"wmbjk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 05:10:55 -0500, "Arnold Walker"
wrote:


"wmbjk" wrote in message
.. .

Now, if compressed air is so much more efficient than batteries, then
why do *you* think that we're seeing ICE/battery hybrid cars driving
around, but not ICE/air hybrids?

Wayne

Because it is pure PC instead of science for starts.
There are and have been air powered cars...they are lighter for a hybrid
version
than a battery hybrid.Since all you do is add a burner in most cases.
Brayton cycle in a turbine ....Or rankine or sterling in a piston .

Off hand, I can think of three ICE/battery hybrids currently selling
in good numbers - Toyota Prius, and Honda Civic and Accord. Unless you
can offer some similar examples of ICE/air hybrids, I'm going to stick
with the notion that car manufacturers haven't found compressed air to
be a competitive energy storage medium for automobiles.

Wayne
A more accurate answer is that Toyota and Honda chose to capitalize on the
PC ,while
GM,Mercedes ,and the of the auto world chose to look for an engine. That
actually was more effecent at something other than
emptying your pockets.

Stanley had third market manufacturers converting thier steamcars to air in
the early 1900's.
Many steamtrains are now ran on air due to boiler code worrys by insurance
companies.
If you ever get back to science,instead politics ....you will notice, much
of what is new is an old idea rehashed.
I ,personally, am happy building the equipment instead of relying on a
another person's word on the information.
If you really must get fried on your information ......the patent office has
about 150years of air drive and electric drive vehicles
to flame with you.I don't see the point.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----