...
written by Grady Hillhouse , May 27, 2007

It should be noted that when air is compressed, heat is created. This is the basic principle outline by Charle's Law. At these high pressures, the temperature of the air will increase drastically. To avoid superheating the air, most of this heat will have to be dissipated. This leads to inefficiency at the compression stage. The reverse is true as well. If the compressed air is allowed to cool to ambient temperatures before entering the car's tanks, the reduction of pressure in the air engine will cause the it to chill. This will reduce the air's effective pressure. This probably has a much smaller impact due to the extended time period over which the air will be decompressed, and the fact that ambient heat can easily be absorbed from the surrounding air (it seems the air car has found an alternative approach to reducing global warming). However, it does lead to another disadvantage. Because of these basic temperature changes associated with altering the pressure of the air, the air car will have no waste heat. While this may sound good, it means that there is no practical way to provide cabin heating. I guess it is just ironic for me that a low-emissions car would not have a heater to counter its impacts on global warming. However, since most of India has a fairly temperate climate, I guess it really isn't neccesary.

Awesome!
written by Allan , May 27, 2007

This is great! With the cost of rising fuel prices, $2.00 a fill up sounds fantastic. Only other problem is when its coming out in New Zealand and how much?

What Would It Take?
written by Internet Marketing Made Simple , May 27, 2007

The safety standards in the U.S. prevent this from being realized. However, what would it take to get this car up to U.S. standards? Would it be too heavy? What if it was converted into motorcycle that ran on air? The core idea is not a compressed air car but air compression as fuel. There are some interesting opportunities here...

Dangerous!
written by Danger , May 27, 2007

Forget Charle's law. Compressed air, at 4000 psi could easily make a flame thrower, could easily "deglove" a human's hand if not handled properly, and if the tank was ever punctured in an accident, it is an absolute GUARANTEE that it would immediately explode.

The fact that it's a bomb, is probably what would prevent the car from selling in the US---look at the labelling on heavily compressed air cylinders in the US.

It is an awesome idea, but Helium would be more practical, compressable, and non-flammable--though at 4000 psi, it would still explode if the container was punctured, but it wouldn't be a fire explosion.

Air
written by lels , May 27, 2007

So now air is flammable, well what do you know...

Stupidity is always dangerous.
written by THINK! , May 27, 2007

No, Incorrect,

Before you go off get some facts.

Look up SCUBA tanks eh? even the ones made of aluminum, when penetrated by bullets don't "explode" see the recent mythbusters episode regarding the jaws myths for actual proof.

The "degloving" is BS as well as the "flamethrower", the gas gets COLDER when it expands, not hotter. and that much pressure would merely push you out of the way.

Please get some semblance of a clue before you post again.

North America
written by Andrew , May 27, 2007

The design is interesting but if they want a North American success they need to scale everything up and then see what the price point is like. People here will not buy city only cars unless they are very cheap and very cheap is not possible anymore because of the cost of safety systems. So it must have a top speed of no less then 135 KPH (85 miles per hour) and it must have a range of at least 300 KM (200 miles) or it’s a joke. However at the price point talked about this sounds very possible even if it doubles or triples the cost and lowers the mileage. The fuel saving and convenience of home charging could make this sell here.

Also this would have an interesting effect on the price of electricity if it becomes popular and would virtually require the construction of many new nuclear power plants. Probably better then sticking with gas however.

Range/Fueling
written by Tim , May 27, 2007

I don't think the range would be a big killer here, at least not for me. Most people keep their travels in city anyways. It would be a good family supplement, where you have a gasoline vehicle for long distance travels and a couple cheap air cars for everyday use.

As far as refueling. I think by the time these vehicles hit the open market of America, advances in solar energy would make a solar powered home refueling station feasible. The average person might fill up once or twice a week, it seems reasonable to assume a small solar array on your roof could store the energy to compress that air.

In regards to the article I'm quite excited about this. I saw a program on discovery a while back about this vehicle and have been waiting to see some news like this.

Re: North America
written by EVgeek , May 27, 2007

"So it must have a top speed of no less then 135 KPH (85 miles per hour) and it must have a range of at least 300 KM (200 miles) or it’s a joke."

It may be a joke to you, but most people in America never travel more than 40 miles/day, and the top city speed is 55mph. Plus most of the world does not drive like Americans.

I am glad you brought more attention to
written by Free Thinker , May 27, 2007

I had the opportunity to meet an inventor who had made an air-cycle from a one piston air compressor. Two wheels on the back and one on the front. Clean air and no electrical parts. It was quite a site. Basically a small version of these. I cannot explain exactly how it worked, but it was fascinating nevertheless.

...
written by rachel , May 27, 2007

so, would the American government even agree to an idea this controversial? think about all the different things that could go wrong with this...the result (if it worked properly and without hurting anyone) would be awesome but so far, we don't really know what could happen unless we try it out. did people even experiment with it?- crash testing results, please.

...
written by Peter , May 27, 2007

This would be brilliant for a place like New York City where you never really get above 30-35mph and a 125 range would last practically forever. If you made the Taxi's use this technology, thing how much exhaust you'd clear out of the city!

GREAT!
written by Smarty pants , May 27, 2007

Hopefully these cars woun't be too expensive . Preschoolers.. The expanding air will be cold...

flying machines?
written by sanman , May 28, 2007

I'm wondering if it could power a small personal helicopter, gyroplane, etc
There's no reason why this propulsion technology has to be restricted to cars.

Is the compressed Air Safe?
written by ed , May 28, 2007

Read their site. The containers they use for the compressed air are certified for natural gas... They are also designed with failure in mind - if they fail they fail safely. I would LOVE to see these cars in NA.

Crash worthy
written by Rich Stadler , May 28, 2007

Many life ending automobile accidents occur at under 40 MPH in full size cars and gasoline powered automobiles. I wonder how many people will have to die in this lightweight contraption until it too is declared unsafe at any speed?

All Autos Are Bombs
written by Kimo , May 28, 2007

"The fact that it's a bomb, is probably what would prevent the car from selling in the US" Well, the fact is that every car is a rolling bomb. After all, three gallons of gasoline have the same explosive power as one stick of TNT. Think about that the next time you are exceeding the speed limit.

risk factor
written by Grady Hillhouse , May 28, 2007

Roughly 6.5 million automobile accidents occur and about 42,000 people die due to automobile related accidents each year. I think it is safe to say that cars aren't safe period.

...
written by Grady Hillhouse , May 28, 2007

Clarification: above statistics are in the US.

compressed air power
written by Daniel , May 28, 2007

(1) Even if most of the people in America wouldn't buy it. Even if only a small fraction of the 2.8 million people who voted for the Green Party in 2000, would even consider it. There still would be enough of a market for it. America is a huge country. Tata is talking about manufacturing only 6000 units in a year.

(2) where/when can I get a compressed air battery for my notebook, digital camera, and handphone?

crash safety
written by Daniel , May 28, 2007

OK, it's not as heavy as a tank, with 3 tons of shielding to protect it's occupants in case of a crash. But who here can honestly say that it is less safe than motorcycles, which last time I checked, is legal on the roads ...

no real
written by carlo , May 28, 2007

attention! search "EOLO"
attention! looking for "EOLO" in already successful but never commercialized Europe, does not work is a "bufala"

...
written by carfreack , May 28, 2007

1. Tata is not india's largest car maker...
2. While it is true they are working on a small cheap car, it is almost certainly going to be boringly conventional technically.

hmm why not
written by Aurélien , May 28, 2007

Very interesting idea, I have to admit. But as green-minded person and a car lover, I live in a constant dilemma.

Surely I support any new technology able to get our cars going greener. But I'm also attached to the pleasure of driving and that's why hydrogen is currently my personal favorite's.

Hydrogen allows a car to feel like a real car but only rejects steam. Check out the BMW 750H for a great exemple

http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=11371

Anyway, each step towards greener transportation habits is a good step so congratulations to Tata

Aurélien
http://senseup.wordpress.com

...
written by permafrog , May 28, 2007

. Tata is not india's largest car maker... who is?

Tata Motors is India's largest and among the world's top five medium and heavy commercial manufacturers.

http://www.iloveindia.com/cars...ndex.html

Limited Range?
written by Mike , May 28, 2007

According to the video the cars will go from California to New York on one tank of gas powering an on board air compressor. They will never build a hybrid with that kind of range.

...
written by Richard , May 28, 2007

I think the key to cars like this is CHOICE. I realize that this car would not be for everyone but it would work for me and most of the people I work with. I commute to work each day on a train but I still need a car to get to the train station.

On the other hand, what if cities passed a by-law that only allowed zero emmision vehicles in the city core? That would make our cites some of cleanest places on earth (in terms of air quality I mean). I think this kind of a "city friendly" car would work just fine in North America. Also, I think it is short sited to suggest that they could not be made "safe" bye NA standards.

...
written by Sam , May 28, 2007

"Also, I think it is short sited to suggest that they could not be made "safe" bye NA standards."

Absolutely - in India the priority is low cost, due to the much, much lower incomes. Put it in a US context and you could probably afford to use more advanced (and therefore stronger) materials.

When you consider the amount of money that has been thrown at things such as fuel cells, hybrids and battery powered cars - this invention has had nothing like so much attention and it is already showing very impressive results, beating many of the massively more expensive (and often equally flimsy) electric cars out there.

If only someone would see the light and give this simple technology a bit of investment rather than endlessly flogging the dead (although snazzy and high tech*) horse that is hydrogen power, it could be a real contender.

(* and useful to the oil industry)

Gas storage saftey
written by Cam , May 28, 2007

I believe the air storage cylinders are actually made from carbon fibre - although that's a little beside the point of my post. In New Zealand (where I'm from) it's quite common for cars to be powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG). Storage is facilitied by the instalation of an auxiliary gas cylinder attached to the vehicle. In addition to these fluids being compressed, they are also flamable - at least explosive enough to drive an Otto cycle engine.

As far as I know, the storing of compressed CNG and LPG is safe. For a while, Police cars were even powered by LPG, and I still pass 4WD's with LPG tanks attached bouncing over rocks out in the bush. I've owned 2 CNG powered cars and still here to tell the tale.

I doubt there is a serious danger from using compressed air as a fuel.

cabin heating...
written by 1 Lucky Texan , May 28, 2007

...could be supplied by a 'vortex tube' using the onboard compressed air. It could even supply cool or warm air when the vehicle is 'off' .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

Carl

largest car maker in india
written by Jay , May 29, 2007

maruti is largest manufacturer of cars for the general public, but tata also manufactures trucks, so add that to the mix and they probably are the top sellers of cars.
also, india has hot climate for the most part of the year. so would not need a heater for the most part. and if it does...wear a sweater!
also, out here everything is based in km and living in the cities, 125 miles would last you almost a month if not more.
also lpg and cng gas is already wide in use here. where most if not all the taxis and ricks use it. as well as a growing percentage of buses. where you can get a fillup of lpg at a large number of gas stations

This is great...
written by PCNews , May 29, 2007

...if it is real. Because not a word on Tata Motors website

Hydrogen is bogus
written by Sasha , May 30, 2007

I remember reading in an old car mag, from like 1960, about how in the world of the future (I think they were talking about 1980) eveybody would be using Hydrogen to fuel their cars - so incrementally improving fuel economy wasn't that important. Almost fifty years later, it's the exact same story. I don't remember seeing the 1980 Plymouth Hydro, but maybe I wasn't paying attention?

Anyways, hydrogen cars are great, if you've got $1 Million (for a Honda, even!)- that's a long economy of scale away from an affordable $20,000 ride.

This difference with the air car, is it's here now - and it's cheap, even without huge economies of scale!

I have been a big proponent of this technology ever since I first saw it. For a year or so, I've been telling everyone who would listen about air cars, and posting on all sorts of blogs about this.

When I read that Tata was going to start mass producing them, I just about pissed myself. This is fantastic news, and I am sure other countries will start soon.

I am waiting with bated breath for them to roll over the feds and enter the NA market triumphant! I know in Chicago, these would sell like hot cakes-especially the hybrid version. Ditto for certain rural areas, where people are most cost conscious than image conscious. In the suburbs, not so much - these might be a bit intimidating to drive on urban freeway systems.

compressed air.
written by loyd , May 31, 2007

If im not mistaken isnt this something like the steam engine compressed steam to turn the engine and so on the only problem here in the United ststes is how will they tax the amount of air you use. got ya

Senior Graduate Student interested....
written by Michael , May 31, 2007

So since it seems, at least at this point in time, that North America isn't on board as of yet on this type of technology, would it be possible for Americans to order a personal vehicle of this sort anyway? If so, how and where could we get more information?

Mike

stupid TATAS make stupid cars.
written by Naidu_India , May 31, 2007

Its not worth to bring this kind of dangerious technology. The technical know how is very limited to common people, the engineering practice particularly in the service crew & the filling stations in indian region is very poor, given this kind of cars in wrong hands they can become potential weapons for mass destruction(4000 psi). The TATAs seem to be very found of cheap publicity tricks thats what driving them to built cheap and dangerious cars.HOW EVER WE CAN APPRICIETE THE CONCEPT TO SAVE THE EARTH.

There are still dangers here...
written by maybe a boom yet , May 31, 2007

To risk factor:
The cars being build today are FAR safer than from just 20 years ago. The steady or rising highway death rate is not due to the vehicles. We have better tires, brakes and vehicle structures to name just some of the elements. Automakers are even marketing cars that have built-in accident avoidance for the driver who isn't paying attention or can parallel park for the driver who is too lazy or won't learn how. The users are the problem. Almost no inanimate object is inherently dangerous. How it is used or abused leads to problems. Add the fact that there are more drivers on the road and the math will fall into place on its own.
Another issue is absolutely no oil should mix with compressed air. Ask any diver or firefighter who refills their own air tanks about the warnings from the Compressed Gas Association. This combination of oil and compressed air has caused deflagration. Deflagration is a very rapid combustion that is not quite at the speed of sound, and therefore not a detonation. It looks like detonation to most observers, though, and can cause extensive damage to people and property.

Beware of french designs !
written by tokolosh , May 31, 2007

This engine has been designed by Guy Nègre, a French engineer. His company can be found here http://www.mdi.lu/eng/affiche_eng.php?page=accueil with a description of how this engine works.
The question is, can a French engineer be trusted when it comes to cars ? Would you like to drive a French-designed car ? We all know French people know something about perfumes, but they hardly compete with german engineers.

These have been out for yrs
written by American , May 31, 2007

do some little research and you will find out people have been inventing these for yrs, some have been killed and some suppressed. This all in our own country. Try another research and look up the movie, that was put together with average every citizens and some real actors in it that leased these cars..it is called "Who killed the Electric Car?" It might supprise you.

Cold Air Exhaust?
written by Mike , May 31, 2007

Alright you have 20,000 of these cars contained in lets say New York. Wouldn't the cold air from each of these cars conflict with the natural environment temperature wise? Look how the gas powered cars are heating the Earth. This is a really good idea and everything but wouldn't you have to be concerned about the environment? And about the whole safety issue...I personally would take the risk considering the fact these cars can only top 65 mph.

Sounds Great
written by James , May 31, 2007

If the tech. is correct and the car can be made safe then by all means lets get into the market. With the price of fuel in NA going up and up it will not take long before we are paying $5.00 pr gallon of gass. Why not just plug into your electric socket and fill your tank? Here in California the average person (Drivers) puts out around $250-$300 a month for gass. (we do a lot of driving in calif) because the vast majority live more then 40 miles from where they work. So why not take a real look and see where we can put good old American know-how into it and improve on it then make cars that we can use.

America must start thinking little steps
written by Shawn , May 31, 2007

If the USA can't handle the air car (I don't know why not) then maybe we should look at industry first. We can start with an air-cart aka golf cart or put the engine in the gator's or mules to start with for farm use or even a little fun in nature. It would help if we just open our minds and eyes a little just think of things we use everyday. We are killing the planet with gas powered everything from lawnmowers to large factories. All we want to do is help mankind get to the next place in saving your planet. America must get off its high horse and start looking at tomorrow. What kind of world are we leaving are kids and their kids to come. A little side note the men who design the air-car made the air tanks so if you were to have an accident they would crack and leak the air out and not turn them into shrapnel.

love the idea...
written by Eric , May 31, 2007

The tiny engine really made me think about the motorcycle/scooter idea. That sounds like an ideal place to start, if the tanks could be made small enough (possibly sit where the exhaust pipes do now). Scooters don't have the same safety restrictions as cars, and also don't need the auxillary heating and cooling systems. So, the technology could be popularized in those vehicles first.

Also, 3 wheeled vehicles are still classified as motorcycles in many states. This could be a way to introduce the Pneumatic City Car as both a sport vehicle and a practical coffee getter.

I really believe that where many of the alternative fuel vehicles fall short, is in pushing the marketing as "green and practical." No doubt these are things that are important...but not necessarily what people look for in a car. What people buy, is sexy, fun, and reliable. Most hybrids, electrics, etc. just look like econoboxes or dork mobiles. They are attractive in their own way, but really don't have the looks to grab the mainstream market.

So, make a car that while it is green and practical, appeals to the sports car and SUV buyer. Make a mini Hummer or Wrangler...or an air powered Miata. If you can get the range up to where people refuel once a week, you'll be able to compete not as a novelty, but as a viable competitor.

Just my two pennies....

imagine the possibulities i want one in
written by rev dr.scottie murray , May 31, 2007

I want one in an atv for prospecting for gold and hunting in the black hills national forest also would work great on the ranch or farm.just carry a gas powered conpressor with you and you can refuel in the boonies would be a nice replacement for my power weelchair.

If you can think, you can do
written by Nazar Abbas Naqvi , May 31, 2007

It is fascinating news for everyone. Now we can believe that anything may happen in reality which was just a mere thought and dream

...
written by STephen , May 31, 2007

It's about time that someone comes out with a compressed air car for the world. I believe that there are a lot of people in this world is in doubt about this concept but I'm into it. It used to be far fetch for anyone to believe that solar enargy could power a car, but how fast could the car go? If the compressed air car could achieve the speed a little bit faster, doesn't this means that there's someone could out perform all those R&D those solar cars that had been running for the past over 10 years?

There will be people or organisation that will go against this idea, especially those independent organisation that always letch out whenever there's a summit meeting. Who are these people, where do they get their funds from to perform those demonstrations and how did they gather these type of obsessed people?

The world has come fast and getting more progessive and proactive against polution and scrutinise China for polluting the environment, so what is the fuss about it? Petrol-chemical companies are the ones that will loose all business in near future. Doesn't anyone feel that solar energy could power the whole house why couldn't it power a simple car that runs in the city? Are there anyone that's going against the idea of solar energy? Since solar evergy has come a long way and every individual, institutions and education institutions are competing each other with their R&D, shouldn't by solar be use? Are there someone suppressing the idea? Think about it!

Since compressed air could reduce carbon monoxide and reduce the toxic gas around for vehicles for city use, why are there still arguments why this concept should not be introduced in the world?

If you would to say about safety? Shouldn't that be the mentality of the car user themselves?

I think its a really good idea....
written by G-Dog , May 31, 2007

It's one of the best ideas that I have heard of in a long time ever since I heard about a solar powerd car. I've been wondering if some one would start something that is eco-friendly and will get you from point A to B. It's not the car that is dangerious its the driver and the drivers around them that makes a car dangerious. If people want to complain about it they dont have to get one, but I'll bet they will just so they can say. "I drove one and wasnt too impressed." The isue here is that finally some one is mass producing something you can drive that is enviroment friendly and with gas at the price it is today we ought to thank them and buy one. Theres only one problem I have about them and it might improve later on down the road before mass-production. It's the noise from the engine it seems a little noisy. They could make it quieter so the driver dont get a headach from driving. Also mabe a cd/tape/radio player. That would be cool too. I'd be proud to drive one in the US cause I'd be one person that would stand out doing good for the eco-system. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!

haha
written by wuwei , May 31, 2007

i don't think it will be safe on a big car crash!!!!

"Fridolin" - Lookalike
written by Detlef , May 31, 2007

This car looks like my old "Fridolin" or "Contergan-VW", a minivan built in the 1960's by Volkswagen especially for the German Post Office based on the platform of a "Karmann Ghia". But why they didn't place the sliding doors at front ???

Very Interesting.
written by Philip Masters , May 31, 2007

This is interesting. We have people for it and people not for it. Well I see it like this. I ride a Harley Davidson I get 100 miles to my tank. I have a 3.5 gallon tank, and I can only use 93 octane unleaded gasoline. I spend approx. $8.50 (us) to fill my tank. This very sci-fi car utilizes compressed air which would only cost around $3.50. Where is the problem with that? Why is there so many complaining? I ride a Death Trap now (A Motorcycle). If something happens to me a wreck or explosion I am most likely not going to walk away from it now. I say lets go for it. What?s the worst it could do? At least if it explodes it will not get fuel or oil everywhere. It will get about the same miles as my Motorcycle will anyway. I think there are too many people out there afraid to take a chance on something. That?s the reason we can not advance as a civilization. To make life a better place for you and yours it has to change and grow it?s kind of like adapting.

Danger...
written by Intelligent Man , May 31, 2007

The guy "Danger" that posted that foolish post... MUST BE WORKING FOR THE OIL COMPANIES!!!

GREAT!
written by shakoor , May 31, 2007

I love green city, and in Colombo also 'like New York City' where you never really get above 30-35mph ,so in subcontinent countries we should have AIR POWER vehicles because we are economically facing oil price hike problems. Congratulation TATA.we are wellcom you.

VISITOR
written by Intelligent Man , May 31, 2007

That guy "Danger" that made the foolish post...
MUST BE EMPLOYED BY THE OIL COMPANIES!!! :-

Pretty cool
written by sam , May 31, 2007

i'm 16, i want a fast car... but maybe when i'm older i'll get one (when i have to pay 4 gas).

i think it is a very good idea, but the rich oil companies will pay off the american govt. to reject this invention.

Brilliant invention
written by William Chye , May 31, 2007

Both brilliant inventors deserve a standing ovation...

Danger Danger
written by George , May 31, 2007

The only danger here is from big oil companies creating a hostile market for any non gasoline vehicle. The Bush administration could solve the dependence on oil with the stroke of a pen. Technologies like this have been around forever including massive solar farms that could power electric cars.
My prediction is that the US will never see this car for sale in mass quantities at the local Toyota dealer.

...
written by Tina , May 31, 2007

While I don't know all the technical in's and out's of these vehicles, they seems like a good idea. Even if they aren't
marketed in the US you would have to think that the demand for gasoline would go down and the supplies of it would go up
since there will be less need for it in other countries. So by and large this may help decrease the gas prices here in the
U.S. ( or maybe that's just wishful thinking....LOL)

Splendid
written by John Hart , May 31, 2007

What a marvelous invention! Don't mind the critics. People who always fear change are always pessimistic. Anything can explode if someone wants it to explode. If you don't like it then don't buy it. For me, i will try it. I have nothing to lose.

Invention of the year.
written by Peter Lang , May 31, 2007

I agree with John Hart. Let us try it first before making any negative comment. I dont't care if the US President will not approve it. Let us vote for a leader who loves a greener country.

hi wanted to know
written by Hasan zakaria Mohsen , May 31, 2007

hi i wanted to know if this car would be available in pakistan as petrol prices are very high in pakistan let me know thanks

Not in Future
written by Jenny , May 31, 2007

In Chengdu, China, all the taxies have been using Compressed Air (nature Gas) for a couple of years.

Greed rules all no matter where you are.
written by confused about life , May 31, 2007

Yes this is a great idea. Key word this is an idea. Human greed will win out. Bare with the crude comparisons. Using these air powered vehicles would be a great step to limiting the damage we have and continue to do to the planet. However, we as people as a majority would not stop driving cars and ride horse drawn carriges. Yes it can save money, but do you really think human dependency, such as I've read people posting on here, wanting bigger and better, more this more that will not ultimately lead to more problems? I fore one hate gas prices. So yeah I would love something different and better. The next topic is speed. How long do you think it will be before we saw one of these vehicles on "pimp my ride"? Through the vids they have been saying light weight. Which means the more mass you have in the vehicle the less you will be able to drive. Another thing, I dont know too much about explosions, but a compressed anything being punctured doesnt sound like it's going to just whisper. I think yes this would be a great idea for factories. For small towns and such. But the masses? Come on. Unless I've been in a nightmare all my life and everyone in the world loves and respects a stranger, I dont see carpooling to be a popular thing. And I would be the first to agree that I dont know squat about this. These are just my ideas. And thats the key. For this to be successful it has to be loved by the world. And here is the flaw. There is a huge mass of people who dont care for the world let alone themselves. So I say great idea but human stupidity and greed will rule in the end. And there is a wise old saying. True genius is admitting that you know nothing. And until people stop claiming to be a genius we never will know anything.

Just wanted to touch on a few points...
written by Daggz , May 31, 2007

1. The main reason the US won't market these cars is because of all the money the oil companies put into the pockets of the politicians. Slim to none chance of it coming to the US in any shape or form.
2. That point aside, the safety regulations for 'cars' in the US would require the vehicle to be far too heavy for the Air Engine to move. I can't imagine much torque from that kind of engine. the only way this technology would fly here in the US would be to make it a cycle of some sort.
3. Someone mentioned they were 16 and wanted a fast car... that exactly the reason our safety standards are so high. People don't know how to properly use the toys they buy.
4. Global warming... someone thought this was due to the warm emissions from our cars. Global Warming happens because the smog created by the emissions insulates the planet and does not allow the the heat build-up to disperse. Think about baking a potato, cooks quicker when you wrap foil around it.
5. Believe it or not, we've already released something very similar in the US. A fully electric car. You should look into it. http://www.gemcar.com/

Ad
written by Akar , May 31, 2007

How can I read the whole article without the disturbing ad blocking half of it?

...
written by Jim , May 31, 2007

Air powered engines are very similar to steam, except that nobody gets scalded when something breaks.
An air tank that ruptures in a controlled manner would be safe.
The cold air emissions would balance the warm air compression, so ther is not ecological issue.
India makes lightweight cars because they want to... this air car could be heavy, it would just take more storage capacity for the range, and the numbers would not be so impressive.
I think an air powered motorcycle would be very interesting. Keeping the engine air tight would be a challenge...gas just drips out, air would be gone instantly.

America who?
written by GPaluk , May 31, 2007

Who mentioned America?? In typical American style, I see people saying that this car is not safe enough for American roads so it's pointless. Try looking at it that the roads aren't safe enough for this amazing vehicle design that could save your planet. Creating dedicated roads/lanes and splitting these vehicles from the heavyweight muscle car giants that are the problem from every angle, must be the way to go!?

The problem is the selfish requirements of individuals causing disregard a technology that is evidently safer in the long run.

Choice one: We make things safe for these cars by creating an infrastructure that this requires.
Choice two: Buy a nice big safe car which guzzles gas and then everyone else dies when the earth get too hot!

What I?m getting at is? If you buy a big safe car, someone is going to buy a bigger safer car, until cars become so big you have America! Land of paranoia!

Mr
written by tunga , May 31, 2007

Tata's will sure to produce this car in India.I purcahsed the first Indian small Diesel car manufactured By Tata (Indica).You can see min 5 Indica out of 15 cars on road. Nothing is impossible to Indians.

```
written by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz , May 31, 2007

:-

Back to Basics : Not being clueless
written by Hapa Aina , May 31, 2007

1. Nothing will stop global warming if global warming is being caused by burning of fossil fuels, because every drop of oil and chunk of coal and liter of natural gas that can be extracted WILL get burned by someone somewhere. It just doesn't matter how much you conserve, because fossil resources will never be boycotted, outlawed. IT WILL GET BURNT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It will heat homes, make electricity, be used to make machines. It is silly day dream to think it won't be used up entirely in this century and go into atmosphere. Nothing will stop it getting used... accept perhaps worldwide famine and economic collapse. Otherwise, it is done deal. ALL fossil fuels will be used up as live 'the good life', consume as much as they possibly can.

2. Please study PEAK OIL on any peak oil website and please understand, most of you will be unemployed soon because
the spiking cost of oil after peak world production is reached will impact economies most dependent on oil... USA. You all seem fascinated by a machine. You think 6-8-10 billion people are going to invent their way out of catastrophe???? Is is important to be fascinated instead by finding a place to grow FOOD within walking distance of where you live. Think potatoes. Try lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

3. As native Americans ask, when offered a new idea.... 'does it grow corn?' This technology is just another attempt to trick nature and have human beings living unnaturally.

Back to basics.... how are you going to survive when you loose your job?

what is wrong with people
written by Jessica Lovett , May 31, 2007

I am tired of reading American this and American that. Sure our country is messed up, but so is everyone elses in their own way. I will admit this car is very fascinateing and people have made good points on how the car could or couldn't run in America. If we could take this general idea and, form from it, I can forsee this being a great idea for North America as it would everyone else. If there was a way of converting our old car engines/parts into something new like this, now that would be a real money maker.

Efficiency
written by Barry D. Brown , May 31, 2007

I don't think I understand. This seems to be saying that compressing air is more efficient than burning gas? If you could go from New York to California on a single tank of gas, that would mean that compressing air would be 250% efficient. You could get more than two and a half times more energy out of compressing air than you could get from burning the gas at 100% efficiency. There is something wrong with the math on this whole vehicle. How big an air tank would you have to have to go 125 miles at 60 mph? Two minute fill-up? It takes longer than that to fill up a tire. Let me work up some numbers and I think I'll find that this whole concept is impossible.

UK Road Fuel Duty
written by Bear , May 31, 2007

Here in England, petrol [as we call it] and diesel fuel are heavily taxed at around 70%, and fuel is almost £1 [US$2] per litre. Whatever fuel a vehicle uses, if it's on the road here, fuel duty must be paid - even if you make your own bio-diesel from used vegetable oil. If this technology is used here and I hope it will be, it's certain that [compressed] air will also be taxed similarly - sooner or later...............................

...
written by Bear , May 31, 2007

Sorry the 1 UK pound symbol [= US$2] didn't appear on my posting.

Tesla Motor
written by Steve , May 31, 2007

In reading about the air car engine I was wondering if this is an improvement on Tesla's motor. The short version of the Tesla motor is it is a blade-less turbine that works using viscosity and adhesion to spin a central rotor. Tesla claimed that it would be able to hit 90% efficiency and have a 10 hp per 1 lb of mass. Testing in the 50's-60's not using his design showed that a single disk had a 30-40% efficiency but noted that more blades would be more efficient. Currently there is a car on the market that does use a Tesla motor, it can be found here http://www.teslamotors.com/
The engine:

70 lbs and outputs 250 hp about 3.5 hp per lb with ~85-90% efficiency

200 mile range

0-60 in under 4 seconds

top speed 130 mph+

yes it is expensive ($100,000) but I was wondering about the engine tech behind the C.A.T. system

Produce any car to US standards
written by Ray , May 31, 2007

Bypass the requirements to certify a car in the U.S. by producing them in the U.S. and limiting production to less then 200 cars a year.
No crash tests required.

This has to be said
written by This has to be said , May 31, 2007

This has to be said: I have not seen this many clueless posters on any other site, EVER. Cold air causing environmental impact? Post-oil armageddon? Indians making good cars? This car being popular with Americans? Hydrogen cars? Are you people effing kidding? I don't know what's sadder - one poster thinking that global warming is caused by hot emissions or another confusing compressed air with compressed natural gas. I have no issues with the technology istelf, although I'm sure the claims have been greatly exaggerated. The brainier ones here have already suggested compressed air motorcycles and golf carts. Needless to say, zero-emission golf carts and motorcycles will not make even a slight dent in reversing the global warming. Here's a radical idea: price any cost of all the mid-east conflicts America has been involved in into the price of gas. That way, $8 per galon will make people think twice about buying a hemi-powered anything. I know, not gonna happen. Between the free-market-at-any-cost supporters who want to be able to drive Hummers and tree-hugging fruitcakes who think electrical cars are technologically/financially feasible we'll be stuck with the status quo for a while. Enjoy.

Safety Shmafety
written by Safety Shmafety , May 31, 2007

What's wrong with lowering american safety standards to preserve the environment?

(assume your immediate argument isn't lost on me and don't waste peoples time pointing out the obvious but instead consider my preposition)

Smarties!
written by Dewey Bodiford , May 31, 2007

I love the way everybody on here pretends to be so smart. I mean don't get me wrong I know there are some people on here who are smart, but the thing is I'm sitting here reading these comments and some of the things that are being said don't even make any sense. I understand that everybody has an opinion and you can't make people stop being stupid, but I just wish that if you know that you don't have a clue about what's going on you wouldn't even comment. Well I know that this was totally off the subject matter, but I just couldn't keep it in. On the subject of the air car I don't care how it works. Anything that is better than destroying our ozone at such a tremendous rate and saving me a little money I'm up for. Besides I mean seriously everybody is purchasing these large SUV's anyway, so if they make it that size, and get the safety ratings up to par, with an engine that is strong enough to handle the load and still get reasonable mileage wouldn't that make it ideal for us.

That's nice
written by Cute little booger , May 31, 2007

I currently drive an older Volvo and if some of the right engineers quit their jobs and put work together for this I'm sure the U.S. safety standards could be met. Life is a always a risk of death, so why worry this much. I's love to get one of the smaller engines for a scooter conversion any day, and considering the small amount of metal used in the rotary system i doubt the cost would be too much for the average joe.

although I do agree that taxes for energy will never be avoided, But I'm sure the costs for defense will go down once the middle east has nothing or little to offer the western economies.

Disney Autopia
written by Jim , May 31, 2007

About 14 years ago I was working with a guy who was a temporary employee at Disney's Imagineering in Burbank, CA for a while. They were trying to come up with a better way to run the Autopia cars. They were divided into teams to do research and development on the subject. The team he was on was made up of temporary employees and he said they came up with an air powered engine that would circle the track and when the passengers were being switched, the tank would be re-filled with compressed air and it would be ready to go another round. He said they chose another teams idea (probably electric) because they did not want to acknowledge the temporary employees were smarter than the real employees. Did they actually have this technology developed? What happened to it if they did? Remember, this is all based on a conversation with this guy a long time ago.

perfect for cities
written by moshe , May 31, 2007

I want to ride in an air taxi next year! this is a perfect solution for american cities too! brilliant! good luck!

Combine...
written by (!) , May 31, 2007

Why not connect an electric motor, with a battery(Lith.), with the compression motor to continuously charge the compression tank without having to connect to an electrical grid? The only unit that will need to be maintained is charging or replacing the battery (every 5 to 10 years) (see research of Toyota Prius battery)

This has to be said
written by This has to be said , May 31, 2007

"Combine..." is the perfect example of my above post. I'm guessing you want the battery to be charged by the compressed air while compressing the air with the battery, since you mentioned that this will somehow avoid the necessity to use the grid. Brilliant!

Watch the video before you sound silly
written by Danielle Mayton , May 31, 2007

It sounds like a positive solution to so many negative things going on in the world right now. Guess it depends on if you've actually watched the video and see that it won't explode . Some people are so fast to make negative comments without knowing what they are talking about. Can't wait till I can get one !

this plus stan myers water car equal dad
written by corwin , May 31, 2007

With this invention plus stan myers car that runs on water, which got him poisioned when he didn't accept OPECS billion dollar bribe, will be the death of OPEC. and that makes me very very happy.

the range is good even without the hybri
written by Corey , May 31, 2007

The video said that the car could run for approximatly 125 miles on one fill and people are complaining about the range. The idea is that you have air stations to fill up at just like gas stations. 125 miles is still a long way and if we set up an infrastructure then it would be easy to just stop and fill up along the way. Even if you drive more country driving than the average person 125 miles a good distance. When I drive to see my family for holidays its still only about 200 miles so filling up once during that trip isnt anything to scoff at, particularly if I only have to pay 3 dollars to do it.

Wake Up
written by Me , May 31, 2007

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but clearly some opinions are better than others. Honestly, people, get your fact correct before you write, or don't write at all.

First and foremost, this car WILL NEVER come to the U.S. The reason is quite simple, MONEY. If corporations and the GOVERNMENT don't get paid, then you can't play in America. Every one of us that drives a car in America, pays both state and local taxes on every gallon of gas and we line the pockets of the oil companies for the convenience of having a personalized vehicle for transportation. When the state, and federal governments find a way to tax air, then you'll get an air car, until then, this car will never be on an American road.

Secondly, everyone assumes that America really wants to get off of OIL, and this assumption is simply wrong. Oil throughout the world is bought and sold in US dollars. What do you think would happen to the value of American currency when/if, no one bought oil, because they don't need gas anymore? The situation would be disastrous and it would immediately devalue our currency.

The air car is nice, and I'd buy one if I could, but guess what? The choice is already made, I won't be able to buy one and neither will you. Our government through the National Transportation and Safety Board, the politicians, and the corporations, will never allow this thing off the boat or plane it will arrive on. I'm off my soap box.

this is why
written by I agree with " written by me" , May 31, 2007

please ppl I so agree with "wake up"

haven't you all seen the movie Syarira....if not watch it...

electrics cars?!?!
written by Brandon , May 31, 2007

'5. Believe it or not, we've already released something very similar in the US. A fully electric car. You should look into it. http://www.gemcar.com/"

25 MPH!!! TOO FAST FOR ME!!

Seriously....that was a joke...

An air-car is stated to run at top of 80-some-odd mph. That would be great for city people here in america.

But the fact is that if america bought into this, all of the corrupt politicians would buy all of the air compressors and start charging $1.00 per cubic inch...or some mess like that. They'd find some way to screw their own country...

Think about the "greedy" oil companies.
written by Harold Sutton , May 31, 2007

Can you imagine what the oil companies are going to do to anyone who tries to get this technology into the North American transportation scene? From lawsuits to Government intervention will just be the start. This idea is most interesting from the standpoint of getting to work economically. I wonder how this technology would impact the need for workers in the USA. I love this idea so it probably will not happen until necessity makes it. Global warming is not being caused primarily by industrial and auto polutions as Al Gore says since it has been much hotter here on earth long before there were any cars or industry, it just a hot vs. cold cycling thing. I've heard reports that there are eleven new Nuclear Powerplants in construction right now with a "fat" politician pushing the idea of how good they are for us. The government never mentions what they have done with the "plutonium waste" they have made up to this point from the ones that are already operating, care to guess? From what i've heard they burried it "underground" in the far Western U.S., and none of us is safe as long as it's on this earth.

KEEP OUR OIL INDUSTRY ALIVE
written by EXXON MGMT , May 31, 2007

Cars running on air is impossible. Has anyone thought how this would affect the dividends of our shareholders! What about all the jobs that will be lost to our major automobile industries, think about what this will do to our economy. Besides what do the Europeans know anyways we all know who invented the car.

Import Countries
written by L. M. Goldstein , May 31, 2007

I understand that the United States will never see this vehicle. Too many "powers-to-be" are already working against this idea for the exact reasons mentioned. But, what about Mexico and Canada. Could they import this vehicle? -G

Made one of these just messing around
written by 1 cylinder , May 31, 2007

In 1979 i had a one cylinder engine and was messing around and had a one cylinder 4 stroke engine running on Nitrogen and it first ran rough at first but tinkering around it got smoother. I removed the carb from the engine and made a adapter from stainless steel to mount where the carb mounted at. Then i got a old DC solenoid valve and hooked it up to the spark plug wire and just removed the spark plug and plugged the hole and had to do some electronic work on the voltage from the voltage to the spark plug. I had to advance the timing so the solenoid would open right on the down stroke of the piston. The exhaust valve on the engine i didnt do nothing to it. This will work, i have an old 2 cylinder 4 stoke engine i might have to do some experinenting on it could use the exhaust from one cylinder to the other i dont know if this one help but hey not trying will get you nowhere. If i could get one of these cars i would especially do some experimenting. The nitrogen tank i used had 4000 psi i had to put a regulator on the tank and had to regulate pressure with speed of the engine. I am so happy someone has got the interest in doing this, I sent some info in on this to a invent tech and never heard nothing from it.

...
written by RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA , May 31, 2007

i think

...
written by Scudrunnerdude , May 31, 2007

Folks, before you can debate the feasibility of this technology you have to understand the laws of thermodynamics which state (roughly) that 1. Energy is neither created nor destroyed (only transfered from one state to another) and 2. Every change of state incurs a loss of energy in (typically) the form of heat. Armed with a robust understanding of this law of physics one will realize that to burn any fossil fuel to then produce electricity to then power a compressor to compress air to 4000 psi to then release this energy thru a hydraulic motor to propel a vehicle (propulsion), we incur several state changes of energy. If we follow the "bouncing ball" so to speak, we start with a set number of btu's of natural gas energy released to heat steam or power a turbine to then turn a generator to make electricity. Only recently this process has begun to achieve near 47% efficiency which means for every 100 btu's of natural gas energy used we recieve about 47 btu's of electrical energy. Now I'm not intimately familiar with the efficieny ratings of compressors but I do know that electric motors achieve near 90% anymore. That means our compressor will get about 42 btu's of the original 100 to produce compressed air. (Regarding the compressor and the energy stored in compressed air there are many varibales but for the sake of arguement I will allow a generous efficiency rating of 80%.) So the compressor will now store 80% of 42 btu's (33.6 btu's) as compressed air and the air motor will will convert these 33.6 btus at 80% efficiency (26.9 btu's) to mechanical energy to propel the vehicle. So of the original 100 btu's we will harness aproximately 26.9% of this as mechanical energy at the wheels. (This is a crude example -- there are additional factors in real world applications such as gearing frictions and temperature considerations that will affect this formula.) If we compare this to burning the original natural gas in an internal combustion engine of approximate 26% efficiency we see we have little or no net gain in energy efficiency. This applies to all energy sources including hydrogen. Please research the btu chain in any "fuel" to really understand the costs and benefits.

...
written by michael , May 31, 2007

i was wondering if the car goes far if your are goin to a long trip or is it just like the electric car that does not go far.

big business will never allow it!
written by Chris , May 31, 2007

Let us all remember that the good old USofA is owned by big business. They will exert enough pressure on the government to declare the cars unsafe to protect their interests.

Contrary to popular belief, we do not live in a democracy.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
written by nox , May 31, 2007

the psi theory i quite confusing though but i believe these inventors are not stupid enough to create this machines without carefully and scientifically studying the concept engine and prototyping it.. this is our hope, the globe is heating us to death as we betray mother earth by blowing too much carbon dioxide in the air.. at least these persons are finding solutions..and i personally support them and their concern.

...
written by virendra jain , May 31, 2007

such kind of car can neverbe made. More energy shall be required to compress the gas than the output it can generate as per physics laws. It seems to be a hoax

the cross country thing
written by Chris , May 31, 2007

I noticed several readers saying it will never work and do the math. Well, I think you missed the point. The onboard fuel tank is to power the compressor. The compressor fills up the air tank and then it runs for x miles. Then the compressor runs and fills up the tank again, and it runs for x more miles. Repeat until you cross America. Compressors use very small amounts of fuel, so this is completely doable.

...
written by edwin norbeck , May 31, 2007

The have the same amount of energy as gasolene, compressed air at 4000psi
requires a volume about 1400 times as large. The equivalent of a one gal
tank of gas would require a 1400 gal air tank.

...
written by Matt Korpal , May 31, 2007

If we can get one of the major car companies to really look at this technology, than I think we have a shot at getting this to work in the US. In reality, 200 miles per fill and a top speed of 70-80 mph would make this perfectly feasible. As it is, most gas power cars out today can only get about 300-400 miles per fill, so a little less will be ok. And the extra speed they can provide is almost never used. And the carbon footprint of this car in the US will be even lower than India, since a quarter or our electrical power comes from low emission sources. I would think that a US ready, air powered car, will be developed in the next 5 years. within the next 20, we will have reduced our oil need by 75 percent.

Quite disgusted by all the comments
written by Chris , May 31, 2007

After reading through all these comments I'm quite disgusted. There are only a few here that positively state that they want to try out new things, the rest just tried to hammer on how either the Government would keep this from happening in the US, or big oil (or both), or how it's not feasible in that it doesn't save enough energy or emissions to make a difference.

1. B-S, all of it. Where is the free american spirit? Are we all so beaten down that we think we can't get anything done anymore if our government doesn't approve or actively helps? What is democracy? Where is the entrepenourial thinking that made this country into what it is today? Did it all go down the drain?

2. Guys, grow up: Yes, if you burn fossil fuels in the first place to make electricity to power a compressor to compress air to fire a piston engine, then you wont save much or all in emissions. BUT - I pay extra for only getting green power of the grid (wind or solar), I'm investing in a windmill for my own house, I hope to also get a big enough solar panel soon to get of the grid entirely and actually feed back into it. Where excatly is your argument now?

3. Pessimists, all of you!! Without starting to test new ideas and technologies, there can be no improvement to the status quo. The worst thing I frequently encounter are brainstorming sessions for new design approaches (I am and have been an mechanical design engineer for many years) in which people think they immediately have to shoot down every idea that folks come up with, as soon as it's on the whiteboard. That is the fastest way of cutting ANY and ALL kinds of creativity off at the root. You want to ENCOURAGE ideas, not belittle everybody that has one. The point is: How bad where solar panels when they first came out? How much better are they now? What was the gas mileage of a 4cycle engine in 1900, and what was the gas mileage of average 4 cycle in 2000? How bad where the first power generators? How good and unbeliveably powerfull are the average car alternators now?

Whatever this car is now, think about what it and it's idea could be become in a very short amount of time. The point is what this car represents, not so much "how safe" it is. And by the way, I am riding a scooter to work most of the time for the low gas mileage. How safe is that? Most Americans have no clue anyway how unsafe most SUVs actually are. All steel frame with no crumple zones - on impact, all the kinetic force is absorbed by your body, not the car.

Enough said, I don't want to sound even worse that all the other whiners that have posted before me...

Dipletro's Rotary Air Motor: Godsend For
written by JustMeJerry , May 31, 2007

The quirky Australian TV show that used to be called "BEYOND 2000", introduced ME to the wonders of the PPG about 20 years ago (followed a couple years later by watching ex-Brit Commando, Patrick Sugrue or was that Tony Stone with Dennis Fetter's Air Command gyros in Liberty Landing, MO? Regardless. I saw Patrick fly the famous PagoJet Paramotor with the very unique 30 horsepower, 2 cylinder RADIAL TWO-STROKE!)

Being the year 2007 "BEYOND 2000" is now called simply "BEYOND TOMORROW". Time marches you know.

I've been watching with some interest a thing that has really grabbed Jeff's interest: an electric PPG. Silent for all except prop noise BUT STILL HEAVIER THAN MY MUCH DESPISED PARAMOTOR FX5 "PARAMONSTER" with it's near 30 horsepower Fatboy Slim lifting MZ Radial.

Enter my old "Oh my gosh!" friend "BEYOND TOMORROW" and see what may be even better than the heavy electric engine.

An engine that because of its fuel can use aluminum in place of forged steel pistons and cylinder liners. An engine that because of its fuel runs merely warm compared to hot. That alone dismisses the need for a heavy and complicated cooling system. An engine that because of its fuel weighs a fraction of what an internal combustion or even electric engine with heavy copper wound rotors and magnets. An engine that due to it's simple design has none of the reliability problems inherent in the nervous 2 strokes and many 4's.

ESPECIALLY IF ONE ANGELO DIPLETRO TAKES THE PISTON ENGINED VERSION USED ON A CAR WITH THE EMBARRASSING NAME OF "TATA MOTORS" (all guys like enormous tatas... BUT WOULD THEY EVER DRIVE ONE?).

Watch the below link. I know that some of you will impatiently watch the piston engined first part and think to yourselves, "I would never drive a crummy little car like that! I'm a big man that drives big trucks and SUVS (then bitches about how the oil companies are reaming us for the mere 8 to 10 cent profit THEY MAKE off a gallon of gasoline as opposed to the 40 to 80 cents per gallon our soon to me gone the way of the noble Roman Empire government rakes in).

Watch. Wait for the backyard/garage invent Angelo to show you WHAT HE'S MADE.

THEN READ SOME OF THE SAD COMMENTS MADE ABOUT THE STORY FOR A TRULY ELUCIDATING IMAGE OF WHAT OUR PROPAGANDA CAMPS ARE CREATING (THEY FOCUS ON WHAT TO THINK RATHER THAN HOW TO. Good riddance Caesar!).

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/

Oh. The "exhaust" of Dipletro's motor. EXPANDING GASSES C O O L. That's the air conditioner mate. AND IT TOO... WILL BE MADE OUT OF AUSTRALIAN ALUUMINIUM!
SPEAK ENGLISH AUSSIE!

JustMeJerry

the Doc
written by Joe , May 31, 2007

This type of revolution is not only brilliant it is brave and should have been done sooner. Hopefully more countries will join in. Right now fossil fuel may be needed to provide for compressed air, but that can change with other alternative cleaner fuels to charge those compressors. Plus, even though fossil fuel is burned to provide for compressed air its still less fossil fuel consumed per car. Right now we are buring fuel to get the fuel that burns even more fuels. The more we replace cleaner fuel for fossil fuel in all the machines that provide for the means to get a car moving or to accomplish that desired end the cleaner our environment will be.

it would be cool to have a motorcycle ve
written by Maddog2020 , May 31, 2007

it would be cool to have a motorcycle version for US!

...
written by Mike Robinson , May 31, 2007

Great for Retirement communities... I want one

Oil Company won't like that!!!
written by Ken , May 31, 2007

It won't last long if they do work cuz the oil company will buy them out!!!

Big Corp get outa da way
written by Joe , May 31, 2007

If anything is unsafe, it will be resolved and improved 100% percent many times over. This is what a revolution is, to change for the best. Back in the beginning times of fossil fuels cars, techniques had many errors, and still our typical vehicles are unsafe in many ways. This newer cleaner vehicles can certainly become the safest from the very beginning and even improve over time. Big corporate business will have to either join in or get out of the way this time; even let less powerful countries develop there own alternative vehicles and clean technology.

...
written by kyle , May 31, 2007

oh yeah id buy one in a heartbeat 9if the car dosent cost over 50000$)

...
written by Joe , May 31, 2007

Mexico and Canada already have the technology to build such clean vehicles even powered with compressed air. But unfortunately, in Mexico exists the similar problem as in the USA, corporate and national interests and the other fact that the USA's interest is to keep Mexico moving on fossil fuels.

One problem, Politics,Power,Money (BIG O
written by William , May 31, 2007

Big oil will absolutely never let this technology materialize in the U.S. Big oil has the White House in its pocket. Trust me, you will never see this in the U.S. because of American Oil Companies. They have buried technology for 50 years and it makes no sense why they would stop now.

...
written by yo , May 31, 2007

I hold a Phd in Physics and I can say this:
Most of these posts were you try to deal with the workings of the technology are really stupid, just dead wrong.
Most of the post that deal with American Democracy, I think are right on the money.
Oh, and most Americans don't know how to drive...

...
written by (!) , May 31, 2007

To "KEEP OUR OIL INDUSTRY ALIVE..." - (Ans.: Europeans) English inventor Sir Samuel Morland allegedly used gunpowder to drive water pumps in the 17th century. For more conventional, reciprocating internal combustion engines the fundamental theory for two-stroke engines was established by Sadi Carnot, France, 1824, whilst the American Samuel Morey received a patent on April 1, 1826.

To "This has to be said..." - Listen to "Made one of these just messing around" and "Quite disgusted by all the comments," Thumbs up guyz. Try or have nothing.

To "Wake Up" & others - We are the GOVERNMENT, we are the CORPORATIONS! And so far everyone on this post likes the "Air Car!" So let's make a change. Economically things are linked & connected, and can cause a catastrophy, BUT let's try to untangle our mess. Let's try.

Let's DO something about our problems and stop trying to be smarties.

Retrofit
written by high-pressure-air-guy , May 31, 2007

Just build your own! The simplified way to do it is to have the cam reground or equalize timing sprocket sizes to change a 4-stroke engine to a 2-stroke engine. Then, you plumb your high-pressure air system with a proportional valve attached to the throttle. You could conceivably modify any reciprocating combustion engine in this way. Your air car could be anything from a Honda Insight to a Hummer. The same thing could be done on classics as well. You could purchase a SCUBA or paintball compressor and recharge your DOT or ASME cylinders in your garage at home. I have to wonder if anyone has actually put together a consumer-level retrofit kit...

Mr.
written by BILL ENGLES , May 31, 2007

This type auto will work fine in most countries... except the US. Why? Gasoline has been $3.00 to $5.00 per
gallon for many years. Most of these people are used to small cars because of the price of fuel.
However, it will never fly here in the US of A. Why? The big oil boys won't let it happen unless they can
get their hands on the fuel supply. Remember when several made carburators that got much more mileage...
Yes, the oil boys bought them out and never used them. You will not change this problem...

...
written by Scudrunnerdude , May 31, 2007

I'll add one more comment concerning this technology: For it to have a positive impact, we will have to increasingly obtain our energy from solar and windpower. Until we reduce our reliance on fossil fueled electricity, there is no net gain, period. Please educate yourselves as to the laws of thermodynamics. A gas powered compressor IS less efficient than using the same gas to send power directly to the wheels. For those mistaking my intentions for pessimism, please know that I am convinced that we have to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and am an activist when it comes to fighting for green causes. But we need to be right when we discuss the technology for getting us there.

...
written by Julie , May 31, 2007

I live in a major metropolitan area in Texas. I would certainly drive one of these cars and so would all the drivers in my family. Here, the main cost for household electricity is for air conditioning. I want one of those air compression engines for my house to run my appliances and cool at the same time. Almost too good to be true.

Phoenix Motorcars
written by Chris Peterson , May 31, 2007

The Air Car sounds like a great idea... although I won't claim to have the scientific background or crash test knowledge. I hope it is marketed in the US soon, although as many posters have recognized, Big Oil and the Lame Three automakers (with assistance from the two-faced Japanese companies that market themselves as "green" with their hybrid cars yet stymie efforts to increase US fuel economy standards) will do everything in their power to stop it.

Have any of you heard of Phoenix Motorcars? They have already begun leasing fully electric sport-utility trucks (a la Honda Ridgeline) to California utilities and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (which have state emissions restrictions in place). Specs: Range of 100+ miles (way better than the GemCar), top speed of 95 mph, 0-60mph in 10 seconds (comparable to a 2004 Ford F-150 4.6L, source http://www.albeedigital.com/su...times.html).

They are also in development (launch date late 2007) of a mid-size SUV for sale to the general public (size between a Honda CR-V and a Pilot) that will have similar acceleration and top speed but will get 250 miles to the charge. They are anticipating 20,000 units sold in 2009 alone. Expected sale price: $45,000 (only $20,000 more than the average mid-size SUV). Although the battery has an expected life span of 250,000 miles, even assuming 125,000 miles driven on electricity ($9 for 60kWh of electricity at 4 miles/kWh vs. $42 for 12.5 gallons of gas at $3.35 a gallon and 20 mpg), you will save $16,500 in gasoline alone. Drive it to the end of the battery life and save $33,000 in gasoline!! Please get the word out... Americans need to know these cars are out there so that they will pressure their government to do SOMETHING to wean ourselves from foreign oil (like tax gasoline the way they do in Europe).

http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com


savings over the 250,000-mile life of the battery:

Ego Vs Environment
written by Deep , May 31, 2007

It's weired that Americans are still not conscious about the environment after all uumph about the global warming, change in the weather. Americans are the biggest energy consumers (suckers), but they are still happy with their big Trucks po-- po--. I wonder what will happen to these people after within 50 years there will be no oil left in south asia to feed this country especially when other contries are also growing and need their part of energy. probably the next American generation will ride a cycle pi pi..

It's good that a carporate in world's most populated contry has shown some interest in environment, but it's hard to predict about the success of this car. Since in that country government has no time to think about the environment after all sucking politics and affluent people have only one dream to copy 'west'.

...
written by Julie , May 31, 2007

An increasing amount of electrical grid energy comes from renewable hydro and wind, both from large wind farms (in Texas, in West Texas and the Panhandle now, and soon large tracts near off shore in the Gulf) and household windmills that are capable of selling back any excess electricity generated. If no more petroleum products were ever used for generating energy, petroleum and natural gas would still be used as raw materials in the production of goods such as plastics, fertilizers, medicines, etc.

I'm really tired of the aggressively ignorant conspiracy theorists constantly ranting on and on and on about the all powerful evil big oil companies keeping all the poor helpless little guys down with their obscene profits. Actually, no new refinery has been built in the US in over 30 years because of the overbearing regulations, federal, state, and local, making it practically impossible to fulfill requirements. Meanwhile people in Cape Cod, California, Florida, Martha's Vineyard, do NIMBYs and oppose offshore wind farms because they would infringe upon the view!

CEO/Founder, American Compressed Gas Inc
written by Marc Walker , May 31, 2007

For everyone involved there are varying opinions and facts that seem important to those people at that moment. Here are a few basic facts that everyone can find on thier own, or take my word for it. Currently, the Eastern regions of the United States are far more densly populated than the Western regions, as a rule. Exceptions include major cities and such. This vehicle, as it sits, is not a practical option for me personally as a sole vehicle. However, adding it to my S.U.V. and my sports car is a wonderful option for my mostly commuter laden traffic habits. I drive 30 miles a day total to work and back. Include a maximum of 10 more miles a day for errands and the like, and now you are at 40 miles in a day. That means a total fillup at roughly every 3 days. Far more often than I do now. However, I own a solar array. I could have the technology installed easily to refuel this vehicle whenever I pulled it into the garage.

Not everyone has the ability to refuel at home. Nor is it practical to do so. Safety standards aside, this is a reasonably safe vehicle for american roadways. I ride a motorcycle nearly every day in the summer months. This is a FAR safer vehicle than my bike. It will not fall over, slide under a car, be unseen by lazy car drivers. In addition, allow me to add this. Ever seen a welding rig? You know. Compressed oxygen, hydrogen, acetylene, etc? Those containers you are looking at are rated to fail in only one way (safely) and have a pressure rating varying from 10,000psi to up to 45,000psi depending on application. They CAN be insidiously dangerous. So can an axe. Do your homework, and relize there is nothing that is "safe". Just things that are "less safe" than others. Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than riding in a car. Riding in the back seat is safer than the front. Air travel is safest of all, yet trains run every day. Think people. This makes sense in MANY places in this country. When they issue a version for american soil, I am the first in line in my area. But then, I get my compressed air cheap.

BTW, Compressed air, and for that matter, all compressed materials, get warmer when squeezed. Basic law of physics. However, during the release (unsqueezing) those materials (especially air) cool rapidly. And in the end, by the time air escapes the valve, it is quite cool to the touch. The warmth that occurs during compression is not stored there. Think about it. It is lost as heat through the vessel used to compress. If not, you would have an ideal perpetual motion machine. Just compress air, let the heat boil water, and the world runs on steam engine for free forever. THINK!!!

human
written by Jupiter Bob , May 31, 2007

what items can i order from you that will allow me to replace my gas yamaha golf car motor? and the freight to port of palm beach, west palm beach Florida USA

car comes to the U.S.A
written by Frank , June 01, 2007

hate the design of the car,also the needs to run faster than 40mph. it needs to have speeds up to 80mph.

Complaints
written by MTMinded , June 01, 2007

Shame on you, Just because its not perfect doesnt mean you have to whine about it. I mean, look on the bright side, Less fossil fuel emmisions!

Emotions
written by MTMinded , June 01, 2007

When reading this article, my emotions are as followed :-

Sr. Web Developer
written by Steve , June 01, 2007

This web site is VERY unstable.

fantastic
written by mikey , June 01, 2007

I'd love to own one. In fact I'm going to figure out how to import one to the US. I'm sure it can be done. Screw the luddites and the government.

Great Idea :) :) :)
written by berdon basa , June 01, 2007

for me? its very good idea. i wish i can have one here in the philippines..... . but how much it's cost in philippine money?

The idea is great, but the laws of physi
written by Cor van de Water , June 02, 2007

Many years ago, I visited their factory in Carros, France.
I think it was in 1999. The cars they presented at that time
were the same they are still showing (as new devt), only the
CityCAT has been added since.
The big problem that can be seen by anyone with a physics textbook
is that when compressing air, energy is not only stored as
pressure, but also as heat.
If the compressed hot air is consumed immediately, then the
decompression will return most of the energy that was put in.
But if the air is stored in a tank and allowed to cool off,
then the decompression will not return much energy.
In fact, there is a big problem with the engine freezing up.
Also, the only way to retrieve most energy from compressed
air is to decompress it in small steps, not in one big step.
This means a series of cylinders, each next one larger than
the previous, can retrieve most of the energy.
One decompression step will be very wasteful.
To overcome the problem with thermal energy loss, the
multi-cylinder engine can feed the decompressed air
through a heat exchanger in between each cylinder, so
it will recoup a (large) portion of its original
energy and can become quite efficient again.
As you can see when you look at the engine, they
did not implement many decompression steps, nor used
heat exchangers, which would have made it efficient.
So, concluding: this Air car may cause MORE energy to be
consumed than using the original energy directly.
One of the most efficient ways to use the energy is to
run an electric vehicle, because its efficiency is
extremely high. Range and speed can be at least at
the level of the Aircar, so I think we have a winner,
but it is not the Air car.
(I used to be a big fan of the air car - that is why
I visited them. After I saw that the physics did not
work out, I stopped maintaining my website about the
Air car (for Dutch readers) and stopped promoting
their invention, because it is not an improvement
in the way it was implemented.)

Use CAT for electric motors?
written by Denver Dave , June 05, 2007

What about using CAT to store energy generated by solar, wind, hydro over time in large containers then relase using the CAT engine to turn a generator to generate electricity as needed. For homes, larger containers could be used with less pressure required.

Would this work?

There are lots of way to generate small amounts of electricity, but no good ways to store the electricity. Could converting the electricity into compressed air and releasing as needed to generate electricity be feasible without large, heavy, toxic batteries?

Excellent for Portland
written by Kipper Shawn , June 08, 2007

This compressed air technology would be perfect for Portland, Oregon where the levels of benzene in the gasoline are the highest in the country. Small air-powered cars could truly help reduce the benzene problem. And you could zip around downtown like nothing.

leave the tech to the people who do not
written by paul , June 10, 2007

Ok first , I AM a engineer,designer ect... not important just qualifyed to post opinions on this subject, most of you speak as if you are very young and uninformed and have formed opinions based from fantisy so I will give you a few facts you can giggle about at first, then resurch and find out are true: 1. the person who invented the lear jet also invented a steam powered car that got 100mpg back in the early 80's he built 2 prototypes, one was stolen and the other was destroyed by a explosion set by unknown persons , he explained all of this publicly on the jonney carson show and said "the world was not ready for this and it is not worth his life to continue" so make your own assumption about oil companies.
2. NO EXPLOSION from compressed air is going to happen ,air does not catch on fire and no professional is stupid enough to add oil in with the air as it is being compressed,if you do ,then you should never get on a plane ,first a few years ago we had a fire in a shed containing compressed CO.2 tanks holding 3000 and 4500 lbs pressure ,they heated burst and put the fire out. and even if it was possible trace amounts of halon or argon added in a tank will have a reverse effect. these gasses trap oxygen mol. and prevent combustion even with the existance of oil. (SEE HALON FIRE SUPPRESSION)
3.Have any of you heard of a fuel bladder? its idea is being resurched for hydrogen use but currantly its a simple cheep device that prevents your cars gas tank from exploding! and its used every day but only in RACE CARS so ask your self why is it not in my honda or chevy or ford? Thats becouse car makers only put safty in when they are forced to, they really don't give a shit about you other than your wallet (SEE FORD PINTO FIREBALL,CHEVY TRUCK SIDE TANK EXPLOSION)also don't be a fool and think oil compay's are any different, for proof of this just look yourself: "every year in every city the price of gas goes up aprox 20-40% 3-4 weeks before a holiday; 4th of july,Labor Day,Spring Break,Mothers Day ect...) please people mark your calander wake up and pay attention, Vote accordingly!
4. "For every action there is a reaction" do I have to tell you who said that? cold air out the tail pipe is offset by the friction generated to produce it(ENGINE COMPARTMENT)for those of you who do not get this jus