SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Orbital Engine (OE)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: John M Connolly who wrote (4782)1/23/2002 1:04:26 PM
From: q39  Read Replies (1) of 4908
 
John,
Those posts are classics. What I agree with is that adoption of OCP is largely dependent on the culture's desire for improved emissions and fuel economy. In fact, we may have seen OCP 2-stroke autos in the '90s if the culture hadn't adopted the belief that gasoline would be very cheap and plentiful forever. I agree with this because auto wants to keep the status quo as long as they can to maximize profits. OCP scores when the culture gets changed.

I also agree that environmental groups need to know OCP is available here and now to improve fuel economy and emissions and that we shouldn't be waiting for pipe dreams to develop and do nothing now. I think many are aware of it, but most are not committed to improved internal combustion processes (believing electricity and fuel cells provide limitless pollution-free energy), so they won't give much thought to 20% improvements. Big auto uses these guys as their suckers by saying diverting research to tweaking the internal combustion engine prevents them from making economical fuel cells, which they also present as the non-energy using, free perpetual motion power source.

I don't think guerilla marketing attacking auto claims would work. If OE publicly denounced big auto, they would see fabricated test results proving OCP specifically is defective. At the same time, I think OCP needs to present its claims in a positive manner as they have been doing as they have made incremental improvements. I don't know how widely these are distributed. I hope they are presented to environmental groups and to politicians and bureaucrats. It appears the EPA and CARB are fully aware of direct-injection 2-strokes as a viable solution. Environmental groups still lobby against them, associating them with all smoky 2-strokes. If EPA and CARB were to propose requiring OCP 4-stroke in cars, environmental groups would still lobby against them just because it is an internal combustion engine. It's hard to make people go against their preconceived notions. I write the editor every time I see a misinformed article. I also write politicians asking that they be sure to include tax credits for improved combustion engines with tax credits for hybrids if that's the path they decide (I think OCP engines deserve a $1000 or so tax credit).

See my post 4748 on this board for OCP getting props from one green newsletter.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News