.
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.
Also SBIR gives preference to "woman owned" firms in awarding contracts.. is AFTC now considered woman owned?
Perhaps ask if the decision to provide "like a reporting company" will coincide with becoming current on OTCmarkets to remove the stop sign..it seems some information was reported for the March 2014 os share figure..if that is how it works.
Yes.. I have the email. So the Army is the one that made public both the "selection" of AFTC and the fact that arte in "negotiations".
AFTC should have no issue either confirming or denying that which was made public in an email by the Army SBIR PMO.
I would add this.. The army has stated in an email post Dec 31 2013 that AFTC has been "selected", when i inquired as to why the Phase II summary report was not finaled and asked for the status of it, and "is currently in negotiations."
Selected for what?
Are they still in negotiations for that which the Army SBIR PMO refered?
The only employee holding stock shares "is the president" Who is the president? Update should include any change like that i would think.
Is purchasing shares at a low pps buying down the pps?
Selling at .0019 shows a lack of confidence.
Buying the shares offered at .0019 show knowing a bargain when one sees it.. !
I'm not gonna sit around and see someone who may be flipping stocks here..or a robot seller pick em up.. When I buy they are not going anywhere..
GLTA
I snagged 500k at .0019!
I DON'T WANNA WAIT! LOL
Hey.. in my estimation a savvy move by AFTC.
If nothing else they have created a secure system of routine and scheduled updates and probably will get little or no inquiries from shareholders in the interim...neither will any of the "lots of interest" firms or Army that were previously the source of hopeful and maybe too enthusiatic pressure from interested parties anxious for news.
Perhaps.. and i know i look to the positive side more often than not.. they waited to the last possible day for the update because they hoped for something more to announce? Ahh.. that's a stretch.
But I think all will be quieter for them now that we know when more news will arrive...
Army did say "they have been selected" regarding the Phase II... so unless they have been "de-selected" I feel that is still in process... but to mention it in this update would provide more speculative fodder.
I thought they were posting financial too? Or was that included in the references in the update?
GLTA. Status Quo regarding potential.., for me anyway.
See you on August 14th.
I guess it explains why the Summary Report for the Army SBIR II has YET to be finalled as AFTC seems to still be working out some issues with it..but making good progress, appartently.
We wait for August... ugh! LOL
$3,000.00 per pump?! In house built? They'd have get production added to the R & D staff, i would think. Even for the low end of 100.
Update states the state of business today. No foward looking speculation... stops the tension...
Nothing here mentions what is in process or not in process.. The DD still stands.
They need time and they got it.
GLTA
I got 100,000 of that .0024 offering.. nothing now till .0029
pretty close to the vest, but i think AFTC rightly stops the speculation that may have been driven by oblique statements like "lots of interest" etc.
Stick with what you have and announce what you get when you get it.
Im guessing the Army SBIR may have gotten an earful of inquiries and asked not to be mentioned ..if so...AFTC probably will not mention anyone to promote speculation and inquiries.
It makes sense... I do not feel they would have announced the future reporting schedule to us without good reason to .. and it would not be for us... takes time, frustrating, follow your gut...
It may test our mettle... Im in. No Doubt.
It's Posted
It should be easy to check.. look for any traded company that had a contract announced and corrolate the dates.
Yep.. they call is swing trade software day trade software... the people are just relying on algorythms to do the work.. expains why anyone would consider selling this stock right now.
Tick tock!
I can only think that this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading
is the explanation for any sells right now. Hope they made some money, because of them i'll be making a bucket.
...had an amazing dream last night.. not for anything than it's funny.. was at my fish camp in the eastern Sierra Nevadas...had only my cell phone and bad reception.. AFTC went up to .48 and i was frantic because i could not trade... by the time i got good reception it was trading at .77 Whoot!
And I rarely remeber a dream..
GLTA
Thanks! Whomever...just when i thought I had finally bought my last AFTC's..you sell me all those beautiful .0024's!
Sweeeet.
See you all in San Diego!
JP-8 and Army will be big, but the DME announcements will be huge. Expect Korea (through U.S. Government) to be involved as well as some big name U.S. and european auto manufacturers.
NOT IMHO... bank on it.
Sorry for the confusion, I had planned on changing my name after AFT releases information to reflect a new long term area of my investment interest and my feeling that DD would no longer be needed here (or in some cases, wanted). I emailed admin that i was interested in changing my name and asked if this was available and received a response "all set!" And there it was.
I realized when i did change that all past posts would change and planned on doing it after a time of inactivity.
Regardless
Wish you all the best with your soon-to-come rewards!
GLTA
I used to complain that it took so long for electronic funds to settle for non-marginable's... this time it worked out pretty nicely.
.. Whatever is going on..thanks for the fire sale!
That seems correct thanks for spelling it out. I was not thorough in following the directions you provided to find the source of your comment...flipped in haste and was wrong.
I appreciate it being resolved and hope AFT still gets involved in the DME aspect of engines DoD-wide.
We should know plenty soon enough, hopefully.
Very Nice... just like the Vail Global Energy Forum 2014.. they save the best for last.
GLTA
Global Forwarding Enterprises
Another influential player for trucks with a very favorable view about the future of DME.
Excerpt specific to DME with source link:
These fuel initiatives could be groundbreaking in the trucking industry and shippers should take note. If commercial vehicles used for freight transportation can harness new fuel technology, they will save time and money. Those savings will be passed on to shippers across the US. And environmentally supportive freight forwarders are also excited that there will be new fuel technologies, such as DME, in the freight shipping industry. New technologies like dimethyl ether fuel could really benefit the freight shipping industry in the future.
Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association
This information is stuff we have seen before, but it's making an appearance, in a very positive way, in a very influential trade publication.
Word is getting out.
http://www.hdma.org/Main-Menu/HDMA-Publications/Diesel-Download/March-20-2014/Dimethyl-Ether-A-Trucking-Industry-Fuel-of-the-Future.html
Who they are:
Founded in 1983, the Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA) is a member driven organization that continues to provide industry leadership for NAFTA based heavy duty original equipment and aftermarket commercial vehicle suppliers. This is accomplished through a range of services to its nearly 200 member companies, which represent direct employment of over 180,000 in their US facilities.
HDMA serves its on and off-highway commercial vehicle supplier members as their voice to government and industry. HDMA members actively participate in the organization’s government affairs initiatives, executive forums, product councils, premier industry events and education programs. Our members are regularly provided with timely updates on industry news, action and information on government affairs, industry trends, market developments and with member benchmarking surveys and analysis.
Our membership benefits from the combined industry experience of HDMA and MEMA’s resources through their ability to anticipate member needs, advocacy on state and federal government issues, and with accurate and consistent updates on industry trends and developments.
Based in North Carolina, HDMA is a market segment association of the Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), a major industry association with a forward looking strategy and a 108 year legacy of advocacy for the motor vehicle supplier industry.
...
They are the "IDA" of their field.
Electric cars vs. gasoline
Admittedly not the most technical of comparisons, but if they question whether or not an electric car, overall, does not best gasoline powered cars when it comes to the environment..
They would likely be a lot worse than a DME powered one.
GLTA
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/30-seconds-to-know/are-electric-cars-cleaner-gas-powered-cars-n89131
Absolutely nothing to do with what AFTC does. Engine Tech is working on making a lighter engine.
I was not impuning your truthfulness..just asking for the source.
AFTC was looking to increase weight to power ratio by using DME fuel..Engine Tech is trying to increase the weight to power ratio by lighter engine design.
Thanks for helping me out on this. I'm all set. It's not that big a deal, your post just had me wondering how I missed that the award was given to another firm..which It was not, that i can find. I do my best to find as much info as i can before i post something and always encourage people to inform me if I have a mis-step.
GL
Program: SBIR
Agency: NAVY Field Office: NAVSEA
TOPIC Number: N092-122 Control Number: N092-122-0155
Contract Number: N65538-10-M-0004 Phase: 1
Awarded In: 2010 Award Amount: $94,480
Award Start Date: 11/17/2009 Award Completion Date: 12/2/2010
Proposal Title: Advanced Marine Engine for Combatant Craft Increased Payload
Principal Investigator Name: Douglas Hahn
Principal Investigator Phone: (757) 468-5102
Principal Investigator Email: douglashahn@enginetec.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm
EngineTec, Inc.
1397 Taylor Farm Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23453
URL: www.enginetec.com
Woman Owned: N
Minority Owned: N
Number of Employees: 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords: INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR FUTURE COMBATANT CRAFT 1LB/HP GOAL, INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR FUTURE COMBATANT CRAFT 1LB/HP GOAL
Abstract: Today’s riverine forces employ combatant patrol/assault craft that rely on speed, acceleration, and maneuverability for survivability and multi-mission success. These capabilities are at risk because of the increasing demand to carry more extensive payloads. Current diesel fuel propulsion systems are typically modifications of truck or industrial engines with a weight to power ratio of 3-5. By reducing the propulsion weight, the craft will be able carry more extensive payloads. The three engine choices are diesel, gasoline, and turbine. Current diesel engines don’t meet the weight goal. Gasoline engines are not an option due to fleet requirements. Turbine engines have an unacceptable thermal signature. However, a novel engine, the Linear Power Transmission (LPT) engine has the greatest potential to meet the 1lb/hp goal. The original engine, by Herrmann, which received FAA certification in the 1950’s, weighed 237 lbs and produced 200 hp. This proposal seeks to demonstrate the feasibility of an innovative multi-fuel marine engine, based on the LPT, we currently produce. Project goals include an engine design that is scalable or can be modularized, 100-700Hp range for direct drive systems, weight-to-power ratio less than or equal to 1.0, and able to withstand marine operational duty cycles with extended life cycle.
Just for nothin'
It's encouraging to look back on the Army pump R & D. The Army had to actually provide AFTC with 2 phase I and 2 Phase II awards because of the awards monitary ceiling.. I believe it to be $100,000.00 for Phase I and $700,000.00 for Phase II. Shows eager interest, in my view.
Also interesting to note the Navistar connection here as AFTC and Navistar are "Teammates" in the recently DD'd continuing R & D work AFTC is doing with..I think National Science Foundation and Michigan Tech University... (I think it's MTU).
http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/193600
IMHO
We are a scrappy bunch at times.
A lttle dust up now and then cleans the feathers.
Hope you are feeling better.
GLTA
I was being a bit snarky. I thought my question was good one and simple enough.
Cheers.
She did respond to mine.
G'night All!
GO AFTC!
This is the post I replied to:
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you go back far enough in the posts, you'll read that the SBIR for this specific topic was awarded to a different company. It is highly doubtful that AFT will be participating in the development of this Navy craft.
I simply asked her who "this specific topic was awarded to a different company" it was awarded to. That's all I asked.
What got you into a tizzy is beyond me...why you got involved.. well, that's only for you to know. You still have not answered a simple question.. Im not gonna fill up the board with anymore of this nonsense.
If is was awarded to another company THAT'S BIG NEWS and we all should hear it from the person who made the claim..right?
If they did not award it to anyone.. that may or may not support my. admittedly IMHO, possibility that they stepped away from it while the sbir phase one and two was completed by Army.
I would love it if you just did not read my DD anymore. NO DD FOR YOU!
GLTA
The date on the NEWSWIRE PR in that posting is 2008
The date on the one I posted was July, 2009. How is that relevant?
I also see nothing in you post that says anything about anyone not getting anything. What in your post says that it was awarded? Are you able to bring up the award of that SBIR because i cannot... please do.
Is this a tag team smackdown.. Is Brother Man my WWF name?
I hope so... makes things much more funner.
GLTA
If you can.... I cannot find that Navy awarded SBIR topic 92-122 to anyone. I may be doing this wrong so if you have a chance please post the award link?
Many times i can use that sort of DD as a jumping off point to ferret out some additional information relative to AFTC.
Is that the topic number tyou found to have been awarded to someone else? The nunber in my post.
Thanks in advance for your help!
GLTA
I have no problem with that just asking you to source your opinion. I can find nothing that furthered the desire stated by the Navy to move forward with the DME technology in any research...so asking for a little help in where you get the info is all.
I just like to see the source ....
I genuinely appreciate anyone who at any time can privide DD .. Ive asked out here on many, many occasions for people to do just that... so please! Inform! Thanks!
GLTA
Factual information is not bad news. It's what allows people to make an informed decision.
Please post your source for that information...
thanks
If things go like I think they are going to go.. a bucket of green paint is gonna be spilled on this :)
IMHO
GLTA
I do not think it was so much the Navy did not seek to move forward. It was a matter of developing and proving a new pump through the SBIR process that had a fuel that was currently in use and in need of a low lubricity compatible pump. Army had that with JP-8.
And back then, DME was not a widely available fuel, even for testing.
I believe Navy just stepped aside while Army SBIR'd the R & D for the pump through Phase 1 and phase 2. They could not have had two branches of the military funding the same project.
I do not think it any coincidence that Navy has moved forward with alternative fuel development at the same time AFT has, apparently, completed the pump development. Army picked up the SBIR right after this Navy news was announced. And Navy has announced it is moving forward right after AFT and Army started negotiations on the work.
But... every branch of the service can take part in the commercialization!
It could all be an amazing coincidence.
IMHO
Take a quick look at this link... Army grabbed the ball for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, and it appears that (now that they are in negotiations with AFT) we are heading toward Phase 3.
That is a Phase 3 status for DoD..not just Army. And when you look at what the Phase 3 project is for Navy and AFTC ($20 million engine..for starters!) the potential is just enormous.
http://m.altfueltechnology.com/files/Navy_July.pdf
IMHO
GLTA
Nice!
"In its years-long alternative fuel push, the Navy already has used the Defense Production Act, a Korean War-era law that lets DoD channel seed money into companies that supply things the military wants but aren't yet produced in economically-viable quantities."
The Navy "$20 million" alt fuel engine that had been talked about by Jim was just waiting for the pump that Army paid to have developed...IMHO
http://m.altfueltechnology.com/files/Navy_July.pdf
From a previous post:
New Fuel System for US Navy
Posted July 2nd, 2009 by USNavySeals
While the Navy is usually associated with huge aircraft carriers, the Navy SEALs is best known for the use of vehicles that are more scaled down in size. These assault and patrol vehicles are usually used for the purpose of delivering troops and equipment to high-risk and critical areas, which mean that they should be highly maneuverable and can be operated stealthily at high speeds.
The Navy SEALs already have such vessels for their use. However, it has been noticed that the performance of these crafts are affected when they are used to carry greater “payloads”. Payloads can be combat operatives, the equipment that these troops will need in order to complete their missions, and the weapons that they will need. This impact on the performance of the vessel may not be that big a deal if the vessel had been used for personal or commercial purposes; for military purposes, such degradation in performance may not only jeopardize the mission’s success, it can also have an impact on the survival of the team.
Research and development company Alternative Fuel Technology Inc. has reportedly submitted a proposal for an advanced fuel system that will burn Dimethyl Ether (DME), a replacement for diesel fuel that can be produced from resources that exist in abundance, such as landfill methane and coal. If it works, this system can serve as an alternative to the diesel fuel propulsion systems used in existing marine crafts. The expectation is that the alternative system will enable these vessels to accommodate an increase in payload without affecting its speed and maneuverability.
Aside from the fact that an alternative fuel system may be a way for the Navy SEALs to get “the best of both worlds” as far as transporting troops and equipment are concerned, it may also prove to be a more cost effective option. DME can reportedly be produced at a cost that is less than half that of conventional fuel. It will also be a more environmentally-friendly choice.
Origination Link:
http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2009/07/new-fuel-system-developed-for-us-navy.html
No coincedence at all, Monda.. she was posting basically the DOE page.. she added the DME and the great link based on a tip from someone! I think.