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.
Let's hope you're right. time will tell.
Or,
they are going to merge with LED and anything worth a damn will transfer as well. then we will get something like 1 share in LED for every 100 in CPWY. CPWY will go away and we get the shaft. just like before at another said company which I can't speak of on this board. Just saying.....
Aug. 28, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Clean Energy Pathways, Inc. (Pink Sheets: CPWY), an alternative and renewable energy solutions company adopts a direct sales channel for their BioClean brand of environmentally friendly fuel treatment products.
To reach a much larger market share for our BioClean Diesel, Coal and Marine environmental fuel treatments, Clean Energy Pathways has implemented a direct to customer marketing strategy. According to the "new" Chairman of the Board, Jon Chynoweth, "marketing our very effective fuel enhancement BioClean lineup of products through typical sales and distribution channels has proven ineffective...both from an overall market penetration standpoint to increased pricing structures required to support increased middleman margins. We have therefore decided to market our products directly to end users
Anybody have any idea when this is going to happen? I am still looking to give the BioClean Diesel a test run in my vehicles but not looking to purchase a 55 gal drum. it's been a month since this PR but nothing else since. whent to the website but nothing.
thanks
Do you think this is just another shuffle of the deck to keep us quiet while we continue to be purged? I mean, this keeps happening over and over again. I feel like i am trapped in the movie Groundhog Day. the only constant in this process is that we get the shaft and the outsted management leaves with our money. Seriously, what can Jon do that the others have not? and if he can do something, why hasn't he up to this point? I guess I'm just venting. i believe that in the end I will probably have to be happy with a huge loss and a tax deduction. But come on, someone please help me understand how this can possibly end well.
thanks
Man,
this sucks.
Again,
I want nothing to fail. I have plenty to loose if this thing fails and that is the LAST thing I want to happen. and because of this, I don't want bogus claims out there. if the product works than prove it with facts and lets get rolling. if not, say so and lets move on.
You provide neither. the link provided is not usefull to this conversation.
AGAIN! sombody wrote the below statement on the PDF report provided.
"For those Engineers that are not familiar with the term “BRAKE
SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION” (BSFC) in REAL
WORLD LANGUAGE 1.78% to 2.22% BSFC fuel reduction
means up to 19% or more FUEL SAVINGS! That is SIGNIFICANT
Who wrote this statement on the report and what are the calculations utilized to substantiate this BOGUS claim.
If the product is what we are lead to believe, this should not be a problem providing data to back up this statement.
thanks
I know your lips are moving but all I hear is BLA, BLA, BLA I put up my numbers and calculations for everyone to to see based on the PDF report. please clearly post evidence and calulation utilizing the testing results in the PDF to show how the BSFC listed equates to a 19% increase in MPG's. I could have been wrong. show me the error of my ways.
put up or shut up!
I think the real question you should be asking is,..who added the note to the original document stating:
"For those Engineers that are not familiar with the term “BRAKE
SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION” (BSFC) in REAL
WORLD LANGUAGE 1.78% to 2.22% BSFC fuel reduction
means up to 19% or more FUEL SAVINGS! That is SIGNIFICANT
where are thier calculation?
not enough information in the PDF so I spoke to a friend. we utilized a formula he found but we made some assumptions for the missing information. however, we kept the assumptions the same for both BSFC.
Baseline:
Coefficient Of Drag = 0.4300
Frontal Area = 20.8 Sq. Feet
Vehicle MPH = 55
Vehicle Weight = 3800 Lbs.
Tire Pressure = 32 psi.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption = 0.3990 gal/hp-hr.
Drivetrain Horsepower loss = 12
Computed Drag + Drivetrain Horsepower is 30
Engine Fuel Consumption is 11.82 gal/hr
Engine MPG 4.65
BSFC with additive:
Coefficient Of Drag = 0.4300
Frontal Area = 20.8 Sq. Feet
Vehicle MPH = 55
Vehicle Weight = 3800 Lbs.
Tire Pressure = 32 psi.
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption = 0.3910 gal/hp-hr.
Drivetrain Horsepower loss = 12
Computed Drag + Drivetrain Horsepower is 30
Engine Fuel Consumption is 11.59 gal/hr
Engine MPG 4.75
utilizing these number we can calculate a 2% increase in fuel mileage.
put it this way. you ask me to build you an engine that will produce 500HP on the Dyno. so I can do that, no problem. but then you ask me if you put it in a car, how fast can you run the quarter mile. well, what kind of car? what transmission, how much does it weigh, what kind of tires, who is driving.
Sure, more HP will give you a faster time but I cant give you a direct correlation
I have the PDF and will look it over this weekend and see if there is enought information. I think you are missing the point. just because an engine sitting on a Dyno shows an improvement in fuel consumption at a specific RPM or range, that does not indicate the same collation to MPG's in an actual vehicle on the road. there are other factors. drag, velosity, weight, torque, driveline, tires, and so on.....
my wife can run a 6 min mile in the house on a treadmill but she sure as hell cant do that outside on the street.
There is no direct conversion. we need other information to make a copmairson. we can work back to get close. provide the horse power, torque, RPM's, velosity, and or drag coefficient. we also need the duty cycle. most BSFC is calulated at a specific RPM or cruise range. to say that a BSFC increase can be calculated directly to in increase in MPG directly is impossible.
some light reading. take what you want from it. make your own conclusions.
http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/renewable/biodiesel/biodieselfinal.pdf
Sorry to all who think I have some agenda. The only agenda I have is to someday get some of my investment back out of this company....and facts. I will continue despute any mileage claims intill I see factual repeatable testing results. I will go further to say that I have various Diesel Vehicles that I am willing to put the product in and provide my personal results. I have no testing lab but know precisely my fule mileage. I also have a diesel powerd boat with a flow scan I can test it on. please let me know where I can get less that a 55 gallon purchase.
thanks
I am in no way calling anybody a liar in any form. what I am say is the report clearly states the slight increase in BSFC and in no way states results of 19% increase in mileage. sombody somewhere came up with that from out of thin air. NOT ME> ask them to provide the formulas and calculations. too many variables and BSFC cannot be directly related in those terms. and again, no way this or any other additive will give 19% gain in fuel milage. My resume has no relevance to this conversation. facts do not change with a resume.
http://www.internationalfuel.com/
look at this company
look at the product
look at the communication
look at the stock price
look at CPWY.
just saying
there is a demand for the product but there is also a lot of established products already out to compete with. you have Opti Lube, Stanadyne, Amsoil, and Power Service just to name a few. these have all been tested and proven and have a loyal folowing. you even have the crowd that utilizes two stroke motor oil. the key is going to be great PROVEN/TESTED results, a great markenting plan and a competitive price. I have not seen any of this yet.
going back to my third poing I will agree with your assertion. that being said, we are talking minamal gains depending on the age and type of engine. assuming best case for all your points, we are talking 5% increase in fuel mileage gains. At Best. trust me, if there were a product that could increase your fuel mileage even close to 35% it would be on every news channel and website. we would all be sitting fat. not going to happen.
I think the product is in line with other similar products if the results could be independently verified. that being said, we are talking only moddest fuel efficiency gains in the 1 - 2.5% area. concidering the cost compaired to other products on the market its going to be a tough sell as a fuel additive for diesel engines. in my oppinion, it would be more cost effective for you to keep a barrel of standard soy bio diesel on hand. it's going to be tough to break into an already flooded market.
my 2 cents
Plinker,
there is only three ways any fuel additive could possible increase fuel efficiency.
1st. increase lubricity which will drecrease the drag coefficient on engine components. measured in HFRR.
2nd. increase the BTU's in a gallon of fuel.
3rd. improve burn efficiency in an engine. since most modern engines can utilze about 98% of fuel consumed this is considered an non factor.
None of these will give you a 35% increase in fuel effifiency. Period!
Plinker,
there is only three ways any fuel additive could possible increase fuel efficiency.
1st. increase lubricity which will drecrease the drag coefficient on engine components. measured in HFRR.
2nd. increase the BTU's in a gallon of fuel.
3rd. improve burn efficiency in an engine. since most modern engines can utilze about 98% of fuel consumed this is considered an non factor.
None of these will give you a 35% increase in fuel effifiency. Period!
Cheap,
I believe you are reading the results incorrectly. the BSFC clearly states 1.78% to 2.22% gains. there is NO way that a fuel additive can increase lubricity or BTU enough to achieve a 35% increase in fuel efficiency.
Cheap,
the Wear Scar Diameter is the measurement of the HFRR. so in simple terms, if the report is accurate, the HFRR is 303 which is a very good number. of course results would need to be verified but this is a good number putting it high on the list. fuel improvements are minimal and seem to reflect aprox 2%gain in the tested single cylinder engine. so the kicker is, why is the product so expensive in comparison to other products on the market with similar results? tests must be replicated and costs need to come down to make this a viable product. and of course, you need to have some great marketing to get this out there to compete.
just my 2 cents
No, I didnt say that. what I am saying is without it,....this product goes nowhere.
The HFRR is currently the Internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating ability. List I provided was the latest test on file. you can make all the claims and provide any data for consideration. however, in the end these products are all stacked up utilizing the HFRR number. this data need to be provide
Richard,
can you please provide the HFRR number?
below is a description and the results of the leading products on the market. as you can see, SoyPower Bio Diesel is #1 at a fraction of the price and it been around forever.
Diesel fuel and other fluids are tested for lubricating ability using a device called
a “High Frequency Reciprocating Rig” or HFRR. The HFRR is currently the
internationally accepted, standardized method to evaluate fluids for lubricating
ability. It uses a ball bearing that reciprocates or moves back and forth on a
metal surface at a very high frequency for a duration of 90 minutes. The machine
does this while the ball bearing and metal surface are immersed in the test fluid
(in this case, treated diesel fuel). At the end of the test the ball bearing is
examined under a microscope and the “wear scar” on the ball bearing is
measured in microns. The larger the wear scar, the poorer the lubricating ability
of the fluid. Southwest Research runs every sample twice and averages the size
of the wear scar.
The U.S. standard for diesel fuel says a commercially available diesel fuel should
produce a wear scar of no greater than 520 microns. The Engine Manufacturers
Association had requested a standard of a wear scar no greater than 460
microns, typical of the pre-ULSD fuels. Most experts agree that a 520 micron
standard is adequate, but also that the lower the wear scar the better.
1) 2% REG SoyPower Biodiesel
HFRR 221, 415 micron improvement.
50:1 ratio of baseline fuel to 100% Biodiesel
66.56 oz. of 100% Biodiesel per 26 gallons of diesel fuel
Price: market value
2)Opti-Lube XPD
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier
HFRR 317, 319 micron improvement.
256:1 ratio
13 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
3)FPPF RV, Bus, SUV Diesel/Gas fuel treatment
Gas and Diesel
cetane improver, emulsifier
HFRR 439, 197 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.60/tank
4)Opti-Lube Summer Blend
Multi-purpose
demulsifier
HFRR 447, 189 micron improvement
3000:1 ratio
1.11 oz/tank
$0.68/tank
5)Opti-Lube Winter Blend
Muti-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver
HFRR 461, 175 micron improvement
512:1 ratio
6.5 oz/tank
$3.65/tank
6)Schaeffer Diesel Treat 2000
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, emulsifier, bio-diesel compatible
HFRR 470, 166 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.87/tank
7)Super Tech Outboard 2-cycle TC-W3 engine oil
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 or newer systems)
HFRR 474, 162 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
$1.09/tank
8)Stanadyne Lubricity Formula
Lubricity Only
demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 479, 157 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.00/tank
9)Amsoil Diesel Concentrate
Multi-purpose
demulsifier, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 488, 148 micron improvement
640:1 ratio
5.2 oz/tank
$2.16/tank
10)Power Service Diesel Kleen + Cetane Boost
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 575, 61 micron improvement
400:1 ratio
8.32 oz/tank
$1.58/tank
11)Howe’s Meaner Power Kleaner
Multi-purpose
Alcohol free
HFRR 586, 50 micron improvement
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.36/tank
12)Stanadyne Performance Formula
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
cetane improver, demulsifier, 5% bio-diesel compatible, alcohol free
HFRR 603, 33 micron improvement
480:1 ratio
6.9 oz/tank
$4.35/tank
13)Used Motor Oil, Shell Rotella T 15w40, 5,000 miles used.
Unconventional (Not ULSD compliant, may damage systems)
HFRR 634, 2 micron improvement
200:1 ratio
16.64 oz/tank
price: market value
14)Lucas Upper Cylinder Lubricant
Gas or diesel
HFRR 641, 5 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
427:1 ratio
7.8 oz/tank
$2.65/tank
15)B1000 Diesel Fuel Conditioner by Milligan Biotech
Multi-purpose, canola oil based additive
HFRR 644, 8 microns worse than baseline (statistically insignificant change)
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.67/tank
16)FPPF Lubricity Plus Fuel Power
Multi-purpose + anti-gel
Emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 675, 39 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$1.12/tank
17)Marvel Mystery Oil
Gas, oil and Diesel fuel additive (NOT ULSD compliant, may damage 2007 and
newer systems)
HFRR 678, 42 microns worse than baseline fuel.
320:1 ratio
10.4 oz/tank
$3.22/tank
18)ValvTect Diesel Guard Heavy Duty/Marine Diesel Fuel Additive
Multi-purpose
Cetane improver, emulsifier, alcohol free
HFRR 696, 60 microns worse than baseline fuel
1000:1 ratio
3.32 oz/tank
$2.38/tank
Already been done. this company needs to focus on things that stay grounded.
Military jet aircraft are cooled by transferring heat from electronics systems and other sources into the aircraft's fuel. But in the late 1980s, concerns arose that fuel temperatures in future high-performance aircraft could get high enough to cause charring (coke formation) and degrade engine performance.
GE Water & Process Technologies, in a joint program with the Air Force, Navy, and other industry partners, developed GE +100 fuel additive, which increases the thermal stability of JP8 jet fuel by 100°F. As a result new class of fuel, JP8+100, has been used in aircraft around the world - commercial and military - to enable operation with:
Reduced soot and coke creation in the combustor
Sustained engine power levels
Reduced coke buildup on fuel nozzle face
Extended fuel-nozzle cleaning intervals
Reduced generation of smoke and particulates
GE +100 is one of several GE fuel additives that can help ensure wider applicability of the aviation fuels you produce.
Richard,
I never said that the two products were connected. I know they are two differnt products. but don't deny the history which is all I was doing. I lost my butt on XCelP%^&$ which is my fault and blame nobody esle. I don't want honest people to loose like I did and I think its my right to call it the way I see it. as long as people continue to punp this stock, I can tell it the way I see it. show me two quarter of positive sales, reporting on time, and product on the shelf and I might change my mind.
they are connected! so, because global never got enough money to acquire the patent there is no connection?
http://www.pinkinvesting.com/filings/view/3884//
I can read and owned the stock since 2005!
go ahead and delete the web site also
I will respectfully disagree. They are connected! That’s how this all got started, By spinning off of xeclplus to Global Holding that supposedly held the so called patents to the product which never existed from .....wait for it...TA DA, xcelplus Lubrilon. So they are connected which is how I got these worthless shares. To deny the connection is to deny history.
Where am I wrong?
It would but how much I'm not sure. but if I was CPWY and wanted to break into this market with a REAL product I would start by cotacting Dieselplace, Cumminsforum, and Gino's Garage. all can be found on the internet. I am not a spokesperson for any but am a member. my guess is that this will die just like Lubrilon.
just my 2cents
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=177728
all it would take is for CPWY to contact dieselplace and supply some product for fair testing.
Diesel owners will not risk thier money or engines on NON tested additives. too many have tried and failed.
who knows, maybe in ten years I might be proven wrong.....But I doubt it.
ROFLAHMSL
Here is the link they sent me. I can't get it to load but maybe its just my computer.
http://truthfrequencynews.com/?p=1757
Im on a private BLOG with some other guys of which we discuss new energy. Mostly hydrogen fuel. but anyway, we go back and forth and they send me this stuff all the time. I will see if they can send me the link.
cheers
joe
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A surge in global food prices has prompted fresh criticism of US subsidies for ethanol, which diverts massive amounts of corn from global food supplies for energy.
Producers of ethanol argue that the biofuel helps blunt the impact of high imported petroleum prices, but critics say the US policy giving tax breaks for ethanol used in motor fuel ends up being bad for food, energy and the environment.
The issue has created unusual political alliances, with environmental groups and some lawmakers from both parties clashing with farm interests and legislators from the corn-producing midwest states.
Senators Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, and Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a measure last month to scrap the tax credit of 45 cents per gallon for ethanol in gasoline.
“The ethanol tax credit is bad economic policy, bad energy policy and bad environmental policy. The $6 billion we waste every year on corporate welfare should instead stay in taxpayers’ pockets where it can be used to spur innovation, stimulate growth and create jobs,” said Coburn.
The lawmakers cited a Government Accountability Office report describing the tax credit as “largely unneeded today to ensure demand for domestic ethanol production.”
C. Ford Runge, a University of Minnesota professor of applied economics and law, argues that ethanol from crops has many “hidden costs” that should dissuade the government from subsidies.
Runge, who raised concerns about ethanol policy as early as 2007, says his research suggests some 30 percent of food price increases come from diversion of US corn for ethanol.
“If you’re taking 40 percent of the US corn crop, the largest of any country on earth, and putting it to one use… you don’t have to have a Ph.D in economics to know that’s going to put upward pressure on prices,” he told AFP.
In an essay written for Yale University’s Environment 360 online magazine, Runge cites “strong evidence that growing corn, soybeans, and other food crops to produce ethanol takes a heavy toll on the environment and is hurting the world’s poor through higher food prices.”
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that rising food prices are driving unrest around the world, including recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa.
Runge said high food prices — including corn at record highs — are a factor in the unrest, saying “these countries have been subjected to the pressures in their household costs,” adding to the political pressures.
Economist Ed Yardeni at Yardeni Research said diversion of crops to fuel is important because the US provides more than half of global corn exports and over 40 percent of soybean exports.
“So our ethanol policy is exacerbating the global food fight, destabilizing the Middle East… Is that insane, or what?”,” Yardeni said.
Yet ethanol has its staunch defenders including Senator Tom Harkin the corn-belt state of Iowa, who told a recent hearing that ethanol “has dramatically reduced our need for oil.”
Harkin said the focus on ethanol diverts attention from the oil industry’s “very lucrative and unnecessary subsidies.”
Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, said ethanol is important for the goal of energy security, and he dismisses its impact on food prices, saying refiners use only the starch component of feed corn, and produce animal feed as a byproduct.
“Ethanol is the only thing we have today to moderate skyrocketing prices of gasoline and crude oil,” Dinneen told AFP.
“If the chaos in the Middle East teaches us anything, it should be that America must forcefully begin down the path of energy self-reliance. Increasing the use of domestic renewable fuels like ethanol is the first, and arguably, the easiest step we can take,” he said at a congressional hearing.
US President Barack Obama said in a March 30 speech on energy policy that ethanol should be part of the US energy future as part of an expanded effort for biofuels.
He said there is “tremendous promise” in renewable biofuels, “not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass, wood chips, and biomass.”
A White House official said that “corn ethanol is already making a significant contribution to reducing our oil dependence. But going much further will require commercialization of advanced biofuels technologies.”
Dinneen argued the US will need a variety of biofuels, but added “the existing ethanol industry is providing the foundation on which those other biofuels will be able to grow.”
Richard, or anyone else....
I have been like most of you guys a owner of this stock since day one. I try my best to keep up with things but feel I fully still do not understand this company like most of you do. I keep hearing about moving up to another exchange and dont fully understand this. I also kept hearing that once the tax credit passed that this company would move up but I have not seen any fuel sales yet. to be honest, i dont know what to think anymore and mostly its because every PR release in the past has never come to light. I dont understand, were they all lies or just hopeful thinking? What is the truth about the goals of CPWY moving forward and what can we expect to see? what is CPWY really looking to get into to move forward? is it the fuel? if so, when can we see some huge sales? or is it something else like solar or wind?
thank you,
LOL! No, not good at all.
Thanks Badknees.
And a Great Christmas to you and everyone on this board.