For off-grid power, people are better off with diesel at a fifth the cost.

But for remote hydrogen production, for educational purposes mostly, the company's system might be a good fit. Of course, they never tried to sell there.

The company still pitches this as a solution for people who are on the grid.

What has the company ever done or said to convince anyone that their product is a good fit for any market? Pelto made wild claims about producing H2 without using any outside energy. The reformed company made it clear their process is expensive. Neither team was willing to apply for and publish a patent. Was there some other venue, besides their public statements, where they sold people the idea they had a viable, novel invention?

Forget the stock, tell us about the technology.

Why do you think the technology is any good?

Why do you think other people say the technology is nogood?

What would it take to change your mind about the technology?

Answer any one of these and I promise to stop trying to convince you how great the pizza man is.

Dollars are not the only measure.

It's easy to be right most of the time on a tech startup by saying "It will fail.". Works 95% of the time.

But with perpetual motion machine, water as fuel, and all the other Einstein Was Wrong Inc., it's right 100% of the time.

Explain your great comprehension.

When the company says its process costs 6 cents per cubic foot, what makes you think that's good technology? Who (on this planet) would want to power a car using 6 cent per cubic foot H2?

Probably not metal hydrides.

Those are going to leave behind caustic high PH brines that will be expensive to recycle and require special handling. More likely HYVR is using metals that leave oxide precipitates that can be scooped out without googles or gloves, and transported to the recyclers without any special permits. In the report from 2 years ago, they mention the prices of the metals they were using, and one of them was suspiciously close to the price per pound of Al.

Thanks for the pointer to Steve Lennon.

I will be trying to contact everyone associated with the company, eventually. But they can't (edited, had said can, duh) talk freely as long as the company still exists.

As for everything that happened recently being set in motion before Rosenberg left, I don't get your meaning. Everything was set in motion when the company was founded. I still don't see why the annual report was late, or how that can be blamed on Rosenberg or anyone before him.

Chrisau, why do the company's 10k touch a nerve?

Why blame me for?

Pure Hydrogen. Our recent testing of the hydrogen demonstrated that the purity ranged from a low 99.999 percent to a high of 99.9992 percent. We are currently developing a stainless steel reactor which we expect will improve purity to a 99.9999 level. Our testing also has demonstrated that the cost to operate the ECHFR is low. It will cost approximately 65 cents to produce 10.78 cubic feet of hydrogen gas for a cost of six cents per cubic foot of hydrogen gas produced. Our estimates do not include packaging costs. We expected those costs to vary depending on the application, the size of the ECHFR, and the gas purity required.

And I don't need to can it, since it can be produced on demand from dry metals and whatever water is available.

Rager, Millenium can *can get handouts*!

Their process is much more expensive than HYVR. They can't sell product because nobody needs to pay that much for energy. But they can get handouts because they operate in a transparent way. HYVR was never in a position to get handouts since day one; they have always acted like they had something to hide.

If they were buying shares on the open market, doesn't that mean they were believers? I've not verified your calculation that they were buying shares on the market, but, if they were, that would argue against an intentional looting scenario, wouldn't it?

I don't know about the current management. Rosenberger I liked. The current management are the ones who couldn't manage to hire auditors in time, or file for enough extentions, and ended up dropping the stock onto the pinks. It's hard to like someone that does that, but they might yet prove to have redeeming qualities.

When I say "Nevada wont ever dissolve me" I am pointing out that NYVR needs to register again in a couple of months. If they fall far enough behind on that they are dissolved. There are only 4 things that can happen, they can come up with a business plan, they can sell the invention to someone with a business plan, they can sell their losses to someone who can write them off, or they can just fade away and get dissolved by NV. If they let their losses go stale, they will end up dissolved.

I'll pay $100 for the technology just to show it doesn't work. This will save me the trouble of tracking everybody down after the corp is dissolved. If management can find a better offer, they ought to take it.

6 cents/cuft is in in latest 10ksb.

When the company is willing to go on the record with another figure, I will use that instead. But they haven't. The 10Q that would have exposed the revenue they got from the sale of the "marketable byproduct" to be a joke is now a month late. I wonder if we will ever see that 10Q.

You will find that diesel is a better way to get power to subs than whatever metals they were using. But the subs idea is good out-of-the-box thinking. They should have thought about what niches make sense, rather than treating the metals process as a "fits all" solution. In cases where
1 - The per unit volume cost of the H2 isn't very important, since the customer isn't going to use a lot;
2 - The equipment and maintenance cost of the reactor needs to be low, again, since the customer isn't going to use it a lot;
3 - Safety is paramount; the system needs to not leak or burn ever (even in an earthquake, power outage, left unmaintained);
4 - Purity is important.

School chemistry labs and mobile equipment for trade shows or military balloons might be good fits. The problem might be that the "invention" is just such old hat, it can't be made into a product.

All the ideas they ever came up with imagined that the process was energy efficient, which it is *not*. The problem isn't that the management was a bunch of crooks, but rather that the management was sold a bill of goods by *one* crook and then took forever to wake up.

I don't have any patents. But neither does HYVR. And Nevada wont ever dissolve me. Let's see if HYVR can say the same a year from now.

They did a few things right in 2002.

The management from 2002 till the beginning of this year were good people. Confused, but good. Honest enough to report that their process cost 6 cents per cubic foot, but not clear headed enough to see that that meant the process couldn't be used to power houses, cars, or nurseries for that matter at a price people would be willing to pay.

I wonder what happened to the patent filed in April. It's not been published yet.

Thanks Rager. I see no bombshells here.

So I really wonder what held things up to the point they would get bounced to the pinks.

I noticed that the chemist who lives near Rosenberger that Rosenberger brought onto the board is no longer a director. I had thought he probably left when Rosenberger did, but now we know. I never could figure how a chemist could get involved with this, and the answer turns out to be "temporarily".

I noticed also thet they are still using the 6 cent per cubic foot figure that we discussed earlier and found was much more expensive than electrolysis.

Generally the report doesn't contain a lot of obvious typos, like those clowns at ARGY always write. There was one mistake, when they say in the "Overview of the ECHFR" that
"This reaction produces both hydrogen gas and distilled potable water suitable for human consumption."

No. That reaction results in H2, heat, and wet oxide precipitate. Burning the H2 is what produces distilled water.

The current market cap is valuing the company at prety close to the tax value of the losses. They ought to put a plan together to realize that value, and not let it dribble away.

Anyone know why they stopped reporting?

So that's that.

I am a little surprised at how quickly it happened. But the CEO resigning in January was a warning of sorts.

I would still like to understand what made some people think this company had a marketable invention. Once the company dissapears, maybe Rosenberg would be good to talk to. So, is there anybody who can explain what they liked about this stock? Why, when the company said its process was 5X as expensive as electrolysis, that didn't seem expensive?

Well the 15th has come and gone.

What's holding up the annual report? Isn't it time for the 2004Q1 quarterly report?

Are people going to keep posting here once it's dropped down to the pink?

Why do you say the 15th?

Do you mean the 1st quarter report is due the 15th, or that the late annual report is expected the 15th.

There is a lot of volitility in the stock now. Some trades above 4 cents, some below 3.

I wonder what's been holding up the audit. There isn't any revenue to look over, other than debt adjustments, and not a lot of expenses.

2 dumb questions - why the E? when the annual report?

Maybe it's just one question.

How much work can it be to audit last year's books? They didn't do anything last year.

Grants -

It's important to keep in mind that it's Hydrogen's near term prospects are for only a niche role in our economy. Maybe as long as we live on this planet, we wont use a lot of Hydrogen. All these H2 fuel cell companies and H2 generation companies are in the government handout business, not the energy business. HRVRE, with its shaky past, cloak and dagger approach to everything, and frequent misstatements is in no position to compete with Millennium Cell for handouts. Not that Millennium's idea is any better than HYVRE's, but it presents it in a transparent way, and it has no baggage.

Re: Mockloudly, 4mr4, and the boys

I don't think I've ever met Mock, never even read any of his posts, since they aged off RB by the time I stated reading. There is speculation that someone posting on RB as h2doggie is Mock, but I just don't know. H2doggie is darn funny.

4mr4 is not Georgeman. I think 4mr4 is in his 20's or 30's and Georgeman is older. Also, 4mr4 is new to this talk, and Georgeman goes way back.

Vinny Terra Nova from Wiseguy.

It was a great show. Vinny played an FBI agent undercover infiltrating organized crime. One season featured a villian played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey.

Hi Rager. Thanks for symbol change info.

I posted on RB a request for theories on why Lycos is convinced that the stock's unchanged on 0 volume for the last few days and got no answer.

Amazing. I have to talk to Vinny about the nurserey.

There has to be a disconnect here. How can it make sense for a nurserey to start paying 1.5 cents (*) per kWh for heat, by switching from gas to disposable batteries, on the theory that the disposables are greener? Maybe their gas bill is $5 per month now and if they end up paying $20 per month for their metals, nobody will notice. I haven't checked up on them, but I will after the system is installed.

I hope they are able to complete the system before winter. There has to be some custom work to get it hooked up. But I can't wait to get the "what we thought" and "what we found" from those guys.

* The system should produce heat at a lower cost than electricity, since a lot of heat is generated when you burn the metals. If you are just extracting the H2, then that heat is wasted. But here they are trying to make hot water, so it's not waste heat. So I divided their estimate for the cost of H2 from their sustem by 3.

Crosschecking news; Horeses; Dizenzo, etc

I don't think all of the news sources that ARGY says have discussed them have the articles on-line, since we haven't been able to find them all. Some might be in print. I had found only one of the articles, now I forget which. Blame ARGY. If they just provided links to the articles they say have been written about them, we wouldn't have to Google them up.

I am not the person who talks about horses, so maybe I misunderstand his point. I think he is trying to understand how the different people at ARGY met each other, and he thinks it's through horses. I don't know of he means horse racing or recreational riding or what.

The Dizenzo name doesn't inspire confidence. He's been working for 20 years for a company that's barred in many jurisdictions from bidding for government contracts because of the mob ties. Now a lot of construction tradesmen have as well, and I wouldn't want to say they are all guilty by association. I just say it's noteworthy.

I'm not short on this stock. I think it would be over valued at a penny a share, but I wouldn't want to bet that it doesn't hit a dollar again before it sees a penny.

4 False claims in press release:

The description of ARGY in the end of the latest press release had 4 clearly false claims.

1 - AEC is the first company to provide a hydrogen device for small-scale, on-demand distributed generation of electricity.

No. See www powerball net for an older company with patents.

2 - The device is immediately deployable

No. They plan to build alpha units in September. This means there are not production units. They don't even have a patent yet. How can they ship their top sekrit technology with no patent protection?

3 - and qualifies for Renewable Energy Certificates.

No. This might have been a typo, intended to be part of the discussion of Sterling. Otherwise, check
www green-e org/ipp/trc_marketers.html

to review the certification process for this. I checked the list of eligible technologies, and disposable batteries are not on the list. Perpetual motion machines neither.

4 - AEC's proprietary discovery in metallurgy permits a small-scale unit to generate hydrogen from water through a "green" process at a fraction of the fossil fuel kWh cost of energy.

This is jibberish. But if it's intended to state that energy can be produced by the ARGY process at a lower cost than using fossil fuels, it's false.

Most of these false claims are hard to see as typos. Often it's hard to see how the company could be genuinely confused and not know that these statements are false.

Sterling Planet ; stockpatrol ; RB clutter board for ARGY

I can't tell what it is that AEC is trying to buy from Sterling. I assume it's a portion of their solar cell generator capacity, and not their retail franchize. But it's not to clear. There is some mention of the need to get the deal approved by creditors, so I wonder if Sterling is bringing a lot of debt along with whatever it is selling.

There were a lot of false claims in the press release. I'll make a subsequent post about that.

You mentioned that you were not to sur what stockpatrol's motives are, I think in relation to HYVR. I don't care about his motives, everything he wrote about HYVR I crosschecked and he's correct.

The symbol for AEC on RB is ARGY. The board says that it's for Argosy Education, but it's not. If you read the posts you will see it's for this company. The bad news is that that board is flooded with personal attacks and general clutter from company boosters.

Past perfoamance is no guarantee of future performance. But it's a good reference point. From all outward appearances, the company has been pretty much frozen since Rosenberg took over. The stock price has been 1.5 cents to 15 cents pretty much the whole time. No units sold or patent awarded. But no SEC investigation or other calamities either. Where is it going to be 2 months from now? Well there is no guarantee, but most likely it will have no units sold, no patent, no calamaties, and the stock will trade for 1.5 cents to 15 cents.

But it can't stay in this rut forever. At some point, the Terra Nova deal is going to happen or not. We might find out in May what the timeline for that decision is supposed to be, but, otherwise, if there is no contract by August people will start asking questions. But the company had a deal fall through before and survived that. For the patent, news will come in slower, but still we ought to hear about that sometime in the next year. I expect something to do with the patent to be the beginning of the end.

Why they don't have the contract yet.

Their last LOI had a 3 month plan for them to go from LOI to contract. But it took 5 months to unravel, and an extra month for shareholders to hear about it. This was at a time the company had more staff, so I don't see why they should be able to go from LOI to contract any faster than then. We might see details in the May quarterly report.

Unfounded accusations and personal motive:

I've read the same PR's as everyone else. But I don't understand the unfounded accusations and personal motive theory some other posters have been exposed to. Please explain them to me. What accusations are unfounded? What are the myths? What are are personal motives behind the attacks on this company? Are there other companies that have been similarly targeted?

I'll be upfront with you. I think that holding to the notion that there is a conspiracy to damage this company is a symptom of profound mental illness. Not crazy uncle mental illness. Die in shootout with the cops mental illness. My interest here is to examine a public health problem. I want to understand if the company has introduced people to paranoid delusions, or if the only people who have kept involved with the company are already troubled. If there is anyone who didn't harbor notions of dangerous conspiracies before they got involved with HYVR, who now does, I want to understand how his worldview has changed. I want to understand the difference in thinking between people who think this is a scam and those who think it's not. I don't care about people who haven't followed it for a long time, but only those who know the whole story.

No rush. The company shouldn't collapse for at least 6 months.

Powertek valuation ; Lysaught's analysis ; Market niche

When the Powertek purchase was getting looked at, they were talking about paying $500k for half the company. It was a little more complicated than that, but, assuming this made any sense, that would mean that the company would have been worth a million dollars, maybe two. Two million is its market cap now. That's just about its market cap now. Maybe the market is right. The Powertek deal didn't happen, but if the numbers didn't make sense at the time, people would have commented on it. Check around post 24.

Lysaught, the chemist Rosenberg brought on the BOD did an analysis that ended up in the whitepaper, but is reported more clearly here. He reports the cost of 6 cents per cuft. Looking at the analysis, it looks like he doesn't account for the recycling value of the spent fuel, so, the company's claim that the cost net recycling is 25% lower makes sense. It's reasonable to assume that the cost is 4.5 cents per cuft. The basic chemistry of the process isn't going to change. For an energy application, 4.5 cents per cuft if H2 darn expensive. Also, if the company had a mass market energy product, the market cap of 1-2 million would make no sense. Check post 148.

But maybe the company does have a product that fits a niche that also makes sense for its market cap. A low pressure H2 supply is MUCH safer than compressed storage. The H2 from their system wont have any CO2 (like reformed CH4.) So for someone who needs a safe, pure, controllable H2 supply, with cost not a real issue, HYVR might have a product. There might be a market for dozens of units a year to be sold to chemistry labs, fuel cell tradeshows, ... Enough maybe even to justify the market cap.

What's with all the personal attacks?

This board didn't used to have so many personal attacks. Now it's full of accusations of hidden motives. The threats of off-board stalking activity against Matt were particularly horrid, and would be grounds for suspension on any civilized forum. Why all the invective? Do poeople believe that Matt is somehow responsible for HYVR's lack of progress?

4mr4 - I'm not a chemist.

I'm a mathemitician. I had nothing to do with Hydrogenerate back in the day. I come to this more through the Genesis World Energy scam. For every publicly traded perpetual motion machine scam out there, there are a bunch of privately held ones. Part of what sways investors in those that there must be more going on in perpetual motion is that the SEC hasn't stopped trading on the publicly traded ones. It's a good argument.

I had an email exchange with Rosenberg. He was very polite, if not entirely helpful. I wont reproduce his mail here because it was private mail, even though it doesn't look like anything he would mind having posted.

I've talked to Rosenberg. I've read their whitepaper.

What I am interested in is how anyone can listen to what they say, and then conclude that they will ever sell anything. In a few years, calling the company to ask this question just isn't going to be possible, the board will not be here. In the mean time, I want to understand how people looked at the same information as me and the other bashers, but drew such different conclusions.

Yawn? Grab some coffee.

It would be nice if someone would explain why they think HYVR has a product. Just summarize the main points that you find compelling aobut their story. I can present questions for an interview, but it's probably better if you just explain what you think, where you came up with the idea, and what you see that supports it.

I am especially interested in the role that people think that any conspiracies such as oil company funded dirty works play in HYVR's troubles. Where does that idea come from? Do the people who believe the oil companies also believe in other conspiracies? Does believing in that conspiracy make people generally more inclined to believe in conspiracies?

Not the same company that pulled the R/S:

This isn't the same management that cleaned up the R/S either. Rosenberg is gone, the whitepaper is taken down, and I'm not sure if the chemist that Rosenberg brought with him is still on the BOD. (That will be in the annual report.) The company is now much more opaque than it was just 6 months ago.

We don't need to know the components of the fuel to know the general principals, that it takes more energy to unburn a fuel than you get from burning it, or that you never trade a rich fuel for a less dense one. All we can't do is look at what specific fuel they are burning to draw out the cycle of ore -> metal -> H2 + ore -> ore and show how much energy is spent or released at each point.

What's interesting is that the PR for the company has essentially not changed in 6 years. There are no verifiable claims, no third party reports. What's changed is the people. Pelto's gone. Now Rosengerg's gone too. But the evidence to support the idea that HYVR has a product hasn't changed. What I would like to understand is why anyone who has followed this thinks there is product here. (Not interested in parvenues.)

By-product is sludge or brine.

Depends on what their fuel is. If their fuel is Al, the by-product would be an oxide precipitate that falls out of the water. If it's Na, then the by-product is lye (NaOH in water). If they would say what the by-product is, I would show how much energy is released in spending it in water, how much H2 is produced, and how much energy it takes to close the loop, recycling the sludge or brine back into the original fuel. I don't expect them to release this information any time soon. But at some point, the patent they filed last year should be published, and then we can go through the chemistry.

It's the recycling revenue we'll see first.

They had a press release that they had revenue from the sale of their "by-product" back in January. This revenue should show up in the next quarterly report. See their Jan 22 press release. This isn't like a sale to install a system where revenue would get recognized as work is done or an LOI which isn't even a sale. Money from the recycler should be cash on the barrelhead, or whatever, so what's sold is sold.

The reason why I want to see that number is that Rager has been saying that the "recycling pays for the whole thing", which makes no sense. I don't know if he made it up or if someone told him, but it makes no sense. The company has said that recycling can reduce the cost of their H2 by 25%, so that would take it from 6X cost of electrolysis to 5X cost of electrolysis. But some people can't believe bad news even when it comes from the company, so I wanted to spell it out more clearly. What I would like to do is to look at how much they bought the fuel for and how much they sold the sludge/brine for, and show that the differece doesn't allow for a "recycling pays for everything" scenario. That information wont be there. But what we will see the revenue, and when it's low, people can ask themselves if that revenue justified a press release.

Quarterly report due May 15:

I had the shance to look through the reporting history, and I now see that we'll get Q1 revenue in May 15. So that's the next time we are guaranteed to see real news.

We could see an update on the Terra Nova LOI before then, but I expect it will take a little while for that to evolve.

About Australia:
Thanks for the Thailand boiler room story. I hadn't heard that before. Also keep in mind that the founder of HYVR was from Australia as well as OK, SD, and etc. That's where the lumber company was from their last LOI, that's where they filed or not for their patent way back.

So Rager made it up.

Rager, what you just did was to yourself make up a very silly story about the patent attorney, that I spotted right away as a silly story, and now you say you have trapped me. No. You trapped yourself. I hadn't called you on it, what would you have done then? Would you have ever corrected yourself?

About terra Nova, just a thought, why don't people call the lumber company?