I read with interest the posting on the air motor.
Normal air motors consume lots of air because they are just rotary vanes.
However, if a hydraulic motor design was used, you would get every ounce of
torque from the compressed air.
However, during the war, cars used to run on coalgas and the filling of the
tanks, 2x 250 cubic foot oxygen bottles,used to take over 1/2 an hour.
Modern compressors (up to 70 H.P. motors )used by CNG stations work 24
hours almost continuous to supply 2000 p.s.i in about 4 minutes (60
litres)to your car tank which is quite small and weighs a hell of a lot.
Most uneconomical but for the price of the gas and the range about 150 Km.
for a Cortina 2000 cc.
I can understand that a combustion chamber design would alter the
combustion characteristics and refer you to the rotary 3 moving parts
engine invented in Australia, (2 opposing pistons in an oval chamber said
to produce very little heat and no pollution) but no interest is shown by
car manufacturers for some odd reason. I find this odd because this engine
has little or no friction loss.
Is it too easy to manufature with subsequent loss of lucrative work contracts?
With regards to free energy and the such like, unless we can come up with
the amplification of the will upon matter, we will be looking for ever for
the elusive Pimpernell.
Will keep you posted on my further experimentation as I have to get
something going soon.
Ren