Ok, what is a helical limited slip differential?

"We know Ford is offering a selectable electronic locker on the 2009 F-150, however we think the Raptor might use a helical style limited slip differential to better distribute power, possibly even in the front axle. While a locker is great in the dirt, the benefits of a helical limited slip, such as a Torsen or TruTrac are available all the time. Whatever it works out to be, the Raptor won’t be coming to the party with open differentials."

http://blogs.fourwheeler.com/6230964/whats-new/ford-suggests-the-the-raptor-is-just-the-loch-ness-monster/index.html

I really don’t see it as going along....

with any particular date. There is no need to be concerned about a June 30th date when there are so many time consuming details to work out. All of the due diligence; convincing of the powers to be; along with all the testing that the OEM’s need to accomplish, will surely fill the time of these few remaining days. That process could all be part of a letter of intent status level with a deal to follow upon successful diligence, convincing, and testing. Even if these parties were in the hurry up mode, it could easily take that much time any way.

One of the other reasons that I sense a delay in the commercialization schedule is that the ICE technology has not been “booked” as a sale as of yet. Torvec speaks about the transaction as a sale, but does not report it that way in the financials. There must be a reason for that, and I have surmised that this reason is the same. So far, the reason that has been disclosed it that they are not certain that they will receive all the future payments. Once July 1st has passed, I think that Torvec will report the ICE transaction as a sale. The next installment of the sale proceeds is due soon.

The closer that they get to the June 30th date, the more significance that date can be. It could be troublesome to commercialize just a few days ahead of that date, unless they are so very sure that it is meaningless.

It just might be a possibility that it....

could be July 1, 2008. This is due to the fact that Torvec contractually gave CXO on the Go a 2 year period of time for payments on a commercialization event that occurs after the termination of the contract with them. That was a provision in the initial disputed contract that is currently being litigated. It seems to me that enough extreme dislike had developed between those parties to want that payment to be void. The easiest and surest way is to delay commercialization till after June 30, 2008 since the contract was terminated on June 30, 2006.

I know the realtors in this group see it differently.

Well, right or wrong, there are not many days till July 1, 2008.

That seems to be exactly what is happening...

I sure wish that they would have spoken a bit at the shareholder's meeting about that advancement. It sure opens up the prospect of many similar uses of that technology. There are many machines in use that have pistons that would benefit from a reduction in piston friction.

Selling the IVT could be an interesting project...

As Keith stated at the shareholder's meeting, the prospects for the IVT commercialization haven't been any better; that there has not been any missed opportunity; and that all the timing is right, etc. etc. etc....

Given that, the prospect for accomplishing that task should be quite high. Here we were all worried that somehow the boat was missed, while we have just been reminded that the boat hasn't let without us just yet.

One thing that I finally realized at the shareholder's meeting was that the company considers the gear set for the IVT to actually be a transmission on its own separate from the IVT. I think that this fact has led to some of my confusion over the whole IVT technology as it has been discussed over the prior year(s). I only wish one of you posters had pointed that out a long time ago. I'd be sure that no one here saw it that way either, since it would have been too obvious, and would have been an easy point to make for clarity.

Given that, surely it seems that the gear set, as a transmission, is most likely a ninth technology.

Given that, the IVT and the gear set together are really two transmissions built together as one and presented as a single IVT.

....

What is it anyway with the hydraulic wheel motor? Is that one of the motors that Torvec developed, or is it an EPA idea that no one ever developed? I was always under the impression that Torvec did develop that technology, but have heard nothing about it in all this time since 2003 - 2004.

Very good points, dread, I agree with that...

The old cheering was all based on expectations. So expectations are the missing factor now, not the cheers; as it was the expectations that caused the cheers. Why is it that there are so little expectations over all the good news at the last shareholders meeting? Is it totally due to the fact that management has led us to expectations that were not achieved so many times in the past?

Now we have new reasons to expect results that are exactly what everyone was hoping for and there is no reaction from the sound asleep, wandering, unorganized crowd.

Also, in your “counts” it seemed that you listed some of the effects, not the causes. Shouldn't your list be limited to only the causes in the cause and effect analysis? Of course, I started this whole discussion by doing just that.

You make a very good point in that....

a betterment in Torvec's performance and execution would have a dramatic impact on increasing the share price. When that happens, it will be a first and will be a welcomed event.

However, the share price has fluctuated in the past, hasn't it; without much performance and execution. That price history was what I was speaking about. Are you saying that there was performance and execution in the past that drove the price higher? You and I have different definitions of what I meant by cheerleading don't we.

Why are there so many counts in your disagreement with my post? Isn't this one enough?

There was a recent report of the total number of shareholders. I can't remember where I saw that, but I sort of remember it being around 3,000 entities. Given that, this core group of shareholders, I believe, are pretty well informed and have, in the past, reacted to the cheers, which changed the price. Of course, outside of this core group, I agree that there is limited knowledge, just as you said.

When Lockheed Martin shows the Army Torvec's.....

hydraulics maybe they will be demonstrating the set up that was featured in Torvec's 2004 EPA Testing event.

" * A hydraulic, all-wheel drive system, i.e., a system that incorporates one hydraulic pump, driven by the engine, supplying pressurized fluid to smaller hydraulic motors driving each wheel. "

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/12/29/175386.html

Does any here have a recollection of when Torvec stopped talking about and working on the Hydraulic Wheel Motors?

I haven't heard much about that Torvec technology in the last few years.

It seems to me that any reasonable ground clearance height can be accomplished by a vehicle that has hydraulic lines running to a wheel motor instead of a CV Joints running to a wheel in a military vehicle. Is that technology going to be part of the new Lockheed Martin JLTV?

Next time you notice the market cap change....

15 MILLION while you are in the men's room conducting your business; give some thought to the fact that Torvec only needs $5 MILLION to get the NYS School bus program up and running.

Why don't we just figure out a way to get them that bit of pocket change and let them run with that program?

$5 million doesn't seem like all that much.

The program will do so much good, it seems.

I think the $5 million could be raised before you get your business done.

http://www.torvec.com/media/Torvec_Proposal_GRE.pdf

Speaking of Icebergs, have you given any thought...

to exactly how a Torvec CV Joint can reduce piston friction in an internal combustion engine?

That is a very intriguing concept.
And...
If that is something that can be accomplished, and it must be so; imagine the other non obvious uses for that Torvec CV Joint.
You see, the Internal Combustion Engine is only one machine that contains pistons that also have piston friction, right?

Now if Torvec's CV Joint solves that little problem better than any other solution, wouldn't it eventually be used in all machines that contain pistons?

Are there any thoughts on this topic?

That's true if you had focused on the....

silly predictions.

Those stock price turbulent reactions were to those silly predictions of the "are we there yet" constant questions in the past. Granted the Torvec directors also seemed to get all caught up in it, to a certain extent.

That was fun, but it wasn't a deal ready to close.

The 2.60 share price is what it is because there is no cheerleading ongoing right now.
I'm not promoting any cheerleading.
All I'm saying is that there is loads of good news from the last meeting and some of it is exactly what we were hoping for.
So, without getting carried away with hype, couldn't we just acknowledge that real good news exists, be happy, and start a discussion about exactly what news is really there.

It seems that we all are tired of the ups and downs of the anticipation based on those old plans to have commercialization accomplished years ago.

However, we are now closer than ever before, based on real news of interest in Torvec's technologies from domestic OEM's. That is more real than anything at anytime in the past.

So take advantage of the "last call" of shares available at $2.60; get 'em if you want 'em, and kiss that price good bye.

Does anyone here actually think that the world will not put an Iso-Torque differential and numerous Torvec CV Joints in all automobiles worthy of our expected typical use?

I think not.

Will those simple events change the price of Torvec stock?

I think so.

It's time to turn off the snooze button.....

As our leader, could you head up some real discussions on all of the exciting topics that were outlined at the shareholder's meeting?

For once, there were no silly promises of anticipated results.

And now, everyone is so sad that those missing silly promises were not the highlights of the meeting.

Torvec actually, finally, spoke about things that we needed to hear. Everyone here wanted a deal to be accomplished with a domestic manufacturer. Torvec just told us updates about three of them:

FORD, GM & LOCKHEED MARTIN.

So, why is everyone so glib?

That was the best meeting for the history of the Torvec Company, IMO.

I suggest that we all go back and review the facts from that meeting all over again. The text from JG's comments are on the Torvec website. I only wish that Keith's comments were there too.

http://www.torvec.com/Shareholders/Annual_Meeting_2007.pdf

Insourcing doesn't shake suppliers.....

"Dana Holding Corp., meanwhile, said it already considers Ford and Chrysler as competition on the axle front. Any insourcing by automakers would mean more competition for the Toledo-based company, which emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection late last month."

""There are a number of things that can really be disruptive ... and they happen on a regular basis," said John Devine, Dana's chairman and acting CEO. Devine previously served as chief financial officer at Ford and General Motors Corp."

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080217/BUSINESS01/802170655

From what I remember hearing about Ford and GM's goals with working with Torvec's technologies at the Torvec shareholder's meeting, I would have to think that Dana is in for a really disruptive ride as it relates to insourcing.

If these companies (Ford and GM) are looking to advance their powertrains with Torvec's Iso-Torque differentials along with Torvec's CV Joints that can become part of a 4 wheel independent suspension, then there is no practical way that the production of these items will be outsourced.

In order to be competitive, Chrysler will have to follow along quickly, and since they are currently constructing new axle plants, that should be easy to accomplish.

What amazes me the most is that; finally, we just had a Torvec shareholder's meeting that outlined the progress that we had all been hoping for, for such a long period of time; and everyone is so glib about that news.

Wake up people!

Digital Hydraulic Hybrid Drive System for U.S. Army Vehicles...

"The Army is looking for a smaller, lighter system with greater energy storage and regeneration capability to improve vehicle mobility."

http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6526582.html

I guess Lockheed Martin will have to show the Army the real hydraulic equipment which is from Torvec.

I thought it was very interesting also when....

JG reported about the Hydraulic Hybrid project.

The partners on that project are UPS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eaton Corp., International Truck and Engine, and the U.S. Army. Ford hasn't been involved in quite some time as I recall. Ford was in on the ground floor, acquired the patent, and then put the technology on the shelf, or so it seems. While they were on the ground floor, they were able to get the ownership rights to the patented technology for the set up and assembly part of the process. This was due to the high costs in the beginning for which Ford agreed to pay part of the cost. It went something like this:

Oct 19, 2001 "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. The technology could improve significantly the fuel economy of light-duty trucks and sport-utility vehicles, the EPA said."

My take on management's statement at the Torvec annual meeting was that the hydraulic accumulator piece of the system is not going to be needed in a heavy duty capacity for the system that the passenger automobile will be utilizing. This makes perfect sense since the passenger auto will not be involved with frequent stop and go travel, but will be set up for highway use. I believe that a consumer who will need a hydraulic accumulator will just have to order that special or get the model that comes with that standard. That must be the reason that Torvec quit trying to get a patent on its own version of the Hydraulic Accumulator.

It is very impressive that Torvec's IVT will outperform in a manner that will eliminate the need for a hydraulic accumulator in most driving situations. It shows that the company has certainly come a long way.

JG also mentioned the level of noise in the UPS test vehicle. That comment sort of clinches the fact that the Torvec IVT "is not in there"; even though it should be in there. Well, the way I see it, it won't be long and it will be in there.

Since Torvec has embedded into the FTV product at least seven of the eight Torvec technologies, the FTV is, by default, introducing Ford to all of those technologies at the same time.

If Ford is taking a shine to most of the Torvec technologies that are in the FTV, and it owns the patent for the Hydraulic Hybrid design, then it shouldn't be long before Torvec's technologies are involved with a commercialization activity.

The presentation of technologies at the annual meeting....

along with the implication that Ford will be building FTV's that include the IVT from Torvec, made me recall a January 10, 2008 article about Ford stepping up the MQL machining capabilities at its various transmission plants.

The article went something like this:

"The OEM claims that its compliment of over 200 MQL applications is now more than the rest of the company's global competitors put together."

The MQL application has to do with Minimum Quantity Lubrication. It is to be used for a new advanced method of machining transmission cases.

It seems to me that one of the futuristic transmission cases that they might be utilizing this machining for was sitting on the display table at the Torvec annual meeting.

Do you have any thoughts on this subject?

Thanks for reinstating and updating the Torvec iBox....

It is nice to see a fresh way of looking at the information.
But, as you might expect, it leads me to ask a few questions.

Since there are officially eight technologies that Torvec is developing, I was wondering why you listed six products. Also, aren't these technologies, not products? Do you consider the NASA technology that was developed after the official eight technologies as a ninth technology?

Will you be adding the missing ones at a later date?

Your question about the articles had an interesting...

response at the annual meeting. I thought that if anyone else had asked that same question, it would have been answered a much more polite way. So, IMO, the response was what you were going to get no matter what the question was.

Your point about: "Would it harm us to have something appear in Car & Driver?" has already been discussed here in great detail. The previous Car & Driver article was essentially one that wrote about all the problems with race including the problems that they had with the differential. It turned out that the race team failed to use the correct lubricant in the Iso-Torque that was shipped with it. That caused a malfunction. The Torvec engineers attending the annual meeting with the products in the back of the room were mentioning the problems at that race and said to me that this could have been avoided by using the correct lubricant. Also they mentioned to me that with the correct lubricant, the Iso-Torque does not overheat, and does not need a cooling system to be attached. They went on to say that the Iso-Torque performed exactly as planned once the correct installation and correct lubrication was used. They said that an entire year's worth of racing could easily be done with the same unit. They said that they inspected a unit after running an entire season and it can be put right back out there to run again. They said that the unit is being entered as a limited slip differential as the rules only permit posi-traction and limited slip differentials to be entered in the race.

This is all sort of confusing, still, to me. As some of the information conflicts a bit and is coming from different sources that may be out of context.

The link for the Car & Driver article may still be on the Torvec web site and can be viewed by clicking on it and then once there, clicking on the link for the actual article.

If you can't find it there, check back to the old posts that discussed this in great detail from the day that it happened.
I personally found that the meeting was very good. The cheering crowd was absent, but the information that was available this year deserved more cheers than any other meeting actually received.

Ironic, wasn’t it?

I didn't mean to insinuate that they were.....

Incompetent. You will never hear me say that. I just don't think that they had intended to have that provision in the contract. How it got there is beyond my imagination. But, we have to live with the fact that it is there. I don't think that they had a real estate agent recommend it either. I know that realtors are inclined to use the real estate board's recommended wording on their listing contracts which would include similar wording. However, the real estate brokers don't expect payment for two full years after separation with the client, and they don't expect payment for deals that they did not initiate.

So why did you mention incompetence? Since it is something that you said, not me; are you implying that there might be some?

I think not.

A fully competent person can be tricked.
It happens all the time.
The legal department is supposed to establish a standard of the "meetings of the minds" in contracts.
So, do you think that this provision was a meeting of the minds?
I can understand why you don't want to go into it.
So, please don't bother.

I'll go along with both of those ideas.....

But, it does not speak well for our team to be tricked so easily. Both of those ideas that you suggested involve tricking the Torvec team.

It makes me sick to think that Torvec might be so upset about all of that; that it would make them consider waiting till after June 30, 2008 to commercialize the technology.

This legal arena that we are in is full of people who have these tricks up the sleeve that are good at selling it as nothing to worry about.

Torvec needs to have a more watchful eye all the contracts.

That's why I'm a little concerned about the newest one. It was negotiated by the fellow who got the sole ownership rights for Ford for the Hydraulic Hybrid Technology that is currently in the UPS prototype. He took it like candy from a baby; and the baby was all of us; (the EPA).

And, oh by the way, we can see what Ford is doing with it.

Artguy, I'm really eager to hear more about....

Your comment about the Torvec patents and prototypes.

You mentioned that "Like me, I trust you were happy to see more patents and improvements in prototypes."

I don't remember seeing any of these. I heard at the annual meeting that there were 50 new patents. Did you see the patents, and if you can elaborate about them; as that would be refreshing. What were the improvements in the prototypes? Did you get to see any of them? Could you mention a few of those betterments to us?

This information would be so calming for all of us. I'm not certain how it is that you have seen and experienced all of this knowledge, but it must be why you are at peace with the progress. Would you be at this level of peace if you did not have this knowledge like the rest of us?

Did you come up with any ideas on....

Why a company would make a deal that would extend a requirement to pay for commercialization of its products for an additional two years after they had gone their separate ways by adding this type of language to a contract?

"In the event of a sale or other transaction that transfers all or any part of the business of the client and/or the Assets during the Initial Term, during any Additional Term or within two years after the last Additional Term, directly or indirectly by any means, including without limitation, sale of shares, merger, sale of Assets, development contract (with or without an option to purchase), licensing agreement, production agreement or otherwise (a "Commercializing Event"), then Client shall pay a fee equal to Eight Percent (8%) of the total consideration for such transaction."

It will be great to be past that little problem on June 30, 2008.

When I was at last year's annual meeting....

I clearly heard that one of the stops was the moon.

I hope we are not waiting for a....

PREDICTION from anyone.

I hope that we will hear some actual progress reports.

And, by the way, the commercialization of Torvec's CV Joint is currently being placed inside a multi-fueled engine. This is a use that would have been hard to predict by any regular person in the habit of making predictions.

It would seem to me that the JLTV that gets approved by the military will not have a CV Joint installed at any of the wheels. I would think that it would have hydraulic wheel motors powered with hydraulic lines driven by Torvec's IVT in a protected location through Hydraulic lines that have redundant back up service features.

When you went through the history exercise, didn't you come across the information on the Hydraulic Wheel Motor that Torvec has?

BAE, Navistar Plan 8-Ton JLTV Prototype.....

BAE Systems and Navistar International intend to unveil a 16000-pound Joint Light Tactical Vehicle prototype with a V-shaped hull.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3340637&C=america

Going Electric for Commercial Hybrid Vehicles Is Not...

the Only Option, According to ABI Research

“Energy storage and retrieval demands for heavier vehicles are a challenge for today’s batteries, and the economics are difficult to justify without subsidies,” says ABI Research principal analyst David Alexander. “But the emerging development of hydraulic hybrid drive technology appears to deliver real benefits and an attractive ROI.”

A pressurized hydraulic accumulator can handle this high-energy transfer cycle better than a battery, and it is more cost-effective than an ultracapacitor system.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/01/30/076221.html

Here is the official results from the race......

48 = FINISH PLACE FOR THE RACE
15 = CAR NUMBER
GS = CLASS OF ENTRY
28 = FINISH PLACE FOR THE CLASS
DRIVERS = Biscevic / Dobson / Webster
TEAM NAME = No Hot Wire Racing
MODEL OF RACE CAR = Nissan 350Z
LAPS FINISHED = 72
TIME FOR BEST LAP = 2:08.688
AVERAGE SPEED IN MPH = 84.624
SPONSORS =California Ravelco/ Car and Driver Magazine

http://www.grandamerican.com/koni/schedule/results.cfm

Landman2, that is because of these things:.....

1) Dread has already done all of the work.
2) It is really Dread's project, not mine.
3) He isn't getting it from CEO updates.
4) His points come from actual SEC Filings.
5) I don't know all the history, while he does.
6) My suggestion was only about the presentation.
7) Etc, Etc, Etc.....
8) I almost forgot, I don't have access to change the IBOX.

Dread, do you think it is possible that....

The delay in commercializing any of Torvec's products has anything to do with;

1) The fact that the CXO contract matter is not fully settled.
2) The CXO contract was terminated on June 30, 2006.
3) The CXO contract called for payments to be made for commercialization events through the 2 year period beginning on the June 30, 2006 termination date (Which would end on June 30, 2008)?

Here is the back up for all of that:

"In the event of a sale or other transaction that transfers all or any part of the business of the client and/or the Assets during the Initial Term, during any Additional Term or within two years after the last Additional Term, directly or indirectly by any means, including without limitation, sale of shares, merger, sale of Assets, development contract (with or without an option to purchase), licensing agreement, production agreement or otherwise (a "Commercializing Event"), then Client shall pay a fee equal to Eight Percent (8%) of the total consideration for such transaction."

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=TORVEC%20INC:%2010QSB,%20Sub-Doc%201&link=http%3A//quotemedia.10kwizard.com/filing.xml%3Frepo%3Dtenk%26ipage%3D3483502%26doc%3D1&type=TEXT


"Even if the purported agreement with CXO were to be upheld, the company has provided formal notice to CXO that the agreement, in accordance with its terms, terminates as of June 30, 2006."

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=TORVEC%20INC:%2010-Q,%20Sub-Doc%201&link=http%3A//quotemedia.10kwizard.com/filing.xml%3Frepo%3Dtenk%26ipage%3D4185785%26doc%3D1&type=TEXT

Dread, thanks for organizing the Torvec's history....

That is an ultimate lesson in the promises that were never kept. I guess speculation was a Torvec strategy.

Well anyway, could you further change the IBOX so that each of the years is a Bold Heading and have the summary of the speculation listed in bullets just under each respective year of achievement?

This would be much easier to the newer members of the I-Hub and also to all the members that need to visualize it in order to put it all in perspective.

I'm not saying that I need that, but I can see how it could be very beneficial to a quick understanding, and a quick reference to the exact history.

Also, I imagine that he links could be at the bullet level and each one could be taken directly to the correct page of the SEC report.

Thanks for all that you are doing in this project. Maybe the newer board members at Torvec will learn from this history also. They will have the capacity to actually do something about it.

The other thing that is really missing here is that Torvec has lots of progress to discuss in the CEO updates that would be interesting to the non-insider shareholders (who don’t already know the progress) that could be discussed without "giving away the store" or harming a deal that they may be working on. If we look back to the history of the CEO updates, we would find that it started out that way.

But then the strategy changed, didn't it?

Dino, I feel the need to point out....

That a steady drip of water only splits a stone if it is exposed constantly to freezing and thawing.

I must say that your "dripping wet stone" just recently has frozen solid; and it might actually split tomorrow night during a surprise thaw.

Also, an incission would be easier to understand, however less funny, if it were an incision.

Dread, thanks for the history lesson.....

Most of us do not really know all the history that you are digging up for us this week.

I have an idea......

Can you chronologically put onto the IBOX area the main points from each one of the years? (Without the personal comments or judgements.) It would be a shame to lose this history to be buried back into the messages section of the IHUB postings. If it were on the IBOX section (or whatever it is called) then we could be able to review it all in an efficient manner just prior to attending the meeting. I think that this would be a real good mechanism to arrive at very logical important questions for the Q&A section of the meeting.

Printing the 10 years history to 10 poster boards for the cookie room could be useful for the shareholders to review that do not read this board.

I think that even some of the current board members could use a little updating of the history of the company.

Let's discuss this point a bit.......

since you just again mentioned "Other than NASA and its variant, the IVT....." , in a manner that implies that Torvec’s NASA IVT is an extension of Torvec's Hydraulic Hybrid patented technology.

It seems to me that there are many Torvec investors who are of the opinion that, the NASA electrically modified version of the IVT and the original hydraulic version of the IVT are extensions of the same technology.

I believe that these projects really have nothing to do with each other. The underlying technology that makes each of them work is completely different. Investors that believe that the NASA version adds any credibility to the Hydraulic version have been mislead. The only credibility that the electrically modified version adds is the credibility that NASA has on its appropriation list, something from Torvec. Being on that list adds credibility to the company as a whole, not the hydraulic IVT as an invention.

The misleading event is that the technology that NASA is interested in has anything to do with the hydraulic pumps and motors that Torvec has invented. The NASA technology does not have any hydraulics involved with it in any form. It has electric motors that have not been invented by Torvec.

The planetary gear system that is in the NASA invention could be used by the Torvec's hydraulic motor just as it is used by the electric motor. That part of the gearing system might be the same; however, that is not the patented portion of the invention. Incidentally, that is exactly what John Deere uses in their bent-axis system.

I don't see where Torvec has patented anything that is included in the NASA electrically modified transmission. I think that it is merely an assembly of old technologies powered by simple electric motors that, once assembled, perform in a manner that accomplishes the mission.

I view the NASA electrically modified transmission as a ninth technology that will never be commercialized and that could be added to the list of the original eight technologies that each can be commercialized.

Do we really have some question about....

(if it were competing)?

I'm sorry, but everything that Torvec is doing here in this company is part of a competition. So, IMHO; Torvec is competing.

When a company gets the deal for the Tata transmission order for the technology that it has offered, and it isn't Torvec's, that means that the other company won and Torvec lost.

In the competitive world, that fact isn't necessarily fatal because there will be new rounds in the competition. So, let's win a few of the future rounds while there is some Torvec technology subject matter still valid to consider.

With Torvec's competition moving towards digital hydraulics; and it is possible that Torvec's hydraulic technology is not digital, it soon could be de-listed from the interesting subject matter list for companies that are in production to consider. In other words, Torvec's technology could be "crossed off the list".

So, a good question for Thursday's meeting is for someone to ask about the progress at Torvec that surrounds the digital hydraulic technology advancements.

I have reason to believe that Torvec is a leader in that technology, but has not made any announcement about that fact as of yet.

Quebec firm to supply Tata transmission...

"The Nano, however, is a regular car, at its most basic expression. It has been described as an accessible "people's car," like the first Volkswagen.

CVTech also supplies its transmission to drive snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and golf carts.

The first Nano models will have a standard transmission, with CVTech's automatic transmission added later, leaving some uncertainty about which model Indian customers will prefer, since either option costs the same."

"Tata expects to sell 200,000 to 250,000 units in the first year"

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6f4e8fcc-c688-46c3-b778-90c9ec271bde&k=36239&p=1

Could someone cross "small car applications" off the list?

Time is running short for the plan to....

retrofit school buses with Torvec's hydraulics.

"New hybrid buses can cost $250,000-$350,000, while retrofitting an existing bus with a hybrid system will cost $40,000-$50,000, according to Cathy Stephen, superintendent of Randolph Eastern Schools.

PCI's prototype passed an initial Indiana State Police inspection last week, company president Rob Lykins said.

The plan is to connect a hybrid electric system to a bus drive shaft. The system, purchased from Variable Torque Motors of Fort Wayne, includes an electric motor, a controller and an ultracapacitor, a unit that stores and transfers energy. The ultracapacitor works much like a car battery.

In this configuration, there is no battery, and no need to plug the bus in to a power source.

The system is designed for start and stop driving, and Lykins said as long as the bus runs around or below 35 mph, the electric motor is powering the bus.

Lykins estimates that the hybrid system will result in 25-35 percent reductions in fuel usage and emissions.

Additionally, the electric system should cut brake maintenance and replacement costs in half. That savings comes from regenerative braking. When the driver steps off the brake or off the gas, the kinetic energy from that move is stored and redirected to the ultracapacitor."

http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080125/NEWS09/80125001

Ok, so why exactly is it that Torvec does not move forward with the plan to retrofit school buses with hydraulic technology?

What could the hold up possibly be?

If the company needs something to accomplish that task; why can't we know what it is?

Constantine, Wittmer Claim Poles for Grand-Am KONI Challenge

"DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (January 24, 2008) - Fall-Line Motorsports driver Tommy Constantine put together a strong two-lap effort in Grand-Am KONI Challenge Series qualifying Thursday evening at Daytona International Speedway, coming away with the pole for Friday's three-hour Fresh From Florida 200, which starts at 2:15 p.m."

http://www.grandamerican.com/koni/news/index.cfm?cid=13654

Biscevic qualified in 54th place.

http://www.grandamerican.com/koni/schedule/results.cfm?eid=3

Which class is the Torvec Iso-Torque Differential?....

Limited slip
or
posi-traction

KONI CHALLENGE REGULATIONS
2008 Rule Book - 12/17/07

7-13.4 Limited slip or posi-traction differentials are permitted.

http://grand-am.com/assets/KONIRules.pdf

$2,000,000 in Restore NY Grants for Seneca County....

"The $2 million Restore NY grant will be used to redevelop properties contained within the Seneca Army Depot in Seneca County, Nozzolio said in a press release. Funds will be used to retrofit a 40,000-square-foot building to be used by Top Quality Hay Processors for indoor hay drying. The process takes hay cut from the field through drying and baling in a matter of hours instead of several days, reducing effects of the weather.
Funding will also be used to rehab a 400,000-square-foot industrial building to be used as a manufacturing facility for Seneca Bioenergy, a soy bean processor that produces alternative energy, and to provide infrastructure improvements for a plant to be used by Empire Green Biofuels, a company promoting the use of green energy.

“This Restore NY funds will allow us to rehabilitate over 400,000 square feet of warehouse space,” said Mike Coia, general manager of Seneca BioEnergy, in a press release. “We will also heat the building using biomass heat ... through the use of woodchips.”"

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080116/NEWS01/801160320/1002/NEWS01

Is anyone else amazed that the recent NYS grant monies are all going to real estate projects? It seems to me that the real estate developers could finance the projects themselves while the actual employers could have used the grant monies to provide for the jobs. So it is a good time to be a contractor in NYS. I thought that drying hay was best done outside, but apparently, that is not correct. Outside sunlight was how we dried the hay when I was back on the farm. Where does the energy come from to dry the hay?

Well, anyway, I have always thought that when Torvec gets the NYS school bus retrofit project going that the Seneca Army Depot would have been a really great place to do the work. The central location is prime for the work to be done. The rail road would be a good way to bring the buses in and out for the work. It also seems that there would have been an ample labor pool there.

EPA Awards $67,923 Grant to American Lung Association...

"Launched in April 2003, Clean School Bus USA brings together partners from business, education, transportation and public health organizations to eliminate unnecessary school bus idling, retrofit buses and replace the oldest buses with new, less polluting buses. More information on Clean School Bus USA is at http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-23-2008/0004741547&EDATE=

I wonder if they are still looking for partners from business?