Using one tank of high pressure nitrogen or four tanks of low pressure
nitrogen is just a matter of choice. Chances are the four tank system
was based on what the working pressure of the engine was, the high
pressure tank probably has a pressure step down valve to bring it down
the same pressure, also more energy is used to get it back to high
pressure also. The nitrogen does not need to expand 900 odd times to be
effective. 100 times or 100 lbs pressure would be enough,(as is what the
working pressure for gas autos are already). Hence the four tank system
would be done for the matter of simplicity so tanks filled to 100 lbs
pressure would push the piston/vanes(1/4 the pressure four times the
volume,Da!), think of the idea just like steam. The pressure of the
steam trying to expand which pushes the pistons.which turn the wheels
etc etc. So you can let the pressure vent or you can recondense and back
through the boiler. The closed loop system.
I suspect that the air scoop has alot more to do with air cooling than
anything else. The heart of the system has to be heat exchange. Moving
air cools more than stail air,compressed moving air cools better still.
So a moving auto momentum pushes air into the scoop through a vortex
tunnel,which gives cool/cold air to a heat exchanger. cold nitrogen
decreases in size,decompresses and so again through the closed loop
system. Propane could be used inplace of nitrogen it compresses well and
at 8 bar/ 120 lbs pressure it liquifies. So here again I think same
concept just different media, nitrogen would only be safer.
The only difference than steam is that nitrogen/propane gasifies at a
relitive cool tempature water has to be heated first.
Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> Hi Larry et al!
> Yes, I thought that it was clear in the Boese file and the comments that
> the nitrogen was LIQUID and EXPANDED to a gas which produced the driving
> pressure for the airmotor which ran the vehicle.
> Quite different, IT APPEARS, from the Rogers airmotor which appears to
> need large volumes of air, possibly to extract only one gas, nitrogen or
> oxygen as most likely, then to explode it in the chamber. No one
> apparently KNOWS what the trick is for his motor.
> The Papp engine and the odd characteristics that occur when mass changes
> phase and density might mean there is something that has been missed and
> that Rogers found it and used it in his engine.
> It would be great to make a trip out to Florida and wangle some time
> around him...I'll bet money he would talk if properly approached...once
> you have experienced the light of discovery in your eyes and your mind,
> it can be easily evoked by others who have also experienced it.
> I've seen it in many people not just in personal meetings but also in
> phone calls and even emails, where people get excited and just can't get
> enough or have their own ideas that they want to share or discuss.
> I'll bet Lee Rogers, if he's still alive, could have that light
> reawakened to a point that he would give out many clues or maybe even
> his secret.
> All that I've seen indicates a high quantity of air being needed and
> that the engine runs cold even at high speeds.
> Now Tesla's 'Liquid Air' motor, at least the information I've seen
> claims to liquify air, meaning cooling and precipitation of a gas to a
> liquid. This sounds very, VERY much like the Boese Nitrogen expansion
> Boese's daughter said that her father was in a wheelchair in his last
> years and claimed he had figured out a way to LIQUIFY nitrogen as the
> car was driven, thus making it self-sustaining.
> What are the real differences between an airmotor as Boese used as
> opposed to a piston engine that was simply adapted by Rogers?
> >From the information I found about airmotors, some use vanes and some
> use pistons (pistons as in the car engine that Rogers would have used).
> So that means;
> 1) the Rogers airmotor could have used oxygen or nitrogen or some mix
> of atmospheric gases under sufficient pressure to make them repel
> when electrically excited by the spark plug to drive the piston.
> The problem with this, as pointed out by Marc is, using the current
> understanding of how oxygen can enhance combustion to burn any
> remnants of oil or other petroleum. This means there would have to
> be fuel burned in some way in the form of oil or gas which would
> have to be fed in and mixed with the oxygen OR there is some at
> present unknown mystery about oxygen, nitrogen or other gases under
> pressure since the vehicle took in large quantities of air.
> 2) the Rogers airmotor could have used liquified nitrogen or some other
> atmospheric gas which would have to be re-expanded from the liquid
> state to the gaseous state, thus providing the pressure to push the
> The problem with this is there must have been a membrane type
> separator to suck in the correct gas, then use multi-stage
> compression to liquify it, then have a wide enough surface area
> 'turbo-expander' to allow the liquid to expand back to a gaseous
> state. This would require quite a few more components and energy
> to run the compressor stages, not to mention where would the large
> surface area be that provided the expansion region??
> I could not find a diagram showing the internal construction or an
> animation of an airmotor but here are relevant sites;
> On the benefits of Airmotors;
> Airmotor properties;
> Speed, Torque, HP and applications of airmotors;
> I think its interesting that airmotors can provide full torque, have
> adjustable speeds and be instantly reversible.
> Just in passing here were two other interesting sites that aren't really
> related but which popped up in the search.
> Electronic and Alternate Fuel cars website;
> Interesting sites index page, check it out if you have time;
> Jerry Wayne Decker / firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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