http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_328_29397.php ABM sent this to me. I found it pretty interesting for new technology.
I'm not at liberty to say. Let's just say he's currently pursuing other hobbies and let it go at that.
Back on topic--this is pretty cool. 180 miles between refuel stops, which cost about $2 a pop. I wonder if it would be possible to refill it with your own air compressor at home, or how long it would take for someone to develop the necessary attachment. And unlike hybrids or electrics, it apparently costs a lot less than a regular car (just over 8 grand). Don't know how I feel about "a tubular chassis that is glued, not welded, and a body of fiberglass" though. I'd hate to have my chassis fall apart in the middle of my commute.
The last :30 sounds like a story from the Onion. [video=youtube;ztFDqcu8oJ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4[/video]
I would seriously consider something like this for driving short distances. The city of Portland is trying to move towards "20 minute neighborhoods" and "walkability" so a car that can drive 180 miles before it's next refuel could last a long time before you had to worry about getting more air. I doubt there would be any places to refuel around here, but it says it has a compressor that could refuel the car in 3-4 hours so as long as you stayed on top of it, you wouldn't need to worry about running out of air while on the road. Depending on how well it's manufactured, I think the fiberglass and glue could be completely fine, unless you're hit by another car.... that could go bad.
I've been casually following news about the air car for years, but I have yet to see anything definitive. Lots of prototype descriptions and plans for release, but never any real-world, road-tested statistics. Light analysis of the numbers also makes me pretty skeptical that we'll see anything like the optimistic ranges that some of those news articles post. So far, I'd call it an interesting idea with lots of technical obstacles.
Wow, who ever wrote those last 30 seconds needs a retard of the year award or maybe a promotion over at Popular Science. This car does nothing to solve our energy problems. You still have to generate the energy to compress the air from somewhere & you have the dangers of a highly pressurized containment vessel on board that you probably wouldn't want to rupture in the event of a crash. It's novel, but probably doesn't meet crash safety standards & would have poor mileage if it did. Perhaps it could be a better alternative to hydrogen which not only has to be generated, but then compressed into a containment vessel. Let's just compress the nitrogen & oxygen around us...
That's a retarded answer. Every, and I mean every new technology starts somewhere. It's rarely safe. But it gets made better and better and then better again until it does become something such that new technology does address energy concerns. Holy crap, if everyone thought like you we'd have no electricity, wind power, wave power... nothing. We'd be taking dumps out back behind the cave.
That's a retarded rant. There are some "technologies" which just won't help due to little things called physics and thermodynamics. Is this air-powered-car one of those? I haven't even given a look at rough numbers, but it very well could fall into that category.
I would think a vehicle with zero emissions and the capability to be nearly 100% self sufficient and the 'cleanest' vehicle on the planet is worth investing some time and money into. But that's just me.
