PDA

View Full Version : A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6

revetec
04-03-2008, 01:47 PM
I have already said that I am not going to discuss the design much on the internet until after I have a good patent protecting it.

Good move. Too many people try to steal ideas these days. Apply for your patent before showing anyone or even discussing it.

If you need to discuss the patent procedure and schedule of payments and the capital required PM me. Your patent attorney will not give you the full picture of expenses, as they want you to apply ASAP so they have you nailed. You need to know how much money and when you need it so you can make sure you have it.

hightower99
04-03-2008, 03:00 PM
2,000rpm, 450kpa BMEP, best BSFC 207g/kW-h
So how did we get such good fuel efficiency figures? It didn't come from the top end.With only that single point it could be almost anything. Maybe at 2000RPM and 450kPa BMEP several variables come together to achieve the great BSFC. You can't tell me that it could have only been the bottom end design.

I'll tell you something. If we were to put the X4 cylinder heads on a conventional engine we would be lucky to get a BSFC figure of 315g/kW-h or 26% efficiency.How do you know? have you tried? If you did something like that it would be going in the right direction towards proving any advantage from your bottom end.

The engine is port fuel injected like most vehicles so we can rule out the fuel system. Our intake and exhaust system is nothing special so we can rule that out. What is left? The bottom end which is our technology.That is a highly simplistic list of variables. What about any synergy that exists in the system? What about all the variables like bore:stroke ratio, cam characteristics, oiling system, maybe the clearances in all the bearings in the engine approach absolutely perfect? My point is that because you only have the single point you cannot make any conclusions other than it is possible to achieve that efficiency with that engine under those very specific circumstances. If the bottom end is the major contributer to the fuel efficiency then your engine should be more efficient all the time. This is what you have to prove.

If you can achieve a lower BMEP at any RPM range at a given output then the efficiency is greater. Let's say, If you are able to lower the average pressure in a cylinder and increase the transfer of that force to the output shaft then the output of the engine will be the same. Lower pressure in the cylinder is a result of less throttle opening and less fuel used.BMEP =/= Avg. cyl. pressure. BMEP is normally calculated from torque being a function of torque and displacement. Therefore if you have a lower BMEP value and the displacement is the same then output must also be lower(for any given RPM because the torque is lower). Maybe you are actually talking about average cylinder pressure and not BMEP.

Well before you enter further into this view, post a BSFC figure of the most efficient petrol engine you can find on the internet or any other source and quote where you got the figure from. The best conventional engine I could find has a BSFC figure of 245g/kW-h and the best I could find on any engine was a non-certified figure on the quasi turbine engine which they stated was tested at a BSFC of 225g/kW-h. A good automotive engine can have a BSFC figure of around 270g/kW-h or 30.3% efficiency.I haven't been able to find much but there isn't much out there anyways. What I need to counter you is a single point where an engine produces similar (Gasp! maybe even better) BSFC ratings and I can't find that on the www.

The 2,000rpm point was measured as it is an RPM point that most engine manufacturers test at. The reason...This is the point that most of the time an engine operates in/through. Cruising on the highway and accelerating economically in city driving.I certainly don't spend the majority of time at 2000RPM, besides isn't this an aviation engine? My point was you should make a full BSFC map for the whole rev range and most loads. This allows everyone to see that the engine is always going to be more efficient and that it isn't just a lucky setup.

hightower99
04-03-2008, 03:13 PM
Remember, this is only our first independent certified test. A BSFC of 207g/kW-h will only be improved on from this point and we will increase efficiency in other operational ranges for our next test. Also I can remember you saying that a BSFC figure of 213g/kW-h would be good. We beat that in our first repeatable test.

Maybe I am being too subtle?


Congratulations on producing the extremely excellent figure of 207g/kWh and doing so in repeated testing! :)

revetec
04-03-2008, 04:17 PM
With only that single point it could be almost anything. Maybe at 2000RPM and 450kPa BMEP several variables come together to achieve the great BSFC. You can't tell me that it could have only been the bottom end design.

No one quotes their worst BSFC, only their best.

From comments made by the test engineer. I also took a blank head in to show them the design. He then brought in a head to show me how it should be done.

That is a highly simplistic list of variables. What about any synergy that exists in the system? What about all the variables like bore:stroke ratio, cam characteristics, oiling system, maybe the clearances in all the bearings in the engine approach absolutely perfect?

Are you saying that all engine manufacturers have got it so wrong in the areas you have identified?

BMEP =/= Avg. cyl. pressure. BMEP is normally calculated from torque being a function of torque and displacement. Therefore if you have a lower BMEP value and the displacement is the same then output must also be lower(for any given RPM because the torque is lower). Maybe you are actually talking about average cylinder pressure and not BMEP.

This is what I thought and conveyed this to Orbital. I was looking for a higher BMEP. They said that at any given output, the lower the figure the better.

I haven't been able to find much but there isn't much out there anyways. What I need to counter you is a single point where an engine produces similar (Gasp! maybe even better) BSFC ratings and I can't find that on the www.

I certainly don't spend the majority of time at 2000RPM, besides isn't this an aviation engine? My point was you should make a full BSFC map for the whole rev range and most loads. This allows everyone to see that the engine is always going to be more efficient and that it isn't just a lucky setup.

A lucky set up? hehehehe. You don't think after 100 years of conventional engine development that if it was a lucky set up that it would have been done before?

It is an aviation engine, but this doesn't mean that we are not pitching to auto manufacturers. We are. Automotive is our biggest potential market. Everyone we have talked to in this market state they are looking for lower BSFC figures. The full BSFC map will be done during final optimization of the top end. I'm sorry but this is a bit of a process to optimize and you'll have to wait until our next independent testing procedure occurs.

So you don't drive on the freeway often?

revetec
04-03-2008, 04:25 PM
Maybe I am being too subtle?

Congratulations on producing the extremely excellent figure of 207g/kWh and doing so in repeated testing!

Well in repeated testing we averaged 212g/kW-h, 207g/kW-h was our best, but thanks for the comment and recognition.

Cheers

hightower99
04-03-2008, 11:08 PM
No one quotes their worst BSFC, only their best. actualy most info I see is averages, not peak BSFC.

Are you saying that all engine manufacturers have got it so wrong in the areas you have identified?No I am saying that the single point is not enough to say any one thing is the main reason for the value. everything could be just right for running efficiently at 2000RPM and 450kPa load. Synergy, think synergy.

This is what I thought and conveyed this to Orbital. I was looking for a higher BMEP. They said that at any given output, the lower the figure the better.Well that is simply not true as there is a certain BMEP that is needed to achieve any given output at any given speed for any given displacement. The calculations are simple either 4*pi*T/V if you want to calculate from torque or 2*P/(f*V) if you want to calculate from power. From this it is easy to see that output has to fall in order to get a lower BMEP. It is possible to decrease the average cylinder pressure while maintaining any given torque (just need to increase mechanical efficiency). But that will not lower the calculated BMEP value.

A lucky set up? hehehehe. You don't think after 100 years of conventional engine development that if it was a lucky set up that it would have been done before? When I say luckey setup I mean that the synergy of all the variables (including the new bottom-end) is what allows the BSFC. A single point is not enough to confirm that the bottom-end increases efficiency.

So you don't drive on the freeway often?I spend most of my time on roads with 80km/h speed limits on roads that aren't straight and flat for several km. I would say that the average RPM that my engine sees is somewhere over 3000RPM maybe 3500RPM. I am rarely able to cruise for more than about 1-2 minutes and then I will be cruising at about 2200-2500RPM.

Now that you have a good starting point the goal should be to increase specific power (which will also increase power density) without increasing the BSFC figures.

Edit: I just realised that there is no WOT full rev BSFC figures... I would really like to see that because there is alittle bit of that sort of info on the WWW to compare it to.

revetec
04-06-2008, 02:14 PM
Well that is simply not true as there is a certain BMEP that is needed to achieve any given output at any given speed for any given displacement.

Don't get peak performance/output confused with peak efficiency, which you are. A higher BMEP produces more outright performance but the lower the BMEP for a given output provides a greater efficiency. One thing you are not factoring in is the manifold load of the engine at that BMEP figure point.

I spend most of my time on roads with 80km/h speed limits on roads that aren't straight and flat for several km. I would say that the average RPM that my engine sees is somewhere over 3000RPM maybe 3500RPM. I am rarely able to cruise for more than about 1-2 minutes and then I will be cruising at about 2200-2500RPM.

Try changing up a gear or buy a car that is more modern. Most cars I have driven is at around 2,000rpm at 100kph in 5th or 6th gear :D BTW: My car with a 5.7litre V8 and auto trans sits around 1,500rpm at cruise 100kph.

Edit: I just realised that there is no WOT full rev BSFC figures... I would really like to see that because there is a little bit of that sort of info on the WWW to compare it to.

This is because an engine is most efficient at around 3/4 load and from 3/4 to full throttle the performance gain is not great, but there is a higher fuel consumption. So the figure at full throttle is rarely used or quoted.

Now that you have a good starting point the goal should be to increase specific power (which will also increase power density) without increasing the BSFC figures.

It's the same result as maintaining power and decreasing BSFC figures. Fuel efficiency is all about how much fuel you use to produce each kW per hour. It all comes down to matching an engine to an application. Depending on the vehicle's requirements, you adjust the engine's capacity and characteristic to the vehicle along with final drive and transmission ratios so as the vehicle drives with the best fuel efficiency at the point it will be driven mostly. The standard quoted tests are highway and city cycles.

Take your car for an example. If we were to change your final drive ratio to provide a 100kph cruise whereas you engine is operating at 2,000rpm, the result would be?

Another point I can add is that if we were to use our engine in a power generator type application. The engine will operate at one specific speed. A lower BSFC will provide less fuel consumption per kW-h which makes it more economical to produce electricity from this powerplant regardless of the efficiencies in other RPM ranges. A huge market for us.

hightower99
04-06-2008, 04:38 PM
Don't get peak performance/output confused with peak efficiency, which you are. A higher BMEP produces more outright performance but the lower the BMEP for a given output provides a greater efficiency. One thing you are not factoring in is the manifold load of the engine at that BMEP figure point. I believe you are misunderstanding what I said. Say you have a 2L engine and it produces 200HP (149kW) at 8000RPM, this means it is producing 131.3lbs-ft. of torque (178Nm) at 8000RPM. The calculated BMEP is then: 4*π*178Nm/0.002(m^3)= 1118.4kPa BMEP. Now the only ways to change that figure are: change dispacement or change the torque. As long as it is a 2L engine producing 131.3lbs-ft. (178Nm) of torque then the BMEP is always going to be 1118.4kPa. However the output (I am assuming you mean power?) can be pretty much anything depending on RPM. If you want a lower BMEP for any given output then you need to rev higher, which is not good for efficiency. If you are talking about avg. cyl. pressure vs. torque then that is mechanical efficiency.

Try changing up a gear or buy a car that is more modern. Most cars I have driven is at around 2,000rpm at 100kph in 5th or 6th gear :D BTW: My car with a 5.7litre V8 and auto trans sits around 1,500rpm at cruise 100kph.I loath how you try to simplify/generalize everything. I told you what the average RPM is for me and why. Accept it.

This is because an engine is most efficient at around 3/4 load and from 3/4 to full throttle the performance gain is not great, but there is a higher fuel consumption. So the figure at full throttle is rarely used or quoted.I think you misread what I posted again. I said the info I see on the net is usually WOT BSFC figures. Therefore to make a fair comparison I would have to use WOT figures for your engine.

It's the same result as maintaining power and decreasing BSFC figures.No it isn't and I thought I explained why... didn't I?

Take your car for an example. If we were to change your final drive ratio to provide a 100kph cruise whereas you engine is operating at 2,000rpm, the result would be? I can already cruise at 100km/h at about 1900-2000RPM but that is a moot point because I rarely cruise at 100km/h. I either cruise at about 80-85km/h or 115-120km/h and even then I cannot maintain a stable cruise for very long (because of how the road system is designed in Denmark). Personally I think my final drive is abit high.

Another point I can add is that if we were to use our engine in a power generator type application. The engine will operate at one specific speed. A lower BSFC will provide less fuel consumption per kW-h which makes it more economical to produce electricity from this powerplant regardless of the efficiencies in other RPM ranges. A huge market for us.Well think about that for a moment. You have to maintain the engine at 2000RPM and 450kPa load (the only point where you have proved high efficency) which means that the engine can only make about 86Nm of torque which at 2000RPM means you are only making about 18kW of power. Now knowing that the current market for 18kW generators is around the price range of 3700-4700USD and normally use air or watercooled 1L V-twin engines. Do you think you can price your 2.4L revetec generator competetively? Keep in mind that your engine is barely making 18kW at that point when normally 18kW generators need engines that produce 22-24kW :)

GTM
04-06-2008, 09:26 PM
actualy most info I see is averages, not peak BSFC.



Can you post links or details to examples where they say 'average'?
I find this interesting because whenever I have come across a single BSFC figure that has been quoted by an auto/engine manufacturer they never disclose whether they are 'peak' or 'average'.

hightower99
04-06-2008, 11:27 PM
Can you post links or details to examples where they say 'average'?
I find this interesting because whenever I have come across a single BSFC figure that has been quoted by an auto/engine manufacturer they never disclose whether they are 'peak' or 'average'.


Look at the link I posted about the UL 260 aviation engine. It states the average range of BSFC.

revetec
04-07-2008, 12:12 AM
Yeah but aircraft engines operate at certain loads which stay consistent for a large percentage of its flight. Just talked to Orbital and they said car manufacturers generally quote their best BSFC because the load and RPM vary greatly throughout the operational range.

revetec
04-07-2008, 12:25 AM
I believe you are misunderstanding what I said. Say you have a 2L engine and it produces 200HP (149kW) at 8000RPM, this means it is producing 131.3lbs-ft. of torque (178Nm) at 8000RPM. The calculated BMEP is then: 4*p*178Nm/0.002(m^3)= 1118.4kPa BMEP. Now the only ways to change that figure are: change dispacement or change the torque. As long as it is a 2L engine producing 131.3lbs-ft. (178Nm) of torque then the BMEP is always going to be 1118.4kPa. However the output (I am assuming you mean power?) can be pretty much anything depending on RPM. If you want a lower BMEP for any given output then you need to rev higher, which is not good for efficiency. If you are talking about avg. cyl. pressure vs. torque then that is mechanical efficiency.

So what happens to the BMEP at partial throttle?
Torque decreases and the BMEP decreases.
Look, you are still talking about BMEP at wide open throttle.

The BMEP shows how efficient combustion and the mechanical efficiency of the engine but what it doesn't show is the amount of fuel you are using to achieve it.

This is why BSFC is the real figure to measure efficiency. It actually shows how much fuel per kW-h you are making. This is Efficiency! You can have an engine that produces high BMEP but at what fuel cost.

I loath how you try to simplify/generalize everything. I told you what the average RPM is for me and why. Accept it.

So the way you drive and the conditions you drive under are in line with an average driver worldwide? Guess what hightower99, not one car company is going to tailor make an engine to drive under your specific driving conditions, rather than an average consumer's driving conditions and requirements and the characteristics of the vehicle the engine is planned to be fitted to.

Generalization is a way of making a product suit the majority of consumers and I'm not going to accept the way you drive as a point of testing or development. You will have to accept the above. :rolleyes:

I think you misread what I posted again. I said the info I see on the net is usually WOT BSFC figures. Therefore to make a fair comparison I would have to use WOT figures for your engine.

I talked to Orbital and the best BSFC figure is created around 75% manifold load. Go do your homework and quote from a reputable source and let us know where it came from. If you can't do this then stop posting your opinions and start posting some facts you can back up. :)

I have the luxury of going through independent testing, and you have not. The usual tests are at several RPM and manifold load points determined by the European Drive cycle (NEDC99). The main tested spots are 2 and 3 bar manifold loadings as this is the most common figure driven through in the NEDC99. Most efficiency occurs around the 4.5 bar manifold loading and around 2,000rpm.

I can already cruise at 100km/h at about 1900-2000RPM but that is a moot point because I rarely cruise at 100km/h. I either cruise at about 80-85km/h or 115-120km/h and even then I cannot maintain a stable cruise for very long (because of how the road system is designed in Denmark). Personally I think my final drive is abit high.

I'm sorry your road system doesn't allow you to cruise at 100kph for extended periods of time. Denmark doesn't seem to be a good region to quote as an average of the world does it? :(

Well think about that for a moment. You have to maintain the engine at 2000RPM and 450kPa load (the only point where you have proved high efficency) which means that the engine can only make about 86Nm of torque which at 2000RPM means you are only making about 18kW of power. Now knowing that the current market for 18kW generators is around the price range of 3700-4700USD and normally use air or watercooled 1L V-twin engines. Do you think you can price your 2.4L revetec generator competetively? Keep in mind that your engine is barely making 18kW at that point when normally 18kW generators need engines that produce 22-24kW :)

How about we get a 18kW generator engine and stick it in your car for you to drive. What do we achieve from even contemplating this? :rolleyes:

If we were to build a generator for a landfill emission project the engine is far more cost than what you have quoted. Anyways I can expect us to be competitive in price on an engine and the savings on generating more power with the same amount of fuel would pay for any increase in initial cost if there was, not to mention the carbon credits gained from such a application.

GTM
04-07-2008, 12:48 AM
Look at the link I posted about the UL 260 aviation engine. It states the average range of BSFC.

You said 'averages', I didn't think you were referring to just one engine?

I asked this question because if you had a few examples that quoted auto engines with 'average' BSFC and not peak then we could reasonable assume that the average 'BSFC' figure is also used to quote engines performance characteristics.

clutch-monkey
04-07-2008, 01:12 AM
a question for the future:
how would this engine react to forced induction? how hard would it be to set it up?
or have i completely missed the point somewhere? :D

Matra et Alpine
04-07-2008, 02:43 AM
I loath how you try to simplify/generalize everything. I told you what the average RPM is for me and why. Accept it.
SOMe of uas share that loathing.

But what we loathE is that you won't just sit back, take the facts from the engine runs Revetec have doen and fine inquire about other stuff, but beyond that stop the interrogation !!

Still waiting for your own engine design thread !!

hightower99
04-07-2008, 04:00 AM
Yeah but aircraft engines operate at certain loads which stay consistent for a large percentage of its flight. Just talked to Orbital and they said car manufacturers generally quote their best BSFC because the load and RPM vary greatly throughout the operational range.
Well I don't have access to that info. This is some of the info I have found:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1651/03oj9.th.jpg (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=03oj9.jpg)
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3383/1352ya6.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1352ya6.jpg)
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6229/lemanshpbsfcenglishte8.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lemanshpbsfcenglishte8.jpg)
That would be 2 WOT BSFC and a proper BSFC map.

hightower99
04-07-2008, 05:30 AM
So what happens to the BMEP at partial throttle?
Torque decreases and the BMEP decreases. Of course it does... Did I say it didn't?

The BMEP shows how efficient combustion and the mechanical efficiency of the engine but what it doesn't show is the amount of fuel you are using to achieve it.Yeah I know...

This is why BSFC is the real figure to measure efficiency. It actually shows how much fuel per kW-h you are making.Yeah knew that too. In fact I was the one who said that you should show BSFC figures because BMEP is not directly in relation with thermal efficiency.

So the way you drive and the conditions you drive under are in line with an average driver worldwide?No. But I drive like most danes do. I think you are reading too much into this, I just stated that the average RPM you stated didn't relate properly to me or most driving danes.

Generalization is a way of making a product suit the majority of consumers and I'm not going to accept the way you drive as a point of testing or development.Did I ask you to accept the way I drive as a point of testing or developement? No I simply said that you should except that I do not sit on the average (instead of suggesting ways that I should change so that I do sit at average).

I talked to Orbital and the best BSFC figure is created around 75% manifold load.Thats all good and well but the info I have is based on WOT. Besides if your bottom-end technology is actually helping to achieve the efficiency then it should also show under WOT testing.

I'm sorry your road system doesn't allow you to cruise at 100kph for extended periods of time. Denmark doesn't seem to be a good region to quote as an average of the world does it?I'm not sorry. I would much rather have an eventfull dynamic journey then droning on at 100km/h. Besides if I have to go far I can cruise at 130km/h (legally) :D


SOMe of uas share that loathing.

But what we loathE is that you won't just sit back, take the facts from the engine runs Revetec have doen and fine inquire about other stuff, but beyond that stop the interrogation !!

Still waiting for your own engine design thread !!I wasn't aware I was interrogating anyone:confused:

I do except the actual data that the tests showed, I do not question that at all. I question the statement made that a single point proves the revetec engine to be extremely efficient (beyond a doubt...?).

I disapprove of Simpsons Tiger-repellant-stone logic.

Matra et Alpine
04-07-2008, 06:59 AM
Do you understand what an "interrogation" is ?
You say you don't and then quiz on almost every sentence that had been written - ROLFMAO :)

hmmm, I like the comaprison of your engine building skills and activities to Tiger Repellent........Yep, your engine ideas DO work :)

hightower99
04-07-2008, 07:27 AM
Do you understand what an "interrogation" is ?
You say you don't and then quiz on almost every sentence that had been written - ROLFMAO :) It's funny how a single question is construed as "quiz on almost every sentence that had been writen"... LOLZORZ!


hmmm, I like the comaprison of your engine building skills and activities to Tiger Repellent........Yep, your engine ideas DO work :)You must be drunk or something :confused:

I said nothing of my ability to design anything... I didn't even mention my engine idea yet you somehow connect that to a reference that you don't understand?

The simpsons tiger-repellent-stone logic is as follows:

Lisa: Dad, by that logic I could say that this stone is keeping the tigers away
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa:It doesn't it's just a rock
Homer:Oh?
Lisa:But do you see any tigers around?
Homer:Lisa I would like to buy your rock...

*Simpsons is a popular american animated series...

revetec
04-07-2008, 01:18 PM
Well I don't have access to that info. This is some of the info I have found:

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6229/lemanshpbsfcenglishte8.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lemanshpbsfcenglishte8.jpg)
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3383/1352ya6.th.jpg (http://img187.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1352ya6.jpg)

That would be 2 WOT BSFC and a proper BSFC map.

Come on.....The engine data images you posted were forced induction. (I assume the 1st one was even though I can't find data on it, the BMEP was 150?)

The first image you posted above - The R26B engine is a turbocharged quad rotor, rotary race engine. Post something that is normally aspirated and in production for consumer use for comparison.

A quote from Wikipedia.... "The engine design originates as a single 13B with: an additional rotor and housing added at each end, continually variable geometry intakes, and an additional (third) spark plug. The R26B's rotor housing can be purchased at retail from Mazdaspeed, but no internal parts are available to the general public."

The second MEP graph was a supercharged Mercedes engine. Post something that is normally aspirated for comparison.

Note: The supercharged Mercedes engine's best BSFC was around 250g/kW-h. Our best was 17% better or 6.8% better in total efficiency at our peak and normally aspirated. Forced induction decreases the total percentage lost in pumping losses as apposed to power gains.

hightower99
04-08-2008, 12:30 AM
Come on.....The engine data images you posted were forced induction. (I assume the 1st one was even though I can't find data on it, the BMEP was 150?)Nope only the full map of the Mercedes-benz M271 is FI and it is supercharged (supercharging always decreases overall thermal efficiency). here is the wiki page for it:
Mercedes-Benz M271 engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_M271_engine)

The other two engines are the R26B Le-Mans winning 4 rotor rotary engine (not FI, it is NA). As well as the venerable Jeep 6-230 Tornado engine (also NA).

Here is the wiki for the tornado: Jeep Tornado engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Tornado_engine)

The first image you posted above - The R26B engine is a turbocharged quad rotor, rotary race engine. Post something that is normally aspirated and in production for consumer use for comparison.It is not turbocharged it is Naturally Aspirated. Also I posted those pics as just a sample to show that most of the stuff I have is about WOT BSFC not part throttle.

Note: The supercharged Mercedes engine's best BSFC was around 250g/kW-h. Our best was 17% better or 6.8% better in total efficiency at our peak and normally aspirated. Forced induction decreases the total percentage lost in pumping losses as apposed to power gains.First superchargers always decrease the overall thermal efficiency Second the graph show a relatively large patch which is 250g/kWh at the boundary. Peak BSFC is about 240g/kWh (34.09% efficient or only alittle under the 34.52% you achieved running stoichiometric, a good bit less than your 38.59% which you achieved running lean).

revetec
04-08-2008, 06:08 PM
The other two engines are the R26B Le-Mans winning 4 rotor rotary engine (not FI, it is NA). As well as the venerable Jeep 6-230 Tornado engine (also NA).

Here is the wiki for the tornado: Jeep Tornado engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Tornado_engine)

It is not turbocharged it is Naturally Aspirated. Also I posted those pics as just a sample to show that most of the stuff I have is about WOT BSFC not part throttle.

The problem hightower99 there is great discrepancies of the graphs you posted and the information you have linked to. Just as an example: The graph you say is the Jeep engine and in the graph it shows the engine producing 155hp@4,000rpm and the the article you posted to back it up from Wikipedia shows the engine producing 140hp@4,000rpm and 133hp@4,000rpm. I should also point out that to quantify any of this data, you need to find the graph in a certified report which also shows things like air intake temperature, atmospheric pressure and coolant temperature as it was under that test.

Let me give you an example of how even a car manufacturer can fiddle the figures: I know someone who has worked in the development testing area for a very major European car company that until recently used to lean all mixtures off, ran the engine hotter than the engine was designed to run at, put dry ice around the intake and performed an economy test and logged the BSFC figure. They then richened the mixtures up and performed outright performance tests. Then all the data was put together as if the engine was tested without any modifications and did not disclose the modifications and/or true test conditions.

For this reason I only trust information and reports put out by independent testing from a reputable source and in a full report stating test conditions.

I should also point out to everyone at this point that any dyno can be corrected to read a higher reading whether it is a engine or chassis dyno. For this reason only a certified facility can be trusted for data and results. I'll give an example and a question to all: Is there anyone on here who uses a chassis dyno? Before you perform any tests, do you find out from a reliable source what the drive train losses are for that drivetrain/vehicle and put in the correction values before calculating flywheel power? I have talked to many dyno owners and they only estimate a figure like 20% for rear wheel drive and 15% for front wheel drive cars. So can anyone who has tested their vehicle on a chassis dyno actually quote an accurate figure of what the engine power is? I have visited some chassis dyno facilities that have had the drive line correction as high as 30%. Great for the customer's ego but does little to give an actual figure.

And as for comparing our engine to a Racing R26B Le-Mans 4 rotor rotary engine that is not available to the consumer, what was the point of that? :rolleyes:

hightower99
04-08-2008, 11:56 PM
The problem hightower99 there is great discrepancies of the graphs you posted and the information you have linked to. Just as an example: The graph you say is the Jeep engine and in the graph it shows the engine producing 155hp@4,000rpm and the the article you posted to back it up from Wikipedia shows the engine producing 140hp@4,000rpm and 133hp@4,000rpm. I should also point out that to quantify any of this data, you need to find the graph in a certified report which also shows things like air intake temperature, atmospheric pressure and coolant temperature as it was under that test.Here is the article that the picture is from:Off-Road Adventures Magazine (http://www.oramagazine.com/pastIssues/0806-issue/index.asp?article=oldiron) It is a tornado engine it is also not FI. The BMEP is in PSI (150psi=10Bar). Second I am not comparing your engine to this. The picture is simply to show that most info I do have is taken at WOT.

Is there anyone on here who uses a chassis dyno? Before you perform any tests, do you find out from a reliable source what the drive train losses are for that drivetrain/vehicle and put in the correction values before calculating flywheel power?I have used a chassis dyno several times but I don't calculate flywheel power as I am more interested in the power that actually moves the car (wheel power).


And as for comparing our engine to a Racing R26B Le-Mans 4 rotor rotary engine that is not available to the consumer, what was the point of that? :rolleyes:I didn't :rolleyes: Again I posted that picture to show that the info I have is taken at WOT.

revetec
04-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Hightower99: How about posting something relevant as a comparison. The more info I get the better :)

hightower99
04-10-2008, 02:04 AM
Hightower99: How about posting something relevant as a comparison. The more info I get the better :)


Technically you could compare WOT BSFC against any of the engines I posted but you don't have WOT BSFC info for your engine.

revetec
04-10-2008, 01:32 PM
I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info...:p You'll just have to find comparable figures. :)

hightower99
04-10-2008, 02:25 PM
I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info...:p You'll just have to find comparable figures. :)

It is going to be extremely difficult to find comparable info...

You are basically asking me to find BSFC ratings for engines run at part throttle and I haven't been able to find anything like that except for your report.

jrobson
04-16-2008, 03:38 AM
I'm not going to spend another $50,000 to get another test done for your info...:p You'll just have to find comparable figures. :)

Well done for proving us wrong!

You should really spend that $50 000 though, because BSFC figures are most impressive at full load so you might just dip under 200! This the reason everyone else shows graphs at full load only, because that is when the consumption is lowest as you no longer have throttle losses.

Do yourself a favour and contact Mr. Pattakos about this valvetrain patent, you will increase your figures (at part throttle) significantly, as well as improve the overall response of your engine.

Regards,
Jonathan.

Matra et Alpine
04-16-2008, 06:07 AM
Considering your comment then is it not obvious why everyone picks the point where it looks "best" and not "typical" or avergage ??

Where'd the Pattakos comment come from ?
Are you connected.
If so can you please explain why the patent was applied for in Europe and then WITHDRAWN ?
This is usually what happens when a decent patent office does it's work and researches the "innovation" and finds it not worthy of a patent :) Other "lazy" patent offices grant patents and then let patent lawyers fight it out later :(

revetec
04-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Well done for proving us wrong!

You should really spend that $50 000 though, because BSFC figures are most impressive at full load so you might just dip under 200! This the reason everyone else shows graphs at full load only, because that is when the consumption is lowest as you no longer have throttle losses.

Do yourself a favour and contact Mr. Pattakos about this valvetrain patent, you will increase your figures (at part throttle) significantly, as well as improve the overall response of your engine.

Regards,
Jonathan.

For a start, BSFC figures are NOT most impressive or best at full throttle. That is like saying you are going to drive your car at full throttle everywhere to get your best fuel economy. Absolutely wrong. Most of the test points we picked are from the European drive cycle. When checking for fuel efficiency, all companies pick a point of most efficiency not their least. No engine I know of is most efficient at full throttle. Most engines are efficient at 75% manifold load. This is because it is the point where pumping losses as a percentage of output is at its lowest. Most uneducated people think 75% load is 75% throttle. It isn't. Our engine at 2,000rpm and 75% manifold load is about 10% throttle opening. At 4,000rpm and 75% manifold load it is about 40% throttle and so on... So you can see we tested at 2,000rpm and 10% throttle which is usually just above cruise at 100kph. This is where most vehicles are most economical.

Think about this: Why would a car company quote their fuel economy figures at full throttle? Do you know of any automotive manufacturer that does this? I didn't think so.

Just because Hightower99 can't find comparable data, doesn't mean he knows everything he has commented on. In Hightower99s defense, for his age he is the most knowledgeable person I have chatted to, and if he picks engines as his career, he will probably do very well. Orbital tests for many major automotive companies and we tested mainly under their advise and what is acceptable to quote when pitching to automotive companies.

As for the Pattakon technologies...Matra et Alpine is correct.

Why was the patent withdrawn?
Either:
The patent wasn't novel, or
They couldn't get the capital to pursue it ($15,000 I think is the amount it cost for Europe when I did it), or
They didn't get the result they thought they would get and decided to drop it, or
Maybe they came up with a better patentable solution? :rolleyes:

Maybe Manolis can get on his topic again and post the reason why. ;) Hehehehe...Sorry Matra et Alpine! :p

I went to their website over a year ago and I was not impressed by their engineering skills. Go look at their images of the head mods they performed. Most of which was done by hand with a die grinder. Sorry but I don't think I'll be contacting Pattakon in a hurry... :D

Matra et Alpine
04-16-2008, 04:47 PM
re European Patens, Brad.

THe EPO are very proud of the limited number of patents they now award :)
If it's not innovative, it doesn't happen :)
EPO grants fewer patents despite rise in applications (http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20080401.html)
believes priority has to be given to patent quality. "The purpose of patents is to support the generation of economic benefits for society. However, large patent numbers are not necessarily indicative of growing R&D activity," she said. "What we therefore need is not more patents, but more good patents."

revetec
04-16-2008, 04:59 PM
re European Patens, Brad.

THe EPO are very proud of the limited number of patents they now award :)
If it's not innovative, it doesn't happen :)
EPO grants fewer patents despite rise in applications (http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2008/20080401.html)

I know the patent system and it is getting more difficult to get a patent passed these days. Anyone can apply for a patent on anything and say "patent pending" but when it come down to actually passing the patent, it is a different story. I'm lucky in the fact that in all the countries I applied to only two had a problem with it. USA didn't like my drawings and I had to resubmit ones to their liking, and Japan who didn't like all my claims being separate, and wanted me to collate them into one big claim. It isn't easy getting a patent these days, but I'm fortunate enough to get mine through in every country I applied in successfully.

Matra et Alpine
04-16-2008, 05:28 PM
Yeah, I (unfortunately:() became our HP site de-facto patent expert and not only got mine awarded, but ended up assisting the preparation of others for my staff and colleagues. I also spent 6 months defending ourselves against a so-called patent awarded by the US patent office. As well as our own, I was able to demonstrate 4 other prior-art patents and publications INCLUDING one pre-dating the so-called patent by ONE YEAR !!
Sadly in the end an agreement was reached -- paying patent lawyers to fight it out in court just wasn't worth it :( It's the way the US patent office seems to prefer to work, spend an hour searchign prio-art and if none, then grant it and let it be challenged !

The European patent office would have discarded it on first reading :)

revetec
04-17-2008, 03:11 PM
I hear you loud and clear.
Have a look at our company logo (we've had for over 10years which is trademarked) verses adobe's new logo for "adobe air".

And there is nothing we can do about it.

269495

jrobson
04-17-2008, 03:18 PM
Hi

Yes they are best at 100%, everyone knows or should know that, your post shocks me, especially where you have the throttle at both 40% and 10% and still have 75% load!! SFC has nothing to do with real world driving, it means the engine create X amount of power for Y amount of fuel used, when you are at 10% throttle you lose power to the suction forces due to the partial vacuum created between the thottle and valves, the engine has to work to overcome that(work requires fuel), not applicable to engines with infinately variable valvetrains as almost all the energy is returned, when you add a manifold thats where the problem comes in.

RE: Patakos's patent, no matter what the patent office says, try and find a similar system ever used on a engine before him, he should be awarded that patent, don't knock the efforts either, we don't know their socio economic position perhaps the reason for not being able to pursue the patent is a lack of funding, and not everyone has access to high tech CNC machines, maybe I should offer my services to him for free ;) and his idea might seem more impressive (but I scratch my head at why that is important for anyone except an end user, I thought you were an engineer that can see past all that :rolleyes: ), look at the coates website, crock of shit but the pictures look oh so nice, doesn't mean anything but a lot of investors fell for it.

Honda did slightly better with their latest Vtec I believe called A-Vtec where instead of just adjusting lift it also adjusts timing, forget about ever getting a license though.

Think you can do better than Pattakos or Honda, now there is a challenge for you. Btw, can anyone see any faults with the system(excluding the manual machining/parts used) I mean with the function?

Oh, wait, um ... ah ... here you go... tada ... and from a AU website too. :cool:
http://us1.webpublications.com.au/static/images/articles/i1102/110216_6mg.jpg

Matra et Alpine
04-17-2008, 03:33 PM
With at least a couple of dozen manufactured and sold variable valve systems and some of those outside of patents then it's not that hard :)
Besides Revetec are there to sell the technology, so perhaps Rover (China) will buy and mate it to VVC :D :D


BTW the web site is AU, but ithe pic is from a media publication site. So what is the graph, what does it refer to and where's the original site url ?

revetec
04-17-2008, 03:56 PM
For a start, the image you posted was not of Australian origin as we are Metric over here and don't use lb/bhp-h.

Can you post a link to that whole article please?

As a note: The graph you posted means nothing without full explanation as far as the air/fuel ratio during the test. It is very rare to find consistent fuel mixtures across a load range to WOT. Most engines run in closed loop at around 14.7:1 up to around 50-75% manifold loadings, although most engines run around 13.5:1 towards the WOT setting and they are not in closed loop rather than "Open Loop". It is easy to run 14.7:1 at WOT on a dynamometer and get a good BSFC figure but if you have programed fuel injection maps on the dyno, as you get to WOT you program the map, to produce the top power figure. At WOT this is not as lean as 14.7:1.

If we were to use a consistent air/fuel ratio throughout the rev and load ranges, you are correct and the graph is accurate. The problem is that I was quoting a real engine in a vehicle situation and you posted a graph that I assume is running a consistent air/fuel ratio on a dyno. It is ok to argue this point and I suppose the misunderstanding is my fault for not explaining the issue in full.

Looking at your graph from 50% load and an air/fuel ratio of 14.7:1 it uses 0.425lb/bhp-h. At 100% load and using a common WOT mixture as rich as 13.5:1 it would use about the same amount of fuel. This is a common situation.

One thing I have found from setting fuel mixtures on a dyno is that once you put the engine in a vehicle you have to adjust the fuel mixtures to that vehicle a 14.7:1 or lean mixture at WOT produces a surge type feel, which is eliminated by richening the mixture up to 13.5:1.

You may or may not agree with me, but this is why all electronic fuel management systems go into "Open Loop" at high loading situations. If 14.7:1 was optimal at WOT, there would be no need for "Open Loop"

Anyways, I apologize for my WOT BSFC comments as I was commenting on the typical engine Map from an on road vehicle set up which we had and was discussed when I was going through independent testing. Typically, from 75% load to WOT the pumping loss changes are minimal while a typical on road engine's fuel mixture is en-richened.

As a further note: I just went to the Pattakon website and looked at the data logger. At WOT they were using an air/fuel ratio in the higher rev ranges about 12.5:1. Not knocking them at all, this is normal as I have stated above. I would also assume that they would be closer to 14.7:1 with lower load. This data log was definitely in a vehicle while the graph that was posted would have been on a dyno test at 14.7:1 or close to it.

revetec
04-17-2008, 04:42 PM
Now attached is a typical BSFC map for a 2 valve engine in a vehicle. Note the best BSFC position.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/climatechange/subgroups1/vehicle_technology/study2/Final_report/image/Final_29.gif

Taken from Alternative and Future Technologies (http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/climatechange/subgroups1/vehicle_technology/study2/Final_report/Final_Report.htm)
Please read this article because it is quite in-depth and interesting to those who understand it.

Note that the lowest BSFC is around 75% loading and 2,000rpm producing about 30% of peak power, which is exactly what we got in testing and quoted.

jrobson
04-19-2008, 03:44 PM
I'll look around later see if I can find the site.

Rovers VVC isn't infinately variable is it? (By that I mean lift from 0-XXmm in infinate steps)

There are distinct advantages that a infinately variable top end add to the system:
1. At low lift(part throttle) there are no pumping losses, this means that your BSFC figures are more steady accross the load range and in real world driving you will certainly use less fuel since a lot of driving is done at low loads.
2. At low lift the valve springs are not compressed much, so much less energy lost there, you may argue that the valves return much of the energy, however there is some lost, lets not forget much lower friction.
3. You can idle at 300rpm, a lot of fuel is saved in traffic vs a engine idling at 850rpm-1000rpm and remember those poor BSFC figures when the engine is under very low load. In any developed country, even here in our undeveloped country A HUGE AMOUNT of driving is done in traffic everyday by the average person. (Let's take an example, engine with 250g/kwh @ 2000rpm 75% load and with an infinately variable head vs a 200g/kwh @ 2000rpm 75% load engine with conventional head, if you sit in traffic for 45minutes at 2% load a day which engine would use the most fuel?)
4. Engine response must be quite nice, btw how is response with your sluggish looking bottom end? No offense of course, just saying it "looks" sluggish :)

My opinion is that if you want to put BSFC figures out, compare it to the industry standard at 100% load and let it be what it is, but of course that is just my personal opinion. If your graph is indeed correct then it looks like your engine is right around the same level as a very good conventional engine, but I could be wrong, perhaps everyone is publishing 75% results and not 100???

Edit: Okay I just looked at your site again and "14.5:1 of 238g/kWh (34.4%)" that looks "pretty much the same" as a decent conventional engine to me at the same ratio. Sorry I was just scanning this forum, though you got 207g/kwh at 14.7:1.

jrobson
04-19-2008, 04:04 PM
http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/climatechange/subgroups1/vehicle_technology/study2/Final_report/image/Final_34.gif

You running 2 valve heads?

hightower99
04-20-2008, 03:08 AM
Yes they are best at 100%, everyone knows or should know that, your post shocks me, especially where you have the throttle at both 40% and 10% and still have 75% load!!Theoretically yes they should be, but in the real world most engines run richer air:fuel ratios to protect the engine and make sure that no knocking occurs, which leads to worse SFC figures. In the real world the best SFC figures are achieved at the highest load that maintains closed loop control at 14.7:1 (or if Orbital is doing the testing 14.5:1).

SFC has nothing to do with real world driving, it means the engine create X amount of power for Y amount of fuel used,Not quite. SFC means it takes X amount of fuel to produce Y amount of power per unit time. It is a direct measurement of the efficiency of the engine and therefore has quite alot to do with real world driving.

Honda did slightly better with their latest Vtec I believe called A-Vtec where instead of just adjusting lift it also adjusts timing, forget about ever getting a license though.Honda VTEC systems have been able to change timing since 2001 (2002 in the US) with i-VTEC. One of the best valvetrain systems out there now is the BMW Valvetronic and VANOS technologies. Used together they provide infinitely variable lift control (the engine is throttled by the lift of the intake valves it no longer has a throttle valve) as well as infinitly variable timing.

read about it here:BMW Valvetronic (http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/mm_valvetronic.html?content_type=/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/mm_valvetronic.html&source=/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/vanos_double_vanos.html&article=mm_valvetronic)

hightower99
04-20-2008, 03:19 AM
One thing I have found from setting fuel mixtures on a dyno is that once you put the engine in a vehicle you have to adjust the fuel mixtures to that vehicle a 14.7:1 or lean mixture at WOT produces a surge type feel, which is eliminated by richening the mixture up to 13.5:1.Can you explain this alittle more. What do you mean by a "surge type feel"? Normally maps are designed to use open-loop rich mixtures at WOT to protect the engine from knock.

You may or may not agree with me, but this is why all electronic fuel management systems go into "Open Loop" at high loading situations. If 14.7:1 was optimal at WOT, there would be no need for "Open Loop"But running at stoichiometric (14.7:1) is optimal (even at WOT) the only reason it needs to be rich is because you don't want the engine to knock at high load, high RPM.

Matra et Alpine
04-20-2008, 11:11 AM
Honda VTEC systems have been able to change timing since 2001 (2002 in the US) with i-VTEC.
Need to keep up to speed with innovations if you want to be designing your own, ht :) Honda's latest is A-VTEC and patent was published over a year ago.
While BMW certainly trumped the rest of the market on getting such a system into production, Honda’s additional years of research seem to have paid off with several advantages. Take a look at the drawings here - BMW World - Technology (http://www.bmwworld.com/technology/valvetronic.htm) You will notice several things about BMW’s application. First, Valvetronic increases the height of the valvetrain and cylinder head quite substantially. Second, BMW’s intermediary actuator (I can’t quite call it a follower) is quite large, adding extra moving mass in the valvetrain (perhaps explaining the rpm limitations of the first generation Valvetronic engines). Finally, BMW’s implementation does not alter valve timing by moving the cam centerline. This means that in order to optimize low lift valve timing, BMW’s VANOS VTC system _must_ be applied as well to advance valve opening. By comparison, VTC control seems far less critical on A-VTEC. So, in summary, reduced size, mass and self regulating VTC all would appear to be advantages of A-VTEC over Valvetronic

revetec
04-20-2008, 02:28 PM
Engine response must be quite nice, btw how is response with your sluggish looking bottom end? No offense of course, just saying it "looks" sluggish :)

You must understand that the "trilobe system" is running at only 1/3 engine speed. This means that the trilobes on acceleration require only 1/3 of the inertia. If you go to our website and look at the videos of the CCE2003 engine, we show the revving response. It revs quite fast and is not sluggish on any of our engines.

My opinion is that if you want to put BSFC figures out, compare it to the industry standard at 100% load and let it be what it is, but of course that is just my personal opinion. If your graph is indeed correct then it looks like your engine is right around the same level as a very good conventional engine, but I could be wrong, perhaps everyone is publishing 75% results and not 100???

100% load is not an industry standard. The common test is to the NED European standard which relates to real driving cycles. And most companies publish their best figure.

Edit: Okay I just looked at your site again and "14.5:1 of 238g/kWh (34.4%)" that looks "pretty much the same" as a decent conventional engine to me at the same ratio. Sorry I was just scanning this forum, though you got 207g/kwh at 14.7:1.

In the comparison note that I designed the heads in 2 weeks with no CFD. The heads are two valve and is a hydraulic lifter push rod design. Our next round of testing will incorporate a higher level of top end technology.

Our engine uses different piston acceleration and piston dwell than a conventional engine, and our engines have always run better on a leaner mixture. Most of the tests were done at 14.5:1 due to the standard required for optimal Catalytic Converter operation. 15.2:1 is like a top limit for a Cat. There are Cats out there that can operate at a leaner mixture so this is not a problem.

We would like to test leaner but in our first test it was not necessary from our results of 207g/kW-h. Normally a conventional engine power drops at 15.2:1 so it is not used under any serious loading, although, many engines these days run up to 17:1 A/F under prolonged cruise.

Finally note the graph you posted with the two valve and four valve engines. Even the four valve engine has the best BSFC at about 75% load.

Hightower99: I've heard many engines knock, and most commonly it occurs at lower RPMs such as accelerating from a standing start or in the transition from cruise speed to a heavy load. Both I would say it is most common in the 2,000-3,000rpm range. I'm not saying it doesn't occur at higher RPM, just from my experience from being an automotive mechanical engineer for 25years and driving thousands of cars, this is where I have mainly heard it.

hightower99
04-21-2008, 02:24 AM
Need to keep up to speed with innovations if you want to be designing your own, ht :) Honda's latest is A-VTEC and patent was published over a year ago.

Well I was replying to the comment that it was only recently that VTEC was able to control timing. VTC is part of the i-VTEC system which has been around since 2001.

I do know about the speculation surrounding the A-VTEC system but as of yet, it hasn't been made yet. AFAIK the patent that they think is A-VTEC is from 2005. I figure it is somewhat moot trying to compare a patent application to current working production units, as the actual production system that honda brings out could be very different. I have to say that I dissagree with the notion that valvetronic increases cylinder head height significantly. The componants do look to be taller but they are still stuffed into roughly the same hieght. I also think it is abit of a cheap shot to mention that the valvetronic needs VANOS (like it's a bad thing) even though the valvetronic package includes VANOS as part of the complete package. Not to mention that Honda will undoubtably include VTC in A-VTEC.


I've heard many engines knock, and most commonly it occurs at lower RPMs such as accelerating from a standing start or in the transition from cruise speed to a heavy load. Both I would say it is most common in the 2,000-3,000rpm range. I'm not saying it doesn't occur at higher RPM, just from my experience from being an automotive mechanical engineer for 25years and driving thousands of cars, this is where I have mainly heard it. Yes that is right. But i would say that it is easier to notice knocking at low RPM and that you absolutely wouldn't want it to occur at high RPM (where you might have 5-10 heavy knocks happen before you can react and let up). My point was that the reason that engines run open-loop rich at WOT is to protect against knock (at all speeds).

revetec
04-21-2008, 03:23 PM
Yes that is right. But i would say that it is easier to notice knocking at low RPM and that you absolutely wouldn't want it to occur at high RPM (where you might have 5-10 heavy knocks happen before you can react and let up). My point was that the reason that engines run open-loop rich at WOT is to protect against knock (at all speeds).

To some degree you are correct. Basically a fuel map is set up to provide a mixture that is lean enough to provide the best performance while providing a level of emissions to an acceptable point. Compression ratio, fuel rating, combustion chamber design, fuel system, fuel mixture, ignition map, engine and combustion chamber temperature etc. all play a part in this scenario. Some engines are more prone to detonate due to their design, and also carbon build up is also a factor. A lower compression engine will not be as prone to detonation as a higher compression engine as well.

Maybe sweeping statements from either you or myself on this point will not be 100% correct, due to the amount of variables in this argument.

There is no doubt that a richer mixture will aid in reducing detonation, but also a higher octane fuel will also do the same thing. Get my point?

Basically you tune an engine to the highest performance with a reasonable level of emissions. Included in this process is not allowing the engine to detonate. A slightly leaner mixture than 14.7:1 usually gives the best power result, but a consideration has to be made to Nox as a leaner mixture usually produces higher Nox. Funny thing is that our engine produced less Nox at a leaner mixture, but this is probably a combustion chamber design issue.

Then the closed loop parameters are set to provide an air/fuel ratio that allows the Catalytic Converter to operate properly.

I suppose we were both looking at this the wrong way around. Open loop is usually the optimal power Vs emissions program, while closed loop is a fine tuning for the Cat and the lowest emissions, (instead of the argument that closed loop is the set mixture and a richer mixture in "Open Loop" is used to reduce detonation?) Correct? :)

hightower99
04-21-2008, 11:25 PM
I suppose we were both looking at this the wrong way around. Open loop is usually the optimal power Vs emissions program, while closed loop is a fine tuning for the Cat and the lowest emissions, (instead of the argument that closed loop is the set mixture and a richer mixture in "Open Loop" is used to reduce detonation?) Correct? :)

I have to say I totally agree.

I think I am going to look at the issue of fueling like this in the future, makes it easier to explain to those that are not overly car-literate.

Revetec Raptor
05-17-2008, 10:13 PM
Revetec, it's has been a long time between beers !

Even though I personally (& probably many others) have had blind faith for the past 11 years, the independent BSFC figures were great to finally receive.
It has stopped all communications from the technical geeks & knockers on this forum - speculation has given way to information.

The BSFC figures have had little effect, other than a small price spike for a day or so.
So, I find myself asking what is needed ?
I think the answer lays in not making excuses, but simply producing some figures of long-term operational reliability (road testing), correct me if I am wrong, this has not been done for 11 years ?

Congratulations Brad, you have done some wonderfully upgrades to your web site over the last 12 months.
However, during the time you have spend building the website facade of Revetec (http://www.revetec.com/development.htm), you appear to have not even bothered seriously calculating on your solid edge software.
A small Aviation (PPG 100~500cc) V60 degree or inline engine, as one of the most desirable 4stroke aviation engines in the PPG industry appears to be very reliable. Most of the 2 stroke engines currently in this field, only appear to have a short rebuild life span.
The 4 stroke engine Bailey Aviation (http://www.baileyaviation.com/4stroke.htm) use appear to be leading the way for a while. They don't seem to have any significant technical figures other than the reliability factor and better fuel economy over a 2 stroke.

Brad, when you tell me Revetec is about to do a mass marketing campaign, I hope you don't mean a web site upgrade !
Why can't Revetec simply fit the current X4 into a vehicle & actually produce some long term operational reliability of the engine. I consider this to be the only news that will ignite some serious interest in the Revetec Technology.

All the faithful shareholders as well as the NSX (http://www.nsxa.com.au/prices_alpha.asp?nsxcode=RVC) are long overdue for some real update on what has been happening within Revetec !

revetec
05-22-2008, 02:07 PM
Dear Raptor,

I think these type of questions are most suitable to be sent to me in an email. This is because this is a technical forum on the technology, not a bulletin board or Shareholder information resource for Revetec.

If I treated it as a bulletin Board or a Shareholder information resource outlet, I think the Administrators to Ultimatecarpage.com would not like it. I would like to adhere to their guidelines and remain an active poster in these pages.

Another reason is that I am not going to discuss on forums what our company strategy is, and why we do what we do, and when.

Any company questions other than technical ones maybe sent to me via email from our website.

I have mentioned this to you before Dennis in a phone conversation, and I'm not going to break the forum rules for your lack of following the correct procedure, when asking such questions. An email is as easy as posting on a forum.

If you have a technical question directly relating to our technology, I will do my up-most to respond.

Revetec Raptor
06-03-2008, 06:59 PM
Dear Raptor,

I think these type of questions are most suitable to be sent to me in an email. This is because this is a technical forum on the technology, not a bulletin board or Shareholder information resource for Revetec.

If I treated it as a bulletin Board or a Shareholder information resource outlet, I think the Administrators to Ultimatecarpage.com would not like it. I would like to adhere to their guidelines and remain an active poster in these pages.
This is simply semantics when it suits Revetec ! (a bit like a wheel stand, sounds good - means nothing)
Drop the conspiracy theory by blaming others on the inability of Revetec to market itself professionally.

Another reason is that I am not going to discuss on forums what our company strategy is, and why we do what we do, and when.
Many many companies announce what their business strategies are to the public. Stop hiding behind what appears to be fast becoming 'welfare recipient technology'.
Pouting to this forum that you are only spending a few hours setting up the heads & 15 minutes to set up the new piston configurations, just prior to spending $50`000 for Orbital to test the engine, makes Revetec appear incompetent & brain dead ...to say the least.
If/when the money dries up from the government grant or John L, I wonder what will become of Revetec !

Any company questions other than technical ones maybe sent to me via email from our website.
On the website we see old photos of a Revetec engine being fitted into a vehicle. I/ we have introduced hundreds of people to the Revetec technology and have found that most people are not stupid to understanding technology. The two most common questions are, "is it like a Rotary engine" or "has it been tested in a vehicle" !
So, why have we not heard of any engine reliability feedback ? An engine in a trike doing wheel stands is spin and bravado. Here is a revolutionary idea how about you show it simply being run in a vehicle ?
Also, why have all the previous engines not been tested for reliability ?

I have mentioned this to you before Dennis in a phone conversation, and I'm not going to break the forum rules for your lack of following the correct procedure, when asking such questions. An email is as easy as posting on a forum.
What you say to a shareholder should be public, unless you are talking about verbal marketing (pie in the sky conversations) that have no foundation on current reality !
We have always been sceptical to the fact we don't get any detailed minutes nor video (we see a video in the photos) from any previous shareholders meetings. It is not sufficient to satisfy the demands and obligations required by revetec to their shareholders. Inadequate one line spin, that leave us thinking, why is it more convenient to hold shareholders meetings on the Goldcoast ?

If you have a technical question directly relating to our technology, I will do my up-most to respond.
YEAH !

Matra et Alpine
06-04-2008, 02:38 AM
What you say to a shareholder should be public
Please keep your personal gripes OUT fo this forum.

Thank you.

Oh and btw just to correct a legal point.
What a company choses to say to a shareholder in private - either 1-1 conversation or properly consituted meeting IS PRIVATE. As an investor you should know that, especially if serious about investing.

wagga
06-06-2008, 02:34 AM
thank you raptor

wagga
06-10-2008, 11:09 PM
why are we still in theory mode when are we going to see this motor do some real work or are we still thinking about it for another 12 years come on wake up and have a go

CHOOK
06-11-2008, 06:01 AM
Hi Brad

Interesting news today with the government giving Toyota $35M for building hybrid cars in Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/toyota-deal-only-a-start-for-hybrids/2008/06/10/1212863646299.html). :eek::confused:
It reminded me of another thread early last year.


You may not know but Revetec has 50% marketing rights to a hybrid system technology. The electric wheel hub motors are 97% efficient and 98% efficient as used as a generator.

I actually ran seminars on our Hybrid system at the Automechanica show in China. It is fully tested and has been in production for many years in another transportation industry and it has been fitted to a Lotus for continued testing.

Can you shed any more light on the status of this project? I'm sure you'd love to get a piece of that $500M pie to help out.:D

Good luck with your marketing strategy and negotiations with the auto companies now that the independant testing has been completed.

This kind of information is confidential and any leakage of your strategies to competitors could no doubt jeopodise any deal being signed. I'm sure your releasing of Revetec's marketing strategy and progress on any potential deals will be made in due course and through the correct channels; not a public forum. Pity a very small minority of shareholders don't understand that you can't disclose certain information unless it is released through the correct channels and with right timing.

It has stopped all communications from the technical geeks & knockers on this forum.

Not all :rolleyes:

Cheers

wagga
06-14-2008, 02:45 AM
Time is money and the directors have too much time, so why will they not move aside and give someone else a go? I am sure out of the 1600+ share holders we would find managers who would work and bring fresh ideas into our company ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE so please keep the share holders more informed with what is going on with the motor and the marketing.

wagga
06-16-2008, 02:19 AM
WANTED 3 directors must be able to do as the 3 monkies do see nothing say nothing hear nothing pay is excellent plus benefits good jet ski provided t.a.p

3yearsharehold
06-19-2008, 09:58 PM
I dont understand the logic behind Aussie gov handing toyota $55mil when revetec engines more fuel efficient
Revetec did you do some research with QLD UNI hybrid ?
as I remember it they stated the REVETEC HYBRID as unbeatable
so why dont you ask for the full $500mil! If you dont ask you dont get:(

Brake specific fuel consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_specific_fuel_consumption)

3yearsharehold
06-19-2008, 10:13 PM
BTW you dont need a automotive engineer certificate to drive a dump truck and this pays more than Revetec directors are earning :rolleyes:

wagga
06-23-2008, 03:54 AM
well the way things seem to be going they might be better off becoming dump truck drivers. any way seeing you know how much they are on you must know a lot more how about you telling the rest of us shareholders what is going on with the motor and the marketing

3yearsharehold
06-23-2008, 10:26 PM
Wagga as far as the motor and marketing are concerned, Revetec management are the only ones that knows what's happening.
If you read the agm report on the NSXA dated 30 6 2007 page 23 you will see that the directors receive around $400 000 total, this is an approx increase on 2006 of 33%

As there are mistakes in all the prospectuses and agm reports (including agm-30/06/07- approx $2 000 out) it is very hard to have a clear vision of the company.
No doubt this has been noted by many potential investors and manufacturers. There are no financial statements or reports on the new Revetec website, if there is I cant find them as the font size is too small.
All this said, I have voiced my opinion on Revetec management skills before.
Great mechanics and tool makers do not necessarily have any management and marketing skill.
In my opinion Revetec do not have suitably qualified staff to adequately market their product.
It is absolutely ridiculous to have only two people working on and building the most fuel efficient petrol motor in the world.
The reliance on Orbital to gain info on new head design plus fuel injection is ludricious.
They should have a minimum of 10 teams working on different designs plus fuels to suit different markets.

Revetec have a golden opportunity to hound federal government for as much of the 1/2 billion dollars as possible.
The Victorian government gave Toyota 20 million in lurks and perks, so Revetec should ask all states/ territories for funding.

3yearsharehold
06-23-2008, 10:28 PM
Have you contacted the media about the independent testing results, if not why?
The raptor has voiced his concern as to AGM location, I plus many other shareholders I have spoken to feel the same.
Maybe Revetec could organise it for Sydney next time as this is more central to the 1500+ shareholders.

wagga
06-26-2008, 02:47 AM
great idea about n.s.w we could get cheap rates in the cargo section of the plane for them seeing they only get peanuts for pay
we really have only got ourself to blame we have sat around and watch our company fall apart and let these directors get full pay and contract out all the work and sit around with a hammer chisel and grinder and make out that they built the engine we could have done the same thing ourself and still held down a full time job and not burden the company financially
we must boot to of the directors out this year and take control of our company
the only ones marking money out of revetec are those how bought in early at 75 to one then received a 10 to one share split then a 20 to one share split that is why we have have some share holders with millions of shares and off loading them on the n.s.x thanks to peanut directors we have now and over the years
time is money and it is time for a change

Kozy
06-26-2008, 05:23 PM
What is all this about? This obviously makes sense to those in the know, but for the rest of us?

clutch-monkey
06-27-2008, 12:21 AM
Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy : Gas 2.0 (http://gas2.org/2008/06/26/low-cost-gas-engine-innovation-doubles-fuel-economy/)
haha, saw you featured in a blog revetec :D

3yearsharehold
06-27-2008, 05:30 PM
Revetec what's new ?
Any update on X4 patent pending application, are you still confident on the granting ???
As you probable wont see a cent of the 1/2 billion dollars unless you are granted the patent and prove reliability.


Maybe you would of proven reliability if you had more funding . My post 725 24/7/07
" If Revetec list 50mil more shares at 3c and sold for same this would amount to $1.5 mil, then they could afford more help and possibly secure a loan for same as a mil grant wont stretch very fare" .

Revetec do you remember posting this in response to my posting
"So what you are saying is that the Directors should support a low share price by selling shares at 3 cents? The Directors not only don't support such a low share price, the shareholders would not like the dilution in shares. It's this type of situation that hopefully will be rectified when we release the next round of figures from the X4v2."

We can hope for a miracle.

BTW have you see this before Brad Harold Caminez: Internal Combustion Engine ~ US Patent # 1,714,847 (http://www.rexresearch.com/caminez/1caminez.htm)

revetec
06-29-2008, 03:22 PM
This is simply semantics when it suits Revetec ! (a bit like a wheel stand, sounds good - means nothing)
Drop the conspiracy theory by blaming others on the inability of Revetec to market itself professionally.

So you are critisizing one video on our website? So you think reaching 207g/(kW-h) in independent testing means nothing? There is no conspiracy theory other than in your own mind. It takes time to market the technology in the marketplace. (If you are referring to public marketing, I have already given two interviews.) We are doing well and when it comes time to announce it, it will be on the NSXA first, not a forum. This is the law.

Many many companies announce what their business strategies are to the public.

They don't announce their business strategies on a forum. The information you refer to is on our website.

Pouting to this forum that you are only spending a few hours setting up the heads & 15 minutes to set up the new piston configurations, just prior to spending $50`000 for Orbital to test the engine, makes Revetec appear incompetent & brain dead ...to say the least.


I couldn't find my comments on this forum you refer to. We had designed and manufactured parts waiting for the next strip down. These parts we ready, even before the test day. They took about 3 weeks to design and simulate stress, another 3 weeks to manufacture, and a week for hardening. We had a 3 week window from the test day to the supply of the engine to Orbital. We decided to perform the modification within this window to reduce the need for two test configurations (saving money). We spent about a week on the modification and build. We ran the engine in the trike for 15 minutes to make sure there were no issues, then crated the engine for shipping to Orbital. The modification paid off as our inhouse testing prior was 253g/(kW-h) and we achieved 207g/(kW-h) at Orbital.

On the website we see old photos of a Revetec engine being fitted into a vehicle. I/ we have introduced hundreds of people to the Revetec technology and have found that most people are not stupid to understanding technology. The two most common questions are, "is it like a Rotary engine" or "has it been tested in a vehicle" !
So, why have we not heard of any engine reliability feedback ? An engine in a trike doing wheel stands is spin and bravado. Here is a revolutionary idea how about you show it simply being run in a vehicle ?
Also, why have all the previous engines not been tested for reliability

If the people you have introduced to Revetec can understand our technology, why would they make a comment like "is it like a Rotary engine"? And if they have seen the trike videos, why would they make a comment like "has it been tested in a vehicle"? The test day lasted for quite a few hours driving the engine quite hard. I'm not going to post over an hour of video footage, I posted highlights. We have always promoted the low down torque as a feature of our engine's characteristic. Other than accelerating hard with little throttle and lifting the front wheel, how else could you demonstrate this in a video, rather than physically driving it?

We have performed hundreds of hours of dyno testing of our engines.

Other than one video, we demonstrated it driving on the road (two of the videos in our gallery) The wheelstanding video gets 10 times more hits than any other video on our website.

What you say to a shareholder should be public, unless you are talking about verbal marketing (pie in the sky conversations) that have no foundation on current reality !
We have always been sceptical to the fact we don't get any detailed minutes nor video (we see a video in the photos) from any previous shareholders meetings. It is not sufficient to satisfy the demands and obligations required by revetec to their shareholders. Inadequate one line spin, that leave us thinking, why is it more convenient to hold shareholders meetings on the Goldcoast?

The shareholder meetings are what the term descibes - for shareholders. You must be a Shareholder to attend, and all shareholders are welcome to listen and give comments or ask questions. If you are a shareholder and want a copy of my speech at the meeting because you can't attend, then you can email me requesting a copy. Information is given at the meeting including strategies and events (good or bad) to provide an overview of where we sit. Non-shareholders are not privy to this information.

The General Meetings must be held within a certain distance from the company's place of business. I have been asked this question many times, and I am still trying to get a Sydney meeting. If I can't get an AGM in Sydney this year, I will try to hold a follow up meeting in Sydney if I can. Believe me, I have tried to do this previously, and I will try again.

A final comment: Again you have tried to use this technical forum for issues other than technical information and discussion. If you have any issues with Revetec other than technical ones, please contact me anytime. I am usually available to take calls on 0433 160643 or via email at brad@revetec.com

revetec
06-29-2008, 03:32 PM
Hi Brad

Interesting news today with the government giving Toyota $35M for building hybrid cars in Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/toyota-deal-only-a-start-for-hybrids/2008/06/10/1212863646299.html). :eek::confused:
It reminded me of another thread early last year.

Can you shed any more light on the status of this project? I'm sure you'd love to get a piece of that $500M pie to help out.:D

I have given an interview to the media regarding this about a week ago. I will post the article to our website and this forum (if ok with Ultimatecarpage admin?)

Good luck with your marketing strategy and negotiations with the auto companies now that the independant testing has been completed.

Thanks, we are starting to make ground with the car companies, now that the oil price is rising.

This kind of information is confidential and any leakage of your strategies to competitors could no doubt jeopodise any deal being signed. I'm sure your releasing of Revetec's marketing strategy and progress on any potential deals will be made in due course and through the correct channels; not a public forum. Pity a very small minority of shareholders don't understand that you can't disclose certain information unless it is released through the correct channels and with right timing.

This is true. I will state again that when dealing with any potential client, the first thing signed is a non-disclosure document. We make every effort to disclose as much information as we can. Most information we have given in the past has been written by the other party's legal department. This is how it is, and I wish I could say more.

revetec
06-29-2008, 03:51 PM
Time is money and the directors have too much time, so why will they not move aside and give someone else a go? I am sure out of the 1600+ share holders we would find managers who would work and bring fresh ideas into our company ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE so please keep the share holders more informed with what is going on with the motor and the marketing.

WANTED 3 directors must be able to do as the 3 monkies do see nothing say nothing hear nothing pay is excellent plus benefits good jet ski provided t.a.p

Too much time? I usually get to work at 5-6am and work until around 6-7pm (13 hours a day) Now we are moving through the corporate marketing stage, we are looking for Directors with experience in what is now needed. We have talked to a couple of candidates and evaluating the impact of remuneration for the right people. Further details regarding this will be brought up at the AGM.

BTW: My stress outlet was Jetskiing (my only hobbie at the time) but I no longer do this or own a jetski as I have had no time to do it. (For about two years now). If you think I'm a monkey, so be it. I can't please everyone. What I have done is produce about 30% more efficiency from an engine which is what I said from the start (in independent testing) which is a bit more than a monkey can do.

Thanks for the recognition in doing so. :rolleyes: (a sarcastic comment)

revetec
06-29-2008, 04:36 PM
All this said, I have voiced my opinion on Revetec management skills before.
Great mechanics and tool makers do not necessarily have any management and marketing skill.

We have had many meetings with major car companies in the past. All conversations have ended up at them requesting independent BSFC figures to prove the technology. We have now done this.

No extra corporate marketing has been needed until we had completed this phase, so all efforts over the last 2 years has been R&D to produce significantly better and compelling figures. There is a clear proceedure for getting it into the market. In the transition period into marketing we are using several consultants. Once we reach a reasonable stage of marketing we will be ready to bring the correct persons for the board positions required. We have already started looking at several people for suitability for these positions. We will discuss this at the AGM, and hopefully have things arranged for a vote at that meeting.

It is absolutely ridiculous to have only two people working on and building the most fuel efficient petrol motor in the world.

Well it is ridiculous, and I would have loved more funding and help to get the job done quicker. Firstly it would take more time and a far greater budget to find the correct persons or company, and train them up to speed. Paul and myself took 6 months to design and build the X4v2 engine which achieved 207g/(kW-h) A lot of research, comittment and long hours was taken to achieve such a thing. Does anyone think it was an easy job? Well the two of us achieved what our previous seven man team couldn't, in a quarter of the time frame it took them to build the 1,350cc RHL4 engine. It dioesn't happen from sitting on our behinds. Do some poeple really think we sit around doing nothing? We achieved a better figure of 207g/(kW-h) at Orbital with 0.25% of the budget that a normal car company spends to achieve a BSFC figure of 260g/(kW-h). It would be great for our company to have a $300million budget to design and test an engine.

The reliance on Orbital to gain info on new head design plus fuel injection is ludricious.

I don't really think you know what Orbital actually does these days. They do exactly what you described for a great deal of the world's top car companies.

They should have a minimum of 10 teams working on different designs plus fuels to suit different markets.

Let's look at this senario: 10 teams with let's say 3 people per team for a yearly budget. Let's say that these people are highly skilled. The labour rate would be at least $100 an hour. Each person would cost about $200,000, so three would be about $600,000. Times ten teams is $6million. Build for ten prototype (fully machined) engines would be around $1million. Independent test costs per week $50,000. Let's say 4 tests per engine is $2 million.

Total yearly budget $9million. Usually this takes two years to complete, so we need about $18million for the project as you describe. Government funding (if sucessful is $1 for $1) would mean we would need to have $9million to do this as you've described. We haven't even factored in a facility to carry this work out in.

Revetec have a golden opportunity to hound federal government for as much of the 1/2 billion dollars as possible.
The Victorian government gave Toyota 20 million in lurks and perks, so Revetec should ask all states/ territories for funding.

We are currently hounding.

revetec
06-29-2008, 04:44 PM
BTW have you see this before Brad Harold Caminez: Internal Combustion Engine ~ US Patent # 1,714,847 (http://www.rexresearch.com/caminez/1caminez.htm)

Yes, I've seen this before (about ten years ago). Without a counter-rotation cam, the application angle from the bearing to the cam produces high side thrusts, thus reduces reliability.

CHOOK
06-29-2008, 06:39 PM
What is all this about? This obviously makes sense to those in the know, but for the rest of us?

Kozy - I hope all subsequent posts have now shown you and everyone else who read this thread who actually is in the know and who think they are in the know and those who think they know anything about running a public company but who actually know SFA about anything. :D

Thanks Brad for your updates. It all sounds promising and we patiently await the publishing of the interviews and any other news coming up. I don't know any other company director who spends his time answering questions in a public forum let alone coming back after being harrassed to the point of reading defamatory statements made against him. I hope you do have a shareholder meeting one day in Sydney and I hope some of these gutless clowns show up and make the same claims at the meeting. But somehow I doubt they would be manly enough.

Cheers

Matra et Alpine
06-29-2008, 07:24 PM
Thasnk for the info Brad.

Please, as we recommended before, don't give fuel to the idiots who ask you confidential info or make comments.
Ignore them adn we'll clean the dross out as we go.

Best wishes for the on-going tasks.

revetec
06-29-2008, 11:14 PM
I just recieved an email that said the article I did an interview for will come out next week. I know it will be in the Courier Mail (Brisbane) but I don't know who else may pick it up. So now everyone has notice.

Cheers
Brad

3yearsharehold
06-30-2008, 01:50 AM
"We have had many meetings with major car companies in the past. All conversations have ended up at them requesting independent BSFC figures to prove the technology. We have now done this."

All I have spoken to are asking about BSFC figures and RELIABILITY.

" Paul and myself took 6 months to design and build the X4v2 engine which achieved 207g/(kW-h) A lot of research, comittment and long hours was taken to achieve such a thing. Does anyone think it was an easy job?"

I'm sure you both have worked your ass off .

"I don't really think you know what Orbital actually does these days. They do exactly what you described for a great deal of the world's top car companies."

Well I know a little in what's going on , when it comes to companies I own shares in :) , besides revetec.

"Total yearly budget $9million. Usually this takes two years to complete, so we need about $18million for the project as you describe. Government funding (if successful is $1 for $1) would mean we would need to have $9million to do this as you've described. We haven't even factored in a facility to carry this work out in."

You need to apply presser to get any where with governments , the media media media is the only way to go, dont pussie around , let the public know your AUSTRALIAN product is worlds best .
You should know the federal government is great at back flips , as fare as the $1 for $1 is concerned .
If ford gets a chunk and revetec dont I will contact the media myself.
So $20 million only 4% , ask for $100mil at least!

"We are currently hounding."
Good Good , As Fare as facilities, the states + territory have empty buildings every where .

3yearsharehold
06-30-2008, 01:56 AM
BTW the Courier Mails just a local free rag , isn't it.

3yearsharehold
06-30-2008, 02:11 AM
China Aviation Industry Corp could be interested in you technology

Finance, Business and Company News - Yahoo!7 (http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080630/33/1t8gp.html)

3yearsharehold
06-30-2008, 01:24 PM
Radio Interview 2UE Sydney ....RUDD & LAWS
Australian Labor Party : Green Car Innovation Fund (http://www.alp.org.au/media/0307/riloo160.php)

Rudd: We’re not picking technologies here. That’s what the private sector does best. But we want to say, “Here’s $500 million from government. You get into that on a three dollar for one dollar basis as industry, and you get a slice of that in terms of your innovation”.

revetec
06-30-2008, 02:24 PM
BTW the Courier Mails just a local free rag , isn't it.

No it's not, it's Brisbane's main paper. The article is written by a NewsLimited reporter.

revetec
06-30-2008, 02:31 PM
Radio Interview 2UE Sydney ....RUDD & LAWS
Australian Labor Party : Green Car Innovation Fund (http://www.alp.org.au/media/0307/riloo160.php)

Rudd: We’re not picking technologies here. That’s what the private sector does best. But we want to say, “Here’s $500 million from government. You get into that on a three dollar for one dollar basis as industry, and you get a slice of that in terms of your innovation”.


Thanks for the link, very interesting. I haven't seen in the Media a mention of the 3-1 before, it's always described as a "Gift".

We've been working on getting an audience with Rudd. Hopefully we'll get to meet with him soon.

Cheers
Brad

revetec
06-30-2008, 02:34 PM
China Aviation Industry Corp could be interested in you technology

Finance, Business and Company News - Yahoo!7 (http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080630/33/1t8gp.html)


But a turboprop is a shaft drive jet, so not our market.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Turboprop_operation.png

Cheers

wagga
06-30-2008, 10:34 PM
here we go again more crap and more time wasting same story and still no solution we have been holding on for year after year after year just change the director at this agm we really would be better off we must be six years over due and millions of dollars down the drain and still they are asking for more time and more money from the government Any body would think they have become over paid doll bloodgers i think there time must be up by now TIME FORE A CHANGE
hey chook pull your out of the directors ass as it must be hurting him by now and find your self a rooster

IBrake4Rainbows
06-30-2008, 11:03 PM
Your finely crafted and stunningly succinct reply is somehow lacking in both spelling, grammar & punctuation.

But thanks for trying.

wagga
07-01-2008, 12:15 AM
thats OK as long as you can understand it thats all that matters using American spell check the grammer is all mine i can teach you if you like it is not hard

IBrake4Rainbows
07-01-2008, 12:22 AM
The words you have misspelt are the same in either version of the English language.

Furthermore, your previous post was in fact incredibly difficult to decipher due to the lack of proper punctuation and spelling. one wasn't entirely sure what you were saying, or where to take a pause.

If you are going to criticise an organisation for it's work than you had best come prepared with something better written and more thoroughly researched, otherwise you simply come off looking like a fool.

The Revetec engine is a part of our forums that we are quite protective of - mostly to try and stop incidents such as this - where someone from the outside of the project seeks to derail it.

So, unless you have anything constructive, positive or useful to say, I dare suggest you save the keystrokes.

3yearsharehold
07-01-2008, 01:35 AM
"I haven't seen in the Media a mention of the 3-1 before, it's always described as a "Gift".

By Toyota's lack of excitement , I doubt they asked for it , so it was a gift.

"But a turboprop is a shaft drive jet, so not our market".

Sorry about that, got a little exited reading that this morning before a coffee.

Anyway good luck with Rudd meeting , put some super glue on your hand before shaking , so you have plenty of time to hold him to any deal .

wagga
07-01-2008, 02:12 AM
I must thank you for your lecture and I do agree with you about my poor eduction it has been a big problem in my life since I left at 14 sob sob could please explain to me and some of us uneducated shareholder how do we make this company work as their is to many well educated people in this would including the revetec directors but when it comes to making money that eduction goes out the door so they put their hands up in the air and say we cannot do this any more so please give me more money and time and then they leave it to some of us poor dummy shareholders to pull them out of the sit again and again so if education really works go and have a good look at the share price and tell us What has gone wrong and please spare me that it will take more time and more money and if you want to go down the tube with theses directors then go but I for one will go down fighting and hopefully try and turn this company around with better director with fresh idea's and motivation so if you cannot see the writing on the wall about how revetec is going your really need and eduction in how a business work's so please read it as it is and thank for your input and I am not being sarcastic

LotusLocost
07-01-2008, 02:32 AM
Those of you who claim to be shareholders in this company:
Please take this debate out of this forum right away! It has nothing to do with us outsiders, and I am sure it is only interesting for the involved. If you don't stop discussing the Revetec company structure and leadership in here, I will close this thread, and I will not permit you into this website again.

It's a shame to close this thread really, cause it has been a good discussion channel for those who believe, and those who have doubt about the technology behind the Revetec engine. And the debate and discussion have been hard and well backed up. Not cool of you two-three shareholders to ruin it. In the same turn, you actually let the public know how "bad" things are at Revetec, which also gives other potential investors no good reason to invest in the company. You are just ruing it for yourselves with this.

Revetec Raptor
07-01-2008, 03:03 AM
Please take this debate out of this forum right away!

New shareholders forum (http://www.revetec.com.au/), to keep this a Technical forum !!! :p

There is NOTHING "iffy" or "dubious" about the web site, it is a legal registered website !
It is an attempt to give shareholders a place to voice their Thoughts & Opinions, other than annoying people on this web site.
In fact there are links back to this site.

Matra et Alpine
07-01-2008, 03:10 AM
LL, whilst threatening thread closure would remove the children's opportunity to mouth-off, it also would limit the chances of the rest of us from reading Brad's on-going inputs on the TECHNOLOGY.
Those who take this into shareholder/business bleats have already been warned numerous times in the thread. UCP moderation rules permit us to ban you ( you KNOW who you are ) for periods at a time so that you ( you know who you are! ) will not be able to contribute till you cool down. So please save us the hassle and stick to the guidelines we've given often in this thread. KEEP THE SHAREHOLDER BUSINESS COMMENTS OUT OF HERE.

GTM
07-01-2008, 04:58 AM
Keep up the good work Brad. Nobody is more dedicated then you when it comes to developing Revetec into a successful engine technology. Pioneering this technology has been a huge acheivement, getting it to this stage is no mean feat. I know many of the trials and tribulations you have been through.

Brad has given many of his years to developing the Revetec technology, he has sunk his life into the Revetec technology. He has riden the ups and downs many people couldn't bear. The world would be a duller place without engineers like Brad developing new technologies.

Brad has our total support. We support the Revetec Technology.

Revetec Raptor
07-01-2008, 05:03 AM
Interested parties would have noted that Revetec was removed from http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100:Complete_List
This is the peswiki BUMPED-OFF listing; http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:T100:Former
The reason for being bumped off, was the 50% better fuel efficiency claimed by Revetec was disproved by Orbital independent testing !
This may be the reason why many have shied away from Revetec technology.

Too many academics are chasing ultimate efficiency, which I suppose is ok for writing papers and going to conferences,

However, what should/would attract big investors, is the proving of low Vibration claims that are stated/speculated on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revetec.
Quote: "Due to controlled piston acceleration rates the CCE reduces engine vibration.[citation needed]"

Matra et Alpine
07-01-2008, 08:07 AM
Revetec-Raptor ... where did you get your reason for them being "bumped" ?

As I understand the PesWiki, the NEC Top100 is a fluid list with ONLY the top 10 - by their published criterion - being retained in the list.
Items aren't "removed" , they are judged and voted on according to 10 criteria. If you are in the top 100 then you stay in the list. If not then you get "dumped". Given the highly controversial and speculative headline-grabbing solutions in the list it's no surprise that plain ICE-improvements will drop off fairly quickly :)

So please confirm your source for the reasons you gave.


... and after that, drop it. THe thread is here for techies, if you want business then raise it in another forum please :)

revetec
07-01-2008, 03:12 PM
I do the best I can with the resources at hand. When I'm designing and building an engine I work about 16 hours a day. I do a huge amount of research when doing a project. I had a goal for the X4 to prove that our technology is the most efficient bottom end, which I have done. If anyone thinks this is an easy task, think again. If I was sitting around doing very little (or even a mediocre performance) in doing my job, there is no way we would even get close to 207g/(kW-h).

I can't really blame some shareholders who don't understand the work involved in this type of development, because it is not a common thing that the average person even has a slight exposure to.

What I can say is that look at the X4v2 engine in detail.

Estimate the time it takes for: Initial research into every part you can see in the models and engine pictures. Estimate the design times, stress analysis, modifications and machining and build times. Custom built manifolds etc. Finding and sourcing the correct ancillaries that fit the engine design such as alternator and water pump. If you know anything about engineering you may be able to do this.

Now look at fitting all the electronics, The custom wiring of all those sensors, engine control module, charging, starting and engine monitoring systems. Then the mounting on the dyno and customising cooling, exhaust etc. Then there is the programing of the ECU from scratch, ignition, injection and correction maps. The the engine is started and tuned over several weeks.

This is just a glimps into a six month period for two engineers. I'm not trying to justify my existence, just a blurb to show you what type of job I do. I do this all while also working on the running of the company. All that know me, know how hard I work and my dedication is no less than 100%.

It's disappointing that after all this dedication, hard work, the stress of testing and achieving the desired results, people who are ignorant of what we do and how hard it is to get the results needed for marketing our engine, spend five minutes of their time to have a go at me. Well if you are looking for your five minutes of fame, you have got it. Congratulations :rolleyes:

Since the testing we have been conversing with several parties to get this project to the next stage (manufacture). Unfortunately as I have said before, the parties always request talks to be confidential. Shareholders should really try to be business savy and understand this. Just because there has been no announcement since the testing doesn't mean nothing is happening. This stage takes more time than to build an engine. Furthermore it also takes time to pitch and meet with the government which we have also been working on. You would also be aware that for quite a period of time prior to this week, I haven't visited this forum. This has been purely due to the fact I haven't had time to drop in. Luckily I have had a few spare mornings to drop in and reply and I'm quite happy to do it when time permits.

This is a technical forum and I try to adhere to the forum rules of not overly promoting our company rather than discussing technology.

Again I will extend the invitation to Wagga, Revetec Raptor, or any other shareholder to contact me directly to discuss any concerns you may have. To date, none of you have done so. I will not judge you from your online comments and will not be conflictive, so you wont come underfire from me if you are nervous about discussing any issues you may have.

Any shareholder with any issues please contact me direct, and let's get this forum back to what the Ultimatecarpage members really want, Technical Discussion.

Cheers
Brad

Matra et Alpine
07-01-2008, 04:47 PM
http://www.rx8ownersclub.co.uk/forum/images/smiles/hesaid.gif

CHeers Brad. Hopefully your polite reminder and our warning will keep the irrelvant (to us) parts out of here and you less hassled.

CHOOK
07-01-2008, 05:10 PM
It does make one wonder whether some of these clowns are in fact shareholders or just idiotic fly-ins trying to destabilise Revetec's progress. Maybe that is why they haven't contacted Brad. Moderators please take note. You can delete those BS posts.

But there are quite a few long term shareholders here, one of which has actually signed a deal to get the engine in his trike, which support all actions taken by Revetec.

revetec
07-01-2008, 11:22 PM
Probably just a typo or oversight, but GTM trikes is not a shareholder in Revetec, they have signed an agreement to buy engines off us as a client. They have driven a trike with the X4v2 engine and are a very keen supporter. I think you meant forum member? Is that correct? Cheers

It does make one wonder whether some of these clowns are in fact shareholders or just idiotic fly-ins trying to destabilise Revetec's progress. Maybe that is why they haven't contacted Brad. Moderators please take note. You can delete those BS posts.

But there are quite a few long term shareholders here, one of which has actually signed a deal to get the engine in his trike, which support all actions taken by Revetec.

revetec
07-01-2008, 11:29 PM
http://www.rx8ownersclub.co.uk/forum/images/smiles/hesaid.gif

CHeers Brad. Hopefully your polite reminder and our warning will keep the irrelvant (to us) parts out of here and you less hassled.

Cheers, I don't mind getting hassled about the company (It's part of my job to get questions or gripes thrust apon me to answer), but this is not the correct place to do it. It's a Technical Forum. Every shareholder can ring me and voice their opinions, or if they want to do it publically, our Annual General Meeting is the correct place to do it. Then I will be put on the spot face to face to respond in front of all attending shareholders. Even if you cannot attend, you can ask someone else to ask the questions for you with giving a proxy to that person, and vote on your behalf as well.

Regards
Brad

CHOOK
07-02-2008, 03:48 AM
Probably just a typo or oversight, but GTM trikes is not a shareholder in Revetec, they have signed an agreement to buy engines off us as a client. They have driven a trike with the X4v2 engine and are a very keen supporter. I think you meant forum member? Is that correct? Cheers

Doh!!! :p

I did know that GTM wasn't a shareholder. I meant that one of the forum members supporting Revetec actually has a deal. :D

revetec
07-05-2008, 06:30 PM
Latest Article in the Media 5th June 2008

Brisbane Courier Mail (http://www.revetec.com/images/news/bris_couriermail_08_07_05_a4_rescale.jpg)

Cheers
Brad

3yearsharehold
07-06-2008, 07:18 PM
Was the article published last month, or 5th of July?

3yearsharehold
07-06-2008, 08:05 PM
I'm not trying to nit pick , but the majority of people reading the news article would believe/understand Toyotas Hybrid uses 236g/kwh as a complete system, when its for Engine only.

revetec
07-06-2008, 10:37 PM
Was the article published last month, or 5th of July?
5th July 2008, I now changed the file name....The tag was correct.... Sorry about the confusion...

revetec
07-06-2008, 10:55 PM
I'm not trying to nit pick , but the majority of people reading the news article would believe/understand Toyotas Hybrid uses 236g/kwh as a complete system, when its for Engine only.


And so is ours is Engine only @ 207g/(kW-h).
(Prius engine 34.7% - Revetec X4v2 engine 39.5%)

I don't write the media stories, I give comments and responses in an interview which are "Quoted".

You're still not impressed with the figure we got with a two valve, push rod head are you? :confused:
Oh well, can't impress or satisfy everyone. :rolleyes: The figure will only get better using the amount of top end technology they are using. Cheers

Jax
07-16-2008, 03:40 AM
Hi all,
New to this, do have a question though?????? Is it possible to have a 4.4L piston engine that is internally supercharged, has a 50kw motor/generator internally, has variable cam timing as well as varible compression ratio, does four strokes per revolution and is 60cm long and 45cm wide??????????????:rolleyes: Has anyone heard off such an engine?

RVC Shareholder
07-18-2008, 05:33 AM
Cheers, I don't mind getting hassled about the company (It's part of my job to get questions or gripes thrust apon me to answer), but this is not the correct place to do it. It's a Technical Forum. Every shareholder can ring me and voice their opinions, or if they want to do it publically, our Annual General Meeting is the correct place to do it. Then I will be put on the spot face to face to respond in front of all attending shareholders. Even if you cannot attend, you can ask someone else to ask the questions for you with giving a proxy to that person, and vote on your behalf as well.

Regards
Brad

When is the next AGM being held? I have been out of the loop for awhile and want to find out what has been happening and what's going on etc.

hightower99
07-18-2008, 03:34 PM
You're still not impressed with the figure we got with a two valve, push rod head are you? :confused:
Oh well, can't impress or satisfy everyone. :rolleyes: The figure will only get better using the amount of top end technology they are using. Cheers

Why do you keep leaning on this dubious fact?

Yes it is impressive that your engine achieved the BSFC figure that it did, but constantly going on and on about how it will be better if it had the same top-end tech as japanese automotive engines is simply not warrented.

How do you think 4VPC, and cam-phasing is going to increase your BSFC?

I find it interesting that they choose the engine in the Prius as an arbitrary "second best" engine when it comes to BSFC. It would be interesting to see where they got there value of 236g/kWh from. The engine in the Prius is toyota's 1NZ-FXE and it uses the atkinson cycle (which gains some efficiency through asymetric cycles).

BMW has released interesting BSFC figures for it's new 4 cylinder diesel engines (as low as 198g/kWh note:that is grams diesel not grams petrol so only 40% efficiency). It will be really interesting to see what BSFC the new petrol 4 cylinder engines can produce...

BTW: I hope you are planning on retesting the your engine once you have redesigned it for automotive purposes???

Jax
07-18-2008, 11:48 PM
356 n6ry

Jax
07-18-2008, 11:52 PM
I have to admit the revetec engine is somewhat unimpressive compared to the likes of the pulse turbine hybrid engine and the varible axial hybrid engine.

revetec
07-20-2008, 04:17 PM
Hightower: I don't want to go on and on about it. The engine was designed as a basic aviation engine, and the top end is resonably antiquated. We know from testing that we have alot to gain from improved head design.

Jax: Good comment, I applaud you. I'll look forward to seeing your daily driver with a pulse turbine hybrid or axial engine in it.

RVC Shareholder: AGM is after audit, as it is every year.

Cheers

Matra et Alpine
07-20-2008, 05:21 PM
Jax, please rather than posting random unsubstantiated points here, if you think there is better technology out there thne please create a thread and provide a full explanatino of the operation of the engine and the advnatages it brings and the known disadvantages it has.

THEN you will be contributing positively to the forum.

thank you

Jax
07-21-2008, 01:09 AM
I apologise for my lack of manners. I will gladly discuss the attributes of the pulse turbine hybrid however the variable axial hybrid shall remain a mystery for the time being! The pulse turbine hybrid works on thoeries similar to pulse detonation technology. Dual inline centrifugal compressors compress a charge into a circular array of cylinders. Fuel is added obviously, then the normal bang follows. The resulting expolsion powers a centrifugal turbine. The power needed to reach a suitable compression ratio is provided by a centrally mounted motor/generator. This motor/generator powers the vehicle until ignition takes over then battery charging occurs. The charge is controlled using an induction and exhaust disc valve system. In cruising mode opossing cylinders can cease fuel and ignition operations without throwing around a usless piston. Would you like to hear more???????

revetec
07-21-2008, 04:02 PM
That's all fine and I understand pulse turbines. They are good for uses which maintain a certain RPM but not really suitable for vehicles with a wide operational range and responsiveness required for them. Maybe your described cylinders should be referred to as combustion chambers? As a cylinder will confuse some people thinking there are pistons?

Pulse Detonation Turbine

http://lh4.ggpht.com/Revetec/SIUVR36jY-I/AAAAAAAABhs/S47MPPv2ids/s400/6666018-0-small.jpg

Matra et Alpine
07-21-2008, 04:13 PM
Would you like to hear more???????
Only if you'll READ what you're asked to do and act on it :(

Jax
07-21-2008, 09:20 PM
The combustion chambers are cylindrical, therefore I shall call them cylinders!!! As for your lovely little picture, the pulse tubine hybrid look nothing like that. The minimal acceleration lag is compensated by the electric motor. I would like to know what makes the revetec engines better than such engines as what BRD srl produce or the shane engine or even the piston rotor engines!!!!!

fpv_gtho
07-21-2008, 10:41 PM
revetec, i'm curious about the future development of your engine.

What do you see as the next big step in development? Would it be for instance the adoption of a multivalve/OHC layout?

What sort of investment ($$$) would you feel necessary to get to such a stage? I recall hearing your current work has been performed with a $1M government grant, which you had to match leaving $2M.

revetec
07-23-2008, 12:11 AM
revetec, i'm curious about the future development of your engine.

What do you see as the next big step in development? Would it be for instance the adoption of a multivalve/OHC layout?

What sort of investment ($$$) would you feel necessary to get to such a stage? I recall hearing your current work has been performed with a $1M government grant, which you had to match leaving $2M.

The grant was purly for the aviation engine. Our previous 2 engines were 4 valve per cylinder engines. We are currently revisiting the automotive market at the moment, and we have learnt a lot from the X series engines to increase efficiency of the following designs.

Cheers
Brad

revetec
07-23-2008, 12:33 AM
I would like to know what makes the revetec engines better than such engines as what BRD srl produce or the shane engine or even the piston rotor engines!!!!!

All of the engines you have identified are working on the same type of basic principal, and show merit. The benifit we have over those engines, is that we deflect side thrust to rotational force with the counter rotational cams. Not only does this increase efficiency, but also increases reliability. This is because when a bearing pushes on a cam, and the angle of push is over 30degrees from the piston stroke centreline, the side thrust greatly increases. We are push up to 45degrees on each cam compounding either direction to 90deg. One of those engines controls side thrust with a pivoting lever, but that also adds to reciprocating mass.

Cheers
Brad

Jax
07-23-2008, 02:59 AM
Bravo revetec!!! This same princapal I myself had problems with in the early stages of the piston rotor engines. I would also like to note that the X engines designed by BRD would blow the sump off on the down stroke due to over pressurization of the crank case. I myself found that a V model at 135 degrees of seperation was the best senario.

revetec
07-23-2008, 06:13 PM
Bravo revetec!!! This same princapal I myself had problems with in the early stages of the piston rotor engines. I would also like to note that the X engines designed by BRD would blow the sump off on the down stroke due to over pressurization of the crank case. I myself found that a V model at 135 degrees of seperation was the best senario.

Hehehe! Haven't you looked at the designs at all.

While those engines have both the pistons compressing the crankcase, you will notice our engine has both pistons on oposing cylinders travelling in the same direction creating no change in crankcase pressure other than gas lost past the rings.

And note: We use perfect seal gapless rings. So your comment is not very well thought out before posting it. You have just also identified a design fault in the other engines to everyone, and admitted you spent time on a design that had inherent faults.

Cheers
Brad

Revetec Raptor
07-24-2008, 12:25 AM
We are ALL looking to REAL testing !!!
Not the Bravado !
You say there are no weaknesses, other than gaining engineering perfection !!!
So, has there been no real testing in ANY 4 wheel vehicle ?
It appears ALL the previous engines have only been fitter into a Tonka toy trike.

As a matter of interest, what happened to ALL the previous engines we were told went over for MOU ?

What do Revetec envisage for a budget to FINISH a automotive engine ?

Have you organised a meeting with "Kevin-07" ?

Vision is expected !
But nothing expected.

Plan NOTHING and succeed at NOTHING !:eek:

Matra et Alpine
07-24-2008, 05:21 AM
STOP raising business issues here.
This forum appreciates the discussion but demanding that an answer is required in a public forum is plain stupidity.
Brad has already pointed out on numerous occasiosn the correct procedures for those types of questions.

Think NOTHING and ...... think ....... nothing ! :)

revetec
07-24-2008, 03:06 PM
We are ALL looking to REAL testing !!!
Not the Bravado !

Real testing? Independent testing at Orbital was Real testing. In car testing can't definitely prove fuel efficiency as there are variables that cannot be controlled. All car companies do testing in test cells before even thinking about fitting an engine into a vehicle.

So, has there been no real testing in ANY 4 wheel vehicle ?
It appears ALL the previous engines have only been fitter into a Tonka toy trike.

We are working on the car companies at the moment. I don't think GTM trikes would take kindly to you calling their quality product a Tonka Toy. As you are a shareholder, I'm appalled by your comments on a good client of ours.

What do Revetec envisage for a budget to FINISH a automotive engine ?

No budget at the moment, I'm working on it when I have the time. I'm getting a model ready for presenting to automotive groups.

Have you organised a meeting with "Kevin-07" ?

Doesn't he keep you in the loop? I'm meeting with him when he gets back from OS.


One thing I should comment to "Revetec Raptor" at this stage:

Dennis Monamy aka "Revetec Raptor" has registered revetec.com.au
As part of the domain registration process, you would have signed the domain registration agreement. As part of that agreement you have to show via a signed submitted document that you are entitled to attain that domain.

You are not a part of the Revetec management entity, and the only document to satisfy them is your proof of shareholding. While this may have qualified you from the domain registration process, it does not entitle you legally to register it.

The Revetec name has a copyright in our related business fields. The website you have registered has had a website referring to our engine without consent. This is like you buying shares in CocaCola and thinking you are entitled to register a cocacola domain.

Please visit: Trade Marks, Domain Names and Passing Off (http://www.oznetlaw.net/FactSheets/TradeMarksDomainNamesandPassingOff/tabid/950/Default.aspx)

As part of the domain registration I will quote:
" To be eligible for registration in the ".com.au" space, a domain name must be directly derived from:
* the commercial name of an entity which is registered or licensed to trade in Australia; or
* a trade mark which has been registered or is the subject of an application for registration by the entity.

Holders of .com.au and .com domain names are generally required, as a term of the licence, to warrant that registration of the domain name and its use will not directly or indirectly infringe the legal rights of a third party (including copyright and trade mark rights). A breach of the warranty would allow the relevant licensing authority to terminate the domain name licence."

I have downloaded the registration form and have forwarded it to our legal council. Also a copy of the website has also been forwarded.

I'm giving you notice of seven (7) days to take down the website and to deregister the domain. If this is not completed in that time frame, you will be notified by registered mail that the the matter will go before the auDA Administrive Panel and pursued in the small claims court. Damages and Revetec expenses will also be claimed at this point.

This breach of our copyright also extends to your own website/s and postings of Revetec materials, which must be removed immediately.

Any further breach of copyright or unfounded deformation towards our company from you in any way will be dealt with accordingly.

You can respond via email directly to me if you require, on any issues you may have.

Sorry everyone, I just want to talk technical on here :( So let's get back to it.

GTM
07-24-2008, 04:03 PM
It appears ALL the previous engines have only been fitter into a Tonka toy trike.



I take offence to our trikes being called a "tonka toy"! There are many of our customers around Australia and NZ that are very proud of their trikes. The average trike costs over $45k and many of our customers have worked all their lives to afford their trike.

What is your agenda here? It is not the first time you have slanted our product or our support for Revetec.

Over the last four years we have supported REVETEC and provided them with brand-new trikes to demonstrate the Revetec Engine whenever they have asked. We have never refused Revetec's requests nor charged them one dollar for our trikes despite it costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars to do (capital we could easily reinvest in our own R&D or production). Our actions were done out of support for the Revetec technology, the company and Brad.

Brad contacted me this morning, he was very concerned about your post (coming from a shareholder of Revetec) publicly slanting our Trikes. Brad was concerned that your post may damage our relationship with Revetec, and rightfully so. However this is not the case, we continue to offer strong support to Revetec.

For the last two months we have been developing a new trike specifically for the Revetec X4 Engine that includes a 5-speed transmission (upgraded from 4speed, the 5th gear will yield 100km/h @ 2,000rpm inline with the X4 engine sweet spot for efficiency), all carbon fiber chassis and body work (reduction of 60kg), underbody mounting for the radiator etc. etc. This has been developed from the ground up and required new designs, components, moulds, kevlar honeycomb, aircfraft grade carbon fiber prepreg materials etc., all done at no expense to Revetec. This was done so that the company has a very unique combination (Trike and X4 engine) for further promotion.

We look forward to having the new trike ready in about 1-2 months.

Matra et Alpine
07-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Guys, we are reviewing this issue.
He's clearly not listening to our requests to act sensibly.

I personally appreciate the time and willingness Brad shows to share technology with us and it's good to see a trike manufacturere here to .... though I have to put my hand up and say I love Grinnals as mates have a BMW and a Triumph one :)

Don't want to lose you guys and your inputs. So watch this space and avoid the idiots !!

clutch-monkey
07-24-2008, 11:26 PM
For the last two months we have been developing a new trike specifically for the Revetec X4 Engine that includes a 5-speed transmission (upgraded from 4speed, the 5th gear will yield 100km/h @ 2,000rpm inline with the X4 engine sweet spot for efficiency), all carbon fiber chassis and body work (reduction of 60kg), underbody mounting for the radiator etc. etc. This has been developed from the ground up and required new designs, components, moulds, kevlar honeycomb, aircfraft grade carbon fiber prepreg materials etc., all done at no expense to Revetec. This was done so that the company has a very unique combination (Trike and X4 engine) for further promotion.

i am looking foward to seeing this, sounds intriguing. and with today's fuel prices :D

3yearsharehold
07-25-2008, 12:11 AM
Revetec I dont think this is the right place to threaten court action.

GTM Its great to have such support for Revetec , I see your support so great , l it could be seen as price sensitive, maybe your project should be posted on nsxa not here.
and as fare as tonka toys, I had a hand me down third generation and passed it on, tough as.

Raptor I as a shareholder cant see any benifit of a shareholder wasting time & money of a company in this way , lets hope common sense prevails!!!
You may need to change the name of your car "torched 300"
For F....k sake wake up and rid this bs.

Matra et Alpine
07-25-2008, 02:43 AM
3y, Brad had already addresed this person off-line as well.

He IS justified in bringing the public issue of use of domain names imho to the forum.
At least it can give some of us some fun in going over there and having a discussion about technical stuff whilst all he seems to want is to have a bitch-house for his personal gain about the business, individuals and otehr company's products.

We are doing our best to keep the BS out of here and perhaps you can do your part in PMs to fellow shareholders who act like pr!cks ?

Nobody wants to lose this thread for the technical forum it gives many of us to inquire and follow progress. Neither would I like to see a blanket ban on all shareholders being allowed to post. BUT, the actions of one idiot CAN ruin it for everyone.

So rather than giving any more fuel to this, let's get it back on tech .....

fpv_gtho
07-25-2008, 06:09 AM
Doesn't he keep you in the loop? I'm meeting with him when he gets back from OS.

I hope that goes well. Rudd and his government need to get their head out of Toyota's backside and i hope your engine can contribute to that.

3yearsharehold
07-26-2008, 01:27 AM
Matra et Alpine

"We are doing our best to keep the BS out of here and perhaps you can do your part in PMs to fellow shareholders who act like pr!cks ?"

Well I'm no criminal , but know a few! ;)

revetec
07-27-2008, 03:18 PM
3yearshareholder: Sorry about the post, but I'm sick of wasting time dealing with people who are trying to cause the company grief and using up company time and funds to defend things such as our copyrights, and I can't believe it is someone who has a vested interest, just plain silly. He has already changed that website to one that is purly made to anoy me, but I have saved all versions of his website and will not let anyone breach our intellectual property and illegally register the domain in question.

The reason I posted what I did was a public announcement to anyone trying to breach our patents or copyrights that it will be dealt with. I'm dealing with it, and if he thinks it's a bluff, then he doesn't realise my duty as a Director to protect the company and the shareholders investment...Anyway enough said on here.

Cheers

Kozy
07-29-2008, 09:51 AM
On a different note, is the company still essentially two people? And how long before you can see Revetec employing new staff? ;)

3yearsharehold
07-30-2008, 12:16 AM
GTM
"For the last two months we have been developing a new trike specifically for the Revetec X4 Engine that includes a 5-speed transmission (upgraded from 4speed, the 5th gear will yield 100km/h @ 2,000rpm inline with the X4 engine sweet spot for efficiency), all carbon fiber chassis and body work (reduction of 60kg), underbody mounting for the radiator etc. etc. This has been developed from the ground up and required new designs, components, moulds, kevlar honeycomb, aircfraft grade carbon fiber prepreg materials etc., all done at no expense to Revetec. This was done so that the company has a very unique combination (Trike and X4 engine) for further promotion.

We look forward to having the new trike ready in about 1-2 months."

So can you tell us what engine you'll be using X4...X4V2 ?
As Revetec were sending the x4v2 to Orbital for testing with JP8.

GTM
07-30-2008, 05:22 PM
The new trike is designed for the Revetec X4V2, the same engine that we tested on the Gold Coast. The X4 engine is a very versitile, I have seen the X4 setup for aero application with carburators and magentos and then adapted for fitment to the trike.

Jax
08-02-2008, 09:56 PM
Check out radical radial engines for a laugh! I hope you patent rights pre date theirs???

CHOOK
08-05-2008, 10:35 PM
Director's Annoucement released today on the NSX.

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021720432.PDF

Great news Brad :D

Tall_G
11-03-2008, 02:24 PM
A very interesting engine, Revetec.

Reminds me of one I read about in a NZ Hotrod magazine, developed in the '20's & '30's in America. That engine employed the one-piece opposing pistons and "X" configuration for multiple cylinder applications, but differed in it's conversion to rotational force. It used a slotted plate adapted to the crankshaft and was ultimately the engine's weak point.
The ports were in the sides of the bore: Outlet near the base, inlet at the top. The main claimed advantage was the dramatic reduction in the number of moving parts, with the associated benefits:
-lower mass for a given capacity & output
-reduction in noise
-increased efficiency
-less heat generation, etc.
The story (fascinating but unsubstantiated) stated a 2-cylinder prototype was used for an outboard boat motor, and a 4 cylinder ("X") version fitted to the inventor's '30's Ford in place of the V8. Supposedly the thing kept destroying the 3 speed gearbox.
Just wish I could remember the inventor's name, and/or the issue number so I could retrieve the article....
Good luck with your engine, Brad and co.

Revetec Raptor
01-11-2009, 04:45 AM
Is this the engine ?

Bourke Engines are the most efficient and environmentally friendly engines on the planet ! (http://www.bourke-engine.com/ani)

Tall_G
01-11-2009, 09:07 PM
Yes it is! Good spotting!

The article I read was from a more modern publication (many years after the inventors death) and probably patched from a number of sources, but the thrust was the same: Super efficient: Low noise, heat, wear, etc.

Do you see any similarities to the Revetec?

V8maxtorque
01-22-2009, 01:55 PM
FOA i would like ot congratulate all the guys in revetec for their Elegant design achievements on the dynamometer ..
anyway I have a question about the bearings and the gears within the enngine.. what about their wearing?

Matra et Alpine
01-22-2009, 02:02 PM
It's been discussed anbd debated often in this thread.
Look to the top of the page and use the "Search this Thread" button and hopefully get all the info you need. If not, then at least will allow a specific question which has a better chance of a response.

3yearsharehold
01-23-2009, 12:15 AM
I don't recall any discussion on this thread about the above (bearings or gear wear) I was advised through Revetec personally, that they did solve the bearing weakness .
Maybe ask about other moving parts!
Germany will not let Revetec nurse the engine , so all will be revealed in the next six months.

wagga
01-23-2009, 03:25 AM
you would think that it would be one of the mian areas that they would have spent a fair bit time on.their must be some sort of damage being done to the bearings at the bottom of the pistons assembeley which meets the trilobes.I do not know of any metal that does not expand under severe heat.which means that you cannot have two metals expanding into each other under high temperatures and force without some type of damage happening and a lot of damage being done and the bearings having a thinner casing and would be the first place which would collapse .if i remember they have had damage in this area before. which could cause problems in other parts of the engine. you would think that this section of the motor really needs to be cushioned against shock from the trilob spinning and slapping up against the bearings. maybe compression springs or hydraulic tensioner could keep the two moving part in constant contact with each other and give those parts a chance to expand and contract when working. and take a lot of shock out of that section when under extreme heat and hi Rev's. as oil goes like water when working in very hot areas and which could cause the bearings to over heat. also as those parts expand the bearings would push down hard on the lobs and that also would cause the drive shaft to flecks and rub up hard against the bush which holds it in place and also could cause the gearing at the other end of the drive shaft to run off track.Iam only thinking out load. and no matter what it is every think can be modified and repaired as this is the best prototype we have had and is by fair the best engine in the world

Matra et Alpine
01-23-2009, 04:18 AM
3yearsharehold, Whilst I woudl accept your point of their not being a specific discusison on the one specific point their are numerous and various points raised re wear and bearing forces/materials. PLEASE, laziness is the first thing to destroy forum friendship. Put a LITTLE bit of effort in to read if that interested. If they've issues then Brad is going tobe very busy and not here to answer :)
Wagga, see Ducati Desmo gearing. Perfect case of how to make it work ( admittedly lower forces ), material selecton and the lmitations/drawbacks it introduces.
hmm wonder if the idea of hydraulinc followers would work at those high pressures -- never mind the "challenge" of finding space to fit :)

jrobson
02-16-2009, 06:20 AM
You must understand that the "trilobe system" is running at only 1/3 engine speed. This means that the trilobes on acceleration require only 1/3 of the inertia. If you go to our website and look at the videos of the CCE2003 engine, we show the revving response. It revs quite fast and is not sluggish on any of our engines.

Hi

It's been a while since I followed your development. I'll try keep it all technical and keep the cheap shots in check! ;)

Btw what rpm does it idle at?
That is a small 450cc, I looked at the website and watched the video, it picks up rpm slow for such a small motor with a short stroke / large bore as your motors tend to be, I couldn't find the exact details on the motor though, just the size. Sorry I don't mean to be rude, it's just the way I write so if I am blunt don't take any offence. ;)

Since this is just a pure prototype motor would you care to give more details around the head design, what size throats and what size ports, what size and length inlet manifolds?
A single 44mm inlet valve is hopelessly undersized for that motor! And my feeling is so are the ports, the inlet manifold is most likely too short as well for such low rpm operation...

For everyone else to play with, something to think about:
Revetec got reasonably good BSFC figures, I don't take the 15.2 figures into account here since that is not the standard, the standard according to the orbital report is 14.5, my theory for the reason is that at 2000rpm corrected engine speed the trilobe is spinning at a mere 666rpm, the devil! So the energy required to rotate the bottom end is much lower than a conventional engine @ 2000rpm, even if the rotational mass is higher on the revetec and further from the center, at a certain rpm, who knows, maybe 3500? The inertia starts to exceed that of a conventional engine and as a result the above 3500rpm efficiency drops right off.... Now the other theory could be that the lobe system is more efficient than a conventional design at producing power but the negatives of this design far outweigh that slight improvement, yes according to the figures it is slight, if it was more than slight it would be 190's BSFC like a diesel and a BMEP of 15Bar like a race engine, we'll have to wait and see if Revetec desides to rev it a bit higher than 3500rpm...

Of course running super light valve springs that float at 3500rpm would also increase efficiency.

I'm quite curious as to why 3500rpm was the stopping point as the torque was still climbing? hmmmmmmmm

FireyB
04-06-2009, 10:56 PM
31st March 2009.
NSXA Website- ('Company News').

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIRECTOR’S ANNOUNCEMENT

The Board of Directors are pleased to advise the following:

-The company has appointed a consultant in Germany.
-The consultant has strong links with a number of major European companies.
-The Board has received a request from a German company to supply 5 test engines.
-We are proposing to open negotiations during April, 2009 with at least one European
company for the purpose of commercializing Revetec’s technology.
-We confirm that the government grant has been extended to 31st December 2009.
-Revetec will in the near future be seeking further working capital to complete the
commercialization process and will seek the support of various sophisticated investors for
this purpose.

Bradley D Howell-Smith
Chairman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting development Brad :-)
Does this mean that China will miss out on getting their hands on Your Engine?

FireyB
05-10-2009, 10:18 PM
"THE WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT PETROL ENGINE...."
That has a nice ring to it :) I like the new website Brad, it looks great, well done to those involved with creating the new look... And the awesome heading. How's Germany?

3yearsharehold
05-13-2009, 01:48 AM
"We are currently modifying the engine with the help of the University, with testing to recommence during late March, 2009. The final stage of the testing should only require 2-3 weeks to complete... Click Here for full story.
"http://www.revetec.com/news.htm

"We are currently modifying the engine with the help of the University, with testing to recommence during late May, 2009. The final stage of the testing should only require a month to complete
"http://www.revetec.com/news100.htm

Yr website looks like a teen design it .

When are you going too ask the existing shareholders for financial support ,before the Chiness own Revetec.????

CHOOK
05-18-2009, 10:53 PM
When are you going too ask the existing shareholders for financial support ,before the Chiness own Revetec.????

You asked for it and you got it. Here's your chance to support the company.

3yearsharehold
05-19-2009, 05:19 AM
Yes at the same price ,1 cent a share as that's all China group paid or Mr Yu.
Do you think I would pay 150% more per share than J lomas or the china group.
Revetec are still going down the same path , trying to raise as little as possible to keep them going for a month or two. Asking the shareholders to back Revetec and pay 2.5 cents would have been fare 2 yrs ago , now fare is the same as the rest 1 cent or less.

I have never heard of a company trying to raise capital that's no larger than the CEO'S annual pay , its just gotta be a joke.

CHOOK
05-19-2009, 04:09 PM
Yes at the same price ,1 cent a share as that's all China group paid or Mr Yu.
Do you think I would pay 150% more per share than J lomas or the china group.

Pal I wouldn't think you would pay 0.5c per share. You seem just like a bitter born whinger. Dump them and get on with life.

3yearsharehold
05-19-2009, 07:59 PM
Chook , Because your my Pal , I will sell you 1 million shares @ 4 % discount .
That's 2.4 cents , you happy with that ?
If you wont more let me know!

CHOOK
05-19-2009, 08:24 PM
Chook , Because your my Pal , I will sell you 1 million shares @ 4 % discount .
That's 2.4 cents , you happy with that ?
If you wont more let me know!

I would rather support the company and buy the cheap shares now on offer which you have been calling for. But put them up for sale at that price on the NSX and I am sure someone will snap them up. That will be the cheapest sold in the last couple of months.

If you are so peeved at some getting sold for 1c, why don't you call the company and offer them $350K and a foot in the door in a couple of large auto manufacturers and I am sure they will consider selling them to you for 1c. It wouldn't bother me as a shareholder because it would help the company to the commercialisation stage and I admit that I can't provide that sort of cash nor that sort of contacts.

EDIT: I see you took my advice. I hope that is your 1M on the queue. I hope you sell them quickly and p!ss off.

3yearsharehold
05-20-2009, 02:01 AM
Chook , No advice needed
'' EDIT: I see you took my advice. I hope that is your 1M on the queue. I hope you sell them quickly and p!ss off."


Chook ,
I do praise Brad for his invention and the dedication his put in !.
Although the management skills are the worst I have ever heard of , let alone dealt with !
Do you really think I am the robber , bad person when I post on a public forum before selling ,
Brad can see who,s buying selling ect ?
I have backed Revetec company , 200k , I love backing Aussies inventions , always allowing for losses .
The china group + Lomas can sell at 2 cents and make 500k profit
I don't think you really understand the norm of offers , as this is nothing short of RIP ME OFF .
Do you think Revetec have a back up plane if fund raising fails ?
I have many friends that will sell , just ask me a price you think is fare !
I will p!ss off message for YOU ONLY , 1 , 5 mil more !
Just let me know how many you wont!

Matra et Alpine
05-20-2009, 04:01 AM
^ 3, as chook said what is happening IS THE NORM in business to entice a deal to support the buiness to the table.

For example ... stock options - they "dilute" the share holding in the company.

In terms of "backup plans" then in todays business envrons I'm afraid there are NOT a lot of options around. Go ask shareholders in banks in the UK which have been "acquired" for cents on the dollar. Or how about Lehmans ?
When there are few options availabel you take the ones that are and don't fool oneself that there is somehow a better option around the corner.
I've got some property in the US that you can have in exchange for the shares you have ... you INTERESted ? thOUGHT NOT :)

wagga
05-20-2009, 10:15 PM
we either put in a few hundred each and hope like hell or we all lose the lot and their is no use going on about it its all brads fault and where are the report's so fare on the testing from Germany does brad have them or do the Chinese if so show them so we can make an informed decision weather to put up or shut up and don't tell us brad that their is none that would load of b.s

jrobson
06-13-2009, 06:18 PM
Don't you get it?

There is always some new thing going wrong and going on, modifying the engine with the help of the university pushing the date later, next story would be the university burnt down before the tests could be completed.. bla bla...(wasn't there some engine that went to India or something and got damaged in transit? Maybe that was another scam I'm thinking of and not the Revetec engine) anyways, it's a pity people get ripped by these companies, but that is life. To be honest if you are an investor and you invest in companies without doing your research it's your own problem, especially companies with "alternative" energy ideas. You could have asked any mechanical engineer to look at the design and give you an opinion but I bet you were too busy seeing the $ signs after reading all the BS from the revetec site...

Here is a tip for you so that you don't lose more money in future, if you open up an invention website and there is a "how to invest" link without being able to purchase the product, close it.

RVC Shareholder
06-28-2009, 03:59 AM
Don't you get it?

There is always some new thing going wrong and going on, modifying the engine with the help of the university pushing the date later, next story would be the university burnt down before the tests could be completed.. bla bla...(wasn't there some engine that went to India or something and got damaged in transit? Maybe that was another scam I'm thinking of and not the Revetec engine) anyways, it's a pity people get ripped by these companies, but that is life. To be honest if you are an investor and you invest in companies without doing your research it's your own problem, especially companies with "alternative" energy ideas. You could have asked any mechanical engineer to look at the design and give you an opinion but I bet you were too busy seeing the $ signs after reading all the BS from the revetec site...

Here is a tip for you so that you don't lose more money in future, if you open up an invention website and there is a "how to invest" link without being able to purchase the product, close it.

Do you seriously believe your own rubbish ?

You know all this from first hand experience!? There is no way I would be accusing somebody of carrying out a scam for fear of getting a letter from their lawyer for defamation. And don't think you can hide behind a seemingly anonymous online user name. If I were you I'd be making a quick back track on your comments.

All investments are never a certain thing. Some are gonna be winners, some not. Is every instant scratch ticket going to be a winner? (You must get sorely disappointed each time you buy one and expect each one to be a winner) I don't suppose you ever bought shares in Microsoft, Apple, Google etc to name just a few. They were never big names until somebody took a chance and then they ended up becoming successful.
There is no way I would invest more money than what I was willing to lose in the first place.
That's why a wise investor diversifies. Win some here, lose some there and at the end of the day the prudent investor hopefully has more wins than losses if he learns by any mistakes in the past.

I think it is funny and extremely naive what you say about people investing money in 'these companies' Revetec started out operating out of a garage and were not even close to becoming a company and some people who had cash to spare put their necks on the line to put some money in with no guarantees. There was no Campany, no promises.
You think buying lotto tickets is a scam (well maybe a bad example hehe)
There are no guarantees with anything. When was the last time you gambled on a sure thing!?? There is no such thing.
Do you think people become multimillionaires by investing all their money into Microsoft or Google after they become a huge success?? Sorry but the gate is open and the horse has bolted.

Please think about what you are saying before you spout your rubbish.


Maybe something big will happen one day, maybe not but I'd rather have a few dollars in Revetec than not just in case. Something like this doesn't happen overnight. The Automotive industry is one of the toughest industries to crack.
If things ever take off in a big way, I will throw a huge party and make sure I invite you just so I can get a large bouncer (So I won't have to get my own hands dirty)to throw you out on your head and laugh at you like Nelson from the Simpsons for not investing. If not then you can laugh at me for having my other investments already go well for me. At the end of the day I still win.

wagga
07-14-2009, 12:47 AM
it is time that the chairman of revetec step aside and one of the other directors must take his place as he has run out of ideas and will not listen to any one Else but hes owne ego as we are 7 years behind time and a lot of the shareholders have lost confidence in him we are at a point now where the company is cash up to allow us to finish the testing in Germany and for some one with the skills in business and negation to deal with the Chinese and other motor groups around the world brad always side he would step aside and that time is hear so please brad stand down for the sake of all the share holders how have in vested their hard earned money into revetec before you lose it all again

FireyB
07-14-2009, 08:56 PM
Clearly there are still alot of shareholders out there with confidence in Brad and Revetec; proof of this is the huge response to the 'Fund Raising' that just took place, the fact that there was such a great response should be enough to show you this. Of the many many shareholders, there are only a handfull of people that jump on here and regularly whine and dribble about Revetec and Brad; if you don't like it, sell your shares and F off. The rest of us are happy to wait and have plenty of confidence in the way things are going. Sure it's taking a while, but good things take time. As for asking Brad to stand down... What a great idea; Get rid of the inventor, say bye bye to the man with the ideas, then where do you think revetec would head???

To the FEW people that will read whats above and not like it: No one cares what you think. Grow up or sell up.
From the hundreds of other shareholders: Keep going Brad, It'll get there in the end.

wagga
07-15-2009, 12:56 AM
The shareholders that have invested over the years was not because of brad.Could you please tell us what he has done except for dreaming ? where are all the test results and contract he has got not that B.S he has been trying to feed all of us. year in year out if he is treating the Chinese this way you can kiss them good by. This last step is well above his level. How build the the first prototype and so on and so on you really should look at the history of revetec or been there at the beginning and see the men that where used over the years They are the people that build revetec from the ground up and received no credit for there trouble except a boot out the front door. brad should stand aside now and past the rein's over and still be their to receive the credit he wants because nobody I now could be bothered all they wont to see is the bloody money you sh-t for brains you must come QLD because all the shareholders are in NSW that why he holds all the agm up there so he would not booted out and as fare as he is needed to finish the testing you only need some one to pick up the phone and contract it out like he has been doing lately over the years and still held down a truckers job and keep his nose out of the food basket and as fare as selling we are so fare in it would be just as stupid to sell like you so you can piss off too

FireyB
07-15-2009, 10:12 PM
Wagga, looking at your posts and the language skills you display, I come to the conclusion that you're a very uneducated person. So i will give you a break and point out some things I mentioned previously, just so they can sink in: Of the many shareholders out there, only a very few seem to have issues with Revetec (and I don't really care about those people). I understand that you're an unhappy, greedy person and you're eager to see results so that you can get some money out of your (assumed) investment. Maybe majority of the shareholders are in NSW, but the company is based on the Gold Coast, so it would make sense holding AGMs there. Nothing's stopping you going up there. Have you ever tried calling Brad and talking about your issues like a real person, or have you restricted yourself to hiding behind a keyboard and posting on a public forum? If you look back through this forum, and see the numerous times Brad has had to defend revetec and himself (and has always successfully done so), it is clear why he no longer visits this place; he is sick of the unhappy minority and has chosen to no longer waste his time here.

As for this step being above his level; I'm very sure that if Brad has any difficulties, he will seek any assistance he requires.

You mentioned that selling is not an option because you "are so far in it would be stupid..." All investments carry some degree of risk; there is no such thing as a sure thing when investing in new technology. If you were dumb enough to put every cent you have into it, then that is your problem; you're just gonna have to wait and hope it doesn't fall in a heap.

After all it was you that said "hope like hell or we all lose the lot..." and you also pointed out that; "...their is no use going on about it its all brads fault..." (05-21-2009). So you're gonna have to go along with it for now and just hope like hell.

wagga
07-16-2009, 02:42 AM
yes you are right on all points so lets kick brad into the back seat and get a new driver so i can get my bloody money half-wit

wagga
07-18-2009, 05:56 PM
always have and still do believe in the engine it is the person driving the company that has been driving to slow he has missed so many opportunities over the last 14 years by not haveing this motor finished. it is not funny he still keeps plotting along as there is no money problems and plenty of time to burn. you can see them all the time on the hwy in the fast lane doing their 40ks and do not give a dam about any one Else [thats brad ]i say its time for a faster driver who can wheel and deal and and finish the job. brad has proven over the years that he is not that person anymore. i have typed this a lot slower so you can keep up it must be my short hand that you do not understand so i think brad is a nice bloke he is well out of his league and should hand over the steering wheel
wagga

Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:17 pm
Private message

whiteballz
07-18-2009, 06:00 PM
dude, Seriously. Punctuation is your friend.

wagga
07-21-2009, 02:49 AM
Where is brad now is he still on the gold cost if so why is he not in Germany

wagga
07-22-2009, 01:04 AM
wagga wrote:
Where is brad now is he still on the gold cost if so why is he not in Germany

Hi Wagga,

I would suspect that brad would be in Germany !
Although he appears to fail when it comes to honest & genuine communication to what is really happening with the engine.

It is no real secret that the engine has NEVER ever been tested in a vehicle long term EVER !!!

We all hope it will become the next technology to step up to the plate & not simply WELFARE for Technology as the Government funds dry up.

Lets hope that been surrounded by Solicitors on the board is not a sharks feeding frenzy taking the piss out of business in general.
Raptor
Site Admin

Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:34 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report this postReply with quote Re: Express your thoughts and opinions on Revetec Holdings Limit
by donkey » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:08 pm

wagga wrote:
Where is brad now is he still on the gold cost if so why is he not in Germany

The biggest problem some shareholders have is they ask questions or make assumptions on forums. They have no idea what is happening within the company yet demand changes.

I know what stage the engine is at and where Brad currently is. I have no special contact with Brad or the company. Like those in this forum, I am just a shareholder. Like I do with most of my shareholdings, if I have questions that are not readily available to be answered through company announcements, I attend AGMs or call the company directly. The chairmen or directors have always taken my calls and they are usually quite forthcoming with any information I am seeking providing it doesn't involve anything that would result in prejudice against other shareholders (ie. insider trading).

My suggestion to you wagga or any other shareholder that continually defame Brad in public forums is to give the company a call and "ask" not demand to speak to Brad. If he is there then you know he is not in Germany. If they say he is in Germany then guess what? He is in Germany. Why are you demanding answers on a public forum that few shareholders may read and unlikely to know the answers?

If you are man enough, I also would suggest to advise that you are wagga, the one who constantly defames him so that he can defend himself directly to you.

As you do, please copy this post on the other forums so that other shareholders who never thought of calling the company to seek information will do just that. This will avoid some misinformed shareholders of posting false information.
donkey

Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:52 am
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit postDelete postReport this postReply with quote Re: Express your thoughts and opinions on Revetec Holdings Limit
by wagga » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:01 pm

donkey big words defame every time some one ask a simple question they are defaming brad big call donkey he has on many occasions threaten shareholders with court action to shut them up nice thin to do would he use his own money or the company money for the court action because when he loses i bet he wont have any money to pay up or do we sue the company which would not be the right thing to do for all concern so if he has information put it on the nsx so we all will know not just a selected handful donkey ................................
wagga

Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:17 pm
Location: Australia
antispam: NO
The middle number please (103): 103
Private message Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

3yearsharehold
07-22-2009, 05:58 AM
Wagga,
Your not the only frustrated holder out there !
keep in mind Brad has sold his holdings down over the years to keep revetec afloat .
Im not talking about for $$ , just services ( parts , bearings , ect )

Revetec doubters have mostly come out of forums like this one !
I haven't had any problem in the technology concept of revetec.

I posted on this forum 22 .01. 09 " post 1141" , predicting the tests to take six more months .
Revetec announces on the NSX 02 02 09 .
"The Directors are pleased to advise that the X4V2 prototype engine has recently been tested in
Germany by a prominent University. We estimate that testing and engine evaluation is now
80% complete. The analysis and simulation is nearing completion, using data measured from
tests already performed.
We are currently modifying the engine with the help of the University, with testing to
recommence during late March, 2009. The final stage of the testing should only require 2-3
weeks to complete."

Ok they had some problems , how did I know it would take longer than Revetec's time frame ...... It always has....
Next time Brad should announce its going to take five times longer than he thinks and when ti's only twice as long , we will all be jumping over the moon!!
Wagga , lets wait to read the report , it shouldn't be long , & its going to be superlative or disaster'est ..

G35COUPE
07-22-2009, 06:02 AM
May I ask why the designer of the "revetec engine", isn't trying to finish up on his design given that other established auto manufacturers, if pressured enough by many governments around the world, would eat his lunch while he watched them, given their movement towards more fuel efficient engines?????

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-07-21-german-automakers-hybrids_N.htm

I learnt earlier on, that a brilliant engineering design isn't worth its value in gold, UNTIL it can make some money. Maybe the owner of the invention is looking at the Return On Investment (ROI) associated with the invention, but seems to forget that time is also a very important part of that equation.

So, why are the shareholders not demanding the exact "time" he used in the assumptions used in his ROI calculations??? With this information, measured against the existing realities in the external business environment, they can better make sound decisions as to whether to continue investing in this company or not. Internal business conditions are only a part of the considerations the owners of the technology and company must take into account.

Without such an information, the owner of the company or the designer of the engine may actually run into some future fiduciary issues with shareholders, if they get angry enough. Patience, a most difficult virtue to acquire, is not limitless. What maybe creating this friction, is a phenomenon of economics, which we call "Assymetric Information"---where the information held by one party in a given transaction, is more superior than the information held by other parties in the same transaction. This always leads to wrong assumptions, poor decion-making by one party, a feeling of deceit, etc.

From what I have read so far on these forums, it would appear that there is an economic impasse between the owner of the company or engine design and the investors in the company.

I have no doubt that the "revetec" concept is a brilliant idea. However, one thing is certain, there is never such a thing as a perpetual impasse of any sort, on any subject, and on any part of this planet. At some point, some sort of resolution will be achieved either through a detente or through painful legal wranglings, if the "revetec" designer and owner does not address the issue of "Assymetric Information" as quickly as possible.

3yearsharehold
07-22-2009, 06:35 AM
G35COUPE

WELL PUT,
"I learnt earlier on, that a brilliant engineering design isn't worth its value in gold, UNTIL it can make some money. Maybe the owner of the invention is looking at the Return On Investment (ROI) associated with the invention, but seems to forget that time is also a very important part of that equation. "

Not having a go at you waving an American flag .
Coates the "America company" COTE.OB: Summary for COATES INTERNATIONAL - Yahoo!7 Finance - Share Prices, Charts, News and more (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=COTE.OB) don't seem to get the attention of the America gov but catch China's attention 20 years later.
Without any independent testing the market is valuing it at up to a quarter of a billion $$ , they also call it an engine , when it needs a engine to nun it , its a head .
Anyway enjoyed your post!

G35COUPE
07-22-2009, 01:27 PM
G35COUPE

WELL PUT,
"I learnt earlier on, that a brilliant engineering design isn't worth its value in gold, UNTIL it can make some money. Maybe the owner of the invention is looking at the Return On Investment (ROI) associated with the invention, but seems to forget that time is also a very important part of that equation. "

Not having a go at you waving an American flag .
Coates the "America company" COTE.OB: Summary for COATES INTERNATIONAL - Yahoo!7 Finance - Share Prices, Charts, News and more (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=COTE.OB) don't seem to get the attention of the America gov but catch China's attention 20 years later.
Without any independent testing the market is valuing it at up to a quarter of a billion $$ , they also call it an engine , when it needs a engine to nun it , its a head .
Anyway enjoyed your post!

Thanks.:)

concernedinvest
07-23-2009, 09:21 PM
hi, sorry to go of topic i noly come accross this thread and thought i should post, my mum i think was ripped of buying these shares a few years ago, through her accountant who i think name is ray touali, he sold her shares of this company for $1, my mum is now sitting on 200,000 shares that she paid $1 for, that is an incredible loss if u look at todays value, she also borrowed this money for these shares so she has basically gone down hill because of these shares, i was wondering if these shares ever hit $1 or if she was ripped of by her accountant, she was naieve and put too trust in her accountant, is there anything that can be done if accountant ripped her off? did they ever sell for $1 each? any help would be apreciated

Revetec Raptor
07-23-2009, 10:07 PM
hi, sorry to go of topic i noly come accross this thread and thought i should post, my mum i think was ripped of buying these shares a few years ago, through her accountant who i think name is ray touali, he sold her shares of this company for $1, my mum is now sitting on 200,000 shares that she paid $1 for, that is an incredible loss if u look at todays value, she also borrowed this money for these shares so she has basically gone down hill because of these shares, i was wondering if these shares ever hit $1 or if she was ripped of by her accountant, she was naieve and put too trust in her accountant, is there anything that can be done if accountant ripped her off? did they ever sell for $1 each? any help would be apreciated

If your Mum purchased shares after 3rd Feb 2006 she was ripped off , as RVC started trading on the NSX at 10 cents , and haven't surpass that price since !

These guys probably don't want to hear this here, as it is a "technical forum".

Go here: Revetec Engine Forum Index page (http://forum.revetec.com.au/forum/)

wagga
07-24-2009, 12:42 AM
to a concerned investor
tell your mum not to give up hope their is still a lot going on and the end is in sight yes their is a lot of talk going on at the moment but it is only for the best for our company. Their are over 1400 hundred shareholder + and a lot of them paid more or less so please hang in and hopeful things Will get better {see this is what i mean blood brad should be reassuring the shareholders and not spending so much time in dream would on the gold coast pull your finger you clown and do something}

3yearsharehold
07-24-2009, 03:54 AM
Concernedinvest
I would love to know if someone's been stitched up !
Brad will have to back you up in court under the right circumstances. When were the shares purchased ?
Your MUM has every right to file for court proceedings and will win , if she paid 1$ after the company listed!

I will give you contacts to the best barristers in Sydney , and they wont charge (mates) .
Brad will have to attend in court under the right circumstances.

BTW..... This has no legal bearing on Revetec , unless they new about the sale and it was past open (NSX).
Some people just take risks they cannot afford , its called gambling , that's what its called if you Mother bort before listing ,
as she wouldn't be complaining if the shareprice was 10 bucks.
BTW... do you know Wagga....?????

wagga
07-26-2009, 08:39 PM
3yearsholder
nobody knows Wagga even Wagga does not know Wagga
two bake beens went on a road trip around Australia where did they finish their trip............................

Matra et Alpine
07-27-2009, 03:18 AM
^^^^^^^^^^ we all hope that the answer to that is ... ENGLISH CLASS where he finally learns punctuation :)

Can I remind guys, please keep the whole business discussion and personal attacks out of this forum.
You've plenty of dedicated forum space for that, over here we are mainly interested in the technology and it's advancement. Thansk.

wagga
07-27-2009, 10:07 PM
OK the answer is only for the educated ones [the answer[is in canes ] really the educated ones where just to quick for us dummies lol
OK matra no more insults it is to easy to to upset them the educated ones
and at the next a.g.m vote one for Wagga to be the new chairman i will do the job better for only 20'000 a year and i will bring home the bacon [let's give brad the flick]

3yearsharehold
07-28-2009, 10:46 PM
OK the answer is only for the educated ones [the answer[is in canes ] really the educated ones where just to quick for us dummies lol
OK matra no more insults it is to easy to to upset them the educated ones
and at the next a.g.m vote one for Wagga to be the new chairman i will do the job better for only 20'000 a year and i will bring home the bacon [let's give brad the flick]
What /?/canes??.
Wagga,you mean like inside bamboo,sugar cane or did you mean can's,Cairns, or canned ?
What would we get for 20t. You trying to fit the Cam into the Carbie?
There called (baked) not bake beens.
Your welcome.....

FireyB
07-29-2009, 08:14 PM
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021721712.PDF

Issued: 29th July 2009

DIRECTORS ANNOUNCEMENT

The Directors are pleased to announce that the Rights Issue was oversubscribed. We would like to express gratitude to everyone who supported the offer allowing us to return to Munich to complete the engine testing. The Directors have decided to allocate shares to all shareholders who subscribed to the rights issue.

The testing in Munich is crucial to moving towards mass production of our engine product. The testing in Munich was primarily for working towards several mass production contracts in China. Over the last six months we have received further interest from a company in Germany who wish to manufacture compound engines for power generation. This company has requested 5 prototype engines from us, and we have arranged meetings with them to discuss details of this request upon our return to Germany. We have also received strong interest from a large development and manufacturing company in Brazil. This company wants to develop and manufacture ethanol fuelled engines for Brazil, and are currently seeking federal funds from their government for the project. I will be travelling back to Munich on the 16th of August to modify the engine. The test cell will be available around the 1st of September, and the setup on the dynamometer should take approximately one week. Testing should take a further three weeks to finalise, then the report should be finalised and released four weeks later.

Kind regards
Bradley Howell-Smith
Chairman

Admin Office: PO Box 8203 Gold Coast Mail Centre QLD 9726
Phone: (07) 5531 6059 Fax: (07) 5531 6997
Web: Revetec Homepage revetec.com (http://www.revetec.com) Email: admin@revetec.com

FireyB
07-29-2009, 08:25 PM
This all looks good to me; "...ethanol fuelled engines for Brazil..." "...federal funds from their [Brazil] government" and also "working towards several mass production contracts in China" And now everyone has dates too... By my rough calculations, that leaves us not to expect to hear anything before the start of November... I'm happy to wait until then, (longer if needed) and I expect 'WAGGA' to be quiet for about that long aswell and maybe invest in some education, but he/she probably wont.

G35COUPE
07-30-2009, 06:31 AM
Well, this new information is certainly a step in the right direction. The issue i earlier noted which was "Assymetric Information", is thus addressed by this new info.

Wagga should be calm for a moment, with this new info. I love Wagga's outbursts of emotions. So fun to read. :)

CHOOK
07-30-2009, 11:23 PM
This news certainly sounds promising and hopefully the testing will go ahead to schedule with no further problems.

It reminds me of a hurdle race where they just need to jump that last hurdle but it seems to get further away. Hopefully the finishing line is now close.

I also feel for concerninvest's mum. Unfortunately I've heard of other dealings similar to hers and I don't like the chances of her persuing the accountant as it sounds like it would have happened before the public listing. But I hope she doubles her money soon ;)

wagga
07-31-2009, 12:45 AM
Freyb
you wont stop me even tho a few of you complained and had me boot off the discussion forum till next month gutless wonders an i was having so much fun. brad must have been worried about his job. can some one make sure that he has a new set of tools when he leave his old hammer and chisel must be worn out by now supper-cheap has some new ones made in china in stock

RVC Shareholder
07-31-2009, 01:01 AM
hi, sorry to go of topic i noly come accross this thread and thought i should post, my mum i think was ripped of buying these shares a few years ago, through her accountant who i think name is ray touali, he sold her shares of this company for $1, my mum is now sitting on 200,000 shares that she paid $1 for, that is an incredible loss if u look at todays value, she also borrowed this money for these shares so she has basically gone down hill because of these shares, i was wondering if these shares ever hit $1 or if she was ripped of by her accountant, she was naieve and put too trust in her accountant, is there anything that can be done if accountant ripped her off? did they ever sell for $1 each? any help would be apreciated


The old addage, if you intend investing money in shares be prepared to lose all the money. If you can't afford to lose all the money then don't invest.
Only invest what you can afford to lose, otherwise why would you do it?!:confused:

Nothing is certain in life. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify.
I invested money in Revetec and am way down but I also invested money in property and am way up so I don't really give a rats as I have way more that what I have lost so far anyway. You win some you lose some. You can't always have everything.

On the other hand I'd love to see something for my investment one day.(I hate to lose money!)
Don't lose sleep over it, forget about it and move on and if things eventually come good then see it as a great bonus. I invested money over 10 years ago before the company was listed. If one day things come good then that will be a great bonus and I'm sure suddenly we will all want to buy Brad drinks, and be patting his back and shaking his hand and telling him what a great bloke he is.
I know one thing, I'd hate to have all the pressure Brad must have after all I'm sure he would love more than anything for the company to become a huge success one day and make all his shareholders lots of money.
It's not like he has shut the doors. He is hanging in there and has been there for many years where some people might have probably given up by now.

At the end of the day, if you don't like to gamble, don't play the game.

3yearsharehold
07-31-2009, 02:13 AM
G35COUPE,
It just never happens "Assymetric Information"
The CEO is always going to have more detailed information than the public.Lets just hope that he finishes the testing and the report is available in the elected time frame.


"I love Wagga's outbursts of emotions. So fun to read."
Me too, She reminders me of the bitch I drowned when fishing for love,
or was that sharks..

G35COUPE
07-31-2009, 12:20 PM
G35COUPE,
It just never happens "Assymetric Information"
The CEO is always going to have more detailed information than the public.Lets just hope that he finishes the testing and the report is available in the elected time frame.


"I love Wagga's outbursts of emotions. So fun to read."
Me too, She reminders me of the bitch I drowned when fishing for love,
or was that sharks..


I can't imagine a forum without people like "Wagga" who make it all exciting and fun.:)

wagga
08-01-2009, 01:08 AM
threeyearold
Thats tragic about your hold life. Have you always been spoon fed or did mummy stop when you reached 21 or is it still happening maybe you should tell your daddy about what you did to mummy or is daddy the shark

wagga
08-01-2009, 01:20 AM
Really i wish brad would stop using the same old crap even if and it would be a big if. With brad at the wheel and every thing goes great we are still looking at another 5 years plus before we see any returns.Thats if any one is still a live [brad has to go he is 7 years past his used by date come on give him the boot and vote for Wagga and I can shorten that time ]

wagga
08-03-2009, 02:54 AM
If brad is still serious about leading revetec, he should start treating the shareholders with a lot more solid information about what is going on with the company, no more should the shareholders sit back and accept the information that is posted on the nsx, for too long we have excepted that we are only entitled to know the counties that might be interested, so fare we have nearly been around the world with this so called information, it is time to name these companies, who we are dealing with and stop this rot about these companies that do not want to be named. If this is the case, and they have not put a large deposit into the revertec bank account then they are just having a lend of brad and the shareholders move on from these companies and find the real companies that want to do business. If brad feels he has an even a slight lack of confidence in him self he must step aside as he will not have the ability to lead revertec, and take a back seat until he has learned how to run a business and that spending someone else money is lot different too spending his own and putting in his own shares back into revetec does not count as he received them for nothing from himself.

FireyB
08-03-2009, 08:33 AM
Wagga, you're like a broken record going around and around. The response to you're post lies within the hundreds of posts within this forum. Have a read... There are good reasons why these companies cannot be named. You'll just have to wait to get their names... And do us all a favour and hold your breath while you do your waiting :)

wagga
08-04-2009, 02:32 AM
fieryb
you are right on as there are heaps of reasons why brad has not told anyone about any of these companies, and you can look back over the last 15 years and one can only come to one conclusion there has'ant been and never has been any motor company or any other company. How has invested any money into revetec from china to the U.k so if you are looking for a broken record, please feel free to ask brad or could you please name one who is not an investor in revetec shares because in all the years I've been with this company? There is not any so could you check this form again and again and name one and when you do not find any you will still sit there like all the other sheep with a ring in their nose and except all the snow jobs dish out to you. So please wake up and ask a lot more question of brad. He will talk to everyone what I have heard, and while you are on the phone ask him to name one passed Present or future.

FireyB
08-04-2009, 06:58 AM
Wagga, Usually I am able to decipher your terrible sentences, but this one has me stumped completely. Please take a moment of your time to re-type your post so that it can be understood.

G35COUPE
08-04-2009, 10:14 AM
Wagga, Usually I am able to decipher your terrible sentences, but this one has me stumped completely. Please take a moment of your time to re-type your post so that it can be understood.

If Waga retypes sentence then it ain't Wagga anymore. I love Wagga's sentence just the way it is. There is an excitement and novelty about reading his/her comments.

Matra et Alpine
08-04-2009, 03:54 PM
No there isn't.
Please don't troll :)
Let the personal stuff drift away and get back on any technical info.
Thanks.

DesmoRob
08-04-2009, 04:11 PM
The old addage, if you intend investing money in shares be prepared to lose all the money. If you can't afford to lose all the money then don't invest.
Only invest what you can afford to lose, otherwise why would you do it?!:confused:

Nothing is certain in life. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify.
I invested money in Revetec and am way down but I also invested money in property and am way up so I don't really give a rats as I have way more that what I have lost so far anyway. You win some you lose some. You can't always have everything.

On the other hand I'd love to see something for my investment one day.(I hate to lose money!)
Don't lose sleep over it, forget about it and move on and if things eventually come good then see it as a great bonus. I invested money over 10 years ago before the company was listed. If one day things come good then that will be a great bonus and I'm sure suddenly we will all want to buy Brad drinks, and be patting his back and shaking his hand and telling him what a great bloke he is.
I know one thing, I'd hate to have all the pressure Brad must have after all I'm sure he would love more than anything for the company to become a huge success one day and make all his shareholders lots of money.
It's not like he has shut the doors. He is hanging in there and has been there for many years where some people might have probably given up by now.

At the end of the day, if you don't like to gamble, don't play the game.

Investing is only a gambling game if you don't know what you're doing. Buying something that you probably don't understand like RVC is never a good idea, because you're buying based on speculation. Its not recession proof either, which means it'll be the first thing to go tits up when shit hits the fan. I don't believe in buying technology, because people don't need it to live the way they do food, medicine, shelter, banks.

Take some advice from the gurus and invest in solid, dividend paying, blue chip companies that have withstood the test of time. Understand their underlying value, along with the fact that the market is driven by emotion, and not what the actual companies are worth. With this in mind, take advantage of what the economy brings. When it gives you lemons, there's always plenty of opportunity to make a ton of lemonade.

I don't pity people that buy stupid crap just because they think it will "go big". You may as well go to the casino and throw your money out there, because the chances for your success are the same.

CHOOK
08-06-2009, 09:44 PM
Investing is only a gambling game if you don't know what you're doing. Buying something that you probably don't understand like RVC is never a good idea, because you're buying based on speculation. Its not recession proof either, which means it'll be the first thing to go tits up when shit hits the fan. I don't believe in buying technology, because people don't need it to live the way they do food, medicine, shelter, banks.

Take some advice from the gurus and invest in solid, dividend paying, blue chip companies that have withstood the test of time. Understand their underlying value, along with the fact that the market is driven by emotion, and not what the actual companies are worth. With this in mind, take advantage of what the economy brings. When it gives you lemons, there's always plenty of opportunity to make a ton of lemonade.

I don't pity people that buy stupid crap just because they think it will "go big". You may as well go to the casino and throw your money out there, because the chances for your success are the same.

I think someone said the same thing when Microsoft first IPO'ed. I pity those poor bastards who put down $1000 when they first came out. :rolleyes:

Get a grip. Many people who have made huge amounts of money on the stock market but started with little are because they had a few speccies. Many experts say to put a small percentage of your portfolio in something you think may take off but be prepared to lose what you can afford. That is smart investing, not as you say gambling.

If I have only $5000 to invest, how far will that get me in 5 years on a blue chip? It may get me a new set of golf clubs. What if I divide that and put $1000 (very affordable) into a speccy that I have done my research and am prepared to risk? Worst case, I lose $1000 which I am prepared for. If it takes off, then it would easily surpass the return on the remaining $4000 on the blue chip. It's about a well balanced portfolio.

How much have you actually researched in the potential of RVC before you deciphered that they were "crap"? As much as Wagga shoots off his/her mouth, it appears that he/she feels there is huge upside to the stock. The potential is there. The names of some of companies that Revetec has been speaking to are in this thread if people bothered researching. They have also been announced on the NSX. They are huge companies in the Asia region. There is also interest from Europe and America. But some companies do ask for confidentiality. What's the big deal? There is heaps of interest in the engine but they have had problems finalising the testing in Germany not because of the engine itself.

The shareholders have given Revetec a vote of confidence with the share issue being oversubscribed. Good luck to those who showed that confidence in Brad and the team. They now have the money to proceed and finalise the testing phase.

Everyone who invests in RVC should know it is a high risk investment. But with high risk there is also the chance of high return. There is nothing wrong with that. Ask Bill Gates next time you see him. ;)

3yearsharehold
08-07-2009, 02:35 AM
CHOOK, Novice posted ".."

" I think someone said the same thing when Microsoft first IPO'ed. I pity those poor bastards who put down $1000 when they first came out. "

Some people have made a fortune out of the office,1t's pocket change.We just had to carry a solar panel around to charge the battery!

"There is heaps of interest in the engine but they have had problems finalising the testing in Germany not because of the engine itself."

This sort of spin is what gets people upset ....CAN YOU CLARIFY?
What is, was the problem's then?

"Everyone who invests in RVC should know it is a high risk investment. But with high risk there is also the chance of high return. There is nothing wrong with that. Ask Bill Gates next time you see him. "

Bill just stole someone else's idea , so I hope your not referring to the Chines guy that invented a simpler engine minus counter rotating cams!
:confused:

G35COUPE
08-07-2009, 07:11 AM
No there isn't.
Please don't troll :)
Let the personal stuff drift away and get back on any technical info.
Thanks.


I don't understand. What do you mean? Where you referring to me trolling? My beleif stands that Wagga's comments are unique:confused:

jrobson
09-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Do you seriously believe your own rubbish ?

You know all this from first hand experience!? There is no way I would be accusing somebody of carrying out a scam for fear of getting a letter from their lawyer for defamation. And don't think you can hide behind a seemingly anonymous online user name. If I were you I'd be making a quick back track on your comments.

All investments are never a certain thing. Some are gonna be winners, some not. Is every instant scratch ticket going to be a winner? (You must get sorely disappointed each time you buy one and expect each one to be a winner) I don't suppose you ever bought shares in Microsoft, Apple, Google etc to name just a few. They were never big names until somebody took a chance and then they ended up becoming successful.
There is no way I would invest more money than what I was willing to lose in the first place.
That's why a wise investor diversifies. Win some here, lose some there and at the end of the day the prudent investor hopefully has more wins than losses if he learns by any mistakes in the past.

I think it is funny and extremely naive what you say about people investing money in 'these companies' Revetec started out operating out of a garage and were not even close to becoming a company and some people who had cash to spare put their necks on the line to put some money in with no guarantees. There was no Campany, no promises.
You think buying lotto tickets is a scam (well maybe a bad example hehe)
There are no guarantees with anything. When was the last time you gambled on a sure thing!?? There is no such thing.
Do you think people become multimillionaires by investing all their money into Microsoft or Google after they become a huge success?? Sorry but the gate is open and the horse has bolted.

Please think about what you are saying before you spout your rubbish.


Maybe something big will happen one day, maybe not but I'd rather have a few dollars in Revetec than not just in case. Something like this doesn't happen overnight. The Automotive industry is one of the toughest industries to crack.
If things ever take off in a big way, I will throw a huge party and make sure I invite you just so I can get a large bouncer (So I won't have to get my own hands dirty)to throw you out on your head and laugh at you like Nelson from the Simpsons for not investing. If not then you can laugh at me for having my other investments already go well for me. At the end of the day I still win.

Yup, we'll see, good luck with your "investment" ;) lol. Btw, have you managed to ask a professional engineer(preferably someone with automotive engine experience) yet to look at the design and give you a comment? My guess is no. You can look at all the information releases from Revetec and they all have false statements in them. Most recently the claim that it's the most efficient engine in the world, which it isn't, it was simply leaned out for 5 seconds to impress the get rich quick investors. Do you really believe that there is a credible excuse to the engine test result not being available from Germany?

This is the difference between real engine designers and "inventors" with the same amount of money an engine designer would have had a useful product, an alternative engine inventor only have excuses to show.

Go buy some more stock, I'm sure you can get it for rock bottom pricing!

wagga
09-14-2009, 02:45 AM
jrobson
What do you mean the revetec shareholders haven't made any money.Thats must be a lie just look at the directors.Their all shareholders past and present and they have all probably made a shit load of money out of this company so please get your facts right and post the truth A vote for wagga would keep the bums honest vote No 1

stian1979
09-19-2009, 10:27 PM
Nothing mutch has hapened.
I know there is a new car brand born in Taiwan, luxgen.
If I'm not mistaken everything is done from scratch.
And for a new manufacturer it would not be any problem to use a new engine design since it would not reguire any changes in a production line.
From what I know they use a regular engine.

Bourke-Engine : Animated GIF (http://www.bourke-engine.com/ani)

Here is also a engine claiming to be the moust efficiant in the world, can you prove yours is bether with identical bore, stroke and identical heads, cams, exhaust, inlets, injection system and airfilter?

I don't know why anyone would nead to pay to use your tecnolegy since it's done befour.
Harold Caminez: Internal Combustion Engine ~ US Patent # 1,714,847 (http://www.rexresearch.com/caminez/1caminez.htm)

I asume the patent on this is expired and can be used at will.

If it's the 3cams use the patent is all about then make one with 4 instead.
Just remember I thought about it first.

The revetec is not the most efficient pertol engine since the sterling engine can burn petrol so you would nead to call it the "world's most efficiant internal combustion petrol engine"

ashasksul
09-25-2009, 12:55 AM
This thing is brilliant. Just check the site out, you'll see how it works. It's amazing how much rotational inertia is conserved... just look, you'll see. Revetec is an Australian company, by the way. Genius, mate ;)

EDIT: I just found a few stats on another site... apperently the power stats on this particular unit range from 85hp/250NM to 243hp/300+NM. Keep in mind that this engine weighs 50kg (For comparison, a tiny air-cooled VW flat-4 weighs just over 90kg, and it's a relative featherweight).

This Revetec unit is 50% shorter than a comparable engine. High efficiency, and 12 firing cycles per engine revolution. This design is incredible. I'm completely impressed.

http://www.revetec.com/website/theory/ccedemo5.gif

http://www.revetec.com/website/index.html

Advantages:
approximately one quarter the size and weight of a conventional engine (for similar applications) combined with improved output substantially increases power/weight and torque/weight ratio.

fewer moving and total components. As a result of fewer components, more easily manufactured than conventional engines.

identical cylinder head assembly (“top end”) to conventional engines. Most existing head technology can be either adapted or utilised.

Flexible design - can be four-stroke, two-stroke, petrol, diesel or gas, natural of forced aspiration.

Eliminated irregularly reciprocating components such as connecting rods.

Output shaft can be run in either direction if multilobed cams with symmetrical lobes are employed.

All rotational forces are counteracted via the counter rotating cam – eliminates the need for a heavy flywheel.

Torque and power output can be varied using a fixed capacity and piston stroke.

The CCE can be designed to operate at greatly reduced operating speeds while delivering high torque output.

Substantial reduction in stroke reduces heat loss through cylinder wall.

Extended piston dwell is possible because engine design allows a lower than normal compression ratio to be used reducing power loss from compression cycle.

Maximum mechanical advantage can be applied to output shaft at only 10 degrees ATDC utilising high cylinder pressure early in the stroke, compared to around 60 degrees ATDC for conventional engines.

Lower emissions can be achieved due to increased control over combustion.

Extremely low idle speed due to increase in mechanical efficiency at the top of the stroke.

Little or no bore contact/piston side thrust, which reduces wear on cylinder bore.

Can have different port timing on compression stroke than power stroke allowing better control two-stroke).

Lower centre of gravity.

Due to controlled piston acceleration rates the CCE reduces engine vibration.

A hollow output shaft can be utilised for specialty applications, such as peristaltic pumps.
I really have got a lot of info from you ideas. Thank a lot !! Hope that you will continue with new ideas !

ronbros
10-05-2009, 05:50 PM
looks like a light aircraft engine.
my vote has been for 25yrs an opposed piston 2-stroke, on diesel,Jet-A

debangshu24
10-05-2009, 06:19 PM
Most efficient???

3yearsharehold
10-06-2009, 03:42 AM
Quote..RVC Annual report 30 June 2009.
NSX National Stock Exchange of Australia (http://www.nsxa.com.au/announcements_list.asp?nsxcode=RVC) ..
22/09/09 "
"After the equipment was rectified the engine experienced a problem which was caused by a previously modified part. Bradley Howell-Smith returned to Australia and organised parts to be sourced and made in Australia and Germany."

I would like to think its the heads ...CHOOK!

As you said it had nothing to do with the Engine :rolleyes:
Any comment?

3yearsharehold
10-09-2009, 05:03 AM
Chook, Your a fool, liar or both!
The (henk4 ) from ultimatecarpage is the only one I will respect editing this post.
My accusations are true , you cant deny that!

3yearsharehold
10-20-2009, 07:44 PM
Revetec changes principal place of business without letting anybody know , too where is anybodies guess!
Just packed up and went :mad:

Revetec Raptor
10-24-2009, 09:54 PM
Revetec changes principal place of business without letting anybody know , too where is anybodies guess!
Just packed up and went :mad:

Where did you get that information ?
------------------------------------------------------

Rumours have been filtrating of exceptional BSFC figures in the high 40's.

I have heard that China are going to manufacture 2'000,000 engines to start with, can anyone confirm this !

FireyB
10-25-2009, 11:48 PM
3yearsharehold, if you give Revetec a call they will be more than happy to tell you that their main administration has now relocated to the Revetec Factory.

Raptor, no one will be able to confirm that unless it comes in the form of an official NSX announcement. Anything less and it's insider trading. Why don't you ask the person who told you that to confirm it? Then, hurry back and post the information here... I enjoy hearing positive rumours.

wagga
10-26-2009, 01:46 AM
Dear wagga


I confirm Revetec’s address remains the factory and is no longer Charles Chan’s office.



As you are aware we are currently undertaking testing in Germany.



When final results are to hand they will be made available to prospective clients and thereafter will be made public.



Yours faithfully



Steve Valtas

FireyB
11-02-2009, 10:15 PM
NSX Announcement. 2nd November 2009.
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722119.PDF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revetec Holdings Limited
ACN 115 621 317
Notice of Annual General Meeting

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the annual general meeting of the above company will be held at The Gold Coast Convention Centre, corner of Gold Coast Highway and T E Peters Drive, Broadbeach, Queensland at 3.30pm on Monday 30th November 2009.

Ordinary Business:
To receive and consider the Annual Financial Report and the reports of the directors and of the auditors of the Company for the year ended 30 June 2009. (Revetec's Annual Report is available on our website at Revetec Homepage revetec.com (http://www.revetec.com))

Resolutions:
1. To re-elect Mr. Bradley Howell-Smith as a director in accordance with the Corporations Act. Mr. Bradley Howell-Smith, being a director appointed upon the Incorporation of the Company retires and, being eligible, offers himself for election.
2. To re-elect Mr. Steve Valtas as a director in accordance with the Corporations Act. Mr. Steve Valtas, being a director appointed upon the Incorporation of the Company retires and, being eligible, offers himself for election.
3. To re-elect Mr. Lan Lee, who was nominated by the board for the office of director of the Company, as a casual director of the Company in accordance with the Corporations Act.
4. To adopt the Remuneration Report for the Year ended 30 June 2009.
5. That the Directors take all necessary steps to remove the Company from the National Stock Exchange in order that Revetec Holdings Limited become an unlisted public company.
6. To transact any business that may legally be brought at the annual general meeting.

Dated the 26th day of October 2009.
By order of the board.
Bradley Howell-Smith
Secretary

FireyB
11-02-2009, 10:16 PM
What do people make of point 5 ? ? ?

3yearsharehold
11-04-2009, 03:02 AM
Listing on the NSX now NSXA hasn't been salubrious for 99.9% of shareholders or 100% for Revetec.

We need to view Munich testing report, hopefully this will be available today tomorrow or very soon, well before the 30/11/09 AGM .

3yearsharehold
11-04-2009, 03:43 AM
FireyB,
You've been logged into this Forum for antiphon since you posted!

So what's your thoughts on Revetec becoming unlisted from NSXA ???

Matra et Alpine
11-04-2009, 03:51 AM
Being listed is a great way of getting widespread investor take-up on IPO.

BUT, the restrictions placed on an organisation can be a real pain when trying to "move fast".

Also, being annoyed by thousands of investors on a daily basis who BY LAW you must respond to becomes a liability. One that those so-called investors don't appreciate.

And of course the consipracy theorists amongst us might suggest that it's a cheap way to acquire all the business before massive expansion/investment fro another source.

It all depends on what they propose in the de-listing.

Will be intersting to read the full proposal. Can a shareholder plase post as soon as published ? Thanks.

3yearsharehold
11-04-2009, 04:50 AM
Revetecs Twenty largest shareholders as of Annual report 30 June 2009

Number of ordinaryshares held & Percentage of capital held

1.BRADLEY DAVID HOWELL-SMITH 32,380,987 13.83%
2.MR EDWIN YU 15,250,000 6.51%
3.MR DOUGLAS JOHN LOMAS ATF <THE CENTRE MANAGEMENT A/C> 9,528,778 4.07%
4.WINCOF PTY LTD 6,006,399 2.57%
5.PAUL RUDOLF MOITZI ATF <MOITZI FAMILY A/C> 5,879,969 2.51%
6.PETER KOCH 4,517,000 1.93%
7.PAN ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ATF <PAN DISCRETIONARY FAMILY A/C> 3,736,577 1.60%
8.BRIAN DOUGLAS ANDREWS 3,093,000 1.32%
9.CHRISTOPHER LEO DRENKHAHN 3,010,001 1.29%
10.MURRY ANDREW 3,000,000 1.28%
11.GRAHAM MARK DREVER & ALISON LOUISE DREVER 2,953,570 1.26%
12.STUART RICHARD LEE MARTIN 2,900,000 1.24%
13MR GRAHAM MARK DREVER ATF <M & A J DREVER A/C> 2,870,530 1.23%
14.MICHAEL ANTHONY O'MARA & LYNETTE O'MARA 2,608,850 1.11%
15.EVADON CORPORATE PTY LTD 2,500,000 1.07%
16.REGINALD AINSWORTH HOWELL-SMITH & PATRICIA HOWELL-SMITH 2,404,000 1.03%
17.HARTAZ PTY LTD 2,123,888 0.91%
18STEPHEN SHERRIN & SUTCHADA HEATON 2,100,000 0.90%
19KINGSWOOD PTY LTD ATF <TUALLY FAMILY A/C> 2,000,003 0.85%
20.SNV ENTERPRISES PTY LTD 2,000,000 0.85%

The only top shareholder that consitanly sold down over last three years is No 16 ..name ending in HOWELL-SMITH!
Just wonder if there holding went down just before last capilal raise , & is up now.

Matra et Alpine
11-04-2009, 08:21 AM
erm explain last part please ?
From 2006 hodings it looks like then they owned 2,952,000 shares.
Hardly a significant "sell down" :) :)

Tiem to put the conspiracy game back into your toy cupboard :)

Who are they anyway ?
From the names I presume they are his parents or siblings ... inthat case, not unreasnable for either to sell and leave son/brother to get on without their continued suport :) :) You can only "Hold hands" for so long before cutting the apron strings.

FireyB
11-04-2009, 09:00 AM
It's hard to know what the idea of de-listing is without the results from Germany or talking to "The Board"... Not having too much experience with this sort of stuff myself, I was keen to see what everyone else thought, but it's evident that there is not one clear answer, but rather many points of view which can be concentrated down to the reason being either very good, or very bad.... So for now, it appears everyone is left to do the old sit and wait again for yet another report. Lets hope it's not saved up for one big AGM bombshell.

3yearsharehold
11-04-2009, 04:57 PM
Matra et Alpine,
If you rob a bank the Judge isn't interested how much money you were after.
"Hardly a significant "sell down"..... A quarter of 1% is significant, besides any buy sell should be disclosed immediately regardless of share price.

"erm explain last part please ?" Three weeks before rights issue the shares traded 40% higher, so the question is did Howell-Smith Number 16 sell then buy back.
A quarter of 1% BHP = $300 million

ASX Business Rules & Listing Rules
associates include:

(a) a spouse of any recognised affiliate or relative of any recognised
affiliate;

(b) a partner of the participant, a spouse of such a partner, or the
relative of such a partner or spouse;

(d) immediate families of any such partners, directors, employees,
consultants and associated members;

(j) any person who is an associate of the participant for the purposes
of Division 2 of Part 1.2 of the Act.
For the purpose of this definition, relative means spouse, defacto spouse,
parent, son or daughter or a spouse or defacto spouse of that person.

Voluntary withdrawal of listing
2.25 An issuer whose primary listing is on the Exchange may only voluntarily
withdraw its listing if it gives the Exchange at least 90 days notice and the issuer
has obtained the approval of the holders of each class of its listed securities by
way of a three quarters majority vote at duly convened meetings of those holders.

Matra et Alpine
11-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Matra et Alpine,
If you rob a bank the Judge isn't interested how much money you were after.
"Hardly a significant "sell down"..... A quarter of 1% is significant, besides any buy sell should be disclosed immediately regardless of share price.
You're argument is flawed as you have assumed "robbery" if it's "Legitimate" then the whole argument is moot.
What are the limits on OZ listed public companies ?
Directors are ONLY requed to indicate "significant" share transactions in US or UK exchange.
What is the position of the Australian markets ? No point thinking on this if the number is below that.
PS: 1 quarter of 1% is NOTHING in share ownership.
"erm explain last part please ?" Three weeks before rights issue the shares traded 40% higher, so the question is did Howell-Smith Number 16 sell then buy back.
A quarter of 1% BHP = $300 million
Where are you getting that the shares are worth $300M ?
As I understand frmo these pages, the share price plummetted.
Investors can't apply old prices to more recent events. The ombudsmen don't look it like that :) So no point us :)

ASX Business Rules & Listing Rules
associates include:
........
For the purpose of this definition, relative means spouse, defacto spouse,
parent, son or daughter or a spouse or defacto spouse of that person. fairly standard for stock market rules.
BUT what's the relevance ?
Voluntary withdrawal of listing
2.25 An issuer whose primary listing is on the Exchange may only voluntarily
withdraw its listing if it gives the Exchange at least 90 days notice and the issuer
has obtained the approval of the holders of each class of its listed securities by
way of a three quarters majority vote at duly convened meetings of those holders.
agaiun, soudns like that is what is being proposed.
eg a MEETING to vote on the board/directors proposal to de-list.
Again ... fairly standard the world over.

This seems like the same old ground.
Investors put money in without realising the risks of investing.
Sad, but the realistic situation in investmentis that most "lose" ( or don't win as much asexpected ).
I consider it a good year if at least 1/3rd of my choices come up positive.
But that's the risky market play and as long as that 1/3 delivers $$$$ then I'm more than happy.
No point getting worried over the 2/3 I lost on !

If I am readingi tt rght and there are still investors thinking they have a right to "more value" then I'm afraid they're learning lesson one of investing. You lose. Lesson 2 is sometimes you win. :) :)

csl177
11-04-2009, 10:12 PM
Man, five years and counting. Anyone else feel as though the title of this thread (and the content/direction)
have become really annoying? For awhile there, the trolls were at least entertaining. :rolleyes:

As to investments in emerging and/or experimental technology? Well, I made a mistake with Orbital a decade ago.
It happens. Man up when it doesn't work out. Interestingly, my battery and solar PV stocks have done great.
Currently up over 400%. :D

clutch-monkey
11-04-2009, 10:14 PM
As to investments in emerging and/or experimental technology? Well, I made a mistake with Orbital a decade ago.
It happens. Man up when it doesn't work out. Interestingly, my battery and solar PV stocks have done great.
Currently up over 400%. :D
exactly!
it's essentially gambling, play with fire and expect to get burnt.

csl177
11-04-2009, 10:21 PM
exactly!
it's essentially gambling, play with fire and expect to get burnt.

Yup... although any sensible person spreads risk by choosing solid performers to go along with the starry-eyed dreams,
and researches what MIGHT be good investments. It's INFORMED gambling.:D

3yearsharehold
11-06-2009, 04:18 AM
Matra et Alpine
"You're argument is flawed as you have assumed "robbery" if it's "Legitimate" then the whole argument is moot."

No YOU ASSUMED!

"What are the limits on OZ listed public companies ?
Directors are ONLY requed to indicate "significant" share transactions in US or UK exchange.
What is the position of the Australian markets ? No point thinking on this if the number is below that."

Stop trying to be a lion and read, As I said in not so many words, any quantity regardless of share value, for good reason, lookin over seas .

"PS: 1 quarter of 1% is NOTHING in share ownership.
Where are you getting that the shares are worth $300M ?"

Do your math, % carefully read what I stated!

"This seems like the same old ground.
Investors put money in without realising the risks of investing.
Sad, but the realistic situation in investmentis that most "lose" ( or don't win as much asexpected ).
I consider it a good year if at least 1/3rd of my choices come up positive.
But that's the risky market play and as long as that 1/3 delivers $$$$ then I'm more than happy.
No point getting worried over the 2/3 I lost on !"

I have never said I regretted investing in this company & if you think you can win by most loosing you had better check your last bank statements !

"If I am readingi tt rght and there are still investors thinking they have a right to "more value" then I'm afraid they're learning lesson one of investing. You lose. Lesson 2 is sometimes you win."

Your tone sounds like you've given up on Revetec.

I still win because I backed an Aussie invention.
BTW the ASX would be more beneficial..

cs1177
Well its called timing the market ....If you invested in Orbital 1999 & sold in 2000 you'd be 150% in black..June 2006 sold June 2007 you'd be 250% in black.

Matra et Alpine
11-06-2009, 07:02 AM
^^^ Sorry man but I'm not getting involved in that nonsense.

I presume your "BHP" referred to Biliton. SO has NOTHING to do with REvetec.
THe calue and percentage of the holdings folks were complaining about being "sold down" is insignifcant.

Yes I lose a fair NUMBER of deals .. but IF you win big enough on the other deals then it does not matter.
It's all about BALANCING risk in the portfolio.

I'm a supporter of Revetc and the efforts that Brad is putitng in and if you review the thread you'll see I'm often telling idiots to get off his back and to grow up in investment terms.

Your posts don't fit together and life's too short to debate.

I go back to the previous post ... the comapnyb is doing the right thing in saying they will propose at a meeting de-listing.
All the rest is mind-masturbation.

csl177
11-09-2009, 11:35 PM
cs1177
Well its called timing the market ....If you invested in Orbital 1999 & sold in 2000 you'd be 150% in black..June 2006 sold June 2007 you'd be 250% in black.

Interesting you'd pick up on my comment regarding Orbital. I believed in it but too early, much like your concerns with Revtec. I sold when Orbital was de-listed from the NYSE and moved on... the stock never achieved the performance I was looking for, let alone the questions of company condition. As a member of SAE my background allowed me clearer understanding of what the product was/is, and it's limitations. That's not to say Orbital or Revtec aren't potential future winners, as I think both are technically interesting. But as an investor, one must temper (as I suggested) starry-eyed dreams with economic reality. For me, that means alternative energy technologies which have shown far more growth potential for my particular type of portfolio. I'm 54, retired, and have been doing this successfully quite awhile. Balancing solid blue-chip long term performers with bonds and growth stocks will always be mainstays for successful investors.

There's no such thing as "timing the market". A smart investor accepts certain losses as inevitable. One can't always buy low and sell high. Grow a set... sooner or later when they get lopped off, you'll need to get used to it and grow some new ones. It happens.

As already pointed out, this thread reeks of the whining of unhappy investors. It's supposed to be about Revtec's engines... something far more interesting. Let's continue that discussion, shall we? If you aren't happy with your investment decisions, please vent somewhere else. This is an automotive site.

Matra et Alpine
11-10-2009, 03:53 AM
Grow a set... sooner or later when they get lopped off, you'll need to get used to it and grow some new ones. It happens
I'm keeping that quote for the future. Best way I've sen it written for many a year :)

Intresting view on the rate of acceptance of engine change tech.
I'm working with a few researchers and the amount of research, design and patent work in the area of Hydrogen and the application of Hydrogen fuelled or hudrogen cell powered devices is astounding even me. THere are SOO many real winning innovations that need the small cheap energy that can be delivered via local H generation that I think it will "drive" the market.

Like porn drove the video and then network industry I think the "gadgets" and products will spur the development of small efficient Hydrogen based power - by whateve means.

Like we all thought VHS killing Betamax was the end of a war we realised it's was only an early skirmsih and VIdeoDisc, DV, DVD and Blu-Ray are only battles along that campaign. ( OK that analogy probably only works for us old enough to have BEEN THERE with the Betamax/Video2000/VHS times :) )

Anyway point being .... maybe the boat HAS passed on tweaking the last efficiency out of the ICE. WHere it's at is fine because the "new stuff" changes the whoel landsacpe aking the last few $ points improvement irrelevant to the market.

csl177
11-10-2009, 10:22 AM
Interesting view on the rate of acceptance of engine change tech.
I'm working with a few researchers and the amount of research, design and patent work in the area of Hydrogen and the application of Hydrogen fuelled or hudrogen cell powered devices is astounding even me. THere are SOO many real winning innovations that need the small cheap energy that can be delivered via local H generation that I think it will "drive" the market.

Anyway point being .... maybe the boat HAS passed on tweaking the last efficiency out of the ICE. WHere it's at is fine because the "new stuff" changes the whoel landsacpe aking the last few $ points improvement irrelevant to the market.

Agreed, Matra. I can see small Revtec power units using alternative fuels such as LPG, hydrogen or bioethanol at constant speeds, driving generator/KERS systems for automotive applications. That's where the design's inherent thermal efficiency could shine. And there are already hydrogen/Stirling utility systems in use. Marine applications have been the most impressive.

Solar and wind will undoubtedly become the cheapest methods of producing hydrogen for the purpose. Energy expenditures to produce hydrogen have been problematic to say the least; simpler integrated systems will create an entirely new marketplace for clean power. My enthusiasm for fuel cell technology over the past 25 years has been tempered by the slow rate of acceptance, and high costs related to producing hydrogen. Moore's Law applies to all technologies: accelerating exponentially to an equal reduction in costs. The next generation of power sources are just in the wings... and will be exciting to witness. Revtec could be a viable component.

3yearsharehold
11-11-2009, 03:39 AM
cs1177
"There's no such thing as "timing the market". A smart investor accepts certain losses as inevitable. One can't always buy low and sell high. Grow a set... sooner or later when they get lopped off, you'll need to get used to it and grow some new ones. It happens."

Well I will let you feed mine to the Hyenas if I cant time this one , as an experiment at my expense CDU.AX (CuDeco Limited) today closed at AU$5.77.
Before 25/12/09 AU$10.00 AU$30.00 before 25/12/2011.
If I'm wrong on either, I will cut my own off , then you guys can take the piss .

Matra et Alpine
11-11-2009, 03:56 AM
^ Not too hard a call.
Playing the numbers failry solidly.
Is their JORC statement out yet ?
Coz if it is then you're "cheating" :)
But hey, copper has already quadrupled market price in the last year and fair to expect a mining company with reserves chare price to track slightly behind that while the market is still a little "tender". Once it turns bullish that's agood one to latch in to.
But having been s,art enough to do a stock buy-back when the price was pretty much tanked puts them in a strong position. Definately one I'd punt for a 6 month upside :)

3yearsharehold
11-11-2009, 04:45 AM
"Is their JORC statement out yet ?"

No , soon!
Also wont include the resent core samples . Check the samples out 23/10/09
I put them at 1.5 MT Cu at US$1000t $5 $6 trading price still under priced including refining costs.
As you know copper is US $6000t.
If you research you will find more.
QMN are just south, with 300tCu tonnes "my guess", cdu hold 13% of qmn.

My math included Co+Au.

"But hey, copper has already quadrupled market price in the last year and fair to expect a mining company with reserves chare price to track slightly behind that while the market is still a little "tender". Once it turns bullish that's agood one to latch in to."

Your talking about the same price 15 years ago......without inflation .

3yearsharehold
11-18-2009, 04:23 AM
Revetec cannot deliver.
The Engine is a vibrating mess, lo wasted monies too keep Brads ego trip.
The end.

Matra et Alpine
11-18-2009, 05:16 AM
1. You know by now to post evidence and sources.
2. Yep, some investments are "wasted" .. that'w why it si an INVESTMENT and not a mythical money tree
3. See 1. You know to keep personal comments out of here.

So, any sensible comments on this opinion ?
Which engine is "vibrating mess" ( if there is one ) and who's test has raised it and what is Revetec response ( if any yet ).

Let's just keep the personal "ego trip" comments out of it please !!!

As an aside, let me ask 3yso what he wrote when he first bought into REvetec ?
Could it be the same mindset and words as the ones just posted on a copper/minerals geological compnay ??
That's the shitter about hindsight ... IT is always right :(

csl177
11-18-2009, 08:24 AM
I think 3yso might be a typical day trader. These guys litter the ground like bugs under a streetlight after an IPO meltdown, as they rarely have sense to understand the product they're betting on. Here's a mantra for successful traders: research... research... research.
Prior performance is no guarantee of future (or any) success.

Just for the hell of it I checked on the latest Revetec news and found nothing regarding further tests.
The following notice from NSX is final, for investors. Oh, the keenin' and wailin' there'll be... :rolleyes:

"SPECIAL NOTE:
This company is not only delisted, it is also deregistered. That means it has been struck off the official register and no longer exists. Shares have no value. If they were purchased on or after 20 September 1985 (when Capital Gains Tax began) shareholders may be able to claim a capital loss, as deregistration is a Capital Gains Tax Event. (Note that if a capital loss has already been claimed when a liquidator’s declaration was issued, it cannot be claimed again.)"

A lesson some will never learn. (hope he's "timed the market" >sic< on those mining stocks) :p

Matra et Alpine
11-18-2009, 09:27 AM
A lesson some will never learn
100% :)
Yep, "research" for many means what a shyster broker says to them or they heard from mates in the pub.
The thouht of going theour hundreds of pages of financial, market and technology articles before investing doesn't fit with the "hedge fund" mantality brigade ... if I hear ONE more failed broker expouse why giving them money to invest on stocks or for them to teach you high schgool math based on their analysis of candlesticks I'll go postal on them :)

stian1979
11-23-2009, 06:03 AM
I sugested changing the title of this thread years ago.
Can I have my way now?

hightower99
11-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Hmm Does this mean I won my wager???

That would be nice :)

csl177
11-23-2009, 10:07 PM
If I'm wrong on either, I will cut my own off, then you guys can take the piss .

Well, your "accumen" dragged you to the end of Revetec... unless you're a whiz on mining operation fundamentals and metals futures, better sharpen up the blade, you're gonna be a eunuch.

hightower, I missed the wager post... what's he owe ya? :D

hightower99
11-24-2009, 09:35 AM
hightower, I missed the wager post... what's he owe ya? :D

Unfortunately the wager wasn't between Brad and I. It was between a friend and myself. Basically I bet that Revetec wouldn't last 7 years... and that bet was made in late 2003 early 2004 (not quite sure).

Honourable mention for keeping it going for so long. I was getting worried I might lose :)

Not!:D

Cyco
11-24-2009, 04:25 PM
The wager hasn't been won because Revetec is still an ongoing and viable entity.

It has just been de-listed, that is all.

FireyB
11-24-2009, 08:56 PM
Cyco, I think that you will find that Revetec is still listed.

3yearsharehold
11-27-2009, 04:16 AM
This is from UFO

Re RVC
Steve Valtas said...
"Its always been talked about i.e. de-listing.

The reason he gave is that after the results of the trial are released RVC will go forward with various projects all over the world. He thinks that there will be significant financial interest in the company in countries such as Germany, China and America.

RVC will issue (to existing shareholders) shares in the companies listed on the exchanges in these countries.

He also informed me that RVC is trading at a price well below its true value. I asked him how does he make that assumption. But he couldn't give an answer."




.................................................. ..............


Steve Valtas

Solicitor

Butlers Law Group

PO Box 3

Lvl 2, 15 Parnell Street

Strathfield NSW 2135

DX 23811 Strathfield

Phone: 9744 3900

Fax: 9744 3808

REVETEC

Where is the Munich test results,YOU promised three weeks ago????
Where is Chook?

3yearsharehold
11-27-2009, 04:36 AM
BTW
For those not familiar with Steve Valtas, he's Revetec new solicitor and got 1million shares for paper work @ 1 cent,then 1million at 2.5 cents.
!!!!paper work worth 10t , then 25t for the next letter or two he sent ..Steve Valtas,now owns close to 1% of revetec for mail sending!

Matra et Alpine
11-27-2009, 07:30 AM
Unfortunately the wager wasn't between Brad and I. It was between a friend and myself. Basically I bet that Revetec wouldn't last 7 years... and that bet was made in late 2003 early 2004 (not quite sure).

Honourable mention for keeping it going for so long. I was getting worried I might lose :)

Not!:D
You are proud of the ability to say that a strart-up won't last 7 years ?

Jeez, you like to play the long odds huh --- NOT :)
PS: Most DON'T :) :)

WOW, hasn't taken long for the "experts" to circle has it.

ht, you wanna go back over the other things you SAID *YOU* woudl/coudl do in the forum and give an update .. coz I'm 100% certain the naysayers to your claims/comments/beliefs are also 100% right :)

LEAVE the company alone. They're playing in the big boy market place and yes it's hard. I wodl NEVER put someone down for trying thier hardest to deliver a dream .. especially to a land of internet-couch-potatoes woth big dreams and no guts :) ( hey me included there )

Matra et Alpine
11-27-2009, 07:34 AM
Interestingly nobody seems to be saying the obvious reason for de-listing .... and why I generally advice tech startups NOT to list.

By being listed they have an obligation to openess and reporting of activities that can be an issue with potential partners. By being de-listed they can be as secretive as potential clients want/need them to be.

I still wish them the best of luck and do hope to see the tech surface in whatever guise after the efforts put in.

Kozy
11-28-2009, 08:39 AM
Been a while since I checked back here and I am THOROUGHLY disappointed with how this thread has spiralled down hill.

Do you bitchy little girls not have your own sodding investments forum to bitch and out-greed each other? You sound pathetic the lot of you. This was supposed to be a technical discussion on the merits and pitfalls of the design, and now look, nothing of substance whatsoever, just financial BS.

FWIW, 3YSH, you sound like the most utterly despisable person I have ever come across, I feel sorry for Brad being involved with you.

:mad:

wagga
11-29-2009, 10:32 PM
:eek:KOSY novice you tell'em love you tell'em love go on you tell'em love all a bunch of bloody Bitches how dare they upset poor old brad.If he pissed off 12 years ago your big mouth wood not be so big it's brads fault so you tell'em love you tell'em love :eek:

FireyB
11-30-2009, 07:59 PM
I assume you did not attend the AGM Wagga... Couldn't drag yourself away from your keyboard??? Well allow me to tell you; it was really terrible, you would have loved it, but there's a silver lining: i'll take whatever shares you have for half a cent per share, something back for you before it all goes down the ****... Then once you've sold out, you will have no need to come on here and irritate others with your nonsense.

The people who DID go to the AGM will understand what I'm saying here... It's a good deal hey Wagga... You should take it while you have the chance.

Then after that, MAYBE this thread change, and start talking about the REVETEC ENGINE for once... But wait until I get Waggas shares at half-a-cent first, otherwise he might want $2 a share instead :)

Revetec Raptor
11-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Latest NEWS !

http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722263.PDF
http://www.nsxa.com.au/ftp/news/021722262.PDF

If what is said in the report is correct REVETEC should be suing the Incompetent German Universality or at lease be getting a BIG REFUND for the testing !

Only 4 days of actual testing ....whilst paying Brads salary the whole time ! :(
As well a making German "bodgie brothers" Parts ! :mad:

This appears to be almost sabotage by mine furore !

Matra et Alpine
12-01-2009, 03:36 AM
So .. the 52million odd "votes" ... how many people did that represent ?

Hmmm, sounds like the University was "typical" .. talk "up" there capability driven by probably one research lecturer and then have the students do ALL the work "as a learning exercise". Thus poor materials, poor machining, poor management. They don't always turn out that way, but I'm involved in so many where I've seen similar happen :(

Listing in London or New York later on sounds sensible, at least there the investors know what an investment IS and can evaluate risks and not get too tied up with it if it doesn't go as well has planned.

Hopefully better news for next years AGM :)
and let's remember the lessons leaned. ALWAYS have results based contracts and commitments with the responsible part paying for/finding time to do any remedial effort. Make sure any "remote" activity has a dedicated project manager who WILL take front line responsibility for day to day items.