Posted by News on August 11, 2010, 12:28 pm
TOP POSTER - IGNORE.
> Others do not say it will work and your link is no exception.
> If have trouble reading a top posted argument it would be unlikely you
> could read the document you posted.
> The document only addreses energy density of compressed air, continually
> redirects the topic to nitrogen compression and does **NOT** address any
> of
> the negatives vaughn stated, namely economy or ecologically sound exergy.
> Very poor example and argument.
> Others say it could work. In a technical fashion.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/721r7419j51104m7/
> But ignore it, because it's a top posting.
>
Posted by Josepi on August 11, 2010, 1:09 pm
Try to stay on topic and don't use all caps.
TOP POSTER - IGNORE.
> Others do not say it will work and your link is no exception.
> If have trouble reading a top posted argument it would be unlikely you
> could read the document you posted.
> The document only addreses energy density of compressed air, continually
> redirects the topic to nitrogen compression and does **NOT** address any
> of
> the negatives vaughn stated, namely economy or ecologically sound exergy.
> Very poor example and argument.
> Others say it could work. In a technical fashion.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/721r7419j51104m7/
> But ignore it, because it's a top posting.
Posted by News on August 11, 2010, 1:43 pm
TOP POSTER - IGNORE.
> Try to stay on topic and don't use all caps.
> TOP POSTER - IGNORE.
Posted by News on August 11, 2010, 12:22 pm
Others say it could work. In a technical fashion.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/721r7419j51104m7/
<<<<<
That says air is viable. It is also free.
Posted by daestrom on August 11, 2010, 9:50 pm
News wrote:
>
> Others say it could work. In a technical fashion.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/721r7419j51104m7/
> <<<<<
>
> That says air is viable. It is also free.
>
>
That's nonsense. The fact that the working fluid (air) is free has very
little to do with the economics of it. The abstract says nothing about
the costs. It only looked at:
"...thermodynamic analysis and experiment data were used to analyze the
energy density, performance, safety, running efficiency, fuel
circulation economy and consumer acceptance, etc"
The abstract also says the performance of the air-powered engine is
inferior to the traditional inert[sic] combustion engine.
It concludes by saying it may be fit for future green cars.
daestrom
XML site map
> If have trouble reading a top posted argument it would be unlikely you
> could read the document you posted.
> The document only addreses energy density of compressed air, continually
> redirects the topic to nitrogen compression and does **NOT** address any
> of
> the negatives vaughn stated, namely economy or ecologically sound exergy.
> Very poor example and argument.
> Others say it could work. In a technical fashion.
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/721r7419j51104m7/
> But ignore it, because it's a top posting.
>