many, many toes. in fact the toes that would be stepped on are some of the most politically sensitive nations as well as some of the world's most wealthy and powerful corporations. piss them off at your peril.

if we really applied our mass production technology full force without regard to politics IC would have faded looooong ago. but with economic/diplomatic politics from HUGE power players there is very little way to pull this off.

but this looks like it might. the technology to transmit natural gas has expanded by leaps and bounds in recent years - all playing into the infrastructure argument. 3 hours at home, or 3 minutes (with liquid air) - got the time issue down. $10,000 personal investment - cuts out sticker shock. 120-180miles tank, decent range, fantastic start. 68mph... well, not a bad start, but not meant for freeways is it. and yet, for a new breakthrough in micronization, this is a huge leap. it fixes a lot of problems that were holding other options back.

now the largest hurdle is ahead: politics.

soon the overproduced oil, subsidized companies, hyper-competative revaluing of IC cars will all appear to kill this competition ASAP. wish them best of luck, and i'm sad i don't live in france.

ps: easy math. one less car burning gas = less pollution, more gas to spare, more grace period time before we run out of cheap fuel and are forced to change. time this by several hundred people (hopefully thousands), by several hundred tanks (hopefully thousands) a week at the pump = even better result. this product is only a good thing. quit sucking on lemons people.

[foo_bar]

99. isn't the TGV electric?

Aside from hydraulic/pneumatic applications (e.g., braking or stabilization), I'm unaware of any trains using compressed air solely for locomotion.

As for the political thermodynamics, European consumers pay so much for gasoline that the economic inefficiency could subsidize a gerbil-powered car with little micronized crankshafts. In the US, one less car burning gas = a kilowatt-decade of nuclear power.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

110. isn't the TGV electric?

It certainly is.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/frenchtgv/

The overhead wiring (aka catenary) supplies electricity at 25 kilovolts. In France, a lot of that power comes from nuclear plants. I was going to say I thought that France got 28% of its electricity from nuclear plants. It turns out that I was way off. The actual figure is some 73%.

http://www.uic.com.au/ne.htm

"To labour that point a little: France gets over 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. It is the world's largest electricity exporter, and gains some EUR 2.5 billion per year from those exports. Next door is Italy, a major industrial country without any operating nuclear power plants. It is the world's largest net importer of electricity, and most of that comes ultimately from France."

[NuttyFluffers]

111. thanks for the websites

i wondered whether or not France was smarter than USA and actively reclaimed their nuclear waste, so as to make the burden of dealing with waste far smaller.

Yes, France is smarter. They reclaim their nuclear waste.

so sad... from just one law, the federal anti-reclaimation law passed during jimmy carter's time, we have been saddled with such a horrible quantity of nuclear waste. profoundly stupid. and all in fear that "terrorists would steal the waste in-transit and build a nuclear device"... whatever, all they have to do is hang out in post-soviet russian sattelite states. they'd get what they want soon enough. so, so , so stupid. nuclear power really needs to be reassessed as a viable alternative for electricity. and by the time we are all int 2030 there should be a fusion reactor out there by then to burn away all the unclaimed waste.

not happy about the DU bullets though. really wish UK would cut that program out.

[redqueen]

100. I can't wait till they're available here

Gee... I wonder why this took so long to develop & market...

:eyes:

[JustJersey]

101. Current is only 4 Miles

I could be wrong, but from looking at the air car site, it looks like the prototype is only getting about 7 km (about 4 mi) to the tank.

The chart they use is difficult for me to fully understand but, it seems the prototype got 7 km and they're forecasting the 180 mi. I googled for news on it and a Wired article points out this too.