Talk:Directory:Valentin Technologies

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:33 pm.

  • One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Valentin Technologies


post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

More About the Valentin 130 MPG Car

ROI on Solar Panel on Car Roof

On Aug. 21, 2007, Ingo Valentin wrote:

During our interview yesterday you have asked the question regarding the costs for solar power. Here are some data from my files:

{| border=1

| Panel (stationary installation): 1.1 m2 (12 ft2) || $ 500 (2007) || $ 400 (2012)


| Efficiency || 16% || 20%


| Predicted cost || 20-25 ct/kW-h || 10-15 ct/kW-h


The data are for southern Europe which should be - regarding hours of sunshine - comparable with the typical US exposure. In 2012, considering extended exposure to sunshine and increased efficiencies, the accumulator could be charged 4 times/day, good for about 12 miles on the Highway or 16-24 miles in urban driving. One cycle per day more when 'plug-in' charge occurred during the night, i.e.: 16 miles Highway, 20-28 miles city.

Therefore, the 4 charges (0.5 kW-h per charge) would cost about 50 cents (2007) or 30 cents (2012) - or about 3 cents, respectively 2 cents per mile.

At an average savings of 16.5 miles (mix) per day, the 130 mpg car saves 1 gallon every 5 days, or about 70 gallon per year. At $3.00 per gallon of gas the savings are $210 per year. Therefore, the return on investment for the solar panel would be reached after two years. The savings are basically 5 times as high ($1,000 per year) when compared with a 26 mpg car.

An increased production volume - when used for a mass produced car - will reduce the cost of the panel, and the predicted increases in efficiencies (up to 24% in 2016) the mileage (+20%). (All data: VDI Nachrichten 06.15.07 VDI = Society of German Engineers)


Compressed air vehicle vs Hydraulic oil vehicle

On Aug. 23, 2007, Darin Selby wrote:

In Response to Ingo Valentin’s Hydraulic Car proposal, found at:

Dear Ingo, good day to you. Have you considered what will happen when you have 10,000+ of your hydraulic vehicles loose on the road for several years? How do you prevent them from starting to leak all over the place?

Yes, I know, take them in and get them repaired. But, isn't it easier for the poor guy to just top off the fluid reservoir (like it presently is the case with brake/power steering fluid) and stave off having to get it repaired?

Wouldn't this then be just another invention for the rich? And the poor would be responsible, in just a few short years, for 'oilspill-zilla'... one drip and drop, glip and glop at a time?

Just as in any engine or a transmission (or for that matter, even the Space Shuttle) seals go out. And when they do in a mass quantity of vehicles, you can say goodbye to the environment. (As in what is presently underway with our present 'infernal combustion engine' technology.) I think yours, as innovative as it is, would just speed up the process.

More hydraulic oil? More petroleum? Yeah, that's what we all need more of around us, right?

I know that this may be hard to hear, but I recommend as an alternative solution, to first scrap this idea, and then turn your genius abilities toward 'compressed-air car' technology. is a good place to start. They are starting to be imported into California from France!

Also, check out Scott Robertson's: for in-depth background information on the subject of compressed air technology.

When you order their 'Compressed Air Encyclopedia CD' for $75, you really get a 'college course' on the subject! It goes into extensive study and history of the 'triple-stage expansion air engine' that was used extensively in locomotives at the turn of the century. What stopped it all? In one word, petroleum! The same stuff that you want to perpetuate in your hydraulic vehicle.

The CD also goes into depth on how to get low-pressure exhaust air back into the compressed air tank without any extra energy involved. It is called the Neal Tank. Highly recommended from one who has already thoroughly and is presently studying it.

The main advantage of using compressed air technology (besides the fact that no toxic hydraulic fluid is used) is that the exhaust from a compressed air motor is extremely cold!

First Law of Thermodynamics says that when you compress a gas it heats up. If the compressor now is inside the tank, and the tank is now highly insulated, you have a type of 'pressure cooker'.

Air that is compressed usually is used the same day, is it not? So, this way much of the heat is retained and not dissipated to the outside ambient air.

Now, when a compressed air motor is run, the exhaust from it is extremely cold as the air is allowed to once again expand. That extreme coldness can act like a 'heat sink' that pulls the solar heat right out of the ambient air temperature!

Free energy from the ‘ocean of air’, which we live at the bottom of, is being pumped up to 'one atmosphere' by our Sun. It's all about tapping into ‘the buoyancy-factor' as I call it.

In other words, as Scott Robertson puts it, 'Compressed air is really just another form of solar energy'! And the cold air exhaust from the air motor can pull the free solar energy right out of the ambient air!

Now, what if one could make extreme cold in a highly efficient way? ADR (Adiabatic Demagnetization Refrigeration) is the key. Do a search for the latest work on this - using Gadolinium, which is cycled in and out of a strong magnetic field.

Once cryogenic temperatures are reached using this method, the liquid air becomes acts as a lubricant as well for the cryogenic engine. As a heat sink, this engine system will pull in enough ambient solar heat to become self-running. Not perpetual motion, mind you. Can you picture this?

It's not my idea, It belongs to Michael Minovitch, who is also the one responsible for us using a 'gravity-slingshot' concept to the outer planets. Go to and look up this US patent:

2003/0218852 A1 Nov. 27, 2003 entitled 'Magnetic Condensing System for Cryogenic Engines' - for the rest of the story.

All we need is the 'air that we breathe to love the Earth'. (Somebody ought to write a song like that!)

Rebuttal from Valentin

On Aug. 23, 2007, Ingo Valentin wrote:

: It is a matter of careful design. We do not use pressurized seals with contact to the outside. (See: Official Website, 'The 130 mpg Car', page 26)

See also


Directory:Hybrid Vehicles

Directory:Fuel Efficiency

- Directory







There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]