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.
I remember and cherish that fact every day....
You don't need to remind me, but thanks anyway. If that were not the case, I wouldn't hold any shares. I'll say it again, that is the main reason that I have invested in this company and also the main reason that I continue to hold with a tight fist. The other main reason, of course, is the potential of the actual inventions that these patents protect.
Oh, by the way, I figured out what "BOM" stands for with a little help from a lurking poster. For those who are still guessing, it stands for Beginning of Message. I think it was too obvious for me to figure out. I'm personally glad that it didn't refer to a Barrel of Monkeys.
Is this Torvec valve capable of Digital control?..
"The following is excerpted from the US Patent Torvec announced today, 29 August 2000:
"Valve design is of particular importance ... to control the flow of
hydraulic fluids under high speed and high pressure conditions, e.g., in
automotive pump/motors which are capable of developing high horsepower and
must be able to achieve speeds as high as 4000 r.p.m. and to withstand
pressures as high as 4000 p.s.i. Consistent fluid flow under such conditions
is critical.
"Valving according to the invention overcomes the response time problems
of spring-biased valving and not only assures consistency of valve timing but
also significantly increases the efficiency of fluid flow past the stem
portion of each spool."
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/20000828/press024013.html
Of course, since this date, I'm sure the capablilities have been enhanced to exceed the more current 6,000 PSI pump capabilities.
Are Torvec's Hydraulics going digital?...
In order to compete effectively, it certainly seems that Torvec will need to accomplish that task. It seems to me that the critical items necessary for Torvec to accomplish that task are well under way, but of course I’m really not sure. One of the necessary items must be a valve mechanism that is capable of switching the flow on and off in a precise digital manner. The other item is the Electronic control unit that senses the need for the flow and prescribes the hydraulic fluid flow as a solution to the switching valve that will execute the prescription with precision.
We have heard about the beginning stages of all of this digital work at Torvec, and then not much more since that time.
I certainly hope that some of those new patents are devoted directly to this digital enhancement of the earlier inventions.
Here is a link to some competitor's articulation of their excitement about the digital age of hydraulics. It is an interesting read.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1566/story/843626.html
Of course, this is my attempt to discuss the digital strategy, not to discuss the competitor.
It is also really interesting the way that Congressman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) provided key support in securing the U.S. Army project. It seems to me that they are really interested in maintaining employment in their representation areas.
Thanks, Artguy for explaining all of that...
I agree, especially with the part about "I've been impressed by how diligent Torvec and its patent attorneys have been about pursuing patents".
That part of the Job at Torvec is the part that retains the potential for shareholder value. Once the value is created by the inventions, it is, of course, imperative that it is protected.
Thanks for the update on the patents....
....How is it that you have knowledge of the number of patents? You mentioned that there are 250 and climbing. Are they all approved, or are some of them pending? Is there some public source where we can review those patents? Have you been able to review them? I sure wish that the company would talk about some of those newer patents of the group of 250. It sure would reinforce the patience level for the shareholders outside the core group of people with specific knowledge.
Did the sphere-gear CV Joint get modified to have "global" or bi-directional qualities so that it can be utilized in place of the old connecting rods in the crankcase? It seems that is what all the excitement is about for the new multi-fuel engine that Cliff's company is developing. If that CV Joint now has the ability to transfer force in either direction, both push and pull, I can see where that will be able to be utilized in numerous machines including, for instance, helicopters.
The comment that you made: "the generic part without the IVT is nothing" might actually be backwards. The prior discussion on this point established that the generic part was the key element in the invention, while the electrically modification was only the "new" way to provide power to the generic part. It was the generic part that provided the magic of variable speed which included a zero speed and a reverse speed within its range of variable speeds. So, as soon as I saw it in person, that is why I never got the least bit excited about that particular asset of invention. It just seemed very basic. It also seemed that the "shaking camera" video was necessary so that the imperfections that I saw in person could not be readily seen while viewing the video.
I sure hope that I'm wrong about that, since there was so much effort on that project.
Do you think that Torvec's Sphere-gear CV Joint will be instrumental in the mining process of the Helium 3 on the lunar surface? It seems to me that if that Sphere-gear CV Joint can handle the bi-directional force that would allow it to replace a connecting rod, it can surely handle the power drive for a mining (drilling) operation from the lunar rover while collecting the Helium 3 for transport back to earth. Is that how you see this working out for the project? Do you really think that the mining operation will require more of a power source than the solar collectors can acquire?
Wouldn't the non-solar power sources that you...
...speak of cause lunar warming? Does Al Gore know about this plan? That truth could be very inconvenient couldn't it? Well, at least it will make for another great movie worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Getting back to reality, I couldn't tell from your response if you thought that the mechanical planetary gear portion of the electrically modified transmission machine invention was patentable technology.
Do you happen to know what Dino1717 means by BOM? It keeps getting mentioned and I always thought that it means "Book of Mormon" or "Barrel of Monkeys", but that doesn't make any sense.
I'll ask my children, maybe they know.
It really is sad that the engineers didn't keep any records on the production of the Saturn rocket. Well, it is good to know that they have skills in reverse engineering.
Actually, neither of them are in charge....
"Who's in charge here, Arnold or the EPA?"
Arnold's group has made a request and the EPA has made a recommendation.
An "In Charge" person or organization does not do either of those things; requests or recommendations.
It appears that President Bush is in charge.
99er, Thanks for that information as it all.....
makes sense as far as the part you mentioned from the patent claim.
But, I don't see how that part of the patent claim has anything to do with the mechanical planetary gear portion of the invention. The claim part of the patent that you posted is related to the power source for the mechanical planetary gear portion of the invention. Can you find, someday, the patent reference to the mechanical planetary gear portion of the invention itself?
I would be sure that the electrically modified transmission machine built for NASA does not incorporate any energy recovery feature in the invention. It would seem to me that there is an ample source of solar energy available to operate that machine without needing to try to reclaim any energy from a braking operation on the lunar surface.
My earlier point was only to the mechanical planetary gear portion of the invention, not any other portion.
I was thinking that the inventors started with the basic general mechanical planetary gear technology and then just built around and off of that basic non-patentable technology.
No, I hadn't seen that yet, however...
...there is a message board at I-Hub that is a better place to discuss that company. In fact, Dread was nice enough to have already set that board up just for that purpose a while ago.
Congratulations on the success, as competition is good for all the companies in a similar business. Just remember, the race for the better technology is not over just yet. And yes, we are really getting to the interesting part of the race these days.
Maybe that deal for Ford was negotiated by....
Mr. Cliff Carson. In any event it was potentially an amazing deal for Ford. After all, it was Cliff's project and he worked for Ford; it would of course have been the natural thing to do.
And now, his current two new negotiated deals are with Torvec.
One is the licensing agreement and one is the consulting agreement. They were both signed on the same day. Both of the agreements have a provision to compensate his hours of consulting. This does not really seem to be extravagant, but seems redundant due to the fact that two agreements would compensate an individual for the same hour of work. What would a fellow do; punch two time cards at the start and two at the finish of the day?
Consulting pay agreement under the licensing agreement:
http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=TORVEC%20INC:%208-K,%20Sub-Doc%202&link=http%3A//quotemedia.10kwizard.com/filing.xml%3Frepo%3Dtenk%26ipage%3D5336813%26doc%3D2&type=TEXT
Consulting pay agreement under the consulting agreement:
http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFiling.go?name=TORVEC%20INC:%208-K,%20Sub-Doc%203,%20Page%201&link=http%3A//quotemedia.10kwizard.com/filing.xml%3Frepo%3Dtenk%26ipage%3D5336813%26doc%3D3%26num%3D1
And of course there is a new commercialization deal in the consulting contract. Well that's nice and is an expected incentive. At least it is handled by only one contract. No need to pay it twice.
The licensing contract seems a little loose in the section that states that the sub licensee’s use of the license and the information will only generate for Torvec 5% of the gross revenue that the sub licensee will be paying to the licensee. This amount is significantly lower for Torvec than the 5% of the gross sales value of the Multi-fuel engines that would be generated if the licensee did the work instead of the sub licensee. It appears that there will be an immediate arrival of a sub licensee as soon as there is sales activity.
"(a) for each License Year, five percent (5%) of the gross revenues generated by Licensee for each Multifuel Engine sold, licensed and/or otherwise transferred to Licensee’s customers or customers of Licensee’s affiliates during each such License Year. As used herein, an “affiliate” is any entity which by relationship or agreement, directly or indirectly, (i) owns more than fifty percent (50%) of the capital stock of the Licensee or whose capital stock is more than fifty percent (50%) owned by the Licensee, or (ii) shares or is subject to common control or direction of or by Licensee.
(b) with respect to each License Year five percent (5%) of any consideration paid to the Liscensee and/or any of its affiliates by any and all sublicensees of the license in connection with the grant or use of a sublicense of the Multifuel Engine; "
"The EPA's mandate to develop new regulations comes...
...from the Bush administration after the U.S. Supreme Court decided in April that it was the agency's job to regulate carbon dioxide."
"The lab's next major effort is to help develop a fleet of UPS hydraulic hybrid delivery trucks that can recover and reuse energy generated by braking, allowing for a 70 percent increase - up to 18 mpg - in fuel economy.
Eventually, Grundler said, the technology can save even more fuel by incorporating it in passenger vehicles.
"We feel very good that the work we do here ... provides enormous benefits to society," he said. "
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/business/yourmoney/autos/story/3770126p-13277313c.html
"Who says it isn't in there"
See Dread, all you need is Hope....
...Mixed in with some real good technology, and a few good technicians, and it might just have happened today.
Tor, was that one of the short people you have told us about who just covered? ; Or was that a long making sure that he got in for the ride?
Exactly, however, there is no need to fret....
...because David Flaum will look forward to handling that situation, I'm, sure.
I agree that it is true that....
...mechanical planetary gear ECVTs are patented by others, but I think that the patents are not in relationship to the actual mechanical planetary gears themselves. I think that the others have patents for the drive systems that are in addition to the mechanical planetary gear portion of the machine.
That was discussed here in a fairly detailed way on this board a while back. It was stated here by someone here, who seemed to have specific knowledge, that the mechanical planetary gear portion of these inventions are not patentable due to the fact that it is technology that was discovered too long ago, and therefore is general basic technology. And as a result of that, that person implied that the planetary gear system portion of the technology in Torvec's electrically modified transmission that was built for NASA wouldn't be patentable either. Should that statement of his been challenged? I think not.
Oh well,
So, just out of curisoity, what was the reason....
that Torvec developed the 6,000 psi pump/motor if it wasn't for the EPA's joint project with industry? The SEC report that Torvec filed implied that it was done for the EPA's joint project. The results of that EPA project ended up in the two UPS vehicles. One vehicle that still gets press even today and one that does not. The Torvec SEC report was from March 31, 2004, and it went like this:
"to continue Torvec's development of its hydraulic pump/motor system, including the manufacture of at least two 6,000 psi units for stand-alone infinitely variable transmissions (IVT) for diesel powered SUVs."
"The 6,000 psi hydraulic pump/motor system is more compact, eliminates another 30% in parts over our current 4,000 psi IVT and will enable Torvec to maximize performance for the EPA's hydraulic launch assist system ."
http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze8y.18.htm
And, of course, as soon as that happened; there was no further mention of it again.
And, of course, that was the same time period that Torvec was attempting to get a patent on it's version of a Hydraulic Accumulator.
The reference for that can be found in....
…any number of the old SEC reports. It use to be mentioned on a regular basis and then was removed at some point and then never mentioned again. It made me wonder why the effort was discontinued. I suppose it was no different than other events like this particular one. We have all wondered about the specific fate of items that had been mentioned in SEC reports. We seem to always hear about the inception of marvelous things, but never their fate.
It went something like this:
"(b) Accumulator Significance.
An accumulator system provides a method to store and use otherwise wasted energy created by overcoming the inertia of a vehicle slowing down and completely stopping. This stored energy can then be used to accelerate the vehicle again, for example in stop and go traffic. Published results released by Eaton and the Ford Motor Company indicate that vehicles can achieve an additional 25% to 30% fuel savings by using an accumulator system.
However, existing accumulator technology requires the addition by an automotive manufacturer of a hydraulic pump/motor system, the accumulator and a reverse valve mechanism or gear box to a vehicle's automatic or standard transmission. Since Torvec's infinitely variable transmission already incorporates our compact, highly efficient hydraulic pump/motor system, we only have to add the actual accumulator to achieve the same results at considerably less cost. We have developed an accumulator system to capture this otherwise wasted energy and have filed for patent protection for our advanced accumulator technology ."
An example of this can be found at page 18 or 19 of this link:
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%3D2431544%26doc%3D1&type=TEXT
That is very interesting, thanks.....
As you so efficiently stated:
"Torvec's IVT improves highway and city mileage without accumulators. Fuel efficiency improvements from adding accumulators to Torvec's system are obvious."
Now that this has been settled; let’s get it commercialized.
Do you happen to know why Torvec dropped the effort to invent their patented version of the accumulator?
When you say that "The EPA's UPS Hydraulic hybrid would get poor highway mileage." I take it that you are one who says that "it is not in there"; is that right?
I would also expect that an electromagnetic solution would be one that would consume a lot of energy just to create the magnetic force necessary.
Here is an expert's view of electric vehicles...
"The future is electric"
Chau Kwok-tong
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=16&art_id=58785&sid=16790005&con_type=1&d_str=&fc=2
In there, I noticed that...
"However, existing ECVTs suffer from a key problem: they rely on a mechanical planetary gears, which means wear and tear. Research centers are developing various electromagnetic means, such as double-rotor machines and magnetic gears, to solve this problem."
Isn't the NASA electrically modified transmission based almost completely on a set of mechanical planetary gears? Well that should be ok, unless they exect to travel thousands of miles.
Isn't the hydraulic version of solving the earth's vehicles need for planetary gears going to be utilizing digital hydraulics computer controlled at each individual wheel?
I also noticed that...
"The most promising fuel cells for the FEV are the proton- exchange-membrane and solid-oxide fuel cells."
Isn't they solid-oxide fuel cells that they are talking about being developed right here in Rochester, NY by Delphi, a bankrupt company?
This is what happens when technology buyers.......
can't wait any longer for promised technology.
They find that they have to purchase inferior technology.
Then they will have to replace it later with the technology they had been waited for. In this case, they may not even know that they are waiting for the new technology.
"With already 1,100 diesel-electric hybrid transit buses on the road, 460 pending deliveries and the announced new orders of almost 1,052 units, Orion received over 2,600 orders since the launch of the Orion hybrid bus in 2003."
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/12/17/073661.html
Ok, now let's take the Torvec technology off the shelf and commercialize it.
And let's stop fooling ourselves by thinking that we can produce any part of the world's demand out of a 13,000 sq ft job shop building.
Ford also had some talent to negotiate....
"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."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_3_15/ai_79379345/pg_1
This must have been Cliff's project....
"The EPA-developed accumulator tanks have been strengthened to safely operate at pressures up to 6,000 psi."
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=12525
That was July 15, 2002.
This caused them to need a stronger pump, right?
Isn't that the main reason Torvec built the 6,000 psi pump?
Anyone else remember this March 31, 2004 report?.....
"to continue Torvec's development of its hydraulic pump/motor system, including the manufacture of at least two 6,000 psi units for stand-alone infinitely variable transmissions (IVT) for diesel powered SUVs."
"The 6,000 psi hydraulic pump/motor system is more compact, eliminates another 30% in parts over our current 4,000 psi IVT and will enable Torvec to maximize performance for the EPA's hydraulic launch assist system."
http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze8y.18.htm
Indian Company Poised to Buy Jaguar and Land Rover
The winning bidder is expected to pay around $2 billion – $500 million less than what Ford paid for Jaguar alone in 1989. Ford bought Land Rover in 2000 for $2.7 billion.
Tata Motors has been among three active bidders.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/indian-company-poised-to-buy-jaguar-and-land-rover/
I guess this means that the Land Rover will get an IVT.
http://www.torotrak.com/NR/rdonlyres/23FAF0AB-E3D0-465F-9B2F-F83D90F610C7/0/TataLicensesTorotraksIVT_TruckandBusBuilder_161007.pdf
EPA demonstrates hydraulic hybrid UPS delivery vehicle:
Vehicle achieves 60 – 70 percent better fuel economy, 40 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions
Release date: 12/17/2007
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/e1470abd2835dd10852573b40073a08f?OpenDocument
Machinery maker in $10.1 billion deal....
Ingersoll-Rand (IR, news, msgs) is buying heating- and air-conditioning-system maker Trane (TT, news, msgs) for $10.1 billion in cash and stock.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/071217markets.aspx
Imagine if they knew about a CV Joint that would minimize piston friction......
Me too, that is sounding sweet.....
Can Cliff play lead guitar?
But, back to reality.
Do you think HQ understands that there is a difference between these two numbers?:
"In consideration for the grant of the license,
(1) Torvec will receive annual royalties equal to 5% of annual gross revenues generated by the sale of HDP’s multifuel engines and
(2) 5% of gross revenues received from all sublicenses of HDP’s engine technology.”
http://www.torvec.com/messagefromceo121207.htm
I just don't think that HDP will ever sell an engine. I think that will be done by the sublicense companies.
It seems to me that the smaller revenue item for Torvec is associated with the sublicenses that will occur. Shouldn't that be cleared up right now? Does anyone really think that there will not be sublicenses of the main revenue activity which is the manufacturing process of and the sale of the actual engines?
Oh well.......
"Senior Pentagon officials decided Dec. 5 to....
begin ordering prototypes in January — months earlier than expected — for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), which will replace the ubiquitous Humvee."
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=3246037&C=navwar
I'm really sorry about that Dread....
On reflection, I wish I had left that one alone.
I thought you wanted to discuss it since you brought it up.
I have friends that have had to do the same thing that you mentioned. I'll try to keep my comments about that to myself from now on, or keep them private. Anyway, that was the least important thing in my post and I was hoping for some discussion from you and the others about the other items that you brought up.
I've only been real excited about this investment twice. Once was when the EPA and it's industry partners put the Hydraulic Hybrid technology into the UPS delivery vehicle. The other time was when JG said "who says it isn't in there". I'm tempted to become excited about is once more since Cliff is an Hydraulic Hybrid expert and was personally involved with that project from the inception and is now consulting directly with Torvec.
You're right; Cliff is my kind of guy....
From his data sheet, it clearly shows that he can get things done, has the connections, and the vision that is needed to facilitate forward movement in Torvec's mission.
http://www.torvec.com/images/LSM/CLIFF_barckground.pdf
Who has more experience in Hydraulic Hybrid technology? My thought is that there isn't anyone who has more proven knowledge of that project.
Torvec has the equipment patents that Cliff needs, and Cliff has the rest. So I see this arrangement as one that has much more potential than the specific potential outlined in the last CEO update.
If Cliff needs Torvec's CV Joint technology to enhance the minimization of piston friction in his new concept engine, and is willing to pay a fair price for the product as produced by Torvec and then pay 5% of the gross engine value on top of the part cost, then this Torvec CV Joint technology must be something really special.
I speculate that Torvec has further developed the CV Joint to be one that maintains a spherical gear to be global enough to facilitate the connection to the piston while driven in either direction.
If this is so, then just think of the other non-conventional uses in which this Torvec CV Joint could be utilized. I would suggest that any machine that has a piston embedded in the machine, could utilize the CV Joint for the same piston friction minimization purpose, including Torvec's IVT.
Cliff's data sheet shows that he has successfully created a new engine while on staff at Ford, which makes me think that he certainly knows how to do that, and he has the capability to do it again with this new engine conception that he has.
Dread, Questions and comments:
When you say "We hear every rumor, every leak of a pending deal" I can only imagine that you are referring to the CEO updates, right? If so, those really aren't rumors or leaks are they? If you are speaking about something else, what could it be? And, who are "We"? I've never heard any rumors or leaks.
When you speak of "'self imposed'" frustration, I'll remind you that this is one of the many reasons that I'll never call the company.
Selling your stock to pay the bills only means that you put your currently needed funds into the wrong type of investment, or that you didn't keep your head down to provide the income that your family needed while waiting for the Torvec investment ship to come in.
I don't believe that you don't care about SAIC. SAIC can make or break Torvec like snapping a toothpick in two. So, let's stand behind Elizabeth Harrington and let her complete her job of systematically unlocking and opening the doors for Torvec to move through.
I recall that SAIC's interest in Torvec didn't spur discussion between them and Ford or GM; and that they would have been in partnerships without any influence from Torvec's technology. Ford and GM approached SAIC, not the other way around, right? The way I see it, SAIC will provide the sales volume that Ford and GM need to maintain profitability. Imagine having a gross profit percentage greater than 4.5%!
Not reacting to the "Wolf cries" is the right thing to do.
Is there any chance you might organize an I-Hub meeting before the meeting? I would thing that there could be considerable interest in that from the local members.
Who we just partnered with.....
Is very clear. It is two people, who have their resumes posted on the CEO update. These two people have a group name which is "High Density Powertrain, Inc."
The research of who we just partnered with should include the two principles, not just the company that they formed. It is the people that will achieve what we want, not their company.
And, I might add, these guys seem to be mighty fine people.
I certainly wouldn't want Torvec to be working against them.
It can be bad to ignore the advice of.....
Elizabeth Harrington
"Mr. Fain ignored the advice of experienced Chinese hands including Mr. James Gleasman and Elizabeth Harrington."
http://www.secinfo.com/d1Ze8y.z1a.htm
Remember what happened to Mr. Fain when he did just that?
Swash-plate mounting structures.....?
"Under the license agreement, Torvec has been appointed HDP’s exclusive supplier of Sphere-Gear CV Joints at appropriately competitive prices for installation on HDP’s multifuel engines’ swash-plate mounting structures."
Where have we heard about this before?
Oh, that's right it is all part of Torvec's patent #5513553.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5513553.html
That patent was filed on 07/13/1994.
I guess these things take time.
This all must have come from the continuing research being made on the Torvec IVT. That IVT machine has pistons too; and if a Torvec CV Joint will minimize piston friction on an IVT, it makes sense that it would minimize engine piston friction in an internal combustion engine.
Are there any engineers available for a comment on this?
I guess I would have to say that.....
Mrs. Harrington is systematically removing the locks from a very big door in front of Torvec.
Thanks John Deere for the connection.
"Subsequently in the course of exploring the opportunities in China I talked to the John Deere Corp. They referred me to a woman by the name of Elizabeth Harrington, who was formerly the Senior Partner of Price Waterhouse Coopers in China. She is presently an International Business Consultant and a Director of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Based on her highly successful 28 year career in China, the John Deere folks said that Elizabeth would be the right person to open the right doors for Torvec in that part of the world."
http://www.torvec.com/company_2006annualmeeting_SAIC.htm
I really can't wait to see how a CV Joint located inside an engine can minimize engine piston friction.
These inventors are amazing.
Chinese car maker merger due this month...
"The government is seeking to strengthen the industry by encouraging tie-ups and mergers."
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=600104.SS&storyID=2007-12-12T104756Z_01_SHA126985_RTRIDST_0_SAIC-NANJINGAUTO-MERGER-UPDATE-1.XML&pageNumber=0&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage2&sz=13
So, can you forward that translation to....
all the buyers of the Torvec technology that are interested in the technology, but not interested in the low profit margins of that wonderful technology.
I'm sure that will make them feel good enough to purchase the technology.
Tor, I remember this comment from Dread. It is just that the comment was an attempt to let us know that the gross profit percentage in the financial statements is not an accurate representation of the actual results of manufacture. How can you read all of this any other way? I think that we are all saying the same thing. They (Torvec) just buried a ton of engineering and research and development cost in the cost of sales section of the financials when they have never done that before. They just became confused as to what costs are the costs of manufacturing and what costs are the development of variations of the inventions that are just research and development. In any event, if these costs are manufacturing costs, those costs should be spread over the entire manufacturing run, not just a few pieces sent out on a look see basis.
Now that this misrepresentation of facts has caused the buyer to not consider a U.S. manufacturing location, it will potentially cost U.S. Jobs.
Unless, of course, you can convince them differently while you hold firm to the fact that the gross profit is really 4.5%. I'd like to see how that is done.
That's for sure, of course it is......
Just like JG said. You know, for the most part, he is 100% right on. He just has a presentation and timing issue IMO. His facts have proven to be right all along. When the fat lady sings, we will see the rest of the correct items.
I just stumbled upon it with google.....
the time date stamp was:
Time :2007-12-3 10:13:58 Author: Songfengzhu
There may be a "lost in translation" issue....
but I don't think that the main item was the Cost to Manufacture. However, if they are hung up on that, it might be partially due to Torvec's presentation of the cost to manufacture that allowed only a 4.5% gross profit percentage.
I recall that there was a representation by members of this I-hub board that the 4.5% gross profit was truly not correct. I wonder why Torvec would report it that way when it truly was not correct.
Now that China is concerned about that low gross profit percentage. They must think that the 4.5% gross profit was actually correct. Imagine that. How silly. Don't they know that they cannot rely on the accountant's report.....? Must be that needs to be translated too.
I thought the main point was the point about "the company's shareholders are now preparing to sell the business."
At least that is common knowledge now in China.
"The United States is the time to buy"
"Han called TORVEC Linton to a spare parts business as an example, explain his own point of view. This enterprise development and production of auto parts such as differential and NASA related to the production of aircraft parts. Toyota in 1999 before the purchase of the company's previous generation differential technology, the company's new generation of differential may efficiency of 20 percent. Although more advanced technology, but in the United States, high manufacturing costs simply can not guarantee that their products competitive in the marketplace, the company's shareholders are now preparing to sell the business."
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.chinaauto.net/repairby/repairby_info.asp%3Fid%3D82342&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtorvec%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dw
The reason for no Iso-Torque CEO update is.....
that JG said on October 12, 2007 that: "I anticipate I will be able to provide you with a comprehensive Update on our differential within the next few weeks which will include the results of ongoing events with two automotive companies worldwide."
http://www.torvec.com/messagefromceo101207.htm
Since there is no results as of yet, there can not be an update.
I wonder why the trigger for the next CEO update was presented in this manner since if there were results of ongoing events with two automotive companies worldwide, that would require an SEC filing.
The CEO updates were to suppose to provide information that was not required to be disclosed in an SEC filing.
So this stipulation that JG has self created to issue the CEO update is one that will not allow an update to be done till the SEC requires it to be done.
Is this the way we were expecting the CEO updates to be done? I think not.
This amounts to another "presentation" issue.
Why present this in this manner?