http://www.dpccars.com/car-movies/09-25-06page-Air-powered-car.htm

------------------
87GT 5Speed 3800SC with Air Ride
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2215614/3
My build thread:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/059538.html

Funny, I was just on MDI's site an hour ago, while doing a search to see what the latest in compressed air motors was. I don't have the time or money to spend 10 years in R&D on something like this, glad someone else is doing it That second motor looks real interesting.

What really sucks is that for years, MDI had been going into production in about 6 months... for years and years.

I thought they were in production in France selling them as taxis, but apparently they are still prototypes.

Also distressing to see a report that Guy Negre who first started working on automotive applications for an air motor, seems to have stolen the Australian guys design verbatem a year or so ago and claimed his new engine was something he came up with years ago.

I'd like to get more info on Angelo Di Petro's engine, like how much air pressure it runs on, real world testing of air consumption and power output attainable, with specific fuel consumption equivalents at different power levels. His engine apparently doesn't need a transmission, just a reverser if you need to back up...

The first thing that struck me about the French design was its inefficiency; why use the reciprocating piston design, when a rotary type would require fewer moving parts and be smaller? To me it indicated a huge lack of original thought. I laughed out loud to see my analysis confirmed when I saw di Pietro's design.

Time for a reality check!

Like a battery powered electric, compressed air power is perfectly legitimate for vehicles with a low total energy requirement per usage cycle. The warehouse utility truck is a perfect example. But you just can't get enough total energy into compressed air tanks to match the energy density of conventional liquid fuels (gasoline, diesel, ethanol, etc.).

The claim of a 3000 mile (5000 km) range on one tank of fuel in a gasoline/pneumatic hybrid vehicle is simply preposterous! It serves to discredit anything else the inventors and promoters have to say. The laws of physics are rigidly enforced.

I thought they said 300, not 3000. But anyway,
the problem with using combustible fuels for anything is how to renew them. Following logic, when you explode a fuel to perform work, you "suck" the energy out of the fuel (otherwise, no work would be done). Now you are left with expended fuel as whatever chemical composition is left, and work done. In order to make that expended fuel into usable fuel, you have to put energy back in it one way or the other (re-pressurizing, recharging, changing chemical composition, etc). This is why those "water engines" that use electrolysis to create hydrogen and oxygen and then combust it don't work. You can only get energy out that's been put in it in the first place. So, there's 2 choices:
- use only low-energy-consumption vehicles (remember, 1hp = 745ish watts)
- find a way to renew combustible fuels
I doubt we will see a shift from 300+hp (223+ kilowatts!) rumbling monstrosities to golf carts on the roads anytime soon. Do we really need to use that much energy to lug ourselves around? Are smaller, lighter, less powerful vehicles even viable on US roads?

Are there any viable solutions to the second one? The only one I know of is waiting eons for fossil fuels to naturally be made. Maybe bottling up cow farts (methane)? That's about as close to a renewable source as I can think of.

What's the average consumer to do? Sit around and wait?

quote Originally posted by kwagner: I thought they said 300, not 3000.

I think the claims were for a 300 mile range on bottled air alone (also unlikely, IMHO) and a 3000 mile range (Los Angeles to New York was the example offered) on one tank of fuel in an fuel/pneumatic hybrid.

Oh yeah, I remember that part now.