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.
Probably (imo) not, but that is also what I thought about it decades ago.
yada yada . . . once the equipment is proven to work or not. only thing that matters at this point imo
So what is more important to you
Knowing that the claimed, single unit is sitting sequestered, stored at Intertek, awaiting "something" to happen so Wanderport and Intertek can figure how to move forward . . .
or
Hands on, meet and greet style, view and see function, maybe even see the measurement values Robert's instrumentation provides, feeling hot water dripping out the exit EVEN THOUGH independent third-party verification, possibly data also, MIGHT be delayed by this
??
The first offers no definite point in time for any change, and offers even less in the way of a time when information allowing assessment of the state of things.
The second might delay efforts to market results to potential investors, manufacturers, licensees, distributors, etc. but would provide a clue of what is the current state of things at/with Wanderport.
Why, "they" might ask have a conference call, or even a PR, to discuss what has ("they" might think) already been disclosed.
Of the two roads above, one has a time certain, the other does not; one might cause delay, the other does not prevent continued, potentially endless, delay; one provides certainty about what the state of the unit actually is, the other provides only more verbal claim.
No problem. Might have let others here take away a false vision.
All doesn't matter that much . . . until one starts following trends, faults, etc.
just saying that we all know
It is safer to only speak for oneself.
Your use in that comment shows me that I am not part of what you consider to be "we" or to be "all"
the property due west of TPW
correction: The MEK property is east of the south-central part of the EXS TPW property
Doesn't add up for me considering GG sold major area open pit with resource estimate and upside (Fenn Gib) to Lakeshore not too long back.
Thanks again. I was thinking the most logical for "it" was TPW, but could have been the effort to do the pit . . .
It rather sounds as if CD has always planned on working the top layer, eventually, but perhaps wanted to get as much established about the deep while the chance for funding the expensive deep work was present. That would make sense, if one believed the whole TPW picture/potential and the model of a ladder down found so many other places in the larger camp area. So with the shallow area drilling starting now I am guessing that would mean a resource estimate for it would be end-of-year.
Well, thanks for fleshing out that conversation.
Thanks hockeybear, appreciated.
I am not trying to follow-up on anything, but I do need to say I did not understand (the words) at all what this is trying to state, and especially can't figure out what "it" is
-Clarification 127,000,000 for deep mine 30,000,000 for open pit mine. I asked if he would have any problem raising 30,000,000 for an open pit mine and he said no as it would probably be gone at that point. Take that for what you will.
Thanks for sharing those drkazmd65
I know it was before eDD surfaced here by around a year, but I assume eDD used search functions I do not have (free).
I have been trying to remember if the pic was in the post or a link to the pic, but I do remember the pic had the local paper to prove the date. What I have been doubting is whether it had the unit in that pic, or just the PosiLight shop of Roberts, but in any event there was a pic of the unit that resulted from that trip, and the claim was Belize saw it working.
Again, that was all back in single magnetron/cavity days.
Thanks for confirming my memory was not totally blitzed
We will not put up with being asked to tell the truth, exposing to the investing public the current state of things.
To ask for what has not been provided is not saying that what has been provided is a lie (although it does appear that way).
Rather it is only asking for frank, straight-shooting, truthful disclosure of:
a) why there is no video showing unit in operation and/or being tested
b) why there is no meaningful data enabling assessment of performance
c) why there is no information on the Intertek engagement that make sense
d) why the above a, b, and c were promised but not delivered.
I could be imagining instead of remembering, but it seems I remember seeing a picture of "the unit" framed with a copy of the local paper showing date and headline, posted here, all part of the narrative about the trip to visit Robert and see "the unit"
At that point "the unit" was the single cavity heater concept.
rather self-evident isn't it ?
entice to buy high after bought those sold shares low
Last word on this board was that he was sailing back south (no, wait, wasn't there one post from that alias after that? long after the AMF surfaced its investigation). Last word to my awareness (not a reg there) on SH was that he was still "long and strong" but very busy and preoccupied with some project.
Likely hiding for cover with as much distance as possible every since the AMF interest became evident.
Alternatively they could differ in that Robert had thought the company was going to develop the technology, at its expense and with its personnel, and that he was going to advise/consult as needed. That would make sense to me if I held more projects than I could do well myself, that I would option one out that would require resources and be willing to end up with less than I could have in order to have it moved along at another's expense.
They could differ in that the company might have never really cared if the thing became product, just so long as it appeared to be on track to become product, but Robert may have always believed in a final result.
So, while my comment could be seen to include your possibility #3, as it does, the comment was more intended to encompass other alternatives.
Development from concept to fully fleshed out function and then prototype is indeed a process that requires time. When a game-changing, life-altering, world's first, revolutionary concept is both so obvious, so non-complex, and straightforward and is also unprotected by patents held by the conceptualizer and effectively fully disclosed in the public space then taking going on 8 years (2005 to date) to get to the point of a testable prototype is simply evidence of poor effort to capitalize on the concept.
(Aside: one might also want to consider why in that time no others have entered into the party or even beaten Wanderport to market.)
How many times have we been told that they were at the end of the road? that the wait is over? that they were in (and then past) a phase that was to result in units (plural) for testing by potential entrants to the manufacture/distribution/market chain ? How many times have we been told that measured testing was taking place? that the results would be made available in short order?
All of those has appeared in official PR from Wanderport.
Yet what has anyone seen?
All the same, the company voice appears content to label any comment that questions the abysmal performance as conspiracy theory !
The only conspiracy appears more like an attempt to milk investors than an attempt by the public to discover what the company has actually done in all that time.
How does it matter why anyone is present on a public forum?
Any reasons provided are not necessarily the actual so why ask?
Everyone ought handle their own DD and decisions, and to me that means the more differing viewpoints brought to my attention the better.
It is not too difficult to identify postings presenting positions vacuously without support, just as it is to follow-up on the support when provided in order to assess its impact on one's risk/reward assessment.
So although it may matter why someone is posting to the board, to me it is only my own answer to that about each poster that matters.
That obviously is why there is no AMF case.
One thing I think I have safely concluded about this interventionist market in precious metals is that the spot and contract market prices will be taken (by the manipulators) in whichever direction at the time provides (to the manipulators) the greatest profit potential while also putting the least newly at risk, but that the interventionists (governments) are not guided by the same. If it is inevitable that new symbolic value trading units will come about, if that/those have a market basket underpinning there will be some basing upon precious metals, and in that case the intervention now would be to hold the prices low during anticipatory accumulation. It is not clear what direction the manipulators' motive points them any particular day, but it is clear that the interventionists manipulate (at least some of) the manipulators, using them for their heavy lifting.
Gold and silver spent a quarter century preparing to shine, predicted to shine, after the price collapse following the Hunt brothers exposing how thin the real supply was (is). It has had a little of that shine show up over the past decade and especially the last half decade. IMO the fixing is still happening, the shine still waiting to show. Whether things change explosively appears only possible if the interventionists loose their grip. It also appears that the manipulators that play for the interventionists are only guaranteed a return for their efforts by the price being allowed to rise, however slowly compared to what would exist from the natural supply/demand pressure. The net effect imo is continued increase, and still a predictable, eventual very large increase (although that timeframe could be measured in decades) and much continued volatility and swings along the way as the manipulators attempt to out-manipulate one another and to anticipate the timing of moves by the interventionists.
Do we all agree that ....
1) WDRP has been and is presently working on "something" that is intended to heat water for household/industrial/recreational usage?
2) #1 question is all that is important?
Significant means something higher than expected.
They did some testing....soooooo?
They haven't told us what happened? Soooooo?
What that does that mean? Nothing!
In other words "something" but we don't know "what".
omg-like prior-we are now opening up a discussion forum on the word significant....oh goody-and i thought we were getting somewhere
As I understand the contract Robert is supposed to supply the intellectual property and use of any related patents he (might) hold, and to act as technical consultant.
I do not see any requirement to act as designer, developer, engineer, only to advise on Wanderport's application of "his" technology (whatever that might be).
Also, as I understand it, the shares are his. Period. Wanderport has no claim over them.
It is entirely possible, perhaps probable, that the beliefs and objectives of Robert and Wanderport (not including Robert) are divergent in critical ways.
400 million shares are no less motivating now than they have been for years, yet for years, to date, they have failed to produce results.
I imagine he determined the precise inlet temperature, but felt the audience for a PR was uninterested in decimal points, or even the least significant whole digit, leading to the approximate 30 degree delta, after rounding down from a 23.7 inlet temperature.
I assume you saw
An excerpt from the improved lab protocol is presented as follows: "We desire to test, document and understand the heat engine characteristics of the MCMHU. We further wish to document the relationship between increases in power input versus heat generated. Data points to be collected broadly relate to temperature at inlet, temperature at outlet, and energy consumption at various predetermined flow rates. We are requesting that a series of tests be performed in order to ascertain and document the efficiency of the MCMHU's heat engine. Key inter-related items to be measured are flow rate, energy consumption and temperature delta. The test is intended to be used to further qualify our MCMHU's heat engine, which we expect to eventually incorporate in various dynamic flowing water heating products".
Or remember this one?
". . . I also recorded the operational unit in video format. In this video I was able to achieve and document a 50 degree centigrade output with an approximate and significant 30 degree delta "
The discussion is not a conspiracy theory. It is a logical separation of alternative explanations for events. There are only so many available. Of these some fit better than others, some do not cover certain events at all well, and some do. What is conspiracy theory about that ?
We are considering a relatively simple apparatus involving well-known technology which in many years of effort has not been demonstrated to exist in a functioning, let alone marketable, form.
Thank you for stopping over from FB to express your opinion on WDRP being a speculative play, but please recognize your claim that the discussion is only a meaningless conspiracy theory does need to be supported, perhaps by a real meet and greet that includes some hands on with hot water flow.
why continue to dump money into something that's not yielding any? If you've backed yourself into a corner, do you continue to hurt yourself with more promises and more cash outlay? Doesn't make sense.
Thank you for that effort, and others, such as bringing to the board the fact that the SEC had opened investigations, information that otherwise would still not be available to those here.
What is the difference between your now presented theory #6 and the original theory #1 ?
The AMF allegation includes comments that there was a coordinated network of traders that would profit by buying and selling on the swings with the help of the PRs. I find that very plausible as in the early years there were certainly fairly regularly slow swings down and sharp swings up. That is why I am ahead for involvement with WDRP (not being part of the alleged network, just trading the swings, building a free core position).
As Sunspotter points out a number of this crew's companies had grand finale acts centered upon rumored buy-out offers to drive the stock to new highs.
My own current opinion is theory #1 (aka theory #6)
When they failed to release internal numbers, that was a large red-flag to me that they finally understood that a product would be a hard sell. When they released hidden results for the single cavity design and then changed course into the multi-cavity that was the first sign that they were seeing beyond invention phase rosy glasses and seeing the real physics.
Just exactly what is the hold-up with Intertek is obscure, but imo it certainly is not the lack of sufficient equipment for the tests.
As far a having relations with reputable businesses, Design 1, UL, and Intertek, I am still of the opinion that these firms will take on as a client any company that will pay for their services. Having (or having had) a contract with them only proves Wanderport came up with sufficient money to contract for work.
Perhaps that is so for speculators, flippers, gamblers, but investors where I take that to mean the individuals feel that there is a valid and compelling investment/gain propositions ?
Well, AUN has seemed to be in disfavor lately as Ag rebounds. Now I recognize there is apparently some skepticism over the longevity of the movement in Ag, as shown by the number of silver producers moving down yesterday despite the Ag trend. All the same I am looking for the reasons for the apparent disfavor toward AUM. From the brief numbers in this NR I see that tonnes milled, and grade, are both up, but silver production is not up as much as the change in volume milled and grade. So that must mean recoveries of Ag declined with the ore more rich in lead and zinc, correct?
All the same the numbers look favorable to me and all ramp-up activities sound like that are tracking per planned schedule.
That it does, well actually, the bottom of orphan in the graph is not deep enough. The key imo here is recognizing that the graph is for a stock with a successful exploration project with a discovery that is able to move to prefeasibility and beyond. From that perspective EXS is in a very bumpy stage around the exploration/discovery boundary. The beast is not discovered.
I am still trying to get a feel for where Robert is with Intertek but at best WDRP sez the ball is in Intertek's court
I thought the most recent FB comment on this was that Wanderport was working with Intertek to determine the course forward from the present.
The missing equipment story was the first "explanation" for no testing.
Sorry, can't help it, that was such a good post, but then you tossed in that last line
Guys with their pants down should not be publicly traded.
that is pretty much my take
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83201611
after extracting some of the phrases used in the FB announcement that wabadon posted Jan 8
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83192970
the tone used lately does not drip confidence
I am under the impression the control circuitry and/or its software/firmware is not functioning to spec. Remember the delay of the first (I think it was first) scheduled Intertek timeline was because the magnetrons were found to be not firing correctly, so Robert had to go rewrite "the protocol" for the testing so that the magnetrons would be configured for each test manually.
Thermocouples that I am aware of are metalic and their measurements depend on the clectric current/boltage generated between the coupled metals. Microwaves will impact that making the measures not a function just of the thermocouple materials and the temperature but also of the irradiation (microwaves). In other words, spurious signals would get generated.
Anyway, entry/exit analysis would be sufficient for the mandate. Placing per chamber measurement requirement on Intertek could only be due to desire/need to go back to engineering level and/or desire/need to cause delay. IMO
pinpoint measurement of temp - at a location
imagine - many many pinpoint measurements - overkill
I am so glad someone has finally stated that fact.
Of course without a feasibility review it is less firm to state, but to me most appear to have not been economic in terms of grades and widths even if not at such great depths.
jmo