AENG Cliff notes through 6/22/1998: Part 2 An annotated summary of all the posts that matter.
DISCREPANCIES IN GREG CUMMINGS' CLAIMS:
Although he originally started this SI thread, Cummings is the most hostile
and off-topic of all the posters on the thread. Not only is he quick to
resort to name calling when others disagree with him, but he has provided
false information several times. Most notable among the discrepancies in
his postings are regarding the patent issuance, pending contracts with the
army, and independent testing supposedly planned for the future. He is
believed to be working for AENG to help hype its stock.
He provides little proof of engine's performance, offers only optimistic,
vague response to an investor asking for more info about his sources:
1) (Greg Cummings, www2.techstocks.com
"The information I share is solid, but general.Quite simply, I like
everything I've heard about AENG. I know there are a lot of people who
don't understand engines and my understanding is limited, but the
accomplishment here is monumental."
Cummings' credibility as supporter of OX2 questionable-he doesn't know much
but insists on its huge potential:
2) (Greg Cummings, www2.techstocks.com
"No, I haven't seen the OX2, but I've talked to MANY people who have.
Eventually, I hope to see it."
Patent discrepancy
3) Cummings is inconsistent:
In post 0 he says: "US patents have already been issued."
www2.techstocks.com
In Post 104 he says: "Advanced Engine Technology holds no patents."
www2.techstocks.com
A patent exists for a company with a name very similar to AENG's, but this
company is actually in Canada.
3b) (see patents.ibm.com Patent #
exists for a company called "Advanced Engine Technology Ltd., (Nepean,
Canada)" NOT FOR AENG ("Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc.") (from Kerr,
posting #155) (http://www2.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-4483846)
AENG's website posts a letter that appears to be from the US Patent Office,
but closer examination of the letter shows that it is for AENG in AUSTRALIA,
not the US.
3c) (Goldfinger, #585,
www2.techstocks.com
"The letter states Patent "Application" Serial No.08/737,056.in the name of
Steven Charle Manthey (Assigned to Advance Engine Technology Pty Ltd)-Axial
Piston Rotary Engine" Our Ref: 9 01 066 (not that of the US Patent Office)
If one takes the doubting mode on this letter, it upon careful reading,
seems to confirm the transfer of the Australian Patent from the founder SCM
to AENG Australia. Firstly, see AENG's website oxtwo.com under
"what's new "it says "Issuance of United States Patent." You then click on
"Notification of approval has been received for the patent of the OX2
Engine" Now read the letter from the Australian law firm on AENG's site:
oxtwo.com Note that the letter is
very unclear. It seems to be a letter notifying the inventor of the patent
that his patent has been transferred to AENG Pty, which seems to be AENG's
Australian subsidiary, but has not been disclosed by AENG, what if any
ownership or relationship they have with AENG Pty. Thus you have an
Australian law firm speaking on behalf of an Australian inventor about an
Australian patent. From what I can tell, the letter has nothing to do with a
US patent." (from Goldfinger, #781)
www2.techstocks.com
The posters on this thread repeatedly ask Greg Cummings to post the patent
numbers that he claims do exist, but Greg fails to do so because he says
AENG wants to avoid people copying the idea for the OX-2 engine.
Regarding Greg Cummings' defense that the reason AENG won't make patent #s
publicly available is for fear of having their idea exposed and stolen:
3c) (from Lonnie, #831 www2.techstocks.com
"see Ford's (or any other co's) patent info: go to www.patents.ibm.com
Hit the advanced search hilite. Go to the asignee area and plug in Ford
Motor Co. and you will see over 1000 patents since 1995."
3d) (from Goldfinger, #838
www2.techstocks.com
"The US publishes the patents whether or not the company wants them to
(when they are granted!)."
Even on the slight chance that AENG might have a patent, one poster points out:
4) (wireless wonk, #683
www2.techstocks.com
"Having a patent does not guarantee value to the innovation. In fact, very
few patents issued ever make any money for the assignee or patent holder."
No U.S. Army Contract Pending
Greg Cummings tries to pump up the stock by suggesting that AENG has a
contract with the US Army to manufacture the engine, but this is false.
5) Cummings implies contract with Army pending " 'The......OX2
engine.........was so impressive to Army engineers that we are looking into
the possibility of entering into a Cooperative Research & Development
Agreement (or other contractual arrangement) with Advanced Engine
Technologies (AET).' "
6) Co. hyping its stock: (from Joseph Waligore, #255) "Last week, the
company announced the U.S. Army has agreed to a research and development
effort to develop the OX-2 engine for use in tanks." This seems to
exaggerate what was announced last week. Last week it was announced that the
Army was considering such an effort."
(http://www2.techstocks.com/~wsapi/investor/reply-4565327)
False promises of independent testing by the University of Wisconsin
In his first posting, Cummings claims independent tests HAVE been done on
the engine. When asked about INDEPENDENT testing, he then claims they WILL
be done by the University of Wisconsin. Later it is discovered that U of W
never intended to test the engine.
Originally, claims are made that U of W will conduct tests:
7) (from Gerald Kerr, posting #151,
www2.techstocks.com
"The visit to the University of Wisconsin at Madison is much more involved
than originally reported. AENG is not only going to have its gauges checked,
but the Engine Research Center at the University of Wisconsin will
thoroughly test the engine and certify the results. This is a highly
respected research facility. They will test fuel consumption, emissions,
horsepower, foot pound torque, etc, all at varying rpm."
THIS IS NOT TRUE. A poster on the thread calls U of W to verify these
claims and finds that Cummings lied.
8) (Woody, #242, www2.techstocks.com
"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, response 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."
When confronted about his lie, Cummings has only this to say:
9) (Greg Cummins, posting #247,
www2.techstocks.com "Woody, You're
correct and it doesn't appear that the U of W will thoroughly examine the
OX2, as previously believed, and I'm unhappy to hear this, too. The OX2 may
need to go elsewhere for thorough testing"
|
