Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By David Houle | July 23rd 2007 08:02 AM | 42 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More A Future Look at Today articles

All

About David Houle

David Houle is a future thinker, speaker and strategist who advises organizations about dynamic trends. He is the author of The Shift Age.
 

It is important to realize that the way we power our vehicles today is based on the legacy of energy discoveries of the 1800s.  Oil was first taken out of the ground in Pennsylvania in the 1860s.  When the automobile industry came into being some four decades later, petroleum was the first candidate for the energy source.  Even though the quintessential American inventor Thomas Edison did build an electric car, electricity was not as wide spread as it soon would be, so the power of the Rockefeller oil cartel won the day.


 

Today we are using the energy source discovered 150 years ago to get us to work and to the grocery store.  Do we use candles to light our homes?  Do we use tubes to power our radios and TVs?  Do we cool our houses with blocks of ice?  No, no and no!  So why do we continue to blindly define transportation energy on an 150 year old discovery that we know is causing climate change, funding terrorism and is in finite supply?


 

In the last few decades, Western Science has, as it has penetrated ever smaller particles, come to the conclusion that everything is energy.  Taking a look at energy from this point of view it strikes me as incredibly narrow to think of fuel, or energy as fossil fuel. That is just a small slice of what is available. If everything is energy then let’s look elsewhere, everywhere.


 

There are people around the world who are doing just that.  A French company called MDI has partnered with an Indian company Tata Motors, to bring to market a car that runs on compressed air.  That’s right, air.  The power source is air and the waste product is air.  A visionary inventor and entrepreneur, Guy Negre, the founder of MDI, has developed a compressed air engine that has the potential for being one of the great inventions of this century.


 

Negres’s compressed air car can travel 120 miles between refueling.  That is significant because more than 50% of Americans live 20 miles or less from work, and the average daily mileage per car is less than 40 miles a day.  The cost to operate is low, about one dollar per hundred miles.  The compressed air only car will need to go to compressed air fueling stations for a compressed air refill.  Once these retrofitted gas stations are in place, a refueling will take 3 minutes, will cost about $2 and will allow the driver to drive 125-175 before needing to refuel.  Alternatively, there are engines being developed that either switch over to electric or gas power allowing the car to continue to be driven, while at the same time operating the compressor to refill the tank with compressed air.  This model car could be driven from L.A. to New York on a single tank of gas.  Because there is no heat generating combustion in the engine,  changing the oil, vegetable oil at that, needs to be done only once every 30,000 miles.


 

What is not to like about this?  Cars that are pollution free, basically petroleum free, low cost to purchase [estimates are less than $20,000], low cost to operate and capable of handling most of our driving needs.  Sure if you want to pull a boat or rumble around in a big SUV or pick up this vehicle is not for you, but for commuting and running errands, the overwhelming amount of vehicular use in the U.S., the compressed air car is just fine.


 

What the compressed air car points to is the fact that humanity has the technological capability of solving our energy problems as they relate to transportation.  Combined with the coming electric cars in the next few years, it is possible that by 2020 we could primarily be free of our reliance on the internal combustion engine.  Now that is the potential and clear possibility.  Do we have the social and political fortitude to make this a reality?  Will our government see the clear opportunity or will it succumb to historical habit and inertia and cave to the well funded industry lobbying efforts that have influenced energy and transportation policy for the last 100 years?


 

The presidential candidates in 2008 could campaign on an “Energy Independence by 2015” platform, calling for government supported mass production of electric cars, compressed air cars and basically create a nation-wide Apollo project for the replacement of the internal combustion engine in a decade.  The technology is soon to be in place, so it is up to us, all of us, to make utilize the compressed air car and all such emerging new technologies to make it a reality. 


 

If you are interested in learning more about the compressed air car, here are some links:


http://www.gizmag.com/go/7000/ , http://www.cyber-media.com/aircar/ , http://www.theaircar.com/


Comments

Georg von Hippel's picture
Unfortunately, there isn't really a natural source of compressed air, so running cars on compressed air only offers a new way of storing energy, not a new energy source -- the air has to be compressed first, which needs an energy source.

True, what about Elbow grease, solar, hydro(mech or elec) , wind( mech or elec) , or grid electricity? Air pumps run on all of these.

Do you realize that you're eating foods discovered THOUSANDS of years ago? As Mr. Von Hippel indicated, air needs to be compressed, electricity needs to be produced and delivered (electric cars aren't zero emissions vehicles, they just push the pollution up to the power plants). We (the developed and developing "worlds") use *lots* of energy, and there simply is no "clean" way of getting it. Electric requires massive batteries to store the energy, battereis which eventually wear out and are full of heavy metals. Batteries are also inefficient at recharging, and Coal/Natural Gas/Nuclear power all have issues. Solar also has some problems (effeciency, current process for building solar panels are not enviromentally friendly). Windmills are not currently cost effective, and there are not enough areas where the wind is consistently strong enough to generate sufficient electricity to pay for it. Yeah, some of these issues we can overcome in time, and "we" are working on it. But it is important to look at the *whole* problem and not just one currently fashionable part of it--what good is it if we were (for instance) to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, but wound up poisoning our groundwater (as the Morons on the California Air Resources Board did with MTBE)? Change because it's fashionable is a /bad/, /bad/ idea.
Georg von Hippel's picture
I wouldn't want to be quite so negative about it. Compressed air certainly sounds like an interesting way to store energy for use in transportation without the problems that come with batteries in the case of electrical cars; I was merely pointing out that it will not solve the basic problem of generating energy in an environmentally-friendly way.

By the way, photovolatic cells have become much more efficient recently (cf. the most recent issue of PhysicsWorld), and there are of course other ways of exploiting solar energy (e.g. solar-thermal).

No, burning one of our most valuable raw materials really isn't justifiable any more. On that point I full agree with the article.

Billy, you are eating foods discovered only 50 years ago. McDonalds. Eat some fresh organic foods and you will think better, I promise.

Al

David Houle's picture

Well, glad to provoke some responses.  Whether the answer is the compressed air car or something else, the fundamental issue is to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.  According to such scientists and Dennis Bushnell, who was interviewed here some weeks ago, if the world kept on pace for energy consumption under exisitng conditions we would need three Earths' worth of fossil fuels to  keep the world going for 200 years.  We are moving through peak oil now.

My basic position is to say yes to all of the above. Yes to wind, yes to compressed air, yes to solar, yes to electic, yes to anything as long as we explore the possible unintended consequences as much as possible.  The cost issues will take care of themselves.  The first car cos a lot more to run at that time that a horse did. 

The road to success, the road to invention is paved with failures.  Human ingenuity and innovation will win the day.


I have been posting all over the web about Guy Nègre's air-driven car for the past seven years. Most of the objections I encountered were about the energy needed for compressing air. I do believe it takes less fossil fuel to provide the energy to compress the air per mile than for driving a normal car per mile, and if the fossil fuel used for providing the electricity for this purpose is used only in facilities built for that purpose only, the pollution could easily be filtered and not put into the atmosphere - this would have the immense benefit of liberating cities of the pollution emitted by vehicles which use fossil fuel. Furthermore, the engines of the air-driven cars have so few parts in them that there is little wear and tear - another important economy there. The air-driven cars could have their roofs covered with photovoltaic cells which could, weather permitting, drive a small compressor to fill a spare compressed-air tank. The cars could also be fitted with small "windmills" which could be connected to dynamos which also could provide electricity for that purpose - and no wind is necessary for this, just driving along would activate these "windmills". Homes and buildings could likewise have their roofs covered with photovoltaic panels to provide the electricity needed for compressing air. Another interesting and promising technology which can be used for cars, for warming homes in winter, etc., is the Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen System.
By putting a windmill on the car you are just converting the energy that the compressed air engine made to move the car forward back to electricity. The drag force added will cancel out the energy that the air engine will be able to make from the air that the windmill's electricity just compressed. Conservation of energy, perpetual motion.... It will make the car more inefficient. Though it would be a funky looking car. Solar power would work on the car and it could continuously power the compressor as long as it was in the sun. So if driving to work and back is out of this car's range, parking your car in the sunlight in the parking lot would power the compressor to refuel the engine while your at work, provided its a nice sunny day. I also like your idea about powering places that typically provide electricity for the compressor with renewable energy. Also, what's to say that the compressed air stations that they plan on building along the highways can't be powered solely on wind and solar. I know that both don't always produce electricity(when not enough wind or sun), but when they are making electricity, they would be compressing air, and that air is going to need to be stored temporarily anyway, can't assume that there will always be people filling up every second of the day, so if they produce enough compressed air for the projected amount of customers they will be all set. They could even have a biodiesel generator on hand for emergencies.

David Houle's picture

Vierotchka-

Thank you so much for your comment.  I agree that even if gasoline is needed on some models, the compressed air car will use much less that the current cars on the road.  That is a very good thing!

 

David


David, off topic - I like this place, we seem to be suspended in a time-warp zone where it is forever 7 p.m. December 31, 1969! ;)
Hank's picture
I just noticed that too. Actually, I was in the process of writing to Sefanja ( because I should blame him before he blames me ) about it when David sent me an email pointing this out.

Now we can all blame you.

Vierotchka, you broke our website!!!! :)

I didn't break it - you can call it the website that never gets old! :D
A quick search of enginering sites would suggest air is around 12% efficiency. Keep you eye on the ball chaps. You need to work with electricity.. still the most efficient at around 30% from power station to a power point near you. The car you run on electricity will achieve around 15% total efficiency. You beloved air car might realize something like 8%!

Just an awesome article...I've been searching for an article on the Air Car that truly understands the possibilities and the enormous opportunity we have with the Air Car. We can't allow this to slip by us. We have to force it on our politicians.

If the efficiency and range of the compressed air engine is questionable for some people, just imagine a solar / air hybrid or and electric / air hybrid.

Is there a way to buy an Compressed Air Car, or a conversion kit? And can you tell me when they are going on sale? Also if there is a list I want on it now before they are hard to get. If any of this is possible please contact me at 925-876-3244,or (joehenery@yahoo.com) This is something I have enjoyed for years because I use Air for almost everything in my shop and home. A car would be the ultimate air machine. Hope to hear from you soon and have a GREAT DAY. Sincerely Joe Miller

Wow, this sounds promising... Granted, Jim the Bobber, electricity would be optimal in terms of efficiency, but a 3 minute refuel time really wins over batteries in practical terms. (heck, why not explore airpower-hybrid electric too) Additionally I would think gas station owners would jump to add air pumps to their station. Their markup on gas is like $.05 per gallon. Conversely, they would receive all the revenue from their own air, made by their own equipment. (Power could optionally come from the grid, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.) Of course, if car owners could plug their cars in over-night that would eat up some of the service station's profits... anyway... Economists, engineers - get together on this will ya!

This technology has huge potential! MDI's cars could revolutionize transportation, but there is also a different kind of air-powered motor which is even more fascinating: The Australian Angelo Di Pietro developed a motor which is powered by compressed air and reduces friction, size and weight to a minimum:
http://economatters.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/the-air-car-could-revolutionize-driving-an-electric-car-without-an-electric-motor/

If you convert air pressure to hydraulic power you gain energy.
A one hp compressor will produce 4 cubic feet per minute of air at 100 psi

An air cylinder 10 inches in diameter and 12 inch stroke is 942 cubic inches
4 cubic feet of air equals ( 4*1728) 6912 cubic inches.
6912 cubic inches of air will push 6912 cubic inches of hydraulic fluid
at 100 psi. 6912 cubic inches divided by 231 equals 29.9 gallons
Gallons times pressure divided by 1714 equals hydraulic horse power
29.9 gallons times 100 psi divided by 1714 equals 1.745 horse power.

if that is the case the hydraulic motor will run a compressor that will
produce 6.9 cu ft per minute at 100 psi.
Where is that extra 2.9 cfm coming from.
Can we start with 100 psi and run a hydraulic motor increasing the
amount of air produced along the way?
Where did I go wrong?

You started with a magic compressor.
If you calculate the power in 4 CFM at 100psi you get 1.745HP.
It's pretty hard for a real 1HP compressor to do this.

I believe we all know that we don't get sumthin for nuthin. The compressed air motor will indeed shift the burden to the electric grid but we'll be upgrading that too over time. The move to wind, solar, geothermal and other "green" sources of electrical generation will happen and will eventually replace all of the hyrdocarbon hogs that we have today. We'll be seeing more nuclear power plants in the near future too as the continued rising price of oil will silence the NIMBY (not in my back yard) folks. We will see a mixture of technologies and it will take all of them. All of the trasnportation advances will in one way or another be tied to our electrical grid. No one technology can or will solve the world's need for alternative energy sources in transportation or otherwise.

One point that has not been mentioned in all of the posts I have read all over the web and that I'd like to throw out there now relates to the world's ability to transition to new technologies without suffering dire economic consequences. Can we rush into developing an infrastructure to support non-fossil fuel alternatives and maintain good economic equilibrium? It is almost a paradox because the very thing that threatens to kill us is also what keeps us alive for now. Like it or not, fossil fuels and the world economy are inseperable right now and a mad rush to change it could hurt us more than help us in the short term economically. Just like most others, I would like to see the shift happen soon but how soon is too soon and how fast is too fast? Yes, it is going to happen. It must happen! But maybe we should take some time to think about when to do it and how to do it right. One thing for sure, we'll be waiting until well after the election in November before anybody in politics takes a crack at that one. And then, it won't be their idea it will be ours. The world's scientists and the world's economists need to work together on this one.

Hello i am wondering if you export the air compressed car? I would like to import them to australia if this is possible could you forward your contact details so i can get intouch with you please? Thank you

Best Regards

Geoffrey McClelland

Investment opportunity is not like importing the vehicle, Geoffrey McClelland, the company does have a investment opportunity but it requires you purchasing rights to manufacture the vehicle such that India did and that also means for changes you have to purchase the engines separately from them as they are not actually the maker of the vehicle or the air engines which they themselves import. This factor drives your overhead up and your selling franchise must coordinate with theirs.

If you wanted to get a new option available it would mean you becoming a drop shipper having to pay their shipping costs up front to your customer. In this way they are certain to sell as few as ten engines up to 100 engines at a time and ship once.

They will not give a investor rights to manufacture their engines so if you want a stationary engine operation and it be for making electricity your out of luck. Their engines are patented with the vehicle they sell. I would suspect India paid dearly to be able to manufacture their vehicles.

Joe C Miller, TO BUY GO TO NEW YORK AND FIND THEIR COMMERCIAL SALES FRANCHISE. Their main regards is a utility type vehicle which operates in the city for delivery purposes. Their future option is large hybrid buses, the engine they use for compressed air motion is not capable of starting the large vehicle moving but is for engaging after the vehicle is moving, this is their hybrid concept in a nut shell. But if you want to buy a 20 vehicle fleet think about selling cross country tickets to couples at $500 per couple for a week long vacation at certain areas and make it round trip. The couple could rent a vehicle where they are heading off the shelf and then return it before they return to the bus to return back home on a certain day and time for departure. Cheaper rates could be manageable as well as coupon express gift certificates for those folks that are newly wed and theres no stops necessary for fuel if there is not much stop and go. The main upkeep is tires and licensing of the vehicle plus a business license of course this seems a good investment opportunity for a sure thing producing income almost instantly. Their other future is air boats and air barges plus air supply stations which include the liquid fuel for the hybrid engines they stand to create which are ICE types. Good luck with your new business transporting couples across country and back each week.

If your getting second thoughts about air engines, you have a right to consider something with a better flair. Look closely, the engine only uses air to intake then compresses to add it to the already compressed air supply wihout consideration of a cooling system. We know what trouble this could mean down the road with warping and moisture control following a on/off situation of useage so think about a new option without their company being involved. Look towards a mix of water and air to compress with the supply instead using a impeller to inject the solution at the moment of compresssion so that a massive compression results using the pressurized water also as a coolant so to extract the result which becomes hot over use and add just a small amount of electricity to make it a steam so you can generate electricity and have in wheel hub electric motors. Now that is what I call a hybrid from the ground up without using a ICE for propoulsion at all and is still a zero emission vehicle. I am addressing this to all the readers especially all those whom want to create a new business option for American Consumer's. Grab your drafting equipment box and get that drafting table dusted off so to create the very best water/air compressor engine and thats the future as I see it for the idea to make a better vehicle do not invest in carbon fiber fabrication which drives the overhead up. Waferized fiberglass shells with some spider steel woven parts would make it cheaper and very little steel excepting for the bumper supports and mainframe unless you use aluminum beam structuring found in most concept vehicles. Water tight your construction and you got a winner.

I like CRAB CAKES !

The air car concept suffers from the low energy content of compressed air. MDI the "aircar" company has never demonstrated a vehicle capable of traveling more than a few miles, the reason is the enormous amount of air needed to travel more than that. If you are able to follow the energy through the air car system from compression to the final expansion to power the vehicle you can readily see the capabilities to travel more than a few miles is not there.
The reason is enormous amounts of energy is needed to compress the air, large amounts of energy is lost due to the cooling necessary during the compression stage, if the air is not cooled during compression, the pressure will drop substantially after compression and you would not be fully utilizing the capacity of the air tank. Then as the air is expanded to a pressure at which you would power the engine, more energy is lost from the expansion, the lower pressure air will be cooler, more energy lost.
The real truth is evident when you look at the capacity of the air tank, there are scientific tables that will show how much energy is contained in a air under various pressures, you will see that the amount of energy is the fully loaded air tank is a fraction of what is necessary to obtain the performance that is claimed by the promoters of the air car. There is no free energy, you need a certain amount of energy to move a vehicle a specific distance, there is no free energy.
IF the air car was even close to being capable of obtaining the performance claimed, the promoters could approach any venture capitalist and receive whatever money was necessary to bring their concept to fruition. Instead we get claims going back to the year 2000 saying that production is NEXT year in such and such a place (MEXICO, SOUTH AFRICA, etc) nothing ever comes of such claims.
The promoters of the air car use the public's ignorance of science (Thermodynamics specifically) and their inherent desire for cheap energy to gain free publicity from the press, to sell more "Franchises".
If the air car was ready for production in 2000, what is the delay? The truth is you will never see an air car capable of being more than a golf cart, or warehouse vehicle. Do research on the company and their claims going back 10 years and you will find a pattern of lies, and scientific impossibilities and claims that border on perpetual motion, ask yourself at what point do I simply refuse to believe any more of the unproven claims?
The truth is in the details that nobody takes time to investigate, Outrageous claims garners free publicity, which is how they advertise the sale of their "Franchises", in a few years you will read about this as another scam that many fell for, I believe the air car only offers a dream to those who do not understand.
Tata motors in India released a statement last year that said they have no production plans.
Tata itself only made one reference to the air car prior to that point in which they said that Tata "envisages further development and refinement of the technology", MDI took that statement and said they would be producing cars in Fall 2008, then summer 2009, again lies.
Air engines have been around since 1850, they were used only for short transportation runs and in coal mines where explosive gases existed, they were always close to their air sources due to the low energy capacity of air.
The faulty logic and unproven claims by MDI the promoters must be taken into account when analyzing the entire concept, you can not overlook their history of obfuscation and lies.
MDI's plans to have many factories producing 10,000 or so cars per year flies right in the face of economics, is there economy of scale or not? That works out to 40 cars per working day, what happened to shifts, utilization of capital goods, maximization of profits etc?. They have this business plan as a means to sell more franchises, many factories, means many down payments, means more money up front from more people = cash...the reason behind it all.

Hello AVAGADRO,

That is exactly the problem with todays informations. It seems people get away with making claims on almost anything and one cannot validate these claims without having the scientific background. Governments do not necessarily help either.

I am not saying that the air-car is rubbish but I am having difficulty making up my mind as I don't have the right background information. Obviously the oil companies wouldn't be very excited about a car which runs without their black stuff and who knows whether you work for one of them.

It seems you have some expertise in this field but why only going on about why the air car won't work? What about suggesting a solution which might work? Maybe electric cars fueled by electricity made from algae?

I would appreciate if we could focus on which alternative could work!

I like the innovation of the compressed air car, as it also filters the air and would have applications in polluted areas. I like the electric vehicle idea. I have designed an electric vehicle, low cost with multiple affordable motors. Built along the idea of the Segway bullet proof with double systems. The Model T ran 50 mph with 20 hp. We can do much better today. K.I.S. keep it simple.

Add 'S' to KIS = KISS
Keep it Simple Stupid.

im so for changing the planet. Im researching air cars and they are really great for just running on air. thank you for your time helping us!

The article says "Negres’s compressed air car can travel 120 miles between refueling. " That is incorrect.

Guy Negre CLAIMS that the air car can travel 120 miles between refueling. All that he has DEMONSTRATED is that his car ran out of air after 7.22km or about 4-1/2 miles.

MDI still has not delivered a single car. MDI still has never let any independent auto magazine or other outsider ever do a road test of his cars.

They are still vaporware. But very very good for raising additional money from gullible investors.

I don't have any appropriate training to assess the viability of an aircar -- but I do like the concept. The problem regarding power plants using fossil fuels isn't going away any time soon, true. But I'm for all green alternatives though each has some problem, such as no wind/sunshine, storagte, limited performance, etc.

I wonder if a two-tank closed high pressure system would work, using the energy generated by simply "transferring" the air pressure between the two tanks to drive the car? Rather than consuming the air pressure from a single tank, how about a system that only rarely requires a "refill" because the system is closed and your only moving air from one tank to the other. Just an idea....

A system as you describe will not work due to the fact that at some point the pressure in both tanks would be equal and the flow would stop.

Look at at the current vehicle touted by MDI on their site, I suppose this is proof that you can not operate a normal sized vehicle for any sort of range. Hence we have a "thing" whose output is less than 5 hp and weighs less than 500 lbs. I would call it an overcomplicated golf cart.
If they could make a decent vehicle they would have by now, who would develop a contraption such as that "thing" when the market is for CARS

Hi folks!
I invite you to have a look at www.aircars.tk, my site about the compressed air cars. You get many pictures, videos, links, and the latest news. Have a nice day!

Jeff Sherry's picture
Didier your link is dead. I was interested in seeing how such a vehicle would be constructed.

Let's try again, Jeff. I have just clicked on the link in my post here above and it works just fine on my computer.
Maybe this one will work better: http://users.telenet.be/sarahgrimonprez/didier/aircars/index or this one http://www.aircars.tk. I hope it works all right now. Have a nice day, Jeff!

Hi,
I am not an engineer but I would like to give the following answer to the people here who call the project a scam and say the technology just can't work. Tata motors' engineers spent 31 months investigating thoroughly MDI and its technology, and thenTata decided to pay 30 million $ for the licence for India only. This can only mean that they found the technology and the company to be sound. Their engineers are still to this day collaborating closely with MDI's folks on improving the air engine. Also MDI has signed an agreement with two European airlines, Dutch KLM and French Air France. They will test the Airpod for 6 months starting within some weeks. So we will very soon know more about the range and other claims. I am as curious as you are. As soon as anything more is known, you will find it on the "news" page of my site http://www.aircars.tk

Jeff Sherry's picture
Didier I am still interested in the air car. Each time I go to any of the links and even your name I get:    |A 50x server error was received attempting to serve your request, indicating that either the server is currently unable to handle the request or the request timed out waiting for a response. The error may have been due to a temporary issue and therefore you could try to access the web address again.

or:   |A sever error in the German language.

I'm actually interested in the nuts and bolts of the vehicle.
How large and thick is the tank that holds the compressed air?
Check valve usage?
Vehicle safety for highways.
Fiberglass body a composite sheet molding compound?
Does the drive motor make use of vanes?
How large is the drive motor?
Air drying before the compressed air goes through the drive motor?
Is there gearing on the drive shaft?
Does the vegetable oil lubricant turn to vinegar?
Carrier capacity?

Jeff Sherry -- you should try with another computer. www.aircars.tk has been working each time I've checked over the last few days.

Didier: You say that you believe MDI's claims because Tata Motors has invested, and because there will be trials of the AirPod by Air France and KLM Engineering. MDI has been at this same state of "homologation in two months sales starting soon after" several times over the last 10 years.

At how long of a delay of the homologation; Tata Motors release of a vehicle; information released on the performance of the Air Pod at Air France; and demonstration of range can there be and you still believe in MDI's claims. 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? Are you willing to wait another 10 years before you doubt MDI's claims?

At what point do you accept that MDI is continuing the same stalling game they have done since 1999?

MDI can prove that they are real by completing any one of the above listed items. So far time after time they have missed their own self-imposed deadlines. I would be delighted if MDI were to do a public demonstration tomorrow of the range of the AirPod and prove me wrong. I'm betting that they won't.

It's really a pity that CAT-vehicles sound too good to be true and in reality they are to good to be true. MDI has been postulating for several years, "next year manufacturing shall commence" and this comment has been repeated for several years so that it's getting to be boring. You all should know, "tomorrow never comes".
Apart from this introduction, I'm an electronics engineer and I love numbers. I don't intend to present all the calculations of physical nature I have made to this subject because the pure volume would exceed allotted space; the claims made from MDI are nothing more than wishful fancy. MDI nor anyone else will ever prove the first law of thermodynamics as being false. What MDI is claiming is against physical facts; water does not run uphill nor does energie. Both always move from a higher to a lower level without introduction of additional energy from outside of a closed system.

Yoat Mon -- I'd be interested in seeing your calculations. Compressed air hold a bit less energy per kg than does a lead acid battery -- perhaps a bit more kw-hr/kg than lead acid battery if the tanks are very lightweight carbon fiber. The downfall is that air engines have not been very efficient.

There is no physical reason why one cannot make a compressed air car. The problem is that the energy density of compressed air and low efficiency of air motors combine to make it a very difficult engineering task to get usable operating range.

The advantage of compressed air is fast recharge and a high number of charge/discharge cycles.

I wish MDI would take what they do have and go find an application where their technology is suitable. Then they would have a base to get real world experience and further develop their technology. The little AirPod being used to run repair techs around the tarmac of an airport might be such an application. MDI was supposed to start such a trial with 7 prototype AirPods at KLM Engineering and Air France in Spring 2009. Hopefully they will at some point actually deliver AirPods to Air France/KLM. Not yet, though.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.