Agreed.

I had it in my mind that posting here would help me test my ideas. Sort of like the trial by fire. However, it is obvious now that I have done nothing but waste a bunch of time.

I don't know about the moderator. To me, it seems to make them more credible because there is a history of posts where the moderator is upset with Magnegas salespeople on their forums. Therefore, to see that same person actually set up a meeting to test Magnegas seems substantial to me.

Agreed. The stock does seem to be holding some ground. However, we really need to see a close above $2.00 to really indicate a definitive change in momentum.

At this point the Navy report on cutting speed is pretty much irrelevant. However, the fact that the EWI report exists seems to be a really important point.

I know that no one listens to anything I say on here anyway, but I wanted to clear up the posts about the Navy report. If I knew what I know now, I wouldn't have wasted any time finding it on the military's website or pointing out the negative comments they reported. That was a complete waste of time.

I have always been someone that does extensive research before asking any questions. So, I am researching everything first. However, at this point, I have to conclude that EWI seems to indicate that the product is noteworthy. On top of that, if you check the welders forum that I posted on, 2 welders, one of which is a moderator, have made plans to do some testing with Magnegas. This seems noteworthy to me as well.

I really do not know what to think at this point overall. I have to say though that it seems to me very underhanded for the short article to be using the Navy report, like they did. They really misconstrued that report in their post.

I am going to go back and reread it again to be sure about this. I have to say this for sure: if the short report misconstrued the Navy's report. What else have they misconstrued?

It takes a while for comments to show up because they are moderating the article heavily. So, it might be tomorrow before my new comment appears. Last night, anything I posted did not appear until today.

I have been posting comments on that short article, pretty much the same stuff that I posted here. You can see them at the bottom of the article.

Sorry, I meant page 17 of the report. I am posting a table of these statistics on the welding site. Hopefully, someone will comment.

Not really. They already gave me some flack about it.

Okay, so, I think I am seeing where I am confused.

The Navy report is dated 11/2014. However, the dates of the test are actually from 2013. The EWI report is dated July 2014.

So, it is incorrect to consider the Navy report to supersede the EWI report, just because it was released later.

The EWI report seems legitimate to me. At least, the author really works for EWI. I cannot find the study on EWI's website. However, they may not keep them available to the public, which makes sense to me.

Since EWI is a reputable company, the statistics seem to be very intriguing.

EWI report on Magnegas website:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://magnegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/EWI-Gas-Comparison-Report-2.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwikjtX4x_PJAhUI5GMKHYUFD78QFggLMAA&usg=AFQjCNGUvXC7IAcPbIW6rbNH3RAwupSxUw

Particularly important are the statistics on page 11.

I am posting this on SA and the Welding forum to ensure this clears up any misconception from the Navy report.

Here you go on page 12:
"MagneGas™ Corporation was a partner in this demonstration and supplied the alternative fuel used
in the demonstration. More importantly, they provided a significant amount of research and
development work gratis. Thank you for your hard work in developing a product that can be
demonstrated while complying with Navy safety regulations."

Direct link to the Navy's report on the Defense Technical Information Center's website:

TR-NAVFAC-EXWC-EV-1502

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA616469

Page 28 and 29 are noteworthy.

I start vacation tomorrow.

(But I love trading/investing/etc. So, I can never really pull myself away it seems.)

It is too late right now to call anyone though. Maybe tomorrow.

I posted this message on WeldingWeb's forum inquiring about the product:

http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?53589-MagneGas-an-alternate-fuel-gas-takes-its-turn-in-the-hot-seat&p=6663561#post6663561

Hopefully, some of the welders will answer with an updated reply.

Does anyone have a link to the Edison Welding Institute Report that is not on the company's website?

I searched the entire EWI.org website on Google for Magnegas, and the only thing that came up is this:
https://ewi.org/eto/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Arc-Welding-at-EWI-2012.pdf

There really is nothing about Magnegas in the PDF above.

I would like to see the report, but I am not interested in reading anything on the company's website.

This is welders discussing Magnegas back in 2011, which is outdated. My last post was welders discussing it in August 2015. Therefore, at least on weldingweb.com, they have not changed their opinion of it in 4 years.

http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?53589-MagneGas-an-alternate-fuel-gas-takes-its-turn-in-the-hot-seat/page2&highlight=magnegas

Welders discussing Magnegas on a welding forum:
http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?535881-Lighter-than-air-or-just-hot-air&highlight=magnegas

Take it with a grain of salt, of course. This is supposedly someone speaking about the FDNY relationship:
http://weldingweb.com/showthread.php?417781-38-faster-than-acetylene&p=4533171#post4533171

Maybe they will ignore the complaint. I have no idea. Never done that before. I just couldn't assume that someone else had submitted one.

I might still call the company.

Instead, I just submitted a complaint to the SEC.

Thank you, SH.

I cannot speak to that. All I know is what these scientists said at Brown University, Ohio State, and now Boise State University. I am trying to locate more information.

Also, N. O. Schmidt is an author on that paper, and is an instructor with the Department of Mathematics, Boise State University.

Linked in for Schmidt:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathan-schmidt-09037a58

Department of Mathematics at Boise State graduate student list:
http://math.boisestate.edu/people/grad-students/

A newer paper debunking RM Santilli science (v2 was published in October 2015):

"In a series of papers, Santilli and collaborators released various strong statements against the general theory of relativity (GTR) and the standard ?CDM model of cosmology. In this paper we show that such claims are due to fundamental misunderstandings of very basic concepts of gravitation and cosmology. In other words, we show that Santilli and collaborators demonstrated nothing."

"In this paper we clarify that such supposed flaws are strong misconceptions by Santilli on the basic concepts of the GTR instead. In particular, Santilli does not know and/or does not understand the EP, on which, not only the GTR, but all the metric theories of gravity are founded [7]."

One of the authors, R Katebi is studying for his PhD at the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ohio University.
Direct Link to the Paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/institutions/worldwide?order=rgScore&method=total

Links for R Katebi:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/reza-katebi-074a5799
https://www.ohio.edu/cas/physastro/contact/profiles.cfm?profile=rk726014

I think the other paper is more important though, as it is linked to Brown University.

Whatever, LT. This isn't about me, and you know it.

Reread that quote from Brown University. That should be the focus here.

Seems fairly straight forward to me. Should I believe Brown University or the Institute of Basic Research (IBR)?

A comparison of web pages made up my mind:
IBR website: http://www.i-b-r.org

Brown University said this about RM Santilli's 2006 magnecule paper:
"However, as presented, the author demonstrates that he
does not have an elementary grasp of the analytical techniques
that were used, and/or the proper interpretation of the resultant
data. Indeed, crucial experimental details are omitted so that
it is not possible for anyone to reproduce the data (which is
a basic tenet of the “scientific method”), and/or to accurately
interpret what amounts to the cursory data that are presented."
Direct Link: http://bit.ly/1QWnL6N


More information here:
http://bit.ly/1QWnL6P

Anyway, whatever. I lost 0.36%. I am done here. ONTO THE NEXT TRADE. (Vacation first.)

There is a major reversal pattern on the chart. I keep stating this.

I did already.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3768216-magnegas-strong-sell-on-opaque-offshore-entities-insider-enrichment-and-paid-stock-promotion-minus-92_9-percent-downside

I was misleading NOBODY.

I know I said I would bail, but this is crazy. I have to keep watching. MAN, I AM SO MAD I EXITED MY SHORT RIGHT NOW.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3768216-magnegas-strong-sell-on-opaque-offshore-entities-insider-enrichment-and-paid-stock-promotion-minus-92_9-percent-downside

SH, what I think we have is a disconnect. You are saying it is good for the company to sell shares to raise cash. I understand.

What I am trying to say is that this action generally depresses the stock price. The last thing I want is a stock where the company is selling shares.

Anyway, I am out of here. It is obvious no one wants to hear what I have to say, unless it is bullish.

This board is merely a way for us to understand a stock better. I have pointed out that $5M in cash is enough to cover last quarter's -$4.3M cash deficit. As far as I know, no one else mentioned that, and that alone is powerful information. It is enough to squash the rumors on Twitter about the company offering stock in January (which I didn't mention until now).

Bye.

SH, the problem is that it can be used any time.

The company can sell $50M in shares, as they please. The S3 indicates that. What I said is irrelevant.

Yes, if you are talking about the S3, I can see where you are coming from. When it all came together for me is when I realized they had enough cash to burn an entire quarter. This added up with the news you and I were discussing.

I must admit that before this trade I didn't know what an S3 is, and someone on Twitter pointed it out to me. So, there was a mistake/lesson learned for me.

I am sure my presentation had a negative bias, since I was short. However, my intention was only to understand what was going on. I should have reread the news post before I posted the S3.

Regardless, what I do doesn't matter ultimately anyway.There are way too many shares here being traded for me to have any meaningful effect, whatsoever. I wouldn't be here otherwise. (I like liquidity.)

I can respect that, LT. Seems like you have been around for a while, and I always like hearing from the survivors, so-to-speak. You have a ton of stuff to contribute, I bet, and it sounds like to me you are saying the day-to-day noise is less important here.

Yes, trust me, I have made my fair share of mistakes. Sounds like you are learning some important stuff.

I know this may be unwelcome advice (after all, who the heck am I anyway), but I highly recommend proving trading strategies on demo platforms first. This will do a couple of things:
1. Mistakes are cheaper, as they cost nothing.
2. Boosts your confidence as you find things that work.

My perspective is that if I cannot make money trading imaginary money, I will definitely not make money trading real money. It doesn't mean that this is aa cure-all by any means.

FWIW

Sorry if I hit a nerve, LT. I didn't mean for my posts to upset you.