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: 1411 who wrote (1459)	7/17/1998 12:11:00 PM
From: Greg Cummings	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

1411, Thanks for posting here. It's great to have someone post with technical knowledge of the OX2 engine. I encourage anyone with technical concerns to post them ASAP. Maybe Shas, Sword, etc, will post a few questions............ Countess, you appear to have some technical knowledge, so ask away. Best of Luck, Greg

To: 1411 who wrote (1459)	7/17/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Warbler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

Hurray, Technical Discussions! Discussions relating to comments by 1411... "First, the premise that the pistons are independent of each other is wrong." I agree, the OX2 engine pistons cannot be compared to conventional ICE pistons structurally in terms of piston forces, speeds etc. Some aspects of the pistons of hydraulic pumps and motors may apply however. For the layperson, an analogy of the OX2 piston motion can be made by observing a carousel horse. As the horse revolves around, it moves up and down. The up and down motion being in the axial direction (i.e.- aligned with the axis of the motor). From what I can determine, the Axial Piston Rotary Engine experiences four peaks and four valleys as it completes one revolution. "If the engine is running at 3000 RPM the internal RPM is 6,000." I'm confused by this statement. RPM is Revolutions Per Minute. There is no internal gearing that I've noticed, thus either the engine is spinning at 3000 rpm or it is not. It cannot double itself internally. I think you were referring to fact that at 3000 rpm, the engine will fire 6000 times. "In most application for internal combustion engines today more than 3000 RPM is is not needed." I don't agree with this generalization. I routinely bring my auto engine above 3000 rpm as I accelerate. However, engine speed is generally irrelevant. What matters is the torque and horsepower that is produced to meet the required need. Engines merely rev up in order to produce horsepower. The average duty cycle of an engine results in low average speeds if you consider stops, starts, and idles which is what I believe led to your generalization. In some applications, like lawn equipment for example, shaft speed is more important than power. That may be another consideration to substantiate your comment. "Boat screws and airplane props cavitate at around 2800 to 3000 RPM. Current engine today rev at 5800 - 6000 RPM and then use transmissions to obtain a 2-1 ratio." I'm not familiar with the marine industry, but again this generalization confuses me. My understanding is that cavitation is caused by linear tip speeds. For example, a small prop can rotate at 3000 rpm and not cavitate whereas a large ship propeller at 3000 rpm most certainly will (if it could even spin that fast). I think your statement is directed towards two cycle recreational boat engines. Transmissions are another subject altogether. They can be used to increase power, decrease speed, or both. It depends on the application. For the OX2 engine to be employed into an automobile, an entirely new transmission will be required such that the proper speeds and torques are brought to the wheels. "Comparing the two engines was to show that between 1000-3000 RPM the OX2 produces more HP and Torque than a 350 V8. There are no publicly available charts on a 350 that start below 1000 RPM because that is where it idles. The OX2 idles at 200 RPM. No comparison points. The OX2 in it's current configuration is designed to run at 3000 RPM and that is as far as the comparison could go for a 350 v8." This statement is fine. What I like about this statement is the tone. It seems to be written by someone claiming ownership and knowledge of the OX2 engine. Have a nice day 1411. I would enjoy further discussions with you. Send a private message with ways to contact you if you wish.

To: 1411 who wrote (1459)	7/17/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: 246810	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

EDIT: I read you more recent post. You're on the right track. You are partly right and partly wrong. Every technical person who has analyzed this engine realizes that in modern times (post WWII) it has been designed for a motorcycle. This is not a new design. it was first patented in 1909. If you look at USPTO #4022167 you will see how a modern version of this engine is constructed. Your comment that the internal rpm is twice the output shaft is interesting. How do you get that? RPM is a poor comparison base as you point out correctly. An APRE will run at 1/4th the rpm of the more conventional crankshaft type engine with the same "power" because the pistons fire 2 times per revolution instead of it taking 2 revolutions to fire with the crankshaft design. However, the piston speed comparison is accurate and piston speed relates to breathing and wear and lubrication. Discuss this with Sword and shashanazi. Batman mearly quoted their posts. He knows nothing of how this engine works. His job IMO is to buy the stock when the price drops, but he overslept this morning. 246810

To: 1411 who wrote (1459)	7/17/1998 3:36:00 PM
From: shashyazhi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

If anyone would care to go back to the beginning of this thread, he will find that I was the first to reply to the thread. Greg asked me personally what I thought about this engine, and I finally got around to telling him my thoughts in a few posts. 1411 states: "These computations are based on the premise that the pistons are independent of each other." You have made a mistaken assumption about the premise of the calculations. At any given time, four pistons are rising on either the compression or exhaust stroke, and the other four are descending on either the power or intake stroke. And each piston completes two four stroke cycles per revolution, meaning that they reciprocate at a furious rate at least equivalent to a conventional engine turning four times as fast. This is apparent from the configuration of the two piston plates. The fact that two pistons are firing at the same time has the effect of internal torque multiplication without need for a gear box, and is a desirable feature of the design. A basic premise of the computations was based, however, on the torque and horsepower graphs shown on the OX2 website. If the person who produced these charts had not projected horsepower and torque figures beyond the point where the test engine can be reasonably expected to survive operation over a long period of time, I would not have used those RPM points in my calculations. I have no axe to grind here. In fact, I find the OX2 engine to be very technically interesting as an alternative method to the conventional IC engine which takes two full turns to fire all of its cylinders. I do not condemn the OX2 engine to the junkyard of broken dreams. I simply wanted to point out the test engine itself appears to run past normal mechanical limitations in order to impress potential investors. I regard it as a hot rod version of the OX2. This is something that I would expect of almost any engine manufacturer, having seen quite a few pre-production engines perform much better than the production models. I enjoy the discussion of the technical aspects of the OX2 and would welcome its development for experimental aircraft use. I appreciate the patent research done by other posters. And I also appreciate civility among posters. Good luck to AENG investors.