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: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (2201)	11/1/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

I also have what I consider a serious question about the future prospects for AENG. I would like a serious answer from those that support AENG here on SI. Considering that we a quickly approaching the one year anniversary of AENG being a publicly trading company, you would have to believe that they have had at least one year to "sell" this idea/concept to a company that would desire the contract to manufacture this engine. Surely, the supporters of AENG would agree that the AENG concept was not a widely know entity, however in a short time the rumors of pending contracts hit the rumor mill with a flurry. The stocks soars to nearly $30.00 a share on these rumors and I think it safe to say, that the rumors came from individuals with a vested interest in AENG. Now nearly a year later, the rumors have died done the stock has tanked? What has happened to all of these companies that were signing these million dollar contracts with AENG? Surely they would want a signed contract with AENG so that they would have an exclusive deal as it will take millions of dollars of investments on their part to tool-up for its production. Rumors Up! No Rumors Down!

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (2201)	11/1/1998 4:11:00 PM
From: cornbread	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3383

Auric, 1080 and 1095 are not stainless steels. Those numbers I referenced are AISI-SAE numbers. All the steels I referenced are plain carbon steels. The difference between a 1060, 1080 and 1095 is the chemical composition by wt% AISI-SAE #........ Chemical Composition wt% 1060........... 0.60C...... 0.65Mn 1080........... 0.80C...... 0.80Mn 1095........... 0.80C...... 0.95Mn They are relatively low in cost and are easy to machine. In my opinion the total cost of manufacturing a OX2 compared to a conventional engine would be approx. ½. This opinion is based on a large scale production. I don't expect the cost saving will be as great during the start-up production phase. Again, I'm making some assumptions that the factory is equipped with CNC machinery. I have been involved for the past 20 years setting up and improving manufacturing processes. Based on this experience I feel confident that the cost saving estimates are accurate. Since you have the patent you can see that there are several different designs. In my opinion, the double cam plate design is trying to achieve a difference between the compression and expansion stroke. The same principle detailed in Kristiansen patent 4022167. I don't see a seal problem. I don't know why a conventional labyrinth seal would not work in this application. Perhaps I'm missing something here? In my humble opinion the joint venture with Shelby has gone a long way to ensure that resources are available to develop the engine.