Antonov Share Discussion Threads

[grupo guitarlumber] 30/9/2005 17:08

Antonov widens H1 pretax loss to 1.7 mln stg vs 1.31 mln, sees sales in H2

LONDON (AFX) - Automotive technology company Antonov PLC reported a widening
pretax loss in the first half and said its commercialising strategy is on track
with revenues building in the second half.
The group made a pretax loss of 1.7 mln stg in the six months to June 30,
compared with a 1.31 mln loss a year earlier.
Chief executive John Moore said: "We have made good progress during the
period under review and the second half will consolidate upon the heavy
investment of the past years as we progress towards revenue generation via the
sale of both production units and engineering and design rights to clients."
Antonov expect to build further momentum during the second half of the year
with the first sale of transmissions based on the its self-shifting mechanical
module.
It also expects to continue to make progress with its main transmission
technologies as they progress towards production.
"As previously stated we are budgeting for revenue in the region of two
million Euros next year on the basis of this progress," Antonov added.
[e-mail]
lam

[crystalclear] 30/9/2005 13:10

Normal for the odd person to take a chance company results will be good.

I wish I were there. I'd like to know if the 6-speed in the Sonalika "Rhino Rover" is Antonov related, whether the Toyota case is about establishing whether the patent is contravened rather than actually about the money, whether Nanjing can make vehicles in 2006 as some press postings suggest, and what Nanjing could use in a Rover for anautomatic transmission other than a new Antonov design if existing Rovers were based on manuals. Also, did they get the concept ready status they wanted in September for the geared pulley, and who are the OEM(s?) buying the supercharger?

[mikehardman] 30/9/2005 10:59

ATV - up on no printed trades, and results not out quite yet...
must be leaking...

[waldron] 24/9/2005 05:19

enjoy your weekend crystal

[crystalclear] 23/9/2005 12:33

Combustion engine efficiency is constrained by something called Carnot efficiency. A guy proved that efficiency would never exceed a certain amount.
So a logical approach is to try to extract energy via another route to avoid this Carnot efficiency problem. That is part of the rational behind hydrogen fuel cells.

From the little that I have read, it seems that they are now discovering that there is a chemical reaction equivalent to the Carnot efficiency limit in heat engines. For example I read a sort of mathematical proof that electrolysis efficiency can never exceed 83% for the generation of hydrogen. It lacked some rigour, so the figure might be a bit out.

There is a mini energy crisis at the moment, and the Peak-Oil crowd predict it getting much worse. So people are searching for easy alternatives, and the fact that hydrogen burns to water makes it an attractive option. Governments prefer to talk about hydrogen than nuclear power, but it amounts to the same: where does the hydrogen come from? (If it comes from hydrocarbons, you have kept the hydrogen part of the power and the carbon part of the power has already gone somewhere, creating supposed green house gases in the process.)

Maybe 50% efficient power generation. Little power transfer loss if you build the hydrogen generator at the power station. 80% efficient electrolysis to get hydrogen. 1/4 of the energy then lost to compress it into a tank, ie 75% efficiency there. Let me think ...

50% of 80% = 40%. (Hydrogen generation)
40% * 75% = 30%. (Hydrogen generation and storage in compressed tanks.)

Then NASA's fuel cells are about 50% efficient, and they presumably have the best.

30% * 50% = 15% (Initial fuel to fuel cell electricity.)

80% efficiency for an electric motor.

15% * 80% = 12% (Efficiency initial fuel to vehicle motion.)

===================================================================

Conclusion.
Better to work on electronic valves, bio fuels (ethanol, biodiesel), vehicle weight reduction (aluminium, carbon fibre). Peugeot displayed a fuel cell vehicle at the Paris motor show. Did anybody note the horsepower? 2 I think it was! Now at Frankfurt they are displaying hybrids. Recovering braking energy and switching the engines off at lights and when coasting makes sense.

To have power available at the press of a pedal, petrol engines are normally running at part throttle and diesel engines are running lean. Sucking air past the throttle makes the engine inefficient, so inefficiency is the normal state!

Time will show that fuel cells will run into problems equivalent to the Carnot efficiency of heat engines, while pressure to make vehicles more efficient will cause engine problems to be solved.

=

Honda make a (petrol not hydrogen) fuel cell for the home. It is 15% efficient at making electricity, but serves as a heater to keep the house warm, so total efficiency is 85%. That is how to use a fuel cell!

=

Plain old battery makers could be something to bet on if hybrids take a bigger share of the market! So could the makers of the electric motors. The problem is that these are probably big companies already so potential upside is limited.

[waldron] 23/9/2005 08:38

off topic,but for your interest Crystal


First fuel cell sports car in the way
Posted: 23 Sep 2005

A wholly British partnership has unveiled plans to develop the world's first environmentally clean sports car, powered by a fuel cell which
converts hydrogen into electricity.
The partnership is made up of famous Morgan sports car manufacturer, with a history going back 100 years, QinetiQ, Cranfield and Oxford Universities, BOC and OSCar.


The new vehicle, known as LIFECar, will be ultra quiet and its exhaust systems will produce only water vapour. It promises a clean vehicle
combined with sound motoring performance and stylish good looks.


Part-funded by the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI), LIFECar is a two and half-year long project. The development team say it marks a step change in vehicle power technology, that will produce a combination of performance, range and fuel economy that will be essential to its success.


Four motors


LIFECar will be based on the Morgan Aero Eight, and is powered by a QinetiQ-made fuel cell, which converts hydrogen - and oxygen taken from the air around it - into electrical energy. It will be clean, quiet and economic, and the only waste product from the car will be water.


The car's power system aims to be extremely efficient, producing significant improvements over current fuel cell prototype vehicles, with the fuel cell powering four separate electric motors, one at each drive wheel.


The key to delivering this step change in energy efficiency lies in a combination of factors, including weight reduction and a different design
approach. This exploits opportunities across the vehicle to reduce energy losses and requirements.


Regenerative braking and surplus energy will be used to charge ultra-capacitors, which will release their energy when the car is
accelerating. This will allow the car to have a much smaller fuel cell than is conventionally regarded as necessary: it will only be as
large as is required to provide cruising speed, approximately 24 kW, as opposed to around 85kW proposed by most competitor systems.


Speaking at this year's Society of Motor Manufacturers International Business Group, where the plans were unveiled, Charles Morgan, corporate strategy director of the Morgan Motor Company, director, said that "LIFECar promises to combine advanced technology while retaining the best in traditional ways of designing and building cars. A sports car that is beautiful, brilliant to drive but pollution free must be a goal worth striving for".


Energy revolution


Ian Whiting, business development manager, QinetiQ said: "LIFECar is about catching the first big wave in the energy revolution, which is set to transform the motoring industry in the same way that the computer industry was transformed by the personal computer decades ago."


Costing a total of £1.9m, with a mix of industry and DTI funding, the two and half year project will be broken down into the following areas of
responsibility with BOC developing the hydrogen refuelling plant and Cranfield University working on the on-board computing and control of the fuel-cell hybrid powertrain.


The Morgan Motor Company will provide the car platform and assemble the final concept car.Oxford University is undertaking the design and control of the electric motors and OSCar is responsible for overall system design and architecture. QinetiQ is developing the Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell.

[crystalclear] 22/9/2005 12:34

From



Germany:
Avoiding contributory infringement
Uexküll & Stolberg, Hamburg




Section 10 of the German Patent Act defines the constituent elements of contributory infringement as follows: a patent has apart from prohibiting direct infringement the further effect that a person not having the consent of the patentee shall be prohibited from supplying or offering to supply within the territory to which the Act applies a person, other than a person entitled to exploit the patented invention, with means relating to an essential element of such invention for exploiting the invention, where such person knows or it is obvious from the circumstances, that such means are suitable and intended for exploiting the invention. This does not apply when the means are staple commercial products, except where such person induces the person supplied to commit acts of direct infringement.

One of the difficulties in establishing contributory infringement resides in determining whether the person knows, or whether it is obvious from the circumstances that the means are suitable and intended for exploiting the invention. This factual characteristic has a subjective element. The patentee will usually have great difficulty proving actual knowledge. The German Federal Supreme Court has decided that it is generally only considered to be 'obvious from the circumstances' if it is self-evident for the unbiased observer of the circumstances, or there is no reasonable doubt that the means supplied or offered are suitable and intended for exploiting the invention (BGH GRUR 2001, 228 - Luftheizgerät (Air Heater)). Because of the subjective element the outcome of infringement proceedings relating to contributory infringement is difficult to predict. The German Federal Supreme Court indicated in the above-mentioned decision that instructions to use the means according to the invention, without explicitly mentioning the patent in question, may be sufficient to prove that the supplier knows that the means are intended for exploiting the invention.

It is also difficult to state clearly which precautions a person supplying or offering to supply has to take in order to avoid contributory infringement in a case where the means may be used either according to the invention or without restriction by patent rights. The person supplying or offering to supply may then have to (i)give instructions for uses that are without restriction by patent rights (positive instructions), (ii)mention the patent to the person supplied (negative instructions), or (iii) enter into a contractual agreement with the person supplied binding the latter not to use the means in any manner according to the invention, possibly even with a penalty fixed by contract to be paid by the person supplied to the patentee.

There is a recent decision of the Düsseldorf Appellate Court that is worth noting in this respect (GRUR 2003, 50 - Haubenstretchautomat (Hood Stretching Device)). This court is the appeal instance for the Düsseldorf District Court, which is a very popular forum for infringement proceedings in Germany. The Appellate Court delivered a judgment on a case where a device was supplied before grant of the patent that could be used either according to the invention or without restriction by patent rights. The person supplied used the invention directly. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it is in general sufficient if the person supplying or offering to supply indicates to the person supplied that using the device according to the invention will lead to reasonable compensation having to be paid to the patentee.

According to the German Patent Act, the patentee cannot seek injunctive relief and damages for any use of the invention before grant of the patent, but is restricted to claiming reasonable compensation for the time period after publication of the application until grant. In the above-mentioned case the Düsseldorf Appellate Court did not decide on the precautions a person supplying or offering to supply has to take after grant. It will, however, in general also in those cases be sufficient in order to avoid contributory infringement if the supplier gives (i)positive instructions and/or (ii)negative instructions.

[crystalclear] 21/9/2005 16:12

Holding(s) in Company

RNS Number:5330R
Antonov PLC
21 September 2005

Antonov plc

Holding in Company

The Company received notification yesterday that following recent market
purchases of ordinary shares in the Company, Quivest B.V. is currently
interested in 4,398,674 ordinary shares of 20 pence each, representing 14.89 per
cent of the issued share capital of Antonov plc.


For further information please contact:

In Amsterdam: Hein Vergeer [phone]

In London: David Bovell [phone]
Shane Dolan [phone]



This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
HOLPKKKBOBKDKCB

[crystalclear] 21/9/2005 01:11

Antonov's patent EP 0414782

[crystalclear] 20/9/2005 15:43

Correction to post 88. Dennis Retera will be in the British Formula Renault winter series? He is still winning I believe. The Antonov logo seems to have a better position on the white race suit than on the blue one!

[crystalclear] 19/9/2005 13:28

Toyota Infringement Action

RNS Number:4459R
Antonov PLC
19 September 2005



Toyota infringement of Antonov hybrid technology patents alleged


An infringement action has been filed against Toyota by Antonov Automotive
Technology BV (a wholly owned subsidiary of Antonov plc), the automotive
technology company, at the Patent Court in Dusseldorf alleging infringement of
its patents by the driveline of the Toyota Prius and Lexus RX400h. The case will
receive its first hearing on the 22nd September 2005. The action was originally
filed on the 12th April 2005, but the first hearing date was postponed to allow
more time for negotiations to seek a satisfactory settlement. As the offer
received is not satisfactory, no settlement has been reached and Antonov will
proceed with the case. Through the case Antonov aims to establish the
infringement and seek fair payment for the use of Antonov's intellectual
property in all relevant vehicles sold to date and for those that will be sold
through to the expiry of the patents.

Antonov CEO, John Moore, commented, "Whilst we would have preferred to reach a
mutually acceptable outcome with Toyota without recourse to the courts, I am
confident in the strength of our case. The strategy of pursuing the initial case
in Germany ensures we can obtain a binding legal opinion at a cost that does not
impact on our ability to pursue our other strategic goals."

The case relates to Antonov patent EP 0414782 and the action has been taken
after a process of careful consultation with patent specialists and advisors.
The Company has received specialist advice from both legal and automotive
industry experts and the action has been taken in Germany as the German legal
system provides a relatively rapid and cost effective route to a legally binding
decision. Antonov expects the Dusseldorf court to reach a conclusion within 12
months from the first hearing.

As is normal in these cases, Toyota has filed a counter action challenging the
validity of the Antonov patent in the Munich Patent Court. The first hearing
date for this action has yet to be set.

The case has been kept confidential to protect the negotiations on a settlement
with Toyota, but these negotiations have not progressed to our satisfaction. As
a consequence of the decision made today to proceed with the German litigation,
Antonov must now make public the case.


For further information please contact:

In Amsterdam: Hein Vergeer on [phone]

In London: John Moore on [phone]




This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

END
MSCKGGMLFLDGKZM

[crystalclear] 19/9/2005 13:15

Toyota Infringement Action

RNS Number:4459R
Antonov PLC
19 September 2005



Toyota infringement of Antonov hybrid technology patents alleged


An infringement action has been filed against Toyota by Antonov Automotive
Technology BV (a wholly owned subsidiary of Antonov plc), the automotive
technology company, at the Patent Court in Dusseldorf alleging infringement of
its patents by the driveline of the Toyota Prius and Lexus RX400h. The case will
receive its first hearing on the 22nd September 2005. The action was originally
filed on the 12th April 2005, but the first hearing date was postponed to allow
more time for negotiations to seek a satisfactory settlement. As the offer
received is not satisfactory, no settlement has been reached and Antonov will
proceed with the case. Through the case Antonov aims to establish the
infringement and seek fair payment for the use of Antonov's intellectual
property in all relevant vehicles sold to date and for those that will be sold
through to the expiry of the patents.

Antonov CEO, John Moore, commented, "Whilst we would have preferred to reach a
mutually acceptable outcome with Toyota without recourse to the courts, I am
confident in the strength of our case. The strategy of pursuing the initial case
in Germany ensures we can obtain a binding legal opinion at a cost that does not
impact on our ability to pursue our other strategic goals."

The case relates to Antonov patent EP 0414782 and the action has been taken
after a process of careful consultation with patent specialists and advisors.
The Company has received specialist advice from both legal and automotive
industry experts and the action has been taken in Germany as the German legal
system provides a relatively rapid and cost effective route to a legally binding
decision. Antonov expects the Dusseldorf court to reach a conclusion within 12
months from the first hearing.

As is normal in these cases, Toyota has filed a counter action challenging the
validity of the Antonov patent in the Munich Patent Court. The first hearing
date for this action has yet to be set.

The case has been kept confidential to protect the negotiations on a settlement
with Toyota, but these negotiations have not progressed to our satisfaction. As
a consequence of the decision made today to proceed with the German litigation,
Antonov must now make public the case.


For further information please contact:

In Amsterdam: Hein Vergeer on [phone]

In London: John Moore on [phone]




This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

END
MSCKGGMLFLDGKZM

[crystalclear] 16/9/2005 08:14

Dennis Retera will be in the British Formula Ford winter series I believe.

[crystalclear] 14/9/2005 21:50

The two gearboxes will appear in models from Chinese manufacturers shortly, and the supercharger drive will be supplied to niche manufacturers and tuners from the end of this year.

[crystalclear] 13/9/2005 22:47

Antonov's stand, behind Roumen's car, which he not so modestly calls the Rumen!