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.
In the last conference call I was in on CD clearly indicated that proceeds from sale of TPW would be dividended to shareholders, that EXS treasury would not benefit. I know, I asked (and listened closely to the answers) twice, the second time worded differently to confirm as I was surprised by the answer that EXS would not be set up with funds as result of the sale.
I am not really expecting much of anything. That way whatever happens will hold some surprise
However, someone said "are they testing today?" or similar.
I said I thought the FB voice had said there would be updates as it happens.
That is what I commented.
Personally I do not pay much attention to the FB thing.
It is not an official information source for Wanderport (if so they would have to be filing copies of the posts at OTCmarkets).
At this point (and for the past couple years for me) it is not so much about whether they would have something that functions to show, something that heats water with microwaves. That is not hard as many here have indicated . . . put the cup in the kitchen micro unit. The point is whether there will be anything that is profitably marketable, that can meet a need with sufficient convenience of ownership at the right price-point. There is nothing the company has ever provided, despite hard analyses that make this highly questionable, nothing the company has ever provided that helps a speculator assess this number one risk factor. Nothing. Oh - pledges for contracts ? Get real.
From what has been copied over here from FB there is nothing I have seen that negates anything, or resolves any of the physical constraints placed on the planned product.
If ignoring realities is one's game they should just buy in and forget about it until either something pans out or the paper becomes worthless.
Example is my recent post that the single to multi was because cheap commodity magnetrons couldn't cut the muster, insufficiently powerful.
That FB voice responds about commodity price being so low, just throw enough magnetrons at the problem. Doh. That is the single to multi change. BUT, do the math on the energy consumption. We already know how many are needed to make a shower realistic.
But how many people are going to upgrade their electrical service for installation of a water heater ?
As far as can be located there's not much in the way of patents under application on this, certainly not ones that are still alive and paid-up on fees. The databases are available for search.
Withholding info, as if to protect proprietary info, makes no difference. The big companies have routines that scan and alert on any of a list of key words appearing in new entries in those databases. Big deal. More semi-plausible hog wash to explain away company behavior and non-performance. That story was tried before by the company in official news release. Made no sense then either.
Am I expecting a play by play. No, even though it was indicated that such would happen. I am not expecting so each day is new for me, no ups no downs, just more of the commedy that this company has been painting in time. If I expected where would I find space for humor over the events?
Am I expecting an end at some point ?
Now that is a very open-ended and double-sided question.
End-Of-Year balance sheets do not think, just display.
I always thought the single to multi change was because they just do not sell magnetrons at commodity part prices that are anywhere near high enough wattage to fill a kitchen sink in the time the average householder has available to wait to do the dishes.
Someone over in the FB wonderland just does not get it. Fancy gizmo all one wants, if you need three phase 600 volt service . . .
Intertek done one test yet?
Did not one FB post say, or imply, that he/they would be posting to FB the progress at Intertek ?
So is there any new FB posting from Wanderport/Andrew ?
I am still under the impression that the regulation of heating is not part of the testing . . . remember Robert's comment that the protocol for testing involved manually configuring what/how magnetrons would be firing for each test.
the new part was in dynamically measuring what the condition of the water flow was, without sensors in the chamber, from which the external electronics would control the firing of the magnetrons. That is how I had understood what was said.
If memory serves correctly, in one PR they had indicated that they had come up with a new way for modulating the heating that did not require introducing sensors into the water-flow chamber (very problematic, metal in microwave irradiation), implying this would solve the issues of overheating (exploding from boiling?) and of delivering water heated to the set level at the flow-rate the water demand was creating. The PR per my memory implied that they were applying for protection, but the existing patent application documents do not show that.
you perhaps politely left the last line off . . .
IF 1200 watts heats 8 oz of water 100° in 1 minute.
CAN 1200 watts heat 16 oz of water 50° in 1 minute?
CAN 2400 watts heat 32 oz of water 50° in 1 minute?
CAN 3600 watts heat 48 oz of water 50° in 1 minute?
128 oz per gallon if I remember correctly.
2.5 gallons per minute(320 oz) for an average shower I think.
I see no reason why this would not be enough . . .
All I can say is that the deep thought demonstrated in the FB posting is a perfect illustration of why this "proposed product" based company has been able to (or rather, at one time was able to) garner such wide interest among penny speculators.
The numbers simply do not work when one moves to a tap that delivers many cups of tea worth of water one right after the other.
It is really very simple. That is very likely why one has not seen these as product to date in the market . . . for a small volume point-of-use hot water delivery device this heating engine is a rather expensive approach. If one reviews the patent database in the US it is obvious that this is not for lack of people trying.
estimate update
When Wanderport said they were scheduled to test starting on the 12th, at that time I estimated that we would hear their selection from the Intertek provided interpretation of analysis of test somewhere as late as mid-January.
I am now updating that to speculate that we will hear nothing of results until February, and possibly nothing except excuses for stale carrots (i.e. no video) before then.
JMO
Been there, done that, on all points.
Not sure why you would assume I am unable to read your entire post despite choosing to copy/italicize selected part.
If one carefully reads the NR of the long hole it is plainly apparant the EXN is claiming to have confirmed the geologic structure of the syncline. There is no claim made, nor evidence presented, that the long hole confirmed the gold mineralization model is mirrored to the northern side of the syncline bounding the porphyry. A careful reading shows key differences in the layers encountered in the north vs south contact/brecciated layers adjacent to the porphyry. The differences are significant, such as the absence of the argillite, sericite, and syenite alteration consistently found in association with the mineralized areas that have been subjected to the resource definition drilling.
The long hole appears to confirm the geologic model of a synclinal fold, similar to what exists for Hollinger McIntryre. That is very different from proving out that model's mineraliation pattern exists on the EXS property.
The article, published the next day, which sounds like it could have been authored by someone familiar here, seemed fully willing to overlook this, imo, essential distinction, and when read at that time just left me scratching my head at whether we had read the same NR.
Explor Resources Inc. has Proven its Gold Deposit Model and Size Potential which is Based on Nearby 30 Million Oz Hollinger-McIntyre Porphyry
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/explor-resources-inc-has-proven-its-gold-deposit-model-and-size-potential-which-is-based-on-nearby-30-million-oz-hollinger-mcintyre-porphyry-2012-09-27
The comment was not about your posting, but about the Wanderport PR, the lack of useful information contained in that PR which your posting had just copied. They sanitized it of all units on measures, labels of graphs, even actual numbers, claiming protection of proprietary advantage, or some such.
I think you misread my post, or at least certainly missed my intent and message. Sorry about that if wording was bad.
I agree with your comments, and your specific focus on the need for work if such a claim is understood in terms of resource and reserve.
I was (and am) even interested in any link to public information with details of the "long hole" (the one that was after the abandoned one) that has sufficient detail to even think that the "model" might be validly inferred to be mirrored. I think I have read and deliberated on all NRs from EXS and do not recall seeing sufficient info to make such conclusions about the "model".
TIA
the north wall has been now shown to mirror the south wall
Could anyone please provide link to information that confirms such a statement ?
Please don't ask that their PRs have to be taken at face value.
Too much water under the bridge, too little said in ANY statements that turned out in a way that encourages belief in further statements.
This may have been posted already, but has anyone suggested these additional readings and data would be, and can be, used for patent additions and protection?
I don't recall seeing that mentioned by anyone, from the company or on the board. It is an interesting thought, but hard to see how that information would have that sort of impact.
I do recall the company expressing their desire to keep real numbers private in order to reduce information provided to potential competition, specifically when they reacted to comments of how meaningless this PR justgetnby recently quoted
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82807094
as the "data" presented (mostly in the accompanying graph) was so "sanitized" that it was meaningless and rendered incapable of being analyzed to determine true capabilities of the SCMHU.
I can understand how "great" numbers would provide a potential competitor with a concept of what they may be up against, but I do not see how it would provide them with any edge or advantage (although I could see how there might be motivation to consider taking them out if that good).
2 cents
That description provides a context.
The sad part imo is that providing preliminary numbers that will be within a small amount what later would be independently verified would have / could have provided so much support to the pps if they were close to the claims.
Surely internal numbers exist. And given the above, and the repeated promises to release them, it is difficult to arrive at many reasons to the question:
"Where are the numbers? Why have they not been released?"
For a non-employee, a contractor, there is just too much "we" being tossed around in the FB postings if that is Andrew and one wants to continue believing this is not Andrew's ballgame.
That recent post makes sense, about + or - snowballing in the public space . . . but the finger of blame points at WDRP for starting the downward spiral with all the non-performance, as no positive snowballing can overcome that forever.
Give us the numbers. Preliminary then fine, just say so. Show that WDRP can see the light and honor its speculators by keeping long and multiply stated promises.
Give us the numbers. Not some interpretation of what the numbers sheld (undisclosed) shows (to someonem, somehow).
Give us the numbers.
not sure what top vs other were etc
but observe, using your arbitrary numbers
(100%-80%)*30% + 80% = 86%
is not saying 30% more efficient
it is saying 30% less inefficient
that is , recovers 30% of the waste of the other
in your numbers 30% more efficient is
80%*30% + 80% = 104%
what some consider simple sharing of fact
others consider as negative comments
this probably results from individual biases
I have also seen reports of two problems with tankless. One is sudden, intermittant cold flow, apparently due to some problem with mixing at the heating unit, and/or laminar flow within allowing input water to pass-through. The other is with electical units providing electic shock.
What I have always said is that whether they can market this and gain sales volume will depend on how they can present the total cost of ownership. That is not just energy use, but lifespan, mean time to failure of a magnetron or the driving circuitry, maintenance (does this means of heating automagically resist scaling problems?), and of course unit cost, intallation costs, and energy consumption for water used, etc.. If they can show that an owner planning on being there long enough will save in the long run, and will have minimized energy cost for water used (as with other products) from day one, then they have a chance.
Of course there is also the possibility of niche markets, which may be difficult to penetrate, where the response characteristics of this form of heating is paramount, overriding costs.
As far as water heaters, as in at a big box store, there are many products out there that transfer nearly all energy input into heat and capture that fairly completely in water out. The tankless products don't waste by keeping water hot, and they all have that advantage, so Wanderport is up against tough comparisons if the only consideration is efficiency of the energy in converted heated water out.
The original marketing claims that this will be 30% more efficient than anything on the market is bold, and was either naive or deceptive, as the reality of what exists in the market and what physics allows indicates that they just cannot by any stretch of imagination improve on the energy efficiency by 30%. I think Hockmir and myself have been drilling that message in for a long time, and we do not differ as far as I can tell.
Is this a scam? Was it once a scam, but then looked to them like they might actually have a winning product? Each can form their own opinion on that. The initial marketing claims however do not cast a true shadow in the light of science if that matters.
Well thought and presented discussion. There is one fact that should however be taken into account. The equations that define electomagnetic phenomena (which taken with the immutable laws of thermodynamics are all that is needed to project maximum possible performance in terms of temperature delta per water volume flow rate) are equations of state. Equations of state are a peculiar thing in that when one compares something is condition A with that same something in condition B one gets a difference (or zero) for the variables, and that difference does not matter at all based on how the change from A to B happened. Making marinara sauce is not that way. There what one ends up having depends greatly on how one went from ingredients to sauce. The change in heat content of water is not like that. No matter how the energy is transferred, how the transfer is staged, etc. will make no difference. When looking at the maximum heat (and hence temperature rise) that can be transferred to water by a certain amount of electrical energy, the equations will provide a number that is absolutely the maximum possible no matter how the transfer is done. All that is then needed is to know what the input energy is in order to state without any doubt what the maximum change effected on the water can be under the assumption of 100% efficient transfer. We are seeing very low degree gallons of heating that can be accomplished by what has been indicaated by the company as the heating unit energy rating. There is just no way around it, other than creating a new local universe with a different physics.
IMO it should more than reclaim the large loss of the past year, for multiple reasons.
Not insignificant in the mix is silver itself. The market seems to be acccepting that the large gains in price of silver since the onset of the recession/depression globally is not a flash in the pan but indicative of the value/availability of silver.
As far as EXN itself, management aappears to have shown that they have gotten a handle on mine water management, something which had for a couple years impacted EXN shareprice.
As you mentioned mine planning appears to have matured so that costs are controlled while increasing both tonnages and grades, in part no doubt due to having more blocks available to supply ore.
The market reacted somewhat negatively to EXN's entry into the Timmmins camp when it acquired Lateegra. Perhaps that was a reaction to getting geographically spread out, as opposed to concentrating the cash-flow coming available on Miguel Auza, idk, but it was a move that brought attractive property to EXN. The lead DeSantis property will be at 100% control in April 2013, and the expense has been minimal for the past producing gold property, with workings down to almost 400m, in the midst of the highly active and productive Timmins camp where the better gold is often two and more times that deep. The Leteegra acquisition also brought the Beschefer property that early this year (2012) became 100% controlled, has some good showings, and hopefully will see some more exploration this freeze-up season.
So there are these three good properties in the pipeline, growing revenue, and what seems like everything needed except time for execution.
All that is good and fine.
But the big mover, imo, indicating how far undervalued EXN is, would be the results over the past year of the exploration around La Platosa. As more results come in showing that indeed the company is (finally) on the tracks of the source(s) for the mineralization fluids that deposited the mantos EXN has been mining, imo the market reaction should be very rewarding.
Thanks for that. So it covers some of Grey Fox property, but not the active areas at the far south boundary. From what I understand of the plans for bringing Grey Fox online, production will be free of the stream (until some possible future time when the workings of Black and/or Grey have reached the extension area)
I am not sure it is the map I was thinking of, but it looks familiar so I have see it also. It is interesting that the Contact and 147 zones were being explored and had assays before the gold stream agreement but were not part of the agreement. Good move !
That is what I recall also, that back then the "extension" looked to the north (and eastward) and potentially large, at least that part of the property package did. I was just looking for the map also . . . no luck so far
So that mean only Black Fox has that overhang with 84% of production available as unhedge profit on production, and when Grey Fox is online it is (currently) unincumbered.
You are likely correct. I had "assumed" the extension, as it was then called (late 2010) is what we now know as Grey Fox. Perhaps it is the contact, 147, etc zones of Black Fox (?)
All the same, the Black Fox stream has been reduced to 8% from 12% and it could only be reduce to 6%, AND it allowed BRD to get Black Fox and the mill at Stock going.
Brigus Gold also announces that it has entered into a gold stream agreement with Sandstorm Resources Ltd. (“Sandstorm”) pursuant to which Sandstorm has agreed to purchase 12% of the gold production from the Black Fox Mine beginning in January 2011 and 10% of future production from the Black Fox Extension covering a portion of the adjoining Pike River property (the “Gold Stream”). Sandstorm will make an upfront payment of US$56.3million which Brigus will use to unwind the balance of its forward gold sales contracts terminating the obligation to deliver 99,409 ounces from October 2011 to March 2013 and as a
result Brigus will become an unhedged gold producer. Sandstorm will also pay Brigus ongoing per ounce payments of US$500 subject to an inflationary adjustment beginning in 2013, not to exceed 2% per annum.
Brigus Gold has the option, for a 24 month period, to reduce the Gold Stream to 6% of production from the Black Fox Mine and 4.5% of production from the Black Fox Extension for a payment of US$36.6 million.
Brigus’ Strengthening Financial Position
In October, the Company secured $30 million in debt financing. We used $24.4 million of the proceeds to repurchase four percent of the gold stream, thereby reducing the gold stream to eight percent where it will remain. By repurchasing the gold stream, the Company is capitalizing on an immediate and advantageous increase in cash flow.
petty hard to sell a small operation in bad infrastructure in this environment with lots of proved deposits held by nearly bankrupt juniors
I have no doubt the numbers have been crunched in numerous alternative scenarios and keeping the treasury loaded looked best.
But just fyi from here on out the part of Grey Fox and most all of Black Fox looks like it will have that 8% of production sold for less than cost of production . . . Isn't it sold around 500 and with cost hittingg 750 I think that means 16% of production is a break-even (if that projected 750 included all, taxes, admin, etc. and not just mining costs).
I agree, even though holding close to a million options each, at 0.10 per if one saw that as way undervalued it seems one would buy in for something that would show a gain sooner than way out-or-the-money options.
Of course, there are many alternatives available in the market with potential for near gain.
Existing would not be sufficient to drift a shaft over, and it would take a lot, very bit lot, more to justify a pit (and the new permitting that would need, area for the strip waste, etc.)
I am seeing it as a new vein (or veins) to follow with existing mine methods if they find more deeper . . . it is shallow enough that they could end up with a lift then air shaft in the process.
There have been some difficult to understand movements this week. For example, oil briefly hit above 90 (US Brent) . . . which really does not fit with continued economic sluggishness.
But don't forget the unlimited pumping of new funds into the US economy the Bernank announced, or the BoJ action.
Did you catch in the letter from the CEO the comment that the goldstream has been bought down to 8% where it will remain ?
I somehow had missed that the Goldfields property is already permitted. I had only thought it had been worked up through bankable.
IMO they need more info (or to release more) but it is possible that the find is the up-dip extension of known lower areas displaced by faulting. It looked to me like it would not be that major of an effort to drift to (or sink ramp to the area) from the more northerly of the two existing portals . . . but first they would really need to understand where the find bottoms out.
fyi http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/on-127_metric_e.html
as long as those numbers are negative the ice gets thicker.
Won't take that bet. Some 6 or 8 months ago when the board was asked about buying a unit by Xmas 2012 I then replied that in time for Xmas 2013 was very "iffy", and it is only more so now.
If getting a unit sent for testing could take a few days as with a normal outfit . . . but what ? 3 months to just get the testing done once a tester is identified ?
Maybe if there ever is a product one will be able to stop at a big-box home improvement store and get one in time for Xmas 2015 at this pace.
All Intertek is doing is telling us the results
All Intertek will be doing is telling Wanderport things, probably with all their data, workup of data, analysis, and fullfilling the mandate Wanderport gave by providing their "interpretation of their analysis" of the tests.
We will be told what Wanderport wants to be known selected from the above.
Heating water efficiently and cost effectively is production worthy.
Maybe. It would all come down to how that "cost effectively" is determined.
If it is from viewpoint of an owner's total cost of ownership over the life of the unit, as compare to other competing alternatives, then yes, it would be worthy of "someone" fronting the expense of production/distribution/marketing.
If "cost effectively" means energy cost to heat water, or even comparative cost of initial unit purchase and installation, well maybe production worthy . . . but how do those costs compare to the competition? Magnetrons cost more than resistive heating units, so shouldn't the initial unit cost be expected to be higher than other tankless electrics?
So as I see it, once the interpretation of their analysis of the testing done is received from Intertek, and once the road beyond is travelled and there is are reliable pre-production units, then there will be final testing, certification, and field testing. Dave M said he needed that round of beta product usage before anything could be marketed, and his reasons made perfect sense. Only from field testing would there be any chance to determine character of warantee or expected costs of warantee, to determine expected life-of-product costs to the owner (lifespan, maintanence costs, meaan time to fialure on magnetrons, etc.).
The product (if there ever is a product) will live or die in the market on its total cost of ownership.
oh, of course not . . . or was that just a retorical "you" ?
but then I saw the post you replied to as pure humor about the obvious, not grim assumptions
lol
I would hope . . . they have something that can be tested and minimally altered for production
Didn't read the PRs too carefully then, ay? Whatever it is that is being or will be (or is claimed will be) tested is going to be "manually configured" for each testing using the protocols Robert took a month to refine. It is all about that problem getting the magnetrons to fire correctly, so manual configuration of simultaneous, or sequential, or . . .
It is all in the PRs if one cares to think carefully about what is being stated. . . . a long way for a testable product prototype ready to template for manufacturing . . .
very true, that chain of custody concept . . .
I am thinking that Intertek (or any commercial lab) would find it "odd" to say the least to be requested to accommodate a company representative present at all times when the device contracted for testing is out of its locked container, which the client has key control over, unlocking each day for testing and seuring at the end of each day, while the locked or unlocked container remains locked within the testing lab facilities and control the entire time.
No doubt such has had to be done, but the cost of the service, for a box built of recycled scraps, with "the inventor" there for security (as opposed to a company hired security detail) . . .
I just have to grin
and all the above just to prove that the laws of thermodynamics and Maxwell's state equations, as we interpret our local physics in the universe, are inceed still safe and sound, unchallenged.
lol and cheers
we are scheduled to finalize testing this Thursday end of day barring any further travel advisories
"finalize testing" is not"finish testing", correct?
I take the first (finalize) to mean change the calendar from having pencil marks on future dates to having pen/ink marks.
Obviously I take Finish Testing to mean the wait for Intertek to analyze the test results and then decide how to word, and pass through process like corp. legal signoff, and finally release to the client (Wanderport) their "interpretation of their analysis"
specific Intertek lab location shall remain unspecified for obvious reasons
Specific rasons, like our abiity to check the weather and advisories that are and have lately been issued between Montreal and the specific location ? Doh
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/warnings/report_e.html?qc67
Environment Canada's Official Weather Warnings
Public Warnings Marine Warnings Special Weather Statements
Metro Montréal - Laval
09:12 EST Wednesday 19 December 2012
No watches or warnings in effect. Do not forget to visit Special Weather Statements