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.
This concession would, however, be meaningful if the...
"coming deal" ended up being a stock swap. What company would want to do a stock swap and then be liable for a million or so of additional cash flow problems as a result?
That being the case, it could be a necessary step in a plan to pursue a stock swap.
In any event; thanks again (one more time) goes to Jim and Keith.
You are right, I would find that interesting...
Once you get your computer problems worked out, please post them if you can.
Thanks.
If it turns out that I gave you bad...
advice (what is the chance of that?), then I will appologize to you as you were the recipient of that advice. But for now, let's just wait a bit to see what the cheerleaders and the lurking members of this message board think first.
I suppose that we really won’t know the results of accuracy of my advice to you until the company either goes completely belly up or “hits one out of the park” with a few back to back commercialization events. I certainly hope we will get to a determination soon.
Very good, you could have saved some time...
by clicking on the link in my post. Well anyway, all of these concerns were completely invalidated; first by the immediate response that was made in the same report that you found the letter from David to his cousin Read,
http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze8y.z1a.htm
and second by the results of the court case that ensued between Torvec and CXO on the go.
It really isn't a fair presentation to post the letter the way you did with out posting the direct company response.
When reading all of this we need to keep the mindset that Torvec prevailed in the court case that ensued.
Attributing any validity to a "paraphrase" from banned...
poster who can't spell the name of the key person in his discussion point would likely be a mistake.
Here is a link to exactly what the resignation letter said:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1063197/000106319705000035/tv8k0705.htm
Here is a link to the contemporaneous analysis of the situation:
http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/000681.html
Here is a link to the real subject matter:
http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze8y.z1a.htm
Yeah, but on the other hand, there wasn't...
any report of an oil leak. I think the hydraulics worked just fine.
I wonder if it was one of the units with the "Variable ride-height suspension" systems.
It could be that the reporter received a handsome cash offer for pulling that one off. And (most likely) he won’t have to wait till a commercialization event to take place in order to be “taken care of”.
Yes, "the Airforce was showing the Ford TV...
to other branches of the service" according to HQ's.
So after all this time, we finally know who JG was talking about when he said: "Who says it isn't in there!"
It was you.
And, I thought he was just kidding; after all, no one could say that.
"Fire truck maker Pierce Manufacturing has received an...
order to supply 51 pumper rescue vehicles to the U.S. Army, Oshkosh Corp. announced Thursday."
"The vehicles are equipped with heavy duty suspensions, are designed to operate 50 percent of their missions on paved roads, 40 percent on unpaved roads and 10 percent off road, the company said.
They can ford water 16 inches deep and maintain a speed of 65 mph on a level highway."
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20090814/APC03/908140470/1028/Pierce-lands-big-military-award
Very interesting; I wonder if the USAF showed them how to get this done?...
Lockheed Martin JLTV Exceeds 50,000 Miles of Testing...
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_1387.html
Wonderful, just makes you want to FLIP doesn’t it; (if you can imagine that)...
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090814/NEWS01/908140383
Assuming that you asked HQ's about this, what...
did they have to say about your theory that the differential in the old photos were "custom made at a machine shop. but the newest ones......."
Is the answer that you received confidential too, or can you share the revelation?
Also, if you were at HQ's, why did you have to ask them about the photos? Couldn't they let you see one of the items instead of looking at and talking about a photo of the product?
If the CAT has a Torvec Steer-Drive then...
it must be new, because the CAT that I mentioned had a "differential steering system" not a Torvec Steer-Drive.
CAT might have had a D7 since 1986, but the D7E is new. The CAT D7E is an FTV type vehicle and it is a tractor, not a Dozer.
When they (HQ) explained that to you, there must have been something lost in translation.
I'll go along with the fact that the "differential steering system" has been in the D7 tractor since 1986, but it certainly has been enhanced since the original version in order for it to "be the first differential steer tractor ever to be able to make lock-track pivot turns".
Well, anyway, my point was that the competition seemingly is making strides to commercialize enhancements to their similar products & technologies which will make all of Torvec's patented inventions in greater demand as they will accomplish the same desired results (hopefully in a more efficient manner).
The way I see it is; once this happens it should open doors to the commercialization of Torvec's technologies and demands for Torvec's products quite automatically.
I didn't notice anything different from the photos...
of the Iso-Torques that I saw, however, I'm not sure that I saw the ones that you spoke about. How about posting a link to the new and old photo sets and letting us know what is different? Also, you must have learned or have been informed about other items that would be interesting to me and a few others of us here. Please take some time to update us on the interesting things from your tour. Thanks.
The market place is demanding the products that...
Torvec has patented is what I'm saying.
This is a very exciting time to be a shareholder in a company that has products that are patented and also becoming in demand.
This along with the verse from the song that JG sings (you know, the one that goes like this);
"Who says that it isn't in there?"
makes for an interesting set of circumstances.
When you were at Head Quarters last Monday...
Did Keith, by any chance, happen to mention if the competition's production of their "differential steering systems" has anything to do with Torvec's patented design of the FTV®'s unique steering system called Steer-Drive?
"The Cat differential steering system upholds its reputation for allowing the operator to power both tracks through turns while retaining blade loads. The D7E system, however, takes maneuverability to new levels by being the first differential steer tractor ever to be able to make lock-track pivot turns."
http://home.nestor.minsk.by/build/news/2009/08/0403.html
http://torvec.com/products_steeringdrive.html
These two inventions seem to attempt to accomplish the same exact results, however, I'm sure that the Torvec version is much better even though it hasn't been commercialized as of yet.
When you were at Head Quarters last Monday...
Did Keith, by any chance, mention if the reason that the competition is now referring to their Hydraulic Hybrids as being "infinitely variable hydraulic drivetrains" has anything to do with Torvec's patent on the Infinitely Variable Hydraulic Transmission?
http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmEnergy/idUS361967157320090804
Thanks for helping us get past this point...
The debt for the rent is usually called accounts payables.
Once the debt is established the company needs to make a payment. The payment can be for either cash or stock. If it is paid in stock, the debt is released that would eliminate the liability (increasing equity). However, if the same vendor bought the stock directly from the company and then took the cash back to cancel the debt, the asset created by the issuing of the stock is the asset of cash given to the company (increasing equity).
In either method there is either an asset created for the stock issued or a debt released by the stock issued. In both ways the total equity of the company is increased; and then the higher equity can be divided by the higher number of shares to result in a no change in shareholder's value. Thus, there is no dilution to the existing shareholders.
Again, what you were unknowingly attempting to say is that you believe that the rent is worth less than the shares that it takes to pay it. If you really believe that then you should buy more shares.
Which by the way dilutes the common shareholders...
Where did you learn your mathematics? Paying a debt with stock does not dilute the common shareholders at all. What is does is increase the value of the company by removing a debt and increases the number of shares as a result. When the shareholders evaluate their before and after position the result is exactly the same.
What you must be attempting to say is that you believe that the rent is worth less than the shares that it takes to pay it. If you really believe that then you should buy more shares.
One other point is that Auditors are specifically not allowed to offer an opinion on solvency; that is why they have to limit their comments to a comment about "going concern".
You have an interesting recollection about this matter...
I wasn't the one that claimed that there was any leak of confidential information. If you can remember all the way back to yesterday, you will find a moderator/poster claiming that: "This news was leaked a month ago so it wasn't unexpected."
Also, it was news, not confidential information.
Dread had his break; I don't need to give him one. His big break was when he got the confidential information (that he later leaked) and as a result knew that "he'd take care of me after a commercialization event had taken place."
What more of a break could anyone ever hope for?
Just less than a year ago you told...
all of us in your post #15739 just how tight you were with the company. Due to that relationship, you were able to share in lots of information that was beyond the privilege of a regular common shareholder. This made you as close to be an "insider" as possible especially when you acknowledged being told that "he'd take care of me after a commercialization event had taken place."
Now you are trying to make us think that you are surprised that "This news was leaked a month ago so it wasn't unexpected."
Someone who is "leaking" this information who is "on the Team" needs to be updated that you have considered yourself to be out of the loop.
Why don't you get a couple of cases of your favorite brew and have a meeting to finally explain to everyone on the team that you are officially not privy to the "leaks".
And, while everyone is working on leaks, how about working on the oil leak that is today's problem.
After all, a company that specializes in Hydraulics should be able to solve an oil leak problem.
RBJ: "RIT, Torvec to create lab on campus"...
http://www.rbj.net/fullarticle.cfm?sdid=79517
You know; when you don't go with the official press release, you are bound to forget to mention the important things like:
1) "Torvec is a publically traded company"
2) Torvec's chief products and intellectual property include a "constant velocity joint, hydraulic pump and motor and hydrogen powered steam turbine".
They did, however, included some items that the official press release didn't...
Today might just be the first day that...
anyone (Reuters for an example) has reported that the hydraulic hybrid drivetrain that was created from the 2001 cooperative research agreement effort was an ""infinitely variable hydraulic drivetrain".
http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmEnergy/idUS361967157320090804
This "infinitely variable" terminology (to my recollection) has not been utilized prior to this year.
Does anyone have a specific recollection about the "infinitely variable" aspect of that 2001 cooperative research agreement effort?
Hey, after all: "who says that it isn't in there?"
I see your point, you invest in management...
While some of us invest in Technology. The company that you like has management that has taken their company all the way to the point that they have been able to choose a new company name.
"Limo-Reid changed its name from Hybra-Drive Systems earlier this year. O’Brien said the new name comes from Celtic words that translate to “fluid driver.” "
What amazing management skills that must have taken (masking a financial meltdown with a name change).
Too bad they don't have 300 patents.
Once they (and their customers) find out that the "off the shelf" hydraulic pumps, motors, and valves "don't make the grade", the military will have to get some that do.
The hydraulic hybrid set up (which seems to be their claim to fame) was patented by the EPA and given to Ford for their participation in the work. Remember?
"Though the Treasury would help pay the bill, Ford would have exclusive rights to the technology and hopes to put a pilot fleet of vehicles on the road by the end of the decade."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_3_15/ai_79379345/
Hey, after all: "who says that it isn't in there?"
I was thinking about restricting the comparison to...
companies that are attempting to accomplish the same goals that Torvec has been working towards. Please don't confuse the non-core shareholders' goals with the Torvec's goals.
Anyway, it won't be until we see a competitor achieve these goals first that we will have to announce some sort of failure.
Here is a competitor that is getting close with one of the (eight) Torvec technologies.
We might want to keep an eye on this progress as it seems to be moving forward.
http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x1606968483/Firm-could-get-military-contract
It seems that "Limo-Reid Technologies, formerly known as Hybra-Drive Systems, is developing a hydraulic hybrid transmission."
Limo-Reid Technologies is expecting to put "a vehicle in production sometime in 2012 with (the hydraulic hybrid transmission) technology in it.”
But, hey; after all: "who says that it isn't in there?"
When you were counting all the CEO Updates...
Since July 2004, did you count the updates that Jim had you put in the IHUB message board (such as this one)?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33620894
It is interesting that you now (claim to) want Jim to stop giving us updates now that you decided to stop participating in Jim's methods of updating the shareholders. I think that it is ironic that you have stopped participating in updates even though you mentioned that...
"He said he'd take care of me after a commercialization event had taken place."
Did Jim ask you to post this request to him for him to stop the CEO updates, or was this one of your own original ideas?
You need to keep in mind that no company has been able to accomplish the results that Jim has planned for Torvec. It would not be prudent for anyone here to consider that Torvec has failed until some other company has actually accomplished the Torvec goals before Torvec. When we read about the progress that the competitors have made, it is not necessarily more progress than Torvec has made, it just seems that way (without knowing all the facts).
Hey, after all: "who says that it isn't in there?"
U.S. Rep Fred Upton: $2.5 million more funds
"The funding is for the third phase in a project to develop a hybrid, hydraulic drive system for military four-wheel-drive vehicles that would enable them to be operated more safely and effectively on harsh terrain and to increase fuel efficiency by 60 percent."
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2009/07/eaton_may_get_more_defense_fun.html
Well, some companies are still in the developing stage for the hydraulic drive systems; while Torvec is reportedly (years ago) no longer a development stage company.
Does anyone remember what stage we are in now?
I seem to remember that we are now at a "PRODUCTION READY STAGE".
http://torvec.com/Shareholders/Annual_Meeting_Presentation_1_25_07.pdf
Hey: "Who says it isn't in there?"
That was what JG said at the meeting...
I was just reminiscing about his statement that night.
Here are a few links to some of the discussion about this matter.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=21990342
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=22042954
You seem to have either never heard about it or have forgotten.
Now, if you think it was sarcasm, you might want to discuss that with the person who said it, not me.
What do you get when you take inventions...
Such as a Torvec "Power Split Device" and a Torvec "NASA Electrically modified IVT (transmissions)"?
It could be something like this found at GM-Allison:
"The real invention is the EV DriveTM module which is designed with a concentric arrangement of gearing – planetary gear sets – and two electric machines. This module combines (torque blend) electrical machine power with engine power. Thanks to the unique electrical and mechanical integration, the EV DriveTM does not have fixed gear ratios as does a typical transmission, but its gear, speed and torque ratios are infinitely and continuously variable."
http://www.fleetdirectory.co.uk/fleet-news/index.php/2009/07/27/tfl-trial-unique-gm-allison-hybrid-ep-system/
Hey; Who says it isn't in there?
The upgrades decrease the turning radius while increasing...
"The Cougars are being equipped with new suspension systems because they being transferred from Iraq to Afghanistan, where the terrain is more treacherous. Force Protection has said the upgrades decrease the turning radius while increasing maneuverability and mobility."
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jul/24/forceprotect90293/
Since when does decreasing the turning radius result in increased maneuverability?
Someone is a mighty fine salesman, or is receiving a kickback.
I think that Force Protection needs to be introduced to Torvec's CV Joint.
Upgrade Torsen LSD to a Mechanical Type LSD?...
Isn't that exactly one of Torvec's missions?
If so, it seems that this is starting to happen.
Here is an example:
"Subaru engineers have also traded in the standard model’s Torsen type rear limited slip differential for a mechanical type to maintain massive grip during cornering."
http://www.performancecar.co.nz/news/5900/subaru-launches-impreza-wrx-sti-spec-c
http://torvec.com/products_isotorque.html
Any news you ask? Of course there is...
lots and lots of news.
However, there is a problem.
It can not be released.
It is very confidential.
There is no way a company can achieve 300 patents without a tremendous amount of (secret) news items.
Just call the company, find out a bit of news, and let us know about it in a future post.
With this many patents there could be a danger...
that a commercialization event could occur by accident and without intention!
"Torvec Patents –Shareholder Owned
•2004 –164U.S. & World Wide Patents & Applications
•2006 –213U.S. & World Wide Patents & Applications"
http://torvec.com/Shareholders/Shareholders_2006_web.pdf
page 23
Current News July 1, 2009
"Torvec, and thus all of you shareholders, now own more than 300 patents"
http://torvec.com/messagefromceo070109.htm
Now there are so many patents, it seems, that an exact count is impossible. If there are more than 300 patents, just imagine what the count would be if the current applications were included.
The "Message from the CEO September 4, 2007"...
informed the Torvec shareholders that the Torvec CV Joint was superior to Conventional CVJ Technology due to:
1) "rolling contact rather than sliding balls"
2) Elimination of an "inherent lubrication problem"
3) Elimination of an "inefficient method to transfer torque"
4) "the Torvec CVJ has less parts"
5) "and relatively few parts require tight tolerances"
6) "Torvec’s CVJ is as light as GKN’s newest model"
7) "Torvec’s CVJ could be as much as 50% less costly to manufacture"
http://torvec.com/messagefromceo090407.htm
While all of this is great, the competition focuses on "trendy" concepts such as:
1) "boosts fuel economy"
2) "carbon dioxide (CO2) savings"
3) "emission reductions"
4) "constant rotational speed"
5) "significant weight savings"
6) "new levels of performance"
7) "finely tuned driveshafts"
http://www.thegreencarwebsite.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/07/19/could-velocity-joint-offer-fuel-savings/
So, seeing as "The first production vehicles using this technology will appear in the market later this year with three million expected to be manufactured in 2010";
could we hear any specifics about the scientific lab results of Torvec's CVJ's as they pertain to an:
1) actual "boosts to the fuel economy"
2) actual "carbon dioxide (CO2) savings"
3) actual "emission reductions"
Would that be too much to ask?
And, if that is not too much, could the shareholders hear more about the Torvec CVJ advantages as they relate to:
4) The actual "constant rotational speed"
5) The actual "significant weight savings"
6) The actual "new levels of performance"
7) The benefits for "finely tuned driveshafts"
Oh, one other question:
Does the RIT FSAE race team really utilize GKN's CVJ?
The uses as outlined in the application are:
"The steam turbines may be coupled to an electrical generator, a vehicular drive, or any similar application to which turbine power is typically coupled. In one embodiment, the steam driven turbine is coupled to a radiofrequency generator capable of producing hydrogen gas from sea water."
It is interesting; however, that the attribute of being "compact" is mentioned as follows:
"The apparatus described above may be adapted to a variety of other purposes where ultra high temperature steam, electricity, or mechanical power or a combination thereof need to be provided by a compact self-contained system."
There does not seem to be any mention of a use for the oxygen (the other obvious by product of the RF generator); or the ability to be granted "carbon credits" (the new global legal tender) that could be available for sale or exchange.
What's there to say about an invention company...
that solves the world's energy problems by inventing:
A method of generating power comprising the steps of:
a) generating a hydrogen fuel;
b) burning the hydrogen fuel to heat a water source to form an ultra high temperature steam; and
c) driving a steam turbine using the ultra high temperature steam.
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/ia.jsp?IA=US2008077858&DISPLAY=STATUS
I, personally, think that it is mighty fine.
Don't tell anyone; I think that it is a secret.
GKN claims 'breakthrough' technology saves fuel ...
"GKN Driveline says that its 'breakthrough' countertrack constant velocity joint (CVJ) technology is exciting the interest of vehicle manufacturers in Europe, North America and Asia because of its fuel saving potential."
http://www.just-auto.com/article.aspx?id=100312
We, however, have 300 patents, so there!
Is the June 02, 2009 patent issue to Torvec not able to meet the "key development" standard simply because there is no plan to commercialize it?
Are we now legally required to do so?
"We do not disclose the identities of our users unless we are legally required to do so."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/complex_terms.asp
Or, are partial identity disclosures exempt from the need for legal requirements?
GM's strides with Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition technology...
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10280044-48.html
Gee, when GM finishs up with all these strides, Torvec will have a use for the "Orbital transmission with geared overdrive".
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7475617.html
Must be the HCCI part of GM's work survived the 40 day bankruptcy.
Is a planetary gear set a complex sub-system?...
"It does not require any complex sub-systems such as torque converters, planetary gear sets, multiple wet clutches and multiple bands"
http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/210173/get-out-and-drive
This article reports that Ford calls it one.
Your comments and observation is most likely correct...
when you say that "JG couldn't shovel the dung anymore...not a good sign"
This looks like an indication of some sort of a change with the company. Torvec worked so hard to "prove" the benefits of that Iso-torque with the assistance of RIT's Formula SAE race team and then when they "pulled it off";... NOTHING.
Of course, all of this was the company's expectations, not the expectations of the non-family, non-core group of investors, and certainly not my expectations. However, it could have been an expectation of mine about ten years ago.
So now that they have accomplished something that should have been expected ten years ago, it gets us nowhere. Not even worthy of mentioning it in a CEO update.
Torvec's silence on all of this is an indication that the board is finally realizing how silly the timing of all of this effort really is when it is put in a true business perspective.
It seems to me that all of Torvec's competitors are passing Torvec by; and they are able to accomplish the desired results without any concern over the Torvec patents.
The RIT formula SAE web site still claims...
that the Torvec Iso-Torque limited slip style gear set is being used; along with GKN Constant Velocity Joints.
http://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/formula/
The Iso-Torque must have contributed to the success for the team. So why is there silence on this accomplishment?