Public traded company = publicly disclosed information.

If the company has some story they want to get out to the public at large, they can put it on their webpage or in their public filings. I don't like to work with selectively disclosed information. Not without getting paid for it. So, no, I haven't called them and don't intend to. I do think it's great that some investors are calling Terra Nova, and I hope that when Terra Nova decides they can't afford to raise their heating bill by an order of magnitude and cancels the deal, that those investors will listen to Terra Nova with an open mind.

Striper, you asked earlier about why the revenue for a transaction in January should be in the next annual report. I haven't had time to check back with the history of annual reports they file. And they file a lot of late reports. But generally, reporting companies file 4 quarterly reports per year. The quarter that has the annual report is often a month late to make time for the annual report. The last quarterly report was in December. So the next annual report should be the quarterly report that covers January 2004. The recycling revenue should be there.

Rager I have been reading your name wrong. No wonder why conversations with you are like talking with Zach de la Mesa. We certainly have truth in advertising with your ID. You asked why I would be surprised that the lawyer would advise against publishing the patent, on the grounds that people would use the information in the patent to bash the company. The reason is that that sounds a lot like the lawyer making himself an accessory to the fact. Why would he do that? The lawyer is just going to advise the company on what their options are, and if they are want to make sure that nobody knows any more about them because it all looks bad, then that's their decision. The lawyer is not going to tell his client that the gig is up if they let out what they are doing, so they better keep quiet. Whoever told you that was just making it up, misunderstanding what he was hearing, or passing on a misunderstanding.

Patent application:

I would be very surprised if the patent attorney argued against publishing the application on those grounds. But I suspect that someone might have decided not to publish the application for that reason. I suspect the whitepaper was pulled because they figured out that 6 cents per CUFT is expensive.

The revenue number will be the next actual info we see, and that should be due out soon.

Who is Ranger?

He's someone who launches personal attacks against anyone who questions HYVR. That's interesting. It's tough to get a conversation going about HYVR, since they are so reluctant to release any information. But what we can try to do is figure out why people look at the evidence and reach drastically different conclusions.

Patent:

I believe the patent application should be published at some point after it's filed even if the patent isn't granted. Maybe we have someone who knows that process who could give us some ideas what to be waiting for.

Look around post 214 and earlier.

Unfortunately HYVR took the source document down.

Perpetual motion nuts will stalk you. They are so nice, they can't help it.

Who knows why anyone does anything?

Ranger doesn't really promote the stock, it's probably off the mark to imagine that he's trying to pump it up to ease his losses. It's more likely that he's profoundly misinformed about the HYVR system, and science in general, and that he lashes out in anger because he's convinced that secret and dark forces have conspired to keep the HYVR technology off the market, and he supposes that we're in league with the conspiracy. If you don't like getting yelled at Mattg, then trying to teach pChem to devotees of an impossible energy scheme is the wrong hobby for you. This is the responsibility of people who like to get yelled at.

Oh, and don't publish too much info about yourself. Not Ranger, but other perpetual motion devotees will stalk you.

Revenue for sludge.

When people see how little revenue there was from the sale of the by-product, some people will get the point that the whole recycling angle is over-hyped. If someone wanted the spent product of dumping the fuel into water, they could have done it themselves. The idea that HYVR can make money by dumping powder into water is just so out of proportion that people really have to be tuned out to believe it. Looking at the tiny revenue will shock some of people enough that they will see through the noise.

The whitepaper isn't updated. I doubt it ever will be. At this point, they have to be aware that their process is expensive. They can't come out and say that, so there is simply nothing for them to say.

Why the Terra Nova deal will not work out.

Terra Nova will fall through for the same reason the lumber company fell through. When Terra Nova takes a look at the total cost of the deal, they will back out.

The high materials cost of the HYVR process is just going to kill them. If their bill for gas now is $500 a month now, their bill for the fuel HYVR uses will be $2500 a month. HYVR isn't going to be able to cover this for them. The recycler is a non-issue. If the recycler can pay a lot for the oxide, it's because the metal is super-expensive. If the metal is not super-expensive, the recycler will pay chump change for the oxide. At some point, Terra Nova will see that this conversion is going to cost them thousands a month, and that to make it happen they are going to have to let one person go and everyone else is going to have to work extra hard to cover for them. At some point, they will wake up and smell the coffee.

Ragsisme - What didn't you like?

Please help me understand what it is about the annual report that you didn't like. Thanks.

Also, can you change the board settings to make yourself a moderator? There is one potty mouthed tout over on the ARGY RB board who will flood the board if you don't shut him up.

Matt's almost spot on.

The 10-15X conventional generators is a good estimate, in-line with the Whitepaper that HYVR pulled. Why they pulled it is anybody's guess.

About Terra Nova, the conjecture is that they will ever get a reactor at all. HYER had a LOA before, but it fell through.

The real fun should be when the annual report comes out later this month. It will show how much they got for the brine or sludge they sold to the recycler. When the investors see that the revenue from the sale of the by-product I speculate that some of them will feel let down.

Reply to same.

J, you say it make H2. You didn't see it do it cheaply. There are lots of ways to make it. And ways that cost 1/4 the of HYVR reactor materials cost are considered too expensive.

I pay no attention to what a company says off the record. This company is on the record in whitepaper saying that the cost to produce H2 using their system is 6 cents per foot, and I believe them. That's very expensive, 5X the cost of electrolysis, or about $1.40 per kWh if you use the H2 to make electricity. J said last week that recycling the materials could pay for the whole thing. What does the company say in the on the record filing J posted yesterday? That the recycling could reduce the cost by up to 25%. That would make it 4X as expensive as electrolysis. That's still worthless technology. I believe the company's on the record statements, J claims not to.

J, if you really believe that recycling pays for the whole thing, why don't you buy a reactor. (Just think of the shock to the next quarter filing if this company were to have a line for operating revenue!) Hook it up to some fuel cells and an inverter. Use net metering to sell power to the grid. You will make 5-20 cents per kWh on the power you sell to the electric company, and pay $1.40 for the materials. But you think the recycling more than pays for the materials. So in your view, what would happen is that men in gloves and goggles will come gather up the wet residue from your reactor and leave you with the dry chemicals. They leave you a little extra money or at least they charge you less than you made selling electricity because to them, the easiest way to add those chemicals to the water is to send them to your house. I bet there would be a lot of interest in making a documentary about your experience.

I repeat for anyone here who thinks the HYVR technology produces H2 economically, when including all the costs and profits of recycling the waste should buy one and use it.

So you don't like the whitepaper HYVR wrote.

You think the company has material information regarding the feasibility of its technology, that it's not releasing. You think the technology is actually much better than the company is willing to say on the record. Do you think the management actively talks the stock down, or that they just ignore IR and sales while they focus their attention on, well, whatever it is they are doing?

The byproduct figures into the 6 cents from the whitepaper. If the cost assumed that the sludge was dumped, it would be a lot higher. I'de be happy to show links to prices for the dry chemical and the oxide, but the company doesn't say what they are. But I am not going to show a bunch of examples. Seriously, I don't even know where to get a price quote for some oxides (rust for example). No bother. The company doesn't claim that recycling the waste pays for the fuel. In fact, there isn't anyone willing to attach their name to that claim.

So people making investment decisions should see that a long position can only be justified by assuming that the company is sitting on the information that its technology makes any sense. The company hides this information safely away from investors or customers to insure their super secret plan. Are the underpants gnomes part of this plan?

HYVR technology is worthless.

Their whitepaper states that the cost of H2 using their "technology", the cost of the dry chemicals, is 6 cents per cubic foot. This is plain but unfortunate terminology since most folks are not familiar with H2 per foot pricing. It's easy to see though that this is 5X+ the cost of H2 from electrolysis. Simply put, the whitepaper states in no uncertain terms that this "technology" is worthless.

For the arithmetic impaired.
2.414 L mol ¯ 1 ( http :// dbhs .wvusd.k12. ca .us/ GasLaw /MolarVolume .html )
237.13 kJ /mol = ideal fuel cell ( http :// hyperphysics .phy- astr .gsu .edu /hbase /thermo/ electrol .html )
1kWh =3600 kJ

So now we can calculate:
28.32L/ cu -ft * (1/22.414) mol /L * 237.13 kJ /mol * (1/3600) kWh /kJ =
0.08323 kWh /cu -ft of H2.

Dividing into the 6 cents and we get 72 cents per kWh . They don't say if these are 6 cents USA or Canada or Kiwi , but unless they are 6 cents New Taiwan dollars, this is much more expensive than can be achieved with electrolysis. If we actually made electricity using a fuel cell, the price would more than double since fuel cells less than 50% efficient. If we assume the 6 cents are USA, things look bad.