Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Well so be it but after tomorrow I won't have a computer down there and I'm looking forward to spending what I've made this past year, including shorting GBRC, on wine, women and song.
Yeah me too. I'm leaving for St. Thomas tomorrow. Six weeks of a long over due laid back vacation. See ya after summer!
Oh quit your hype and tell the rest of your UK investors they lost because you made bad decisions. If all you’re waiting for is the demo then sit back and wait and reap whatever. Until then you have nothing to say otherwise.
I'm not perfect but I'm learning and that being said what is your point?
Transducers operate mostly by an electrical feed but it can be fed pneumatic ally or by other mechanical actuation however the system is still ultimately EM driven. Thus anything electrically driven is EM no matter what part of the system is included. Unless you're using horses up there in the Ozarks ... LOL
We're talking microwaves here and anything driven by electrics is EM.
The key word is "resonant frequency" and that is the frequency equaling the specific frequency of the effective material.
Hawk put it to me like this. He was called in by Scientific Atlanta to investigate why a center pivot irrigation system collapse to the ground in several farm fields. He found that the sprinkler devices used on the center pivot systems as supplied by one particular sprinkler head manufacturer set up a resonating frequency equal to the resonant frequency of the structure and the magnitude of that resonant frequency broke the bad welds of the system.
However, it was not a molecular change of the metals that the resonant frequency caused it was the weakest link that couldn't hold up to the vibration.
Any excitation of molecules by whatever means creates heat and that is the main objective in what we're talking about here and all EM frequencies will excite molecules in any spectrum of this illustrated chart: http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSpec2.html
The point is the longer the wavelength in the spectrum of microwaves allows more area of abortion with less attenuation. Therefore 2.4GHz frequency is better than the much higher frequencies GBRC is claiming. So why reinvent the wheel except to deviate from the norm.
But GBRC's main hype is that a specific frequency in the higher range actually cracks the hydrocarbon chain into characteristic fuels and that is the biggest bunch of crap and is used only to hype their investors because of their ignorance of technology.
I should have said Tesla instead of Faraday but whatever, frequency busted regardless.
Gezz you are a pain: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode60
Cause I'm a bashing short and like stirring things up as this summer is boring but I still see a light at the end of the tunnel for more daytrading soon.
It's only an internal designation for distinguishing between model numbers, revisions and warranties as proposed and sold. This allows the bill of materials to be specific for that particular machine.
Negative old friend, I didn't say microwaves. I said frequencies! Come back after studying about EM frequencies and then let's discuss. All is the same no matter what the EM; sound (db) or light (photons).
PS; I actually stated Hogan wrong. He said. “to everything there is a frequency that excites its molecules best” …… I stand corrected. That he said was BS but great hype.
I actually went looking for it and got interrupted. It was based on metal destruction and I think it was in dispute of Faraday's claim on frequencies (vibration). They were trying to determine if a specific frequency would destroy the metal in a bridge collapse. Hawk was the one who coin the phase while at GBRC “to everything there is a frequency to cause a change in molecular stability”. He told me after seeing that segment that apparently he was wrong but great hype for the cause.
Oh no .... VC ... not the VietCong too!
There was a segment on Myth Busters a couple weeks ago that disproved the specific frequency theory.
By the way you may be interested in this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/jul08/6443
I agree there was no substance and the usual hype but nice listening? ... was there music to your ears?
Frank Pringle is not a Mechanical Engineer and he has never attended a class in engineering and I see they changed the name of the machine again. Let me see, Carbon Recovery Corp, Mobilestream Oil and then Global Resource Corp and then there was the HAWK, then GRFR and now the Patriot. Wandering aimlessly IMO.
Microwaves were discovered by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864 and The International System of Units (SI) was adopted by the Eleventh General Conference on Weights and Measures held in Paris in 1960
Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from 1 mm to 1 m, or frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz.
1 Hz is equal to one cycle per second and that cycle comprises one frequency (Hz)
Mega- (symbol M) = 1,000,000 (one million).
Giga- (symbol: G) = 1,000,000,000 (one billion)
Electromagnetic (EM) wave frequency equal to one thousand million Hertz (1,000,000,000 Hz).
Therefore the microwave frequency range is from 30 million cycles (frequencies) to 300 billion cycles (frequencies).
An EM signal having a frequency of 1 GHz has a wavelength of 300 millimeters, or a little less than a foot. An EM signal of 100 GHz has a wavelength of 3 millimeters, which is roughly 1/8 of an inch. The term microwave refers to electromagnetic energy having a frequency higher than 1 gigahertz (billions of cycles per second), corresponding to wavelength shorter than 30 centimeters.
So if my math is right that means there are 299,970,000,000 frequencies, cycles, Hz in the microwave frequency range and Frank said he’s identified “some 10 million microwave frequencies”. Well let’s give him a hand for reinventing the wheel in identifying that which has already been done.
Just an inquiring mind but I just saw it in your profile. Palm Beach huh, well there seems to be several GBRC investors in Florida except you're on the other coast.
An IHub administrator on here told me they don't check ID's on IHub moderators so let me ask you a question ... how old are you?
Yep and that's what HH is consulting these days using magnetrons for the concepts of the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility and in addition to desalination. Small world huh?
Well you are a wealth of information and that was exciting. However, the microwave range frequency is different and much more invasive of tissue and organs than the radio frequency range in that report as differentiated by this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
However, having said that, the specifics of this guy’s technology just trumps an idea of similar technology when nothing is happening.
The idea of placing carbon particles (carbon black) inside and around a tumor and then applying microwaves to heat up the carbon to 108 degrees to kill the cancer is about as remote to reality as the insitu process of gasifying hydrocarbons a mile deep and extracting the gas to the surface before it cools and adheres itself to the wellbore. Second hand information and JMO ... LOL
Well here's some information about microwave treatment of cancer: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_4X_Types_of_radiation_used_to_treat_cancer.asp?sitearea=ETO
So I wouldn't bet on it nor would I bet on communication microwave devices such as klystrons to do what magnetrons are already doing and made for.
I know someone who has 20,000 shares since 05 and she never heard anything about it but I told her recently I thought there was a split sometime after that.
Does anyone remember a split on MSRM shares a while back?
One more thing, you said they have an ego. Frank and Hawk have been close friends since 1988 and employed by the same company since the late 70's. Now they have an ego. You are a piece of cake!
Let me get this right. You were there when he turned his key's in and quit right? No you're in the UK and you always know what is going on at GBRC.
Give me a break! I'm sure most other investors could care less about medical too and only .... hey you said tires this time instead of tyres!!! Great! You'll be a yank before ya know it!
Hawk quit!!!!!!!! Geeez you like to twist the truth because you know I’m right and you have to protect your position! And he isn't sniping nor does he know most of what I'm doing on here with his information. But I like him he seems a good guy and my job is to make money trading. And I might add that the consulting things are many things in addition to an opportunity to beat the investors out of the coal and medical application if even that ever works.
Pension? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. Oh you mean the ongoing salary and increases as a consultant whereas he sits at the helm with a controlling position and is still called the CEO.
And let me see, Hawk was the chief engineer from the beginning and is the designer of the machines including the demo unit then called the HAWK until March 20th 2008 when he had issues of conformance to performance and wanted redesign due to more of his testing discoveries and theory but Frank didn't (Frank's not an engineer) and then Hawk resigned because it would reflect on his industry’s professionalism. Now they are redesigning it but that's just a large dose of salt we should swallow because you are mrintheknow. Brilliant!
I guess you can do this in the way GBRC is if you're a pink sheet company and not a fully reporting IPO.
I guess he isn't since he's just a consultant right? So in other words, Frank made a terrible deal while still directly with the company?
"it was a company that had access to shale, it wasnt a great deal for gbrc, they were supposed to receieve a number of shares from this new company as part of the deal."
Well if that's true then why do it if it wasn't worth the deal? I'm sure GBRC wouldn't pay 650K for stock in another company using GBRC investors money ... but then maybe not.
Lots of smoke and mirrors on the $650K but yes I would expect NC to be the case.
There are other questionable situations like the following:
“Notwithstanding anything aforesaid or hereafter in this Schedule, Consultant specifically excepts out from this agreement and reserves unto itself all Technology regarding coal and cancer research and treatment.”
Note: Considering the fact that tests and discoveries were made at and by GBRC before this agreement, this appears to defraud the investors who should share in all such applications.
In the consultant agreement he is to:
“Interface with, advise and assist both in-house and contracted engineers, mechanical and machinery designers and designers and manufacturers of Klystrons and Magnetrons to refine and improve the cost efficiency of the machines embodying the Global technology by reducing the cost of the input energy and increasing the quality, volume and value of the recovered energy.
Note: “Magnetrons” That should interest Joe Pringle.
Consulting fee:
SCHEDULE C - ANNUAL CONSULTING FEE
CALENDAR YEAR ANNUAL SALARY
2008 $378,000
2009 $378,000
2010 $448,000
2011 $488,000
2012 $538,000
2013 $588,000
2014 $668,000
ALL YEARS BEYOND 2014 $668,000
Note: Great for securing his retirement plan but if he is supposed to be a consultant then why is he still Chairman and CEO as stated in the following:
On June 25, 2008 the Company issued 895,532 shares of Common Stock to Frank G. Pringle, the Company's Chairman and CEO, upon conversion by Mr. Pringle of 1,791,064 shares. This issuance was considered exempt pursuant to Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended.
Note: I’d say the IRS should question how what he did before the consultant agreement is anything different than shown in the consulting agreement.
One more thing, those 8K's show stock being issued to a consultant. The question is, is he the consultant?
25 bucks in a short period of time!
There is (was in pass tense) a private agreement but it is/was written such that it has to meet what was originally proposed from the lab analysis. That would mean the demo would have to prove not so much the application process as that was accomplished in the lab but that on a larger scale and in conjunction with the lab report that the energy balance is/was as claimed and proposed. Whew!
Now, knowing about certain extenuating circumstances for the on-the-fly process, will it work as proposed to the degree that the end-user will honor that agreement? It is in the opinion of my source .... Absolutely not!
Take it for what it’s worth.
Wholly owned and many things were done without filings but then that is the level of intelligence of people not really knowing anything about an IPO. I'm told the words “wandering aimlessly” are a best terminology. No deals with any medical company’s best I heard. Too many irons in the fire otherwise I was told speculatively.
No outsiders per se just sister affiliation within