The expansion of the pressurized gas absorbs heat, the radiator is to
cool down the gas back to liquid or close to.
I don't think a cylinder meets that bill.
The cylinder delivers the power to the wheels etc.. etc.
>
> At any rate, the argument about liquid nitrogen or any other cryofluid
> is rendered irrelevant since the inventor clearly says it is using just
> compressed air that we breathe, no separation into nitrogen or oxygen,
> nothing but pressurized air.
He used pressurized gas. Gas does not have to be reduced to liquid to
be effective. Every temp drop reduces the volume of the gas. If nitrogen
is 9 to 1 expansion protential at freezing, to get,2 to 1 (100
P.S.I)would only require one ninth the temp drop etc
>
> You wrote;
> > Seeding with nitrogen makes no sense if it is flushed with incoming
> > air.
>
> The inventor said that he used the nitrogen initially. Since he built
> it and neither I or you have built it, then I had no reason to dispute
> it, so quoted it as he said it. Since I've not built one or seen one,
> nor have you (HAVE YOU?) why dispute what the inventor said works?
> Didn't the inventor also give the REASON for the initial nitrogen charge
> in the following quote;
>
> "The nitrogen is a one time purchase. It also cleans, blows out all oil
> and gas residue, cleaning the valves, the engine and everything else
> right out the the exhaust."
This would still be a mystery, compressing air would produce water in
the engine. We can only quess the design now.
>
> You wrote;
> > A stationary engine would be true but we are talking of utlizing
> > momentum energy to run the compression.
>
> Yes, I thought that was implied and thus self-evident, but thanks for
> stating it as the inertia of a moving car would certainly be useful to
> compress the air.
>
> With regard to my comment about a possible explosion from compressed
> nitrogen (which was an unclear reference to the Papp engine that uses a
> mixture of inert gases that I should have clearly stated) you wrote;
> > You keep forgetting no spark no explosion.
>
> Papp needed a spark plug. It was a correlation to possible unknown
> anomalies with regard to nitrogen or inert gases as Papp uses. Not
> related to the use of simply compressed air to drive an engine.
We are talking about two different engines, eh.
>
> With regard to the comments posted from the book (which I did not write,
> just forwarded to the list), you also wrote;
> > There is no carbon or silicates in the compression mode,so your
> > theory crash lands.
>
> My theory? Where ever did you derive that?
>
> I have another file somewhere about a guy in Puerto Rico who also ran a
> car on air. Its just compressed air, recharged from the engine running
> the car at what the inventor said must be speeds greater than 20mph.
>
> I'm still fascinated with the idea of it so will keep looking for more
> information that helps to understand how it could be practically done.
>
> Those who think its 'impossible' or have already made up their minds
> that Rogers' idea (not mine) has no future, fine, its still a free
> world, so let's move on.
> --
> Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187