Talk:Motor Development International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cute idea[edit]

Cute idea, but does it actually work? Article needs more info. --John Nagle 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worst article ever[edit]

This is the worst wikipedia article I have yet seen. "Leads one to believe"? Real encyclopediac there.24.165.210.213 04:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of Jan 2008[edit]

Looks like MDI no longer exists. Most of the links now redirect to aircar, which doesn't make air cars at all! Maybe we need to chaneg this article to the past tense. Greg Locock (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well actually it looks more complex than that. The air car website is now a different organisation, which makes scooters etc, to MDI. Most of the links in the article are busted. Greg Locock (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the http://www.mdi.lu site
WARNING
Following serious commercial misconducts from Mr. Miguel Celades, MDI had to officially stop all relationships with him since 3rd February 2008.
Any reference by Mr Miguel CELADES and/or his companies « Motor de Aire Comprimido S.L. »and “Air Cars Factories SL” and/or his websites “motordeaire . com” and “theaircar .com” , whether directly or indirectly to construction or sales of compressed air engines and/or vehicles using this technology in relation with MDI (Motor Development International constitutes serious charges of unfair competition and fraud.
Mr Miguel CELADES, former MDI agent in Spain and Spanish-speaking countries, is attempting to use the goodwill and success of MDI in order to mislead potential investors for his own benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.86.148.121 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

MiniCAT[edit]

  • [...] the MiniCAT has a range of 100 miles and a maximum speed of 95 MPH. The top speed is 110 km/h, with a range of 108 km.

Well, make up your mind!

  • The time of recharging is 4 h.

The what of what? Battery charge time perhaps?

The charge time, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008
  • on the sector.

On the what? Grid power perhaps? How many phases? What voltage? How much current does it draw when charging?

Basically the European standard 220 Volt power outlets. Old-fashionedly called "secteur" in French, from back in the days when electrical power was distributed to households according some complex geographical division into small zones called "secteurs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008
  • The weight of the vehicle is 550 kg for a charge of 270 kg.

Charge? Do you mean payload? And does the indicated weight include the driver?

Weight when empty: 550 kg. Total allowed load: 270 kg. From the word "charge" in French which means "load". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008
  • It is used for local commuting.

Regardless of its intended purpose, it isn't actually used for anything, since it does not exist.

DES (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008
Et je viens de me rendre compte que tu es Français. C'est quoi alors ces questions débiles? Tu ne comprends pas le Français, ou quoi? T'avais pas remarqué que la personne qui avait écrit l'article avait maladroitement traduit en Anglais directement du Français? Ou bien tu le fais exprès. En tous les cas, c'est nul et contre-productif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax[edit]

The air car is a hoax. Anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics will realize that most of their claims are impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.200.7 (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not! Guy Negre and his son held a show a few weeks ago with several "dignitaries" of the French government present, journalists, etc.... My brother, who is an automobile journalist, was among the guests. Several prototypes of cars (several dozens in fact) were presented. They did work! Among other striking facts, the Indian billionaire and automaker Ratan Tata has bought Guy Negre several patents for millions of Euros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008
Vehicles running on compressed air are not new. Railway shunting locomotives using the same principles have been in existence for many decades. So why must a compressed air car be a hoax. The energy used for motive power is simply the energy released as the compressed air is allowed to decompress, doing work in a motor in the process. Tina Cordon (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tina, your observations are not incompatible with 76.220's. MDI's range claims are quite ridiculous from an engineering perspective, even though compressed air has been used as an energy storage medium for more than a hundred years. Other examples of MDI playing fast and loose with the truth are Negre's claim to be a Formula 1 engineer. So far as anyone can find out, he privately designed and built an engine (OK that's pretty cool) and rented an F1 car to test it in. That is not being an F1 engineer. Greg Locock (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The range of a vehicle using compressed air energy storage is limited by the volume and pressure rating of the air reservoir. MDI's range claims may well be ridiculous and I would not accept them without independent verification, but to say that a reservoir of sufficient volume and pressure rating to move a car 100 miles cannot be made would get the same response. If someone had the patience to run through the numbers and prove that such a reservoir cannot be made then I would rapidly lose interest in Negre's car, but until then I hope he continues his efforts and finds a solution. Even as it stands, a car that can take me the 15 miles to work, recompress its reservoir whilst plugged into the mains during my shift and get me home without burning fossil fuels is worthy of consideration. Tina Cordon (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given they have working vehicles the term "hoax" is clearly not correct. IMHO the proper accusation is fraud. There are discussions of the fundamental problems with the technology in Compressed_air_car#Disadvantages and Compressed_air_energy_storage#Practical_constraints_in_transportation. Links to these could be added to the page to inform readers. Tjej (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't entirely clear whether they have working vehicles or just convincing fakes. As far as I can tell, the only vehicles in existence are prototypes constructed by MDI themselves. If this was real, you'd expect Tata to have built and demonstrated something independently of MDI instead of silently withdrawing. DES (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Others have made various forms of compressed air powered vehicles since the 19th Century, notably for use in underground railways. The issue is not that a vehicle is impossible to construct but that its energy efficiency is so poor that it is not worth building. If you want examples from a different developer of air-powered vehicles try the numerous prototypes of the Australian Engine Air applications. A comparison of MDI and Engine Air is noteworthy since neither has so far been able to commercialise their technology after more than a decade of trying. I see no reason to conclude MDI is simply a fake. A more reasonable assessment is that the technology is simply impractical, uneconomic or inferior to its competitors. It wouldn't be the first new transport technology to be so defined and it won't be the last. The Wikipedia page should reflect the documented limitations as they would be useful to a general readership and improve the objectivity and completeness of the entry. FWIW the Zero Pollution Motors website was recently updated to say "Production in Europe is schedule for the first quarter 2018"; After ~ 17 years of "we're going into production", I'm not holding my breath Tjej (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone wanting to see a clear summary of the how compressed air vehicles (CAC) are significantly worse that battery powered ones should read Economic and environmental evaluation of compressed-air cars (linked at Compressed_air_car#Emissions). The paper does say that hybrid petrol/air vehicles could compete with battery electrics since they can use the waste heat from the ICE in the air expansion phase. CAC's are not a hoax or a fantasy, they are just ridiculous. Tjej (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never said CAVs as such are a hoax, just that MDI's claim of an efficient CAV suitable for daily use may well be one. One can't help but draw parallels to Paul Moller, who has been claiming for over four decades that a production model of his SkyCar was right around the corner despite never having produced a prototype capable of flying outside ground effect. DES (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a hoax[edit]

Please follow the discussions on the german wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Druckluftauto#Thermodynamische_Berechnung where a thermodynamic calculation has been done. Key figures: to fill the reservoirs in 5 minutes, you would need a compressor of over one Megawatt. To fill the reservoir a total amount of 94 kWh of energy is needed. The maximum theoretical energy stored in the reservoirs is around 14 kWh (@ isothermic expansion). On the off chance that Nègre developed a world-class compressed air engine with 50 % efficiency (which is unlikely) the overall efficiency would be max. 7 %. In all these calculations the need for dehydrating the compressed air is not included, which will add to an even worse performance. The air needs to be completely dry, otherwise the engine would ice up immediately. Also, in case the engine would have a heat exchanger to get some of the lost heat energy back from ambiant air, the engine would only work (miserably) in warm countries or seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.240.235.46 (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Use on-board air compressor to supply the storage tanks[edit]

I suggest installing a on-board compressor to supply air to all storage tanks. It states that air is supplied by a piston in return that piston forces another piston down to drive the vehicle. It also states that the vehicle's storage tanks have to be filled with compressed air from a service station. So why not, install on-board compressor and it be powered by the same engine that's driving the vehicle. That way the the vehicle would never be service for addition compressed air and the storage tanks would be recharged by the on-board compressor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.103.215 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that would violate the laws of physics. DES (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tata[edit]

The Company History section now includes a paragraph claiming that Tata will start selling MiniCATs in late 2013. However, with only four months left of 2013, there is no mention of the MiniCAT or of any compressed-air vehicle on Tata's web site other than the 2007 and 2012 press releases mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The reference for the 2013 claim is to an article on a web site intended to promote industrial and commercial investment in the Côte d'Azur region, and which therefore has a strong bias toward success stories. The article is very likely based solely on information provided by MDI, who—as this talk page shows—have repeatedly proven to be an unreliable source. DES (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tata minicat revisionism[edit]

A quick search on Google reveals that over the 2008-2012 timeframe Tata had given the impression that minicat would be made and sold in India. MDI may not have said it so Cyril's denial is meaningless, Tata were the source not MDI. It's in books for that matter.Greglocock (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that claim was this article which was presumably based on press releases from or interviews with MDI, not Tata (see my comment right above yours on the talk page). Someone removed the reference without removing the text it was intended to support. DES (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distributors[edit]

Is there really any point in listing distributors of a non existent product? Greglocock (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident enough the answer is no that I will delete it. Tjej (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motor Development International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motor_Development_International&oldid=1207613189"