# Interesting Way To Fuel



## Doxie-Doglover-Too (Jan 25, 2007)

http://videos.komando.com/2008/06/08/car-runs-on-air/


----------



## Zymurgist (Apr 2, 2007)

There are several interesting ideas surfacing, using compressed air, the electric car, similar to a locomotive is interesting as well, hopefully some of these technologies will work as well as they are being pitched now.


----------



## battalionchief3 (Jun 27, 2006)

I will take 2. When can I pick them up?


----------



## Airboss (Jul 14, 2007)

It looks promising. I really hope they can make it work - soon!


----------



## Dadof4 (Mar 30, 2007)

Hmmmm? What sized air tanks and for that matter, what amount of psi in them would be required to tow my 26RS?









This could start a whole new series in NASCAR!

Honestly... if I had the money I'd get a Tesla!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Anything that runs over 200 miles on electricity and out performs a Ferrari is OK by me!


----------



## hihowareya (May 1, 2008)

Yeh... and when you run out of air all you need is one of these eh?


----------



## advancedtel (May 7, 2008)

hihowareya said:


> Yeh... and when you run out of air all you need is one of these eh?


----------



## bradnjess (Mar 25, 2007)

Sound great to me sign me up. Do you really think the big oil lobby will actually sit around and watch these things being sold in the USA? Sorry it's hard not to be a pessimist on these issues the way things are going. If it makes it over here though I'll be the first in line at 15k.

Brad


----------



## Lady Di (Oct 28, 2005)

At the price of gas the savings would likely cover the car payments.

DH could use one for his commute.

Can you imagine the licensing fees though? After all the government wants theirs off the top.


----------



## Morgueman (Dec 3, 2006)

...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


----------



## bradnjess (Mar 25, 2007)

I guess we should expect an "Air" tax.


----------



## battalionchief3 (Jun 27, 2006)

They tax me for my septic system.......they dont pay to put it in or to pump it out but they tax me to pump it out....nice huh. They were trying to come up with a WELL TAX. I pay to put the well in and pump the water from the ground and they want to tax me for it????? So an air tax would not be so strange.....and they wonder why people go "postal".


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

Morgueman said:


> ...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


Your local coal fired power plant?? If you look for a reason not to innovate you will always find them.


----------



## bradnjess (Mar 25, 2007)

This thing is held together with glue.









http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...rs/4217016.html

Brad


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Morgueman said:


> ...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


Unfortunately, nothing is free.








Certainly there are more and less efficient ways of doing things and this may have an application where it is more efficient. I just keep thinking back to the Laws of Thermodynamics. They really are too restrictive and should be repealed (IMO)


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

Nathan said:


> ...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


Unfortunately, nothing is free.








Certainly there are more and less efficient ways of doing things and this may have an application where it is more efficient. I just keep thinking back to the Laws of Thermodynamics. They really are too restrictive and should be repealed (IMO)








[/quote]

Really nothing to do with a per unit efficiency in moving a body from point A to point B. Point source for emissions is the issue. A well maintained and regulated power generating source even a coal fired power plant can produce power cleaner then the same amount of power produced by thousands of car engines in a urban environment. The result is a overall cleaner environment and less dependence on liquid petroleum.


----------



## webeopelas (Mar 11, 2006)

CamperAndy said:


> ...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


Unfortunately, nothing is free.








Certainly there are more and less efficient ways of doing things and this may have an application where it is more efficient. I just keep thinking back to the Laws of Thermodynamics. They really are too restrictive and should be repealed (IMO)








[/quote]

Really nothing to do with a per unit efficiency in moving a body from point A to point B. Point source for emissions is the issue. A well maintained and regulated power generating source even a coal fired power plant can produce power cleaner then the same amount of power produced by thousands of car engines in a urban environment. The result is a overall cleaner environment and less dependence on liquid petroleum.
[/quote]

I agree that a generating plant is cleaner that all the cars. However, burning coal puts out more radiation in a single year, than all of the nuclear power plants ever have. Including 3 mile Island. There is natural uranium in coal that is belched into the atmosphere every day.

Nuclear power would seem to me to be a better choice for power plants in the US.

If the cars are safe, and relatively inexpensive, I would buy one for the commute.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

webeopelas said:


> ...and what is the energy source for the generator that would produce the compressed air on-board. Hmmm...


Unfortunately, nothing is free.








Certainly there are more and less efficient ways of doing things and this may have an application where it is more efficient. I just keep thinking back to the Laws of Thermodynamics. They really are too restrictive and should be repealed (IMO)








[/quote]

Really nothing to do with a per unit efficiency in moving a body from point A to point B. Point source for emissions is the issue. A well maintained and regulated power generating source even a coal fired power plant can produce power cleaner then the same amount of power produced by thousands of car engines in a urban environment. The result is a overall cleaner environment and less dependence on liquid petroleum.
[/quote]

I agree that a generating plant is cleaner that all the cars. However, burning coal puts out more radiation in a single year, than all of the nuclear power plants ever have. Including 3 mile Island. There is natural uranium in coal that is belched into the atmosphere every day.

Nuclear power would seem to me to be a better choice for power plants in the US.

If the cars are safe, and relatively inexpensive, I would buy one for the commute.
[/quote]
I fully agree, however, a lot of people look at these technologies as being cheaper. I'm not convinced about that just yet.


----------

