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: 246810 who wrote (298)	5/27/1998 2:10:00 AM
From: Greg Cummings	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3383

Mr. Counts by 2, Please respond to post #268. You're a mole and I don't enjoy discussing things with moles. It's usually a one sided conversation. You answer to post #268 and I'll answer your question. Has your boss told you.....no outright lying? That would be a switch! Best of Luck, Greg

To: 246810 who wrote (298)	5/27/1998 4:07:00 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3383

Greg: 1. Ok, according to the web site and your introductory synopsis, the patent has not been issued. How about the Patent registration which we could all check for the Company's claims? 2. Also, I do not get worked up over shorts. The truth almost always wins out. Yet, in this case short fear mongering is even less rational. According to the web site, the company intends to be a pure royalty collection shop. No great need for significant additional infusions of capital which could, in theory, be impacted by a languishing stock price caused by short selling. Why are you all worked up? 3. Since no independent verification of the engine has yet been done, do you truly wish claim that the company's $336 million market capitalization is justified??? (21 million shares x $16 share). 4. While posters continue to be quite liberal with the comparison to the 350 cu chevy V8, I note that the graphs on the web site specifically state "RPM (2000 thru 3000 projected Torque and HP Values)" for the OX2. In contrast, the Chevy graphs start at 2000 RPM. This is an apples to oranges comparison and cannot be characterized in any way other than misleading. Moreover, the graphs for the OX2 extrapolated a linear increase in torque, yet using the graph and the Shelby press release, the increase is clearly not linear. (the Shelby release said 170 torque at 1250 RPM). Therefore, assuming the 1000 and 1500 RPM points on the graph are measured values, then the increase in torque from 1000-1250 was 37, and the increase from 1250-1500 is only 30 ft lbs of torque. That ain't linear, torque is falling rapidly. Now extrapolating to higher RPMS, there is no comparison to a 350 cu in V8. Comments? ww p.s I do not, nor have I ever held a position in the stock, nor do I work in or am affiliated with the securities trading industry.