|Well, Well, Well, seems this is not the 1st time that "investor" was taken for a ride up the whazoo!!!|
(follow this thread, it might even bring back some fond IHDR memories, PP, and force you to look over at Ihub!!!)
| || Imperial Whazoo ||Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:16:53 PM|
|Re: None||Post # of 6640 |
Well Well Well Well Well..!
I have always felt that our naysayers were not honest. In that I'm not an engineer, (well, I am a software engineer) and in that most folks are not either, I held my peace and endured the incessant bombarding by our resident hateful bashers. I always knew they were excessively hateful and my experience in life has held me in good stead for 51 years now, so I never wavered and never even considered joining in with even the slightest detail our bashers pounded us all with. I just hunkered down and waited for the truth to come out. And I never sold, by the way.
The criticisms basically have all boiled down to two things: A). That the management was dishonest & B). that the laws of physics themselves argued against the EC V being even possible, and as such it was repeatedly asserted that it was a complete fraud. We were, by obvious extrapolation, therefore dupes and fools and rubes. To that conclusion, let me just quote from the letter from Dr. David F. Dyer, PhD, P.E., Professor and Chair of Mechanical Engineering of Auburn University's Samuel Ginn College of Engineering: "the power output potential . . . of the single slice 12 cylinder unit could produce a power output of 11.23 HP or 8.37 kW as shaft power", & also, let me now quote the summarizing statement from the PR released today that puts Dr. Dyer's conclusions into perspective: "This power output is greater than the designed output of 7.5 kW per slice". Folks, it is a simple fact that our resident bashers have been liars and they have now been shown to have had unknown, but nonetheless dishonest, agenda. These folks are liars. They have had some kind of agenda and they have purposely represented themselves to be engineering experts, and have made these representations of engineering prowess repeatedly in order to lend credence to their dishonest negative opinions. Thats been my long held opinion and it finally looks like it was correect all along.
Many months ago I argued (in lenghty posts on this board) the logic of the fact that the EU gave this little company money for political reasons. I argued that even if the product (EC V) was deficient in technicals, the politics of the green movement in Europe plus the power of the momentum created by the award of 40 million to finance this product weighed in favor of this product being a long term success. Now that a respected Auburn University professor has weighed in that the output actually exceeds company design claims, the argument that I made is not only supported, but it is enhanced. On top of this, the licensing that comes with the EU financed support does not exclude Asia and there is substantial real interest from China.
It seems probable that the integrity of the new management will be repeatedly demonstrated in the near future. Also, I expect the results from Auburn to be replicated by an EU-selected European university. Further, it is probably that there will be a major licensing agreement (or two) from other parts of the world, most likely starting in Asia. Finally, the money that is going into the coffers of this little company (the award from the EU) will rejuvinate its fortunes.
I doubt our naysayers will begin telling the truth. Frankly, I could care less. I weathered incessant attacks by bashers who oppressed us all with weighty, high sounding arguments that were crafted carefully to appear to be genuine opinions from qualified engineers. The fact is, they were simply not honest. The EC V does generate the rated power. It does not "violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics". And it has been deliverd according to contract to Europe. The funds will be made available. Our fortunes are very promising indeed. The EC V is a revolutionary invention and that this little company will fare well because it has invented it and has succeeded in bringing it out. To quote from Dr. Dyer once again: "I found the test results to be realistic. It would be practical and economical to apply the engine in a multitude of areas where adequate head and flow are available in both industrial waste streams and natural gravity flow settings."
Well done, new BOD. Well done new company management. And begone bashers. You are all liars and, regardless of whether we ever know the reasons for your pathalogical hatred, it has now been shown that you folks had an agenda that was not honest all along.
This PR is excellent and very welcome news indeed.
You missed the point completely.....it wasn't that a device such as the EC-V "violated the laws of physics" in itself (where was that said???), it was the dishonest way the Co presented it that made it seem this way.....nobody (that I know of) said it would not WORK, just not as efficiently as a turbine, with like just one moving piece, and a few bearings.....and the engineering report PROVED that.....the report they quickly removed form their web-site....
If you want a bold-faced lie, and proof of deception, just look at what they said.....or all their PRs that never came to fruition....seems you cherry pick who your liars are, but, then again, you also seem to be a conspiracy theory nut, so I'm not too surprised:
"""Historically, hydroelectric energy has required large turbine engines powered by massive amounts of water. Even the very smallest turbines require 187 tons of water per minute (6000 cu ft/min or 45,000 gal/min). This huge amount of water rushes past metal blades causing them to turn and produce electricity. This method of generation works well when large amounts of water are available but is impractical and inefficient when water flow is reduced. The concept of turbine-generated electricity has thus been limited to large waterfalls and dams."""
(from the old IHDR web site)