Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maverick who wrote (4572)	1/22/2001 3:07:02 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Respond to of 4908

Friday, January 19, 2001 WSJ. Aprilia is going to be producing their own 1000 cc motorcycle in the coming year. Until now, I gather from the article that they were producing same for others.

To: Maverick who wrote (4572)	1/23/2001 12:07:34 AM
From: q39	Respond to of 4908

I saw an inboard engine-equipped boat EXPLODE on July 4, 1999 on Watts Bar Lake in Tennessee. I was only 100 feet or so away. No one was injured but the boat burned for quite a while. Talk about emissions - there was a huge fire and terrible black smoke. The fire department and water police and wildlife officials came and put it out. I am putting aside 3 hours tomorrow to review the proposed rules thoroughly. Cats are mentioned throughout. First several pages are just justifying the need to regulate - states that emissions are harmful. Will post my basic comments somewhere. I used to review this kind of stuff for a living. The key thing is that comments are due to the EPA by Feb. 5, but they can be submitted by email. I am hoping for limits (on the applications we care about) to be set based on the proven performance of 2-s DFI without cats based on cost effectiveness, reliability, and availability. The papers posted on the OE website on Jan. 12 from a presentation given in India - orbeng.com.au - should be quite helpful.

To: Maverick who wrote (4572)	1/23/2001 4:49:36 PM
From: q39	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4908

"The engine technology that may have the most potential for maximizing emission reductions from two-stroke engines is the use of direct fuel injection(DI). Direct fuel injection is able to reduce or even eliminate scavenging losses by pumping only air through the engine and then injecting fuel into the combustion chamber after the intake and exhaust ports have closed. The use of oxidation catalysts in conjunction with direct injection could potentially reduce emissions even further. Finally, because four-stroke engines emit significantly lower levels of HC than two-stroke engines, the conversion of two-stroke engine technology to four-stroke engine technology could be a desirable approach. We request comment as to whether there are any other approaches to emission reduction for recreational vehicles that have not been discussed here. We are interested in information on feasibility, cost and corresponding emission reduction potential, and other issues associated with the above and other technologies. Specifically, we request comment on the effectiveness and durability of oxidation catalysts for these applications, the cost, corresponding emission reductions, and feasibility of direct fuel injection for two-stroke engine applications, and the cost and feasibility of switching from 2-stroke to 4-stroke engines. Any data on engines similar to those used in recreational equipment using these technologies is also requested." From page 76805 of the December 7, 2000 Federal Register, Proposed Rules for Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark Ignition Engines, Recreational Engines (Marine and Land-Based), and Highway Motorcycles. Relevant to note that almost 100% of snowmobiles are 2-stroke, 63% of off-road motorcycles, and 12% of ATVs. "In determining what standards to propose, we will be carefully examining the feasibility and cost of both 2-stroke and 4-stroke technologies. Modest reductions (up to 30 percent) appear feasible through the use of engine modifications and calibration changes. We are also interested in approaches that would reduce HC emissions substantially (for example, 75 to 90 percent) from baseline 2-stroke engine levels. Clearly, switching to 4-stroke engines achieves this goal and some manufacturers would likely choose this approach to meeting such standards. However, some manufacturers may want an opportunity to achieve HC reductions through the use of advanced technology 2-stroke engines. This approach may require more time and investment in research and development than switching to 4-stroke engines entirely, but could result in more cost effective emissions control in the long term. Also, if such engines were developed, consumers may benefit from having a variety of engine types from which to choose. We request comment on whether EPA should attempt to set standards in a manner that would encourage the development of clean 2-stroke technology, and if so, how that objective could best be accomplished." From pg. 76806