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.
dyna...
why do you still hang around here...i assume since you are that disgusted with Torvec's management that you no longer hold Torvec shares...if you do, you have the most rediculous investment strategy known to man...if you don't hold shares, what possible motive would you have for wasting time on this forum...
Trust me..I know the answer
You're famous dread..!
That info also tells me more people are reading our drivel than we thought.....!!
Torque....
The form 5's raise questions....the numbers don't add up.....plus, over a half a million warrants were exercised...where are those shares reported...? More questions producing flying dots....
Did somebody say short....
The D&C might not be...
but Ms Wu, who willnot be up for the Pulitzer anytime soon, may have a grudge to bear through someone....the one guy she finds in the whole freakin room full of shareholders to quote is some moron who says something like "all they have is a working protoype..." I mean come on...thats after turning down multiple requests by the company to learn more about the technology and the company...
I with dread on this one...dots are circling
That's more than a dot...
How does Ms. Wu still have a job as a reporter..?
What was it that Johnny Cash said..?
Update from Torvec website pasted below...
It appears that Torvec has been positioning itself to partner with SAIC from a solid , mutual respect relationship perspective. Seeing the summary from Gary Eidlin's shareholder presentation hits home for me since I wasn't at the meeting. The last comment of his summary also tells me that the company isn't sitting around on their hands waiting for SAIC to do a deal..."we continue to discretely but aggressively explore other opportunities around the automotive world until a deal is done."
Gary Eidlin / SAIC Synopsis
The following is a brief history of the Gary Eidlin / Torvec relationship, as discussed at the 2006 shareholders meeting, how it evolved and where we stand in our efforts to commercialize Torvec’s technologies.
For the last several years I have been doing consulting work for companies in the US as well as internationally. In 2003 I was retained by Torvec to look for opportunities for their products. At that time I arranged an introduction for Torvec to Chrysler. That relationship was progressing nicely till a management change by Mercedes/ Daimler put everything back to square one. Along the way I began to learn as much as possible about Torvec’s history, its principals and the company’s potential.
In 2004 Torvec desired experienced, high profile, Investment Banking representation and assistance. I arranged a relationship for Torvec with the firm of Billow, Butler & Company LLC from Chicago, IL working in conjunction with Merrill Lynch to represent Torvec.
In June of 2004 I traveled to China and began introducing Torvec Technology in the Chinese market. As some of you already know Torvec’s FTV was originally designed for markets such as China and as the world turns it appears that Torvec’s initial judgment was correct. The FTV was especially well received in China however the process of finding the right partner to help us launch the product was not so simple.
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.
Shortly thereafter I met with Elizabeth and introduced her to Torvec. She loved the company and its’ products and said that she knew the perfect home for the technology…Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. or SAIC as it is also called. (The crown jewel of the Chinese Governments economic development program) Elizabeth introduced the Torvec technologies to SAIC in person in Shanghai in November of 2004. The products were well received and an information gathering, due diligence process was begun by SAIC.
In April of 2005, SAIC sent their Senior Engineer in charge of New Business Development to visit Torvec. He drove the FTV and observed the other technologies. His conclusion was “that he had never seen so much exciting new technology under one roof.”
The relationship continued moving forward with both parties beginning to explore opportunities for a Strategic Alliance.
In June of 2005 SAIC invited Torvec to meet with them in Shanghai. Torvec’s mission at this time was to first establish credibility for the company, the technologies and the principals within SAIC. The second goal was to explore further Strategic Alliance or Joint Venture opportunities with SAIC and its’ 70 subsidiaries. The third goal was to come away from this meeting with an expression of serious interest from SAIC regarding the creation of a specific relationship with Torvec. Before we left Shanghai I believe that we accomplished all of the above.
What started out as a 3 day meeting evolved into 10 days of business Chinese style. We met with a variety of senior management representing the various divisions of SAIC. Jim was interrogated at length by PHD level engineers who were searching for weak spots or flaws in the Torvec technologies. Some of these engineers were highly aggressive in their questioning and at times adversarial in their attempts to discredit Jim. Jim showed incredible poise under fire, an outstanding grasp of all relevant engineering concepts, a genuine comfort in dealing with the Chinese culture and finally an omniscient, oracle like ability to paint a picture of the future of the automotive industry. (6 months later all of his observations proved to be on the money and thus have earned Jim/ Torvec the trust and confidence of the people at SAIC.
At one point in the interrogation process one of the PHD engineers proclaimed “OK, we have spent enough time attacking Mr. Gleasman. Let us stop this now and become his students!”
We left with an understanding of a serious desire on the part of SAIC to create a relationship with Torvec and various suggestions for the structure of this relationship were exchanged; some in writing.
For those of you who don’t know, SAIC is a partnership of the Chinese Government, General Motors and Volkswagen. SAIC will produce over 1,000,000 cars this year. In 2006 they are bringing to market their own brand “Rover” with an initial production of 50,000 to 100,000 units. SAIC’s goal is to be one of the top 6 automakers in the world within the next 10 years. By the way, China is now becoming the 2 nd largest automotive market in the world.
Torvec is dealing with very bright, capable people at SAIC. According to the Chinese culture these business people are paid not to make mistakes or take chances. SAIC has 70 divisions within the company; most are JVs with the top OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers in the automotive industry. SAIC has a mandate from the government to seek out and acquire their own proprietary cutting edge technologies. These technologies will represent the future for SAIC. However, these technologies will also represent a serious threat to some of SAIC’s partners. SAIC has a challenging dilemma to deal with as it relates to Torvec’s paradigm shifting products.
In December of 2005 SAIC again visited Torvec. It was a very productive meeting. Our products were no longer CAD drawings or untested products in primitive stages of development. SAIC spent days driving our products, accumulating test data and verifying information.
Discussions were held on potential short term opportunities. Arrangements were made for yet another visit in February by product specific teams.
Torvec has done a great job in creating a very exciting potential opportunity with SAIC. Relationships with SAIC personnel have been built on a personal and professional level. Credibility has been established along with trust and confidence. The necessary ingredients are in place to move forward together. Communications have been taking place on a weekly basis. Unfortunately for me and the Torvec executives conversations have been at 1:00 or 2:00 in the AM on numerous occasions.
In the meantime we continue to discretely but aggressively explore other opportunities around the automotive world until a deal is done.
Hi Lynx...
I can remember back in the early eighties when I lived in Rochester and used to go to the Amerks games when they had a few former Olympians on the ice....I also remember Val James, who may have been the only African American in the AHL/NHL at the time...he was huge..he used to brutalize opponents...that was fun....Does anyone remember that guy George who used to stand up and yell HOCKEY HOCKEY HOCKEY!! He would also do a nice job hassling the opponents goalies...
Truck...
I have pasted below an interesting and LONG article on the topic....may shed some light on your question....how it relates to the Torvec IVt might have to come from them...
Torque Versus Horsepower - More Than You Really Wanted to Know
by Dan Jones
Every so often, in the car magazines, you see a question to the technical
editor that reads something like "Should I build my engine for torque or
horsepower?" While the tech editors often respond with sound advice, they
rarely (never?) take the time to define their terms. This only serves to
perpetuate the torque versus horsepower myth. Torque is no more a low rpm
phenomenon than horsepower is a high rpm phenomenon. Both concepts apply
over the entire rpm range, as any decent dyno sheet will show. As a general
service to the list, I have taken it upon myself to explode this myth once
and for all.
To begin, we'll need several boring, but essential, definitions. Work is a
measurement that describes the effect of a force applied on an object over
some distance. If an object is moved one foot by applying a force of one
pound, one foot-pound of work has been performed. Torque is force applied
over a distance (the moment-arm) so as to produce a rotary motion. A one
pound force on a one foot moment-arm produces one foot-pound of torque.
Note that dimensionally (ft-lbs), work and torque are equivalent. Power
measures the rate at which work is performed. Moving a one pound object
over a one foot distance in one second requires one foot-pound per second of
power. One horsepower is arbitrarily defined as 550 foot-pounds per second,
nominally the power output of one horse (e.g. Mr. Ed).
Since, for an engine, horsepower is the rate of producing torque, we can
convert between these two quantities given the engine rate (RPM):
HP = (TQ*2.0*PI*RPM)/33000.0
TQ = (33000.0*HP)/(2.0*PI*RPM)
where:
TQ = torque in ft-lbs
HP = power in horsepower
RPM = engine speed in revolutions per minute
PI = the mathematical constant PI (approximately 3.141592654)
Note: 33000 = conversion factor (550 ft-lbs/sec * 60 sec/min)
In general, the torque and power peaks do not occur simultaneously (i.e.
they
occur at different rpm's).
To answer the question "Is it horsepower or torque that accelerates an
automobile?", we need to review some basic physics, specifically Newton's
laws of motion. Newton's Second Law of Motion states that the sum of the
external forces acting on a body is equal to the rate of change of momentum
of the body. This can be written in equation form as:
F = d/dt(M*V)
where:
F = sum of all the external forces acting on a body
M = the mass of the body
V = the velocity of the body
d/dt = time derivative
For a constant mass system, this reduces to the more familiar equation:
F = M*A
where:
F = sum of all the external forces acting on a body
M = the mass of the body
A = the resultant acceleration of the body due to the sum of the forces
A simple rearrangement yields:
A = F/M
For an accelerating automobile, the acceleration is equal to the sum of the
external forces, divided by the mass of the car. The external forces
include
the motive force applied by the tires against the ground (via Newton's Third
Law of Motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action)
and
the resistive forces of tire friction (rolling resistance) and air drag
(skin
friction and form drag). One interesting fact to observe from this equation
is that a vehicle will continue to accelerate until the sum of the motive
and resistive forces are zero, so the weight of a vehicle has no bearing
whatsoever on its top speed. Weight is only a factor in how quickly
a vehicle will accelerate to its top speed.
In our case, an automobile engine provides the necessary motive force for
acceleration in the form of rotary torque at the crankshaft. Given the
transmission and final drive ratios, the flywheel torque can be translated
to
the axles. Note that not all of the engine torque gets transmitted to the
rear axles. Along the way, some of it gets absorbed (and converted to heat)
by friction, so we need a value for the frictional losses:
ATQ = FWTQ * CEFFGR * TRGR * FDGR - DLOSS
where:
ATQ = axle torque
FWTQ = flywheel (or flexplate) torque
CEFFGR = torque converter effective torque multiplication (=1 for
manual)
TRGR = transmission gear ratio (e.g. 3 for a 3:1 ratio)
FDGR = final drive gear ratio
DLOSS = drivetrain torque losses (due to friction in transmission, rear
end, wheel bearings, torque converter slippage, etc.)
During our previous aerodynamics discussion, one of the list members
mentioned
that aerodynamic drag is the reason cars accelerate slower as speed
increases,
implying that, in a vacuum, a car would continue to rapidly accelerate.
This
is only true for vehicles like rockets. Unlike rockets, cars have finite
rpm
limits and rely upon gearing to provide torque multiplication so gearing
plays
a major role. In first gear, TRGR may have a value of 3.35 but in top gear
it
may be only 0.70. By the above formula, we can see this has a big effect on
the axle torque generated. So, even in a vacuum, a car will accelerate
slower
as speed increases, because you would lose torque multiplication as you went
up through the gears.
The rotary axle torque is converted to a linear motive force by the tires:
LTF = ATQ / TRADIUS
where:
TRADIUS = tire radius (ft)
ATQ = axle torque (ft-lbs)
LTF = linear tire force (lbs)
What this all boils down to is, as far as maximum automobile acceleration is
concerned, all that really matters is the maximum torque imparted to the
ground by the tires (assuming adequate traction). At first glance it might
seem that, given two engines of different torque output, the engine that
produces the greater torque will be the engine that provides the greatest
acceleration. This is incorrect and it's also where horsepower figures into
the discussion. Earlier, I noted that the torque and horsepower peaks of an
engine do not necessarily occur simultaneously. Considering only the torque
peak neglects the potential torque multiplication offered by the
transmission,
final drive ratio, and tire diameter. It's the torque applied by the tires
to
the ground that actually accelerates a car, not the torque generated by the
engine. Horsepower, being the rate at which torque is produced, is an
indicator of how much *potential* torque multiplication is available. In
other words, horsepower describes how much engine rpm can be traded for tire
torque. The word "potential" is important here. If a car is not geared
properly, it will be unable to take full advantage of the engine's
horsepower.
Ideally, a continuously variable transmission which holds rpm at an engine's
horsepower peak, would yield the best possible acceleration. Unfortunately,
most cars are forced to live with finitely spaced fixed gearing. Even
assuming fixed transmission ratios, most cars are not equipped with optimal
final drive gearing, because things like durability, noise, and fuel
consumption take precedence to absolute acceleration.
This explains why large displacement, high torque, low horsepower, engines
are better suited to towing heavy loads than smaller displacement engines.
These engines produce large amounts of torque at low rpm and so can pull a
load at a nice, relaxed, low rpm. A 300 hp, 300 ft-lb, 302 cubic inch
engine
can out-pull a 220 hp, 375 ft-lb, 460 cubic engine, but only if it is geared
accordingly. Even if it was, you'd have to tow with the engine spinning at
high rpm to realize the potential (tire) torque.
As far as the original question ("Should I build my engine for torque or
horsepower?") goes, it should be rephrased to something like "What rpm
range and gear ratio should I build my car to?". Pick an rpm range that
is consistent with your goals and match your components to this rpm range.
So far I've only mentioned peak values which will provide peak instantaneous
acceleration. Generally, we are concerned about the average acceleration
over
some distance. In a drag or road race, the average acceleration between
shifts is most important. This is why gear spacing is important. A peaky
engine (i.e. one that makes its best power over a narrow rpm) needs to be
matched with a gearbox with narrowly spaced ratios to produce its best
acceleration. Some Formula 1 cars (approximately 800 hp from 3 liters,
normally aspirated, 17,000+ rpm) use seven speed gearboxes.
Knowing the basic physics outlined above (and realizing that acceleration
can
be integrated over time to yield velocity, which can then be integrated to
yield position), it would be relatively easy to write a simulation program
which would output time, speed, and acceleration over a given distance. The
inputs required would include a curve of engine torque (or horsepower)
versus
rpm, vehicle weight, transmission gear ratios, final drive ratio, tire
diameter and estimates of rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. The last
two inputs could be estimated from coast down measurements or taken from
published tests. Optimization loops could be added to minimize elapsed
time,
providing optimal shift points, final drive ratio, and/or gear spacing.
Optimal gearing for top speed could be determined. Appropriate delays for
shifts and loss of traction could be added. Parametrics of the effects of
changes in power, drag, weight, gearing ratios, tire diameter, etc. could be
calculated. If you wanted to get fancy, you could take into account the
effects of the rotating and reciprocating inertia (pistons, flywheels,
driveshafts, tires, etc.). Relativistic effects (mass and length variation
as
you approach the speed of light) would be easy to account for, as well,
though
I don't drive quite that fast.
Later,
Dan Jones
>Please put this in perspective for me, using this example:
>
>Two almost identical Ford pickups:
>
>1. 300ci six, five spd man---145 hp@3400rpm----265ft-lbs torque @2000 rpm
>2. 302ciV8, five spd man----205 hp@4000rpm----275ft-lbs torque @3000 rpm
>
>Conditions: Both weigh 3500#, both have 3.55 gears, both are pulling a
5000#
>boat/trailer. Both are going to the lake north of town via FWY. There is a
>very steep grade on the way. They hit the bottom of the grade side by side
>at 55mph. What will happen and why? This theoretical situation has
fascinated
>me, so maybe one of the experts can solutionize me forever.
In short, the V8 wins because it has more horsepower to trade for rear wheel
torque, using transmission gear multiplication. What really accelerates a
vehicle is rear wheel torque, which is the product of engine torque and the
gearing provided by the transmission, rear end, and tires. Horsepower is
simply a measure of how much rear wheel torque you can potentially gain from
gearing.
My previous posting provides all the necessary equations to answer this
question, but we need a few more inputs (tire size, transmission gear
ratios,
etc.) and assumptions. I'll fill in the details as we go along. To do this
properly would require a torque (or horsepower) curve versus rpm, but for
illustration purposes, let's just assume the torque curve of the I6 is
greater than that of the V8 up to 2500 rpm, after which the V8 takes over.
Using the horsepower and torque equations, we can fill in a few points.
300 I6 302 V8
RPM Tq Hp Tq Hp
--- ------- --------
4000 269 205
3400 224 145
3000 275 157
2000 265 100
where:
TQ = torque in ft-lbs
HP = power in horsepower
RPM = engine speed in revolutions per
minute
Assume both trucks have 225/60/15 tires (approximately 25.6 inches in
diameter) and transmission ratios of:
Gear Ratio RPM @ 55 MPH
---- ----- ------------
1st 2.95 7554
2nd 1.52 3892
3rd 1.32 3386
4th 1.00 2560
5th 0.70 1792
I determined engine rpm using:
K1 = 0.03937
K2 = 12.*5280./60.
PI = 3.141592654
TD = (K1*WIDTH*AR*2.+WD)
TC = TD*PI
TRPM = K2*MPH/TC
OGR = FDGR*TRGR
ERPM = OGR*TRPM
where:
K1 = conversion factor (millimeters to inches)
K2 = conversion factor (mph to inches)
WIDTH = tire width in millimeters
AR = fractional tire aspect ratio (e.g. 0.6 for a 60 series tire)
WD = wheel diameter in inches
TC = tire circumference in inches
TD = tire diameter in inches
MPH = vehicle speed in mph for which engine rpm is desired
TRGR = transmission gear ratio (e.g. 3 for a 3:1 ratio)
FDGR = final drive gear ratio
OGR = overall gear ratio (transmission gear ratio * final drive ratio)
TRPM = tire RPM
ERPM = engine RPM
In fifth gear, both trucks are at 1792 rpm (55 mph) as they approach the
hill. Running side-by-side, the drivers then floor their accelerators.
Since the I6 makes greater torque below 2500 rpm, it will begin to pull
ahead. The V8 driver, having read my earlier posting, drops all the way down
to second gear, putting his engine near its 4000 rpm power peak.
Responding,
the I6 driver drops to third gear which also puts his engine near its power
peak (3400 rpm). The race has begun.
Since the engines are now in different gears, we must figure in the effects
of the gear ratios to determine which vehicle has the greater rear wheel
torque and thus the greater acceleration. We can determine axle torque
from:
ATQ = FWTQ * CEFFGR * TRGR * FDGR - DLOSS
where:
ATQ = axle torque
FWTQ = flywheel (or flexplate) torque
CEFFGR = torque converter effective torque multiplication (=1 for
manual)
TRGR = transmission gear ratio (e.g. 3 for a 3:1 ratio)
FDGR = final drive gear ratio
DLOSS = drivetrain torque losses (due to friction in transmission, rear
end, wheel bearings, torque converter slippage, etc.)
Assuming there are no friction losses, the equation reduces to:
ATQ = FWTQ*TRGR*FDGR
= 269*1.52*3.55 = 1452 ft-lbs for the V8 at 4000 rpm
= 224*1.32*3.55 = 1050 ft-lbs for the I6 at 3400 rpm
Since the V8 now makes considerably more rear axle torque, it will easily
pull away from the I6. Falling behind, the I6 driver might shift down a
gear to take advantage of second gear's greater torque multiplication. He
will still lose the contest because his I6 engine, now operating at close to
4000 rpm, is making less torque than the V8. If he shifts up to a gear that
places his engine at its maximum torque output, he will lose the torque
multiplication of the lower gear ratio and fall even farther behind.
Note that I picked the gear ratios so both engines can operate near their
respective horsepower peaks at 55 mph by shifting to a lower gear (second
gear for the V8 and third gear for the I6). This was necessary to make the
contest equal. I could have manipulated the gear ratios to favor one engine
or the other, but that would not have been a fair comparison. In any case
where both engines are optimally geared, the V8 will win because it simply
has more horsepower to trade for rear wheel torque.
Q.E.D.
Dan Jones
P.S. Since we know the weights and the tire diameter, we can convert this
rotary torque to a linear tire force and, given the angle of the hill,
compute the linear accelerations of the two trucks using F=MA. This
computation is left as an exercise for the reader.
Truck...
I'm not the guy to try and answer that one...that's the whole torque vs. horsepower topic ......Torvec guys could probably tell you the answer...
Hi 3...
You are correct in terms of the constant speed comparison. What you would also have to factor in is while you are accelerating to 55, your Expedition shifted probably 4 times, using more fuel...each run up to shift probably had your rpm's up to 2200 or so before shifting...when you watch Torvec's video, there is no shifting ..just a gradual ascent to the 1300 rpm level...that lack of "shifting" in the Torvec IVT adds additional fuel savings to the calculation....
Artguy..
I couldn't agree more on your view of Detroit....they will miss the boat on this for stuff, but the irony will be that they may be buying it from someone anyway...
It is amazing what we as shareholders are sitting on...
This technology IS going to be sold and commercialized....all of it....wether it's one big deal or several, the value of this stuff will be unlocked...have said it before, but need repeating - the elapsed time, while agonizing for some is now behind us as investors. The time line in front of us, while not precise, will be much shorter. The value is there...this isnot the time to be gettting out of Torvec..this is the time to get in....
New CEO update on the Torvec web site...
There is a video link showing the Tahoe accelerating on the dyno from 0 to 55 and the tach does not go above 1300...1284 actually according to the video...very impressive..
http://torvec.com/messagefromceo020606.html
Text of the update is pasted below...there appears to be alot happening behind the scenes..
Message from the CEO.
February 6, 2006
I want to thank the more than 300 shareholders who personally attended our annual shareholders meeting held on January 26, 2006. Over 91% of our outstanding shares, including over 700 new shareholders, participated in the meeting, voting overwhelmingly ( in excess of 99% ) for the reelection of directors Daniel R. Bickel, Herbert H. Dobbs, Keith E. Gleasman, James Y. Gleasman, Joseph B. Rizzo and Gary A. Siconolfi. Most importantly, over 99% of our nonaffiliated voters ( i.e. voters who have no affiliation with the Gleasman family, members of the board and their families ) voted for the reelection of all our directors. In my view, this vote directly contradicts media statements and rumors that Torvec’s shareholders are dissatisfied with the company’s existing management and the way it is running the company.
For those who were not at the meeting, I outlined Torvec’s current status and future, stressing that what all shareholders want is a good deal. I described a number of potential deal structures, including an all cash transaction, the licensing of the company’s products and a stock swap. I reviewed the advantages and disadvantages inherent in each possible structure and, in addition, analyzed the merits and hurdles associated with Torvec becoming a manufacturer of its products. I clearly stated that our preference is a stock swap since this structure will enable Torvec’s shareholders to receive immediate value, plus the future appreciation generated by the buyer who has made Torvec’s products its future.
Mr. Gary Eidlin, a Torvec consultant, presented an in depth view of the background and current status of our ongoing discussions with Peng Pu Machine, a majority owned subsidiary of China’s largest automobile company, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation. We will be publishing the complete text of Mr. Eidlin’s talk on our website shortly.
As I stated at the shareholders meeting, we are currently involved in ongoing demonstrations and discussions concerning all our products with state, national and international governments as well as foreign and domestic companies. These discussions concern programs dealing with:
class 8 trucks ( semi-tractor trailer ) and our IVT;
school buses and our IVT and Iso-Torque differential;
delivery trucks and our IVT and differential;
military Humvee and our IVT, differential and CV Joint;
glass companies and our subsidiary’s ice removal technology;
accumulator bags and our IVT;
current GM Tahoe and Dodge vehicles and our IVT;
Nissan 350z and our differential.
If you are interested in seeing just one of the many demonstrations that are being shown to our visitors, please click on the video above. We think you will find it encouraging.
Sincerely,
James Gleasman
Chief Executive Officer
You own no shares but are still here..?
dyna...
UBS is gigantic world wide...agree with you..may be the biggest...
Have never used the word conspiracy when referring to anything ....my observation of them thru Level II showed them very active on the bid and ask all month, as if to try to keep the price of TOVC in a tight range....covering..??
I havenot said CXO sold anything...I look at the filed documents, such as the form 5's, and they create more questions based on the facts of the documents. The numbers don't add up...that produces questions.....?
These are two different topics..you are the one trying to blend them together....neither of which has been labeled a scam by me...those are your words...
I have always felt TOVC was shorted...you don't...I don't care that you don't care...I post information about UBS for January, which some people were interested in hearing about. Do with the info what you want, but that doesn't change the information...you have your opinion of what it means and I have mine...not trying to have anything both ways and have never said CXO shorted anything...
I think Artguy was smart to buy.....
Invest...
There actually was a Carlisle Effect....I had envisioned more of a "whoosh" sound created by the effect, but it turned out to be more of a sucking sound followed by a thud....it was the complete opposite of what I had envisioned....I was very wrong about that..
Conspiracy..?
Never said there was a conspiracy....
I have a vivid imagination..that gets stimulated by facts..
I love you....
draw your own conclusions....
I have my drawn mine....
hey dyna..i dont think you ever answered the question asked by beach....
good morning pump and motor aficiandos...
Actual January share numbers by organization...
Total January 2006 TOVC - 429,872
UBSS - UBS Securities LLS - 189,046
NITE - Knight Equity Markets, L.P. - 65,597
PERT -Pershing Advisor Solutions - 30,190
SBSH - Citigroup Global Markets Inc. - 29,205
HILL - Hill Thompson Magid & Co Inc. - 22,100
ETRD - E*Trade Capital Markets LLC - 17,240
Seven other players did the balance...
My quote to dread - "For the month of January, UBS was involved in almost 200,000 of the 430,000 shares of Torvec traded...that's approaching half of the shares traded"
Thanks for reminding me of one of the all time best lines here on the hub...
"I didn't say you were lying, I said you weren't telling the truth"...
Thanks Yogi...keep following the money MF( my friend)...
Say hi to the guys for us...
That's it...?
That's you're answer..??
invest/sheriff/warrenB....where are the missing shares..? Where are the hal a million shares converted from the warrants..? Since the number of acquired shares far exceeds the number of shares held, where did the other shares go....? Did you find the info yet on the January trades involving UBS..? Why have you used 3 different aliases here...? Do you think you're fooling anyone...?
Say hi to the guys for us..
Invest111 aka Sheriff...
You're a smart guy, you should be able to find that info. But since your not a shareholder, I'm sure that won't interest you.....but since you seem interested still, did you have a chance to thoroughly read the form 5's the guys filed....? Why is the number of shares owned way less than the number acquired...? What happened to those shares invest..? Where are the half a million shares that were converted from the warrants....?
Invest/Warren B...
it's UBS Securities....
Invest...
the world is full of useful information like this, you just have to know where to find it...
Follow the money...!!
He said you were crazy because your buys get in front of theirs while a cover is in process...!!
If you have access to Level II, you can watch them try to control the action all month...why and who is the unanswered question....
Hi dread...
For the month of January, UBS was involved in almost 200,000 of the 430,000 shares of Torvec traded...that's approaching half of the shares traded....I am telling you that because I know you were sitting there wondering it...LOL
In my opinion, they still have 2 million plus to go....
Well said Gap...
Looks like a post got deleted...
don't know who that was, but it doesn't look like you are going to get an answer from dyna...
"someones in the kitchen with dyna...strumming on the old banjo"
Very busy weekend of opinions...
Happy 2 year anniversary dread....!! It has been an interesting 2 years at the very least...the near future, in my opinion, will be even more interesting...as Artguy alluded to, why would someone exit now when the company is at the top of the hill...the heavy lifting is basically done...sheriff is out(thats the second or third out for him...he exited as invest111 last time)..there is momentum on multiple fronts, things appear to be getting done faster than ever before...I am looking at adding to position given the current share price and where I am confident this will end up....
On another note, like sugar plums, I have form 5's dancing in my head....the form 5's that the 3 CXO guys filed raise way more questions than they answer....did anyone disect the foot notes on those form 5's...it will make you dizzy trying to translate what those say...did anyone add up the number of shares acquired and the number that they have left..? The number acquired is significantly greater than the number they have left...? What happened to the missing shares..? Also, what happened to the shares acquired by converting the roughly 535,000 warrants to shares....why don't those show up in the form 5's...? This will always hold my interest....and when I see Artguy state that he thinks the 2 guys he sat next to were in the CXO team photo... he said they were thrilled that no deal was being announced....this stuff just gets more interesting.....more puzzle pieces fall into place... my hunch is that there is more to know on this topic...
Hope everyone has a nice week....
Very good post Artguy...
Just curious if you recognize the furious note-taking guys that were sitting next to you that were happy that no deal was annouced and jumping on James' missteps from the picture below..
SherwarvestB....
Just the fact the word short came up at all made me a happy guy.!!!..and I do appreciate you keeping me in your thoughts..
Sounds like the meeting was grounded and straightforward...I am encouraged by the comments here....how many people were at the meeting..? The live feed from the Dread50 Network was excellent...dread your typing has improved...!! Thanks for the feed for those of us watching on pay-per-view..!
As for the perception that there may be some "tired" long termers...I would be surpirsed if there weren't..it's been a long time...however, the elapsed time appears more than ever to now be an asset...I'm going to stick around to see the happy ending...
i love it when that happens..!!
thanks for thinking of me
god bless the engineers
Hi Job...
was just reading those with interest...they are form 5's filed by Fain, Otto and Macnamara to update omitted share information from previous filings..
I like under "Explanation of Responses" #1 says "These shares were inadvertently omitted from the reporting person's original form 3."
Well now...isn't that interesting...
never said that sherwarvest...
never said you were wrong or that you lied about it..i said it wasnt in the text...i found the only written reference to it and put in on the board...man, you are coming unglued over nothing...this part of the discussion is going nowhere..it's done..
name calling..?
gee i thought we were just talking..I ever implied or suggested you lied about anything having to do with the weeks not months topic...relax sheriff/invest/warren