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: john griffin who wrote (316)	5/27/1998 4:05:00 PM
From: Sword	Respond to of 3383

Shash: Call me if you want to consider interviewing for work at my aerospace company. I'll post the information to you privately. -Sword

To: john griffin who wrote (316)	5/27/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: shashyazhi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

No, I didn't get lost in the math. The OX2 fires SIXTEEN times per revolution. Each of the eight cylinders fires TWICE per revolution. The Chevy V-8 fires four times per revolution. It takes two full turns to fire all eight cylinders. I would like to compare the Chevy engine to a weight lifter who can lift 550 pounds one foot in one second. Most humans could not hope to lift 550 pounds. The OX2 is like a weight lifter who works out with small 55-pound weights. He has to lift the 55-pound weights ten times to equal the work that the big guy does in one lift. Now that sounds like something possible. Unfortunately, the problem is that he has to lift the 55-pound weights TEN times in one second to equal the work output of the big guy. I think that the OX2 engine has some promise within its limitations. The weight of the rotating cylinder has to be minimized through use of light weight materials. Otherwise, it cannot be made very large in diameter. The flywheel effect would be too great. For motorcycle applications, this might be a problem, because a motorcycle steers by leaning side to side. For racing applications, the motorcycle must be able to quickly lean to one side and back to the other. The flywheel effect would reduce the steering response. It would make an interesting engine for a light aircraft. It wouldn't need a reduction gear drive. There are several small, uncertified, engines available for experimental aircraft available. I would expect that the OX2 engine uses some sort of direct fuel injection to achieve the very low brake specific fuel consumption of 0.21 pounds per horsepower per hour. The emissions would have to be very low with this BSFC. Two stroke engines, as used in outboards and personal watercraft have a problem with mixture short-circuiting. The incoming mixture passes straight out of the engine, without being burned, at low throttle settings. At higher engine speeds, the multiple transfer ports begin to work better, and the fuel economy actually improves. Both Suzuki and a French company named Motobecane worked with direct-injected two stroke engines in the 1970's, when they saw that the two-stroke engine was going to be legislated out of existence for highway use. Unfortunately, it was too little, too late, and two-stroke motorcycles disappeared from the highways in the late 1970's. Two-stroke off-road vehicles survived until just the last year. Now the State of California will not issue permits for the two-stroke race style bikes to be operated on California land. I just heard about the personal watercraft ban yesterday. The Japanese manufacturers will fight back through their US distributors and lobbyists. But they will have to break down eventually and re-engineer the simple, but dirty-running two-stroke into something more environmentally friendly. Good luck to everybody who has invested in the OX2. The fact that the engine has some interesting problems doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the engine. It just means that it is a different approach to the ICE.