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 : Advanced Engine Technologies (AENG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg Cummings who wrote (104)	5/13/1998 12:53:00 AM
From: Lonnie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

Greg: This quote is from the co. website " Notification of approval has been received for the patent of the OX2 Engine from the United States Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office. As soon as the Patent Numbers is received they will be published for review. " Do they or don't they have a patent? If the patent is from Australia then please supply a patent #. If the patent has been filed for in the US then please supply a registration #. If the patent is from Australia then I would like to confirm that it has been assigned to Advanced Engines. Sorry to remain skeptical but too many unanswered questions. Can you please tell us who the directors are and why aren't their names on the web site?

To: Greg Cummings who wrote (104)	5/13/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: Gerald L. Kerr	Respond to of 3383

Greg, thanks for the information re testing at the Engine Research Center at the University of Wisconsin. I assume that if you hear a more precise date you'll let us know. Darn, does anyone know someone who is connected with the Engine Research Center at U of W? Gerry

To: Greg Cummings who wrote (104)	5/13/1998 7:07:00 PM
From: shashyazhi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3383

Greg, when Watt invented the steam engine a couple of hundred years ago, he had to give potential customers something to compare his engine to. The horse was the most common form of power. So he had a horse on the end of a rotating arm walking in a circle to perform work. He discovered that his horse could raise a weight of 550 pounds one foot in one second. Multiply 550 times 60 seconds, and you can find the amount of weight a horse can lift in one minute. So it works out to 33,000 foot pounds per minute. Watt's original horsepower formula was: Horsepower= (2 X pi X revolutions per minute X torque) divided by 33000. Torque is the twisting force produced by the crankshaft of any engine. It is measured on a device called a dynamometer. These devices were once just a simple device called a "brake", which was not very accurate because it would heat up from friction and start getting grabby or fade completely. Torque is the reaction to the twisting force imparted to the dyno by the crankshaft. The engine turns the dyno one direction and the torque reaction tries to drive it the other way. This is measured by something as simple as a scale or complex as a piezoelectric load cell. Since 33,000 divided by 2 X pi = 5252, the horsepower equation can be simplified to horsepower =( torque X rpm) divided by 5252. If you look at the horsepower chart for the 350 cubic inch Chevy engine you can see that there is a point at 5252 rpm where the torque curve crosses the horsepower curve. This engine is very representative of how engines operate. Usually horsepower curves rise more rapidly than torque curves. They ALWAYS cross at 5252 RPM. The reason that the horsepower curve begins to drop off at higher speeds is because the engines ability to pull fresh air into the engine deteriorates at higher speeds, unless the engine acoustics are tuned for those higher engine speeds. Then the engine would suffer at lower speeds because the intake port velocities would be too low to pull sufficient air into the engine. Now the charts for the OX-2 on their website never get to 5252 RPM. All points after 2500 RPM are projected, not recorded. I am not very satisfied with the charts. The term "Brake Specific" simply means that the reading was obtained on a dynamometer. One of the parameters is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption in pounds per horsepower per hour. This is valuable information, obtained under controlled conditions. Also NOX and hydrocarbon emissions can be accurately recorded on a dyno. I still don't know if the OX-2 works. But I would LOVE to see it work. I like motorcycles. But if you put a powerful four cylinder engine into a motorcycle, the bike becomes very heavy because of the 200-pound engine. An 80-pound OX-2 engine with 159 horsepower would set the motorcycle world on fire. Eddie Lawson probably would agree.

To: Greg Cummings who wrote (104)	5/14/1998 1:05:00 AM
From: Sword	Respond to of 3383

Shash gave a nice history of the terminology for engine specs. For comparison, once the numbers are in, this link might prove interesting: honda.co.jp Yeah, RPM times TORQUE (ft-lbs) equals POWER. To get the power units into the form of horsepower, you divide the answer by about 5300. Just for fun, (math is fun!) let's try it on the Honda engine taking values from their specification table: 2500 RPM times 11.4 Newton-Meters (oops!) equals 28500 RPM-Newton-Meters. Hmm...let's see. There are 1.4 Newton-Meters in every ft-lb. So we have: 28,500 RPM-Newton-Meters / (1.4 Newton-Meters/ft-lb)=20,357 ft-lbs. So we have: 20,357 ft-lbs divided by 5300 HP/ft-lb = 3.8 HP. This is the power output of the Honda GC engine at maximum output torque. (This must be the same engine that is on my Honda Lawn Mower.) Since their table gives the value in kW instead of HP, we'll have to do the conversion again to make sure we came up with the right number: 3.8 HP times 746 Watts/HP = 2865 Watts. This is nearly right on the money in comparison to their table spec at 3000 RPM. Success! The dry weight of this engine including the air cleaner and fuel tank is just under 10 kg, or 22 lbs. From the looks of the OX2 prototype, it probably weighs about the same. It'll be interesting to see how the performance compares. So we now have a benchmark to which to compare the UW-Madison testing results. Like Shash., I'd like to see a torque-speed curve all the way out to 6000 rpm. In the meantime, I'll order the complete specification books on the Honda engines. Better yet, I'll pick them up in a few weeks from their headquarters when I'm in Japan. Maybe they'd give me a tour. -Sword

To: Greg Cummings who wrote (104)	5/21/1998 3:07:00 PM
From: woody	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3383

Called the U of W at Madison. The University of Wisconsin at Madison will only being seeing a demonstration of the Engine. When I read the post #104 to David Foster, the director of the Engine Research Center, responce was that this was absolutely incorrect. They were scheduled to see a demonstration of the engine next week. They will not be certifying this engine or making any endorsement. They do not have the time, the budget, or the inclination to see it any further than a demonstration.