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: cornbread who wrote (560)	6/6/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: RAY BARBER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3383

To: Cornbread From: Ray Barber I have read this thread for some time now and have been amazed by all the things stated in this forum that have very little to do with the engine itself. My background is that I am an old guy who has been in the business of selling and servicing internal combustion engines for over forty years. I heard about the OX2 engine from a friend in Colorado and was one of the people who bought stock in the company for $1.00 per share. Since my original purchase of the stock (before it went public) I have purchased stock at several different price ranges up to my last purchase at $16.00. While purchasing more shares, I also kept the initial shares. I learned of the demonstration that was held at Carroll Shelby's shop in L.A. and managed to get myself invited. I flew to L.A. on the day of the demo and was surprised to see a lot of the West Coast performance contingent in attendance. As a former drag racer I met people whose names I had only read in magazines! I took the flight from Texas and was picked up at the L.A. airport by a friend of mine from Bakersfield and taken to Shelby's place. We arrived before the engine and were there when Steve Manthey and his crew arrived to set the engine up for the demonstration. The engine was mounted to a custom made dyno and because of that I had a discussion with Steve about the accuracy of the dyno and its readings. Steve Manthey is a very bright, 30 something year old Australian that appears to not have much formal education, but a lot of engineering self education. He explained the dyno to me and showed me the tools he had for people who doubted the dyno. He got way over my head very quickly. When the demonstration started the engine seemed to stumble on acceleration and sounded to me like it was running lean. Steve brought the engine to an indicated R.P.M. of 1250 and the gages showed 170 foot pounds of torque. The engine sounded like it was turning more than 1250 R.P.M. and this concerned me until I had time to relect on it later. I placed my hand in the exhaust gas stream and was amazed to find I could keep it there! They claim 130 or so degrees of heat and I know that a conventional engine is many times the 130 degree mark under load. Heat is energy and somehow they have managed to make this engine much more efficient than engines on the market today. The engine is like it is pictured on their home page, at least the outside of it is. I have not seen the inside workings but I believe it to have only the three major moving parts they tell us about. One moving part would be the cylinder assembly which rotates inside the outside case, and the other two would be a part fashioned in a cross with a piston on each of the four legs. As I envision this engine, the cylinder and the piston assemblies would be attached to an output shaft all of which would rotate within the cylinder case. The engine would have to have a stationary cam that would both drive the piston-cylinder assembly and rotate the engine. The engine has two spark plugs mounted on one end of the case, two throttle body injectors (or carburetors) and two exhaust pipes, all mounted on the same end as the spark plugs. The reason the engine sounded like it was turning much more R.P.M. than the tachometer showed is that this engine fires every cylinder twice (once by each plug) each revolution. A conventional four stroke engine fires each piston every other revolution of the engine so this engine does produce four times as many explosions per revolution as a conventional engine. All reports I have seen say this engine has very, very low fuel consumption and is many times cleaner emissions wise that a conventional engine. I came away from the demonstration with a new belief in the engine. Prior to seeing it run I thought that anything that seemed too good to be true probably was. I purchased all my remaining stock since the demo. The next demonstration of the engine took place in Denver. The Advanced Engine crew used a friends shop to tune the engine for the higher altitude. My friend said the engine didn't stumble at all there which makes me believe it was running lean in L.A. My friend said that the engine was very responsive to throttle advances. There are still some things that concern me about the engine. 1. Since the cylinders revolve within the case and have to compress the charge against the end plate, how do they accomplish this? 2. Will the engine live? 3. It appears to me that out of necessity it will have to be a low R.P.M. engine, and while there is nothing wrong with that, at 1250 R.P.M. the piston speed will be four times greater than a conventional engine of the same stroke. To those out there that will say that I am an insider or other nonsense, I have posted my name and will respond to a private E-Mail should you wish to talk to me. I met Murray and David Travis at the demo in L.A. I had never met either one of them before and have talked to each one only once since that time. (about Goldfinger) My stock account is not with David Travis. The engine may not prove out, but after seeing it run, I have to believe any problems with it can be overcome.