Posted on 03/30/2007 7:17:49 PM PDT by Rick_Michael
And where does the energy to get the air down to -100 degrees in the first place come from? I guarantee that compressed air at -100 degrees costs more than $2 per fill-up.
Something doesn't add up here. How do you go from 120psi to 4500 psi without using energy? And how do you extract the energy from the gas to lower its temperature to -100?
Admittedly, I haven't studied my Thermodynamics in years, but a little voice keeps telling me something doesn't fit.
If they were to actually invent a true alternate fuel,, one that was equal and as cheap as gas but without pollution, the Dems would attempt to destroy it. None of this is about finding a true alternative. They want destruction of our economy, of our freedom, of our property, our liberty and of our pride. They really do want us riding around on little bicycles or stuffed into trains and buses where we are easier to control and less independent. Meanwhile, they and their Hollywood friends will continue to jet around the world or be chauffeured around in their armored Limos and SUV's. Nothing is about what it seems. It is all really about their boot on our throat.
Cost wise. If an electrical car was cheap and reliable (which it isn't), it has a cheaper cost for distance.
Although they go together.
The air powered car and the two major competitors in the development and marketing of these vehicles has been featured on the Science Channel. The engine is small, simple and efficient. The car seems to perform as advertised.
Again, why would a story about a private company that is developing a new idea, risking it all to see if that idea catches on -- why would that threaten people here. What's up with that?
Some are more equal than others, eh commrade. ;-)
I agree. The Dems have often stood in the way of viable energy policies while consuming conspicuosly. It is okay for Algore to consume 20 times as much energy as the national average, but if one of the "proles" buys an SUV, then they are to be pilloried.
Anyone else do the math? Apparently at max-endurance, the speed is about 15 mph... ??? 68 mph is probably the "sprint" speed, but no-doubt trains the air tank in nothing flat...
You're right there's no way 2 minutes worth of compressed air from a filling station tire hose is going to be able to pack the kind of energy needed to make a car go. That's maybe a 2 horsepower compressor. 2 horsepower for 2 minutes, will barely get it down the block.
Bet it is really cute with the Weebles in it.
It would actually be dandy for me...
As long as one of my labs doesn't carry it off to chew on it.
The new French car ... "Le Fart" car! With attachments for your nail gun and die grinder!
And for those who own the Toyota Prius (and other electric P.T. Barnum machines)... I hope your happy about destroying Subdury Ontario with your nickel batteries.
http://omidr.typepad.com/torque/2007/03/toyotas_prius_i.html
However you want to look at it.
I think we need to (sorry about the cliche) "think outside the box".
Look, as long as no one is forcing me to buy products I don't want...and as long as there are companies out there who want to get rich providing me with products I do want...
...who cares what the go juice is called?
You are missing the point. This defies basic physics. It is designed entirely to prey on people who are overly hopeful, like, no offense, yourself. It is basic physics that is defied here.
"Mythbusters" put that one to rest on their shark-themed show. If you shoot a tank of compressed air you get a lot of wind and a tank with a bullet hole in it.
"If this takes off, I wonder what state governments will do for tax revenue?"
The States will increase registration costs and probably require some sort of meter, or GPS tracking device on your vehicle to tax you for your mileage use of State roads.
Well, that depends really on the cost of the electricity used to charge the car.
Two companies are developing the car. One Australian, the other, French. The French company has sold an order to Mexico City for taxis and other fleet vehicles.
They can't defy physics if they are in production, can they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/992431.stm
"You've got to loosen up a bit."
-- --
I'm having fun, but you really have your panties in a bunch.
I would love to see a Magic Energy Supply Solution that actually works efficiently, but none in the last 30 years have stuck.
Solar panels on your house; those windmill energy sources that produce a fickle output but effciently kill thousands of birds; electric vehicles that wind up being disposal and economic disasters at the end of their lives; biodiesel from fast food restaurants oil that is likely THE most limited fuel supply on Earth at a greater processing economic loss than gasoline; ethanol production that works decently with sugarcane* but still carries huge lost overhead costs for planting, harvesting, conversion, separation, and shipping, and still only has 62% of the BTU's (at a far lower temperture) per gallon compared to gasoline , etc, etc, etc.
Nothing beats oil, coal or nukular.
(*Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.)
Am I still full of myself, aligncare?
Well I guess from that photo that the C6 Corvette is now history. You'll put your eye out with that thing.
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.
