A work of pure genius! - Brilliant "Revetec" Engine

[RVC Shareholder]

Yes, that was quick. Maybe that was just co-incidence and it was getting done anyway.

I don't think it has anything to do with hype. It is important to stay fresh.

The new site looks great. Not too flashy, just fresh.

[revetec]

Please no
Adding a news item is fine but the whole "new look" got dumped from the Marketing BS/hype-masters years ago. Looks like it's moved to the Website developers looking for easy cash.

Worst of all, it's now tainted with so many companies who instead of spending money on the important stuff, spend it on image and just go down faster.

Please, Brad, stick to developing a decent product and not pandering to hype-hounds.

I have taken over the website myself and I designed and built it in my spare time (Not that I have much). I did this so I could update it in real time when I need to. So now I can make an announcement on the NSXA and instantly put it up on our website.
I don't have any time to answer questions at the moment but please keep hitting our website for updates. I put a video up a couple of days ago of the X4v2 programing and testing we did last week. The engine sounds and looks good with only a couple of minor changes needed. All looks good at this stage.
It'll be about a month before I'm back on here, at which time I'll answer any questions then. Just go to our webpage until then.

Cheers
Brad

[FireyB]

Revetec Latest News X4v2

"Update 17/10/2007: We have now basically set up the fuel injection program which has involved holding the engine with the dynamometer at various load/throttle settings (Up to full throttle), through incremental rev ranges up to 4,500rpm (for up to 5 minutes at a time) while we programmed the fuel mixtures.

The engine has now performed about 10 hours on the dynamometer. We are currently working on the balancing of the X4v2. I have uploaded two videos in the video gallery. The first showing the engine smoothness running at 1,500rpm, and also a video during programming the fuel injection followed by a dyno ramp test to 4,500rpm.

Fine tuning of mixtures will be completed once the engine has been balanced and had enough hours to run in....." (More follows on website)



The whole report sounds pretty good; Progress is progress isn't it. I look forward to the day the put it into the car.

[The Raptor]

I have been watching the progress of both of these for many years !!!
I assume the "Revetec" Drive train & the "Coats" Spherical Valve train, alliance would be a world leading combination !!!

The Coats Spherical Valve system claim: (correct me if I am incorrect !)

1. HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINE (valve trains are very mechanically efficient).
2. LOW PARASITIC POWER CONSUMPTION.
3. Can run to suit either 2 or 4 stroke configuration.
4. No oil in the cylinder Head (valve train floats/runs in Exhaust gasses), your engine may never need an Oil change.
(a Conventional valve train is Demoned by the Heat transfer to the engine Oil during detonation, especially to worn seals &/or valve stems)
5. The Coats Spherical valves run cool.
6. Can run at very high compression ratios >18:1 (Diesel, LPG etc.)
7. The Coats Spherical valve train claims approx. 95% efficiency..

To me it looks like especially Revetec as well as every other current Conventional valve train engine would benefit from this increased efficiency !
Revetec Drive train 95% efficient !
Coats Valve train 95% efficient !

Can anyone tell me if this means this Combination would produce a 95% Efficient Engine ???
Anyone have feedback of this valve system ???

Coates Spherical Rotary Valve Cylinder head (from site)
• Low manufacturing cost
• Low maintenance cost
• Low noise
• Low parasitic power consumption
• High efficiency
• High volumetric efficiency
• Flexibility of gas motion control
• High torque/power density
• High efficiency in part load operation
• Low knock tendency
• Low engine height for flexible vehicle styling
• Low pollution emission
• Alternate fuel compatibility
• Clean engine block and compartment
• No liquid lube in any part of rotary valve

Good reading !!!
welfare for TECHNOLOGY

[hightower99]

To me it looks like especially Revetec as well as every other current Conventional valve train engine would benefit from this increased efficiency !
Revetec Drive train 95% efficient !
Coats Valve train 95% efficient !
Can anyone tell me if this means this Combination would produce a 95% Efficient Engine ???

Not even close...

First the revetec bottom end has yet to prove any efficiency gain (although it probably does produce some gain) and it is certainly not anywhere close to 95% efficient

Second the Coates spherical rotary valve system is interesting and if revetec bought them out and used the technology I would applaud them, however, they are not 95% efficient (I not even sure what efficiency you are talking about?)

The best an Internal Combustion Engine can do is about 60% and that is with a perfectly insulated engine running on the true Carnot cycle with 0 (ZERO) friction.

So no, even if both technologies where combined and optimized they would not become a 95% efficient engine.

[Rev.Bubba]

I wonder if this could be shoved in the back of a Fiat 500. If not a 914 would be nice.

[The Raptor]

Not even close...

First the revetec bottom end has yet to prove any efficiency gain (although it probably does produce some gain) and it is certainly not anywhere close to 95% efficient.

Well, the Revetec mechanism appears to be 89% mechanically efficient (claims to on use 11% to operate the "bottom end" of the Revetec engine)
The Revetec bottom end of the CCE engine only appears to loose 11% of it's efficiency to "bottom end" parasitic power requirements.

Second the Coates spherical rotary valve system is interesting and if revetec bought them out and used the technology I would applaud them, however, they are not 95% efficient (I not even sure what efficiency you are talking about?)

The Coates valve mechanism (SRV) appears to be 90% mechanically efficient (claims to on use less than 10% parasitic power to operate)

The best an Internal Combustion Engine can do is about 60% and that is with a perfectly insulated engine running on the true Carnot cycle with 0 (ZERO) friction.

Theoretically an engine using both technologies that basically only appears to loose 21% of it's efficiency to parasitic power requirements .....less, Oil pump, Alternator etc.

So, theoretically this should make the combination a little less than a 89% efficiency ?

With the Revetec shares prices falling to record lows, I am still awaiting the verrrry late news update on the final testing.

We are all awaiting good news that has fallen short of the spin of the past &I feel the current price reflects this & may fall even further as it appears their is little interest in the RVC shares currently !

The site looks a lot better & is easier to Navigate with the new face lift.

[Oosh]

It's a bit worse than that, seems RVC is no longer listed on the ASX.

Price Results
REVETEC HOLDINGS LIMITED - Company Profile and Status at deListed

Edit: Hmm, okay, they're on the NSX instead? NSX National Stock Exchange of Australia

[CHOOK]

The news isn't as bad as some of you thought. Patience people.
Well done on the good results Brad. Some shareholders never doubted the potential of this engine.


Director's Announcement - X4v2 Development Update - 19/11/2007

The Directors are pleased to announce the latest test results of the X4v2 Prototype engine.

We have achieved an incredible 180Nm of torque at the start of our dynamometer ramp test, providing almost maximum acceleration from idle, increasing fuel efficiencies in stop/start and cruising situations, and a maximum torque of 202Nm. We have also achieved a BMEP figure of 10.6bar beating the AMG Mercedes 5.3litre engine of 10.5bar and the GM LS1 5.7litre engine of 9.3bar proving higher efficiency. We have also beaten the GM LS1 engine (scaled to the same capacity) in torque up to 3,000rpm by an average of 15%, best being 23%.

Please visit our website for this latest news where you can also download the full testing report at Revetec Homepage. This report has the latest prototype performance data. This data includes: Power and Torque figures, Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) graph, 3D Fuel Injection map, Engine Benchmark Comparisons, Benchmarked Torque Comparisons, Air/Fuel Ratio Lambda graph, Dynamometer Inertia Ramp (Power and Torque) graph (without SAE smoothing) and explanations of data and efficiencies.

Kind regards

Brad Howell-Smith
Chairman
Revetec Holdings Limited

[hightower99]

Well, the Revetec mechanism appears to be 89% mechanically efficient (claims to on use 11% to operate the "bottom end" of the Revetec engine)
The Revetec bottom end of the CCE engine only appears to loose 11% of it's efficiency to "bottom end" parasitic power requirements.

That is a totally unproven claim and it only refers to frictional losses (and sorry to burst your bubble but a normal bottom end is also 90% in the same sense). What is the translative efficiency? (how efficient is it at making torque from a given cylinder pressure). Also Revetec has not proved any increase in top end thermal efficiency.

The Coates valve mechanism (SRV) appears to be 90% mechanically efficient (claims to on use less than 10% parasitic power to operate)

Another unproven claim and again current systems are only slightly worse (roughly 80% efficiency) The biggest advantage of CRSV system is the increased breathing efficiency.

Theoretically an engine using both technologies that basically only appears to loose 21% of it's efficiency to parasitic power requirements .....less, Oil pump, Alternator etc.

You forgot about a whole host of other things to consider. You obviously know absolutely nothing about ICE design so I suggest you stop contemplating it until after you take the neccessary classes.

So, theoretically this should make the combination a little less than a 89% efficiency ?

No...


Also I would like to mention that the recent rapport on the testing of the X4V2 engine is a sham. Not even close to objective, or even technically accurate! Really I am not impressed at all, I don't really expect much from revetec but this was really well under what I was expecting.

[3yearsharehold]

Brad,
Congratulations on the more professional looking announcement-update,
although most of it seems to be old news not price sensitive.

Great to see the cost savings (on annual report- no glossy cover!)
however, you seemed to be concerned about the thought of a share dilution.....mmmmm
Revetec's bank balance is very gloomy, you are relying on federal grant,
plus John Lomas.
Why would anyone pay 4 1/2 cents when shares are currently trading at 2 cents.
I also noticed JL sold down plus one of YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS !...this was never
announced on the NSXA....by LAW it should have been.

"Conclusively, we can say that the Revetec engine design provides substantially greater efficiency
than a conventional engine of the same configuration. Further refinement and adding existing
systems used in the automotive marketplace will increase efficiency further."........

So you obviously need more funding and man power than you have got to speed up the process.
How can you get more money?
If Revetec diluted shares by 100% @ 1 cent equals $2 million dollars , @ 3=$6 million.
Besides Chook, do you really think the other 1,500 share holders are going to be worried
that Revetec may have a saleable product in 2 yrs time as opposed to 5 years or possibly never.
Or..Are you still on track to start production at the Gold Coast in Jan 2008?

It seems you have spent a lot of time installing the X4 into trikes and
you were looking at manufacturing a motor to suit trikes and light aircraft..
The question is ...
do you have any comparison between the X4v2 motor and the existing ones your hoping to compete with?

[revetec]

Dear 3yearshareholder

Thank you. Beating low down torque on almost all engines in automotive with an inferior top end is price sensitive.

We are operating on the federal grant and the convertible note at the moment to reduce dilution of shares to a minimum.

To my knowledge, JL gave/sold shares to his brother. The family member was news to me too but they lost their main income. Not blood related so did not need to disclose it but it can be seen on a "computer share" report.

We have achieved sufficiently enough data for the car companies to come. More about that at a later date. Future funding doesn't necessarily have to come from share dilution.

Not much time was spent on the trike mods. Note that it is the X4v1 engine in the trike, not the X4v2.

We benchmarked the X4v2 against the latest Toyota 2AZ-FE engine. What more do I need to do? Other engines in our target markets are not as efficient.

Cheers
Got to get back to it.

[3yearsharehold]

Hi Brad,

"We benchmarked the X4v2 against the latest Toyota 2AZ-FE engine. What more do I need to do?"


So the 2AZ-FE is a 2.4 L (2362 cc) version built in Japan, obtains a total displacement of 2362 cm³ with 88.5 mm (3.5in) bore and 96.0 mm (3.8-in) stroke, resulting in a compression ratio of 9.6:1. Output is 157 hp (117 kW) at 5600 rpm with 162 ft·lbf (220 N·m) of torque at 4000 rpm. The 2AZ-FE also has one-piece cast camshafts. Output for the 2007 Toyota Camry is 158 hp and 161 lft·lbf of torque. There is also a version of the 2AZ-FE engine with 161 hp and 163 ft·lbf of torque made in Japan for the Scion tC. A 166 hp version is in the 06-up Rav4. This engine will be put in to the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe twins for the 2009 model year.

It seems there not planing on installing into a light aircraft , so you didn't answer the question!

Have you compared the X4v2 with a motor that your hoping to replace (light aircraft engine) ?


"Not much time was spent on the trike mods. Note that it is the X4v1 engine in the trike, not the X4v2."

How would you compare X4v1 with the VW motor they are currently using?
A==?? Thanks!!

[3yearsharehold]

Sorry , I assumed it was X4v2 in the Trike .


Quote #762
"Not much time was spent on the trike mods. Note that it is the X4v1 engine in the trike, not the X4v2."


Quote #728
"Firstly at the time we announced that we were putting it into a vehicle we hadn't received the trike and we were considering a car at the time of the announcement. So at the time the comment was accurate. GTM has now supplied us with a new trike, so we are now fitting it to that. Some things do change on a day to day basis and one of them is the vehicle we are first trialling the X4v2 in. This in no way means that we are not fitting it to a car after that."


It doesn't help potential Investors when your announcements are all over the place.

Cant you get your hands on a old (crop duster, plane) to trial X4v2 in.


The Rapptor seems to be familiar with parachutes , and by the look of what he does with a motor strapped to his body
he would probably test pilot it , (no adventure no gain) this would receive international media attention & possibly a small fine.
If this can be done , wouldn't it be worth it.

Quote #752
"It'll be about a month before I'm back on here, at which time I'll answer any questions then. Just go to our webpage until then.
cheers
Brad"

Are YOU still going to ?

[The Raptor]

It doesn't help potential Investors when your announcements are all over the place.

This forum is all over the place, as I still haven't received a response to my Questions #738 !!!

Cant you get your hands on a old (crop duster, plane) to trial X4v2 in.

This is what I assume Conroy Aviation are Awaiting, a TEST engine.
(The site is annoying with their unprofessional CLOAKED hosting with freewebs.com SEE here)

The Rapptor seems to be familiar with parachutes , and by the look of what he does with a motor strapped to his body
he would probably test pilot it , (no adventure no gain) this would receive international media attention & possibly a small fine.
If this can be done , wouldn't it be worth it.

Their is NO way a normal 75kg person can carry a 130kg engine as well as the Cage on their Back, as this is how a "BackPack" Powered Parra Glider (PPG) is launched & flown.
However, their are PPG Quad Buggies that can carry up to 330kg with the largest PPG chute currently available.

The 330kg Pay load inc. the Pilot & all accessories, but with the current X4's Size & Torque it would PROBABLY be dangerous on a lightweight buggy, let alone having to secure it onto a 30kg Quad buggy.
For the current X4 to be adapted to the above PPG buggy, their would need to be HUGE weight reduction as one of the best ultra light engines is a 313cc (@ cost AU$2`000.oo) & weighs in at about 19kg fully dressed.

If Brad builds a SMALLER X4 version I will defiantly fly it !!!

One of the good things about a PPG is that if your engine fails, you are NOT reliant on the engine to Land or Fly/Glide, the engine only serves for climbing to altitude or makes level flight possible.
I have no idea of what you mean by, "possible fine", unless I flew it through a metropolitan City or Under the Sydney Harbour bridge (this would probably be a First)
....Even though that would be a REAL BUZZ , I would probably get shot down as a Terrorist !!!