I’d go back to the store and tell them you had a “stupid” moment when purchasing nitrogen for your tires and now have recovered and you want your money back. I’m waiting for the day when someone says helium is better cause it will provide some “lift” to your car and save gas. LOL, 2000 lb car and tires filled with helium. sure, that will work.
Since we now have synthetic oil for the crankcases of our vehicles, I have been working day and night for synthetic air to put in our tires. My goal is to have the synthetic air that will retain its pressure at -50 F and not increase in pressure at 200 F. It has been a little difficult, because when I took chemistry, the only elements were earth, air, fire and water.
I also have heard that there are more than 100 elements, with some of these elements man made. However, the number of elements may have been reduced since Honda no longer produces Elements.
Hey, I think I just stepped in pile of a new element. I’ll name it Triedaqium. 
Imagine though; over 90 years the pneumatic tire has been in use in cars and only recently has anyone tried to scam what we fill it with. Just don’t see an improvement till someone changes the physics. Someone will come up with a compound for tires that’s impervious to temperature, never runs flat and is indestructible. We’ll call it “Flubber”.
@Treidaq, almost flagged you but I didn’t have a forth choice for that joke.
Just for the record, helium’s a really bad idea for tires. Not that anyone meant that literally…
In my experimental physics, we studied the speed of sound in various gases. Fill up a glass tube, stopper, measure resonant frequencies.
Helium was effectively “non-repeatable” in that the speed of sound would lower markedly in the 5 minutes it took to redo the test. So, probably not the best stuff for tires!
Helium atoms are very small and “slippery”.
They can pass through glass, rendering a helium-neon laser inoperative in a few years.
Very true about helium, I wonder how quickly the tire would lose pressure. Even worse is hydrogen, it can migrate into metals. Makes one wonder about any widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells…
Even worse is hydrogen, it can migrate into metals.
Not to mention the whole “driving around on 4 little bombs” aspect of hydrogen-filled tires. 
What problem? I heard VW will use in their next model, the Hindenburg…
What? Too soon?
@shadowfax Hydrogen is tricky stuf!! Hydrogen “embrittlement” is often a problem with highly stressed metals exposed to hydrogen. I had some personal experience with zirconium heat transfer tubes in a nuclear reactor. These tubes worked fine but when exposed to radiation and high emperature for a significant period they developed embrittlement and started leaking . This ended in a $20 million refit job.
I would stay away from hydrogen in any appliction except as a fuel, and for public transportation I think it’s far to dangerous.
Well Doc, that ruins my idea for underwater nuclear power plants designed for average power requirements that breakdown sea water into H2 and O2 during off peak demand and pump the H2 ashore to Hydrogen powered power plants to meet peak demands. The the water produced by the combustion of H2 could be used to supplement potable or agricultural water.
Why not hydrogen ? Hydrogen filled tires can save as much as two to three lbs weight. That’s an xtra big Mac or two per week that fat a$$ Americans can use as an excuse to order. I look forward to it. Just renamed my car, " The little Hindenburg " . Migrating, embrittlement ? Problems we can easily over come. There is nothing the average American can’t do that will stymie his quest for more food and nothing technology won’t lend it’s might to.
It’s a conspiracy worth thinking about between the tire companies and the food industry. Helium today, hydrogen tomorrow. Eventually, fast food chains and tire retailers will be housed in one building…hear that Walmart ?
@keith Nothing wrong with your idea, except that the plant should not be underwater; the Japanese proved that with Fukashima!
Many objective scientists advocate nuclear power for base load and use the off peak capability to create hydrogen as an industrial fuel. Hydrogen creates no carbon as it burns, only water vapor.
@docnick There are more nuclear reactors under water than there are above water. There are more than 600 nuclear submarines in operation, and only 430-odd surface nuclear plants. 
Actually, just about all the nuclear reactors are “under water”. ;=)
Fukashima is a reason not to build a nuclear power plant above water. What is a giant wave on the surface is just a small disturbance below the water. The water would be a buffer to storms and earthquakes. The plant should not be built on the sea bed though, it should float above it.
Second, where do you get that 600 nuclear submarines number from? I’m not sure there are 600 submarines period in service right now and a bunch of those are diesel-electric.
You’re also forgetting about the ~250 research reactors in the world.
Diesel-electric? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
@Seraph - actually, you’re right. I was using an older source. The current number is 481, but that’s still more than 437, which is the number of active nuclear plants.
If you’re going to count research reactors (many of which are tiny - we had one at my university that was stored in a shielded cupboard in a science lab), then I’m going to count nuclear-powered surface ships
Can I count my “Good Houskeeping” Atomic digital Clock too !