MDI’s OneCAT
Posted on 03/30/2007 7:17:49 PM PDT by Rick_Michael
A car with an air-compressed engine will be able to drive around 124 miles or eight hours for just under $2.
The OneCAT, created by Moteur Development International (MDI) Founder Guy Nègre, can reach a speed of 68 mph and can cover about 124 miles, or eight hours of travel, which is more than double the road coverage of an electric car. When recharging the tank, the car needs to connect to an outlet for three to four hours or attach to an air pump at a gas station for two 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 gasoline-powered car.
|
|
The vehicle (www.theaircar.com) gets its power from 90 cubic meters of compressed air stored in fiber tanks. The expansion of air pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature re-heats the engine and increases 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 (one liter of vegetable oil) is only necessary every 31,000 miles.
At the moment, MDI has four models, a car, a taxi (five passengers), a pick-up truck, and a van. The final selling price will be $10,800 (£5,500).
MDI, founded in Luxembourg, based in the south of France, with commercial offices in Barcelona, has researched and developed the Air Car over 10 years, and the technology has more than 30 international patents.
MDI already signed with 50 factories in Europe, America, and Asia. The company is offering 20 licenses in the U.K. as exclusive manufacturing areas for cars as well as offering other licenses in the nautical and public transport sectors.
The company just signed a deal with Tata Motors in India to develop a new and cost-saving technology for applications for the Indian market.
The company is initially looking to produce 3,000 cars each year, with 70 staff working one eight-hour shift a day.
MDI developed two technologies to meet different needs. One is the single energy compressed air engines, and the other is dual energy compressed air plus fuel engines
The single energy engines will be available in Minicats and Citycats. These engines are for use in the city use, where the maximum speed is lower and the need for an environmentally safer car is greater.
The duel energy engine, on the other hand, can see use in the city, but also the open road. The engines will work exclusively with compressed air while it is running under 50 km/h in urban areas. When the car hits speeds over 50 km/h, the engines will switch to fuel mode. The engine will be able to use gasoline, gas oil, bio diesel, gas, liquidized gas, ecological fuel, and alcohol.
The engine types will be available with two, four, and six cylinders. When the air tanks are empty, the driver will be able to switch to fuel mode, thanks to the car’s on board computer.
This engine (for more information, click on www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html) has four two-stage pistons, i.e. eight compression and/or expansion chambers. They have two functions: to compress ambient air and refill the storage tanks; and to make successive expansions (reheating air with ambient thermal energy) thereby approaching isothermic expansion.
Its steering wheel is equipped with a 5kW electric moto-alternator. This motor acts as the:
No clutch is necessary. The engine is idle when the car is stationary, and the vehicle starts via the magnetic plate which re-engages the compressed air. The electric motor allows for the parking capabilities.
For related information, go to www.isa.org/manufacturing_automation.
Watch video below
"If I wanted to drive around in a golf cart then I might consider this. I'll stick with my 405hp Corvette Z06 - and I ain't buying no stinkin' Carbon Offsets!"
I'm not praising the AL GORE mentality ie we have to force this stuff on the market. I'm just trying to keep my eyes open and judge it when it actually becomes commercialized. If at that point it does...then no one will be forced to buy it. Some will abstain for power, and others will consider.
I'm trying not be dogmatic in other words.
You write: If kept in a vacuum insulated tank (big Thermos bottle), it could last a fairly long time. As the compressed (even liquified at that temp?) air heated slowly it would have to be bled off.
uh, you are joking right? minus 100 degrees centrigrade? can you even comprehend how much energy would be needed AND insulation to keep it at that temperature? Mind you this air is compressed to 4,500 pounds per square inch! So you want to bleed it off as it warms up? Then you might as well keep it hooked up 24/7 to an air compressor that will compress to 4,500 pounds per square inch!!! That is more than the preassure at the bottom of the deepest part of the OCEAN!
coal is made in America.
Compressing air is not an efficient way to store energy but complaining that it is powered with home grown coal is rather silly in my opinion.
Dogmatic? Isn't that what they used to call the auto-stick VWs?
=P
I would drive it - looks like fun!
How about fitting one of these air tanks to a motorcycle
I would drive anything that cuts down on my household overhead. Low-mileage cars are not helpful at $3 + per gallon (in the Chicago area). Plus I don't like my tax money going into the hands of the Crook County Government which is what the bulk of that cost per gallon is around here.
Private industry research and development, and ideas are good things. Why should the exploration of ideas draw your ire and condemnation? In a free market world, ideas will rise or fall on their merit in the market place of ideas.
It doesn't cost you tax dollars for private companies to look for ways to bring new, potentially breakthrough products to market? Oh, and at the same time potentially making millions, perhaps billions of dollars for their investors?
You've got to loosen up a bit.
It wouldn't need "a lot" of insulation any more than a Thermos bottle or Dewar flask does. The vacuum space between inner and outer vessels can be very small.
"Possibly, but you have been going-on about "algae fuel" which, by your own admission is "too expensive at the moment". Well, hydrogen is likely to become more economical as the technologies improve. Why not consider a future with both? I am open to alternatives that can deliver what I currently enjoy - performance and reliability. Gas is a bit high, but my car sips gas and performs well. By the way, what the heck is "algae fuel?" This is the first I have heard of such a thing."
A lot of petro started off as algae, atleast that's what the scientist say.
Biodisels are either created by corn, switchgrass...anything living. Algae is said to be the only alternative that can replace petro....the government says that. Granted fusion is always the best.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf
Here's a basic breakdown of the algae situation.
1) ALGAE FARMING IS AN INDUSTRY
Commercial algae farming is an established industry.
It has been going on for over 50 years, and has become a
small industry. There are only a handful of companies
doing it on a large scale. Total world-wide production is
a few thousand tons of algal biomass per year. So far,
algae has been grown mostly for its protein, which is
worth more in the marketplace than either its oil or
starch content.
2) YIELD HAS INCREASED
Yield has already reached a point where algae farming
for oil begins to make sense. Currently, the highest
daily yield of algal biomass reported has been 50 grams
per square meter. The average daily yield is closer to 17
grams per square meter. (17 grams per square meter per
day, with extraction of 25% of its weight as oil
translates to about 1,200 gallons of oil per acre per
year. This is about double the yield of palm kernel.
Increases in yield will lower the amount of investment
required in physical plant, and (to a lesser degree) labor
costs.
3) PRODUCTION COSTS ARE DECLINING
Cost estimates are getting lower. Commercial
production costs are around $5,000 per ton, or $55 per
kilo. In a recent study, production cost estimates range
from 4-300 dollars per kilo. In a more recent study, the
range is .75 cents to $17.25 per kilo. So, it is apparent
that progress is being made.
4) PRODUCTION COSTS ARE TOO HIGH
Production costs are currently too high to make
commercial production of algae for oil. If we are trying
to replace petroleum oil, our maximum allowable total
production cost can be found by dividing the current cost
of crude oil (currently about $60) by the number of
gallons in a barrel (42). Currently, this cost limit is
$1.42 per gallon of oil. This is not the cost of the
algae. If we can extract 25% of the algae's weight as
oil, we will need to grow 14 1/2 kilos of algae for each
gallon of oil that we produce; a maximum cost per kilo of
algae of slightly less than ten cents.
5) THE CHALLENGE THAT FACES US
What we need to do as an industry is to increase the
yield of oil per acre, while effecting major cost
reductions in the production process. I believe we will
accomplish this, through hard work, persistence,
ingenuity, good luck, and collaboration.
" Dogmatic? Isn't that what they used to call the auto-stick VWs?
=P"
Probably.....lol.
As long as it does not increase the price of Sushi rolls... ;-)
Thanks for the information. I'll do a bit more reading on it.
stop posting stuff from the Onion....Wait, you're serious!
I am skeptical of the claims. I don't see how sufficient
energy can be safely stored in a reasonably sized compressed air tank to propel any vehicle for 8 hours. It is inconceivable that sufficient energy could be transfered
in only two minutes from a gas station compressed air hose.
I seriously doubt that, unless you are ignoring the loss of efficiency as the coal is burned to drive a turbine, and the loss as the electricty travels the electrical system until it charges the car.
Except the air is not a fuel, it is just a transmitting agent.
I've always hoped I could find a nice pair of a "Tatas" in my garage...
It's amazing how otherwise rational people are so willing to beleive the impossible when it comes to the cost of driving a car.
Actually, it can't. Laws of physics. Burning coal, driving a turbine, transmitting electricty over wires, powering the air compressor, and the releasing that air, cannot be more efficient then burning gas in your engine on the spot. Sorry. I know you want it to work, but it can't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.