Re: BREAKTHROUGH CAR: Public DEMO for INVESTORS in November/Barcelona: Air-car tech.

Anthony Matonak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Aircar Fan wrote:
> > One of France's top 3 engineering schools, the Ecole de Mines,
> > has just (summer 03) published a technical report showing the
> > MDI technology (while not, yet, having its full range
> > today) is in fact viable and has already substantial range (miles
> > per charge).
>  ...
> > http://www.ifrance.com/mdi-cats/MDI_Les_Mines_report_extract.htm
> 
> Well, this is better than the years of "We'll have it next year"
> that MDI has been doing. It's not very much better though.

Some of us spend most of our time trying to help
a technology succeed...rather than most of our time listing
all the ways in which the technology is not done...If you
were a positive action person, you would spend time promoting
EV or some other technology you believe in, if you believe
in anything other than burning dead dinosaurs, that is. Here is
where you lost my respect:

> I.e. Many perpetual energy engines have been designed and they
> all perform perfectly 'in theory' and 'in simulations' and the
> real devices 'almost' work and only need a little improvement.
> They, of course, are impossible and can never work as claimed
> but this doesn't stop people from publishing lots of fancy
> looking reports and selling a lot of worthless investments.

As you know very, very well, this technology is not even
*remotely* connected to "perpetual energy"...why bring it up
then? Any technology that might, or might not, work,
is not the same as a physically impossible technology. It's
impossible to have perpetual motion. Using the energy
stored in compressed air (where the compressed air was created
by either dirty, or hopefully, green energy sources like
currents, wind, waterfall, etc) is not impossible, in fact,
it is 100% certain that it can propel a vehicle...the
only question is, will the range be reasonable...will
the cost savings be this or that, will the business plan work, etc
but it is irresponsible to trot out the silly old comparison
of any and every technolgy you don't like, to "perpetual motion"...

> For instance, it's not an independent review of their car as MDI
> contracted them to do it. 

First of all, you haven't seen the full report, so, a little
less confidence is warranted on your part as to what
the full report does, or does not contain...

>It's not a study of the performance of
> the car or even the engine as these were apparently not available.
> It's a theoretical study based on only one chamber of one prototype
> engine and that one didn't perform up to estimates.

You can't call soemthing "Theoretical" unless it was *only*
calculations. This was not "only" calculations.

"This study based on calculations using the thermodynamic properties
of air at high pressure was carried out IN PARALLEL WITH an analysis
of the results of the 34P01 engine on test bench."

Notice "engine" nor  "one chamber of one prototype". So the
engine "was not available" is not true...they just sad
they analyzed the engine on a test bench....yes, they do not
have all three chambers, but it's still an "Engine" with
one chamber...just not as fancy a version as the final one...

These expert engineers also wrote, "Nevertheless the tests permit to
evaluate the efficiencies"

You forgot to quote them saying also, "In conclusion, the global
concept of CAT cars using compressed air PERMITS to drive small urban
vehicles" So
you ignore this "small" quote by these engineers from
none other than the Ecole de Mines one of the top universities... you
ignore their quotes about the fact that this is viable,
workable technology and go off about perpetual motion engines...really
now..!

...And of course it's a prototype since they are always improving
their engine models...

"Didn't perform up to estimates" is misleading. you make it sound
like MDI claimed that they had the 200km range *today*. This is false.
They have not claimed that (and you will hear a big press release
the day this is achieved) only that is what their ultimate product
will have...Their product is not finished in part because people
are far too busy criticizing and not getting off their rear ends
helping MDI, get money to 1) modify the braking recovery
system for fitting to the cars 2) modify the gearbox to fit
the MDI cars, etc (see our group for more details)...that investment
is needed for those steps. and OBVIOUSLY the car will not have
the full range until those are in place...

As for the "forecasted" autonomy, yes, of course until
better efficiencies are reached, they will not be at their
top, forcasted autonomy. It's not like the current levels
(75% efficiency etc) are that low...they are a darn good
start and the fine tuning needs to be done.

Going on and on about this on Usenet won't help...if you're
an engineer, or investor, and want to chip in, that would help...
Fact is, the experts have looked at it and say this technology
is viable. that it still has a ways to go after being
funded on 1% of what GM, Ford etc have, is not a surprise..on
such a tiny budget..so it will continue to move ahead slowly
unless more of us help out so it can move more quickly to the
finish line..

Note also "Mrs J. and D. of ARMINES have visited MDI facilities in
Carros near Nice, on June 2 and 3. Messrs. Guy and Cyril Negre, and
their team have presented the different concepts of CAT cars. The
visit has permitted to have a demonstration of the *actual engine
prototype* on a test bench."

> Why didn't they supply a car, or at least a complete engine?
> Is it possible that it doesn't exist? Is it possible that the
> real car and/or engine, if they exist, don't work the way the

This is funny.. you have obviously not followed this enough
to know that ABC news,  BBC news, and others have seen, been
driven in, and even driven themselves, the MDI cars...so to
write about "if they exist" without learning these facts first
is very sad... I will let the engineering experts from
the Ecole de Mines reply to your quesiton about why
they looked at the engine itself rather than one of the
many existing and even more many possible body models housing
an engine...I suspect the answer is the obvious one..If
the engine was not viable, the body doesn't matter, if the
engine is (as the conclusion states, it indeed is) viable,
then optimizing the best body is secondary and to be done later
(and the money arriving for optimizing the braking system
for energy recovery is included in that last stage)

Where is the apology from the crowd talking about
"scams" when MDI publishes a report which admits that
certain "optimization" of certain parts still need "significant
work"?

Where is the apology from the crowd doubting it is
viable, after seeing these Ecole de Mines experts
state, right after the preceding statment, that,
"Nevertheless, the global concept permits a significant autonomy of
the MDI compressed air car" ?

I've posted here to encourage investors and people who want
to see this succeed, help this technology be completed. Not
to argue about it. Get on the yahoo group if you have
questions or want to discuss. Or else, post about EVs
or other technologies you believe in more

News flash: I'm not getting paid a salary to reply
to every single post, I have better uses of my time,
especially when 9 tiems of of 10 the answer is seen by going
on the Yahoo group, or the Yahoo group's file section,
or the MDI websites, or the report read carefully and fully.
Thus limited time on MDI is best spent helping it. I don't
mind replying to a few other questions but not this
nonsense about comparisons with "perpetual energy engines"

Have a green day...