[LowInMo]

I am a mere juvenile at physics but it would seem to me that if it did not take more energy to produce compressed air than compressed air can manufacture, we would have the perpetual motion machine. Why do all these tree-huggers think that anything that will propel a vehicle that does not involve actually pumping gasoline into the tank is an energy saver? Where do they think we get our energy, nuclear power plants? (Not yet..thanks to them) Most is still either from coal (causing more global warming than Ted Kennedy's flatulence) or from oil. (Please don't start about Global Warming, it is more of a farce than this compressed air crap)

[goldstategop]

I couldn't agree with you more. That's the point I made a couple of posts back. If it could be done for free, every auto company in the world would be ditching conventional engines. The fact they aren't tells you this scheme means you would have to produce more power to get a significantly reduced output. That's the trade-off and that's why there's no alternative to the internal combustion engine. Try explaining the facts of physics to enviro wackos who seem to think you can change the laws of physics if only you try hard enough.

(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")