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.
Perhaps it could transition to an electrically operated solar system. Maybe the design where they have the individually gimballed motors on each segment and the propellers are of the paddle type that you indicated are necessary at that altitude. That is what a two stage system would achieve; two systems for two altitude ranges.
As far as energy storage; batteries I guess, which is a difficult problem that I know very little about. It would need to have some critical number in terms of weight and power density. In other words, a golden goose no heavier than chicken feathers. Probably not feasible.
Of course, we know the company we are dealing with here so the chances of deployment of any kind of a system at altitude are slim to none. Slim retired to Florida a long time ago and hasn't been in the best of health lately so I'm not holding my breath.
Succumbing to the pull of fantasy, what if the engine and gaseous fuel payload is for the purpose of negotiating the lower level air currents? Once the fuel is consumed, the helium has expanded, and the engine has served it's useful purpose, perhaps it is jettisoned via the delta kite and the next phase of flight begins, whatever that is.
I hate to state the obvious, not because it makes people look silly, but because it will likely perpetuate this mundane technical discussion.
Anyway, here goes. The 'gas' in the airbags going to altitude is said to be a mixture having the same density as air, per those articles that were posted. As the motor burns the 'gas', the helium expands into the vacated volume, at least according to the articles. If it were a flamable gas with oxygen mixed in, then the mixture would be pre-carburated, so to speak.
Last time I checked, my gasoline was staying in the bottom of my tank, so I think it has a higher density than air. Therefore, the discussion of gasoline is not relevant as far as I can see.
Just for the record, my opinion of this company is lower than low and I seriously doubt that they will ever make a dime on any revenue whatsoever.
...provides an integrated suite of aerospace communications products and services....
Technically speaking it all comes down to what I mean versus what you think I mean.
For example, I could legitimately operate a company to provide an integrated suite of lawn mowers. This would be true even if my company offered to provide you with a pair of scissors, a tricked out weed wacker, and a cow. They would not match your definition of an integrated suite of lawn mowers but they would match that of my company perfectly.
My company might never sell a single one of them, yet my company would still legitimately claim to provide an integrated suite of lawn mowers.
Anyway the point is it plays on what words mean to you versus what they might also mean. It is why the statement is defensible. All imo.
Well, if ever this company was involved in important military or covert enterprises, (not) then now would be the time for presidential pardons forgiving alleged transgressions (lol).
This PR may be some kind of desperation marketing.
Government personnel conducting nexus searches turn up every reference to Obama that occurs in the media, and notice this one. Then perhaps the hope is that someone with knowledge of who to send it to gets it put into the President Elect's hands and a letter is sent.
With that maybe the terms of the agreement with Tao can get renegotiated. The deadline for paying up is looming as we know.
No intelligent investors will actually be swayed by these words, so these are the only reasons I can imagine for issuing them.
Unless it is all to become the cover story for depicting an existing covert relationship as something new to this administration. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
IMO it is really just the latest fluff cycle, same as it ever was, if with a little dirty laundry thrown in this time around.
Oh boy. Now we're back to selling the happy whales.
Hey did you hear the one about the guy who used to sell cell phones back in the seventies?.
No what happened?
They actually invented one.
What's he do now?
Sells stratellites, of course.
There is no enlightened view that is born of owning shares. Indeed, it is the ownership of shares that engenders shareholders' words with bonds of vested interest.
Let the company speak for it's own success, just one would more than suffice. That is a voice profoundly quiet though, with or without the pratfalls of IR.
Indeed, to ignore the voice of the mute, is not to hear the clarion that silence sounds.
I didn't get past the first sentance because Jobs was Apple. Gates is Microsoft.
The near $4.00 share price is worthy of note. This was on speculation that the PR's the company was issuing had credibility in truth and was also helped by stated revenues that apparently turned out to be based on fraudulent forgeries alleged by the SEC to be issued by corrupt management. That along with the misleading PR's that resulted in delisting from AMEX are the reason it reached near $4.00, then crashed to sub penny. Maybe helped by hedgies but that is like saying the vultures killed the carion.
So if someone thinks that is wonderful, then I don't know why.
I too remember the failures you listed, even if others here have apparently grown old and feeble minded over the years and are now unable to recall.
They are not fiction and the PR's were deleted, as you say.
I think it telling that no one has offered a single past success.
Many of those who are now acting as though things are going to be great were here all through those past failures acting exactly the same way as they are now. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. What does that tell you? OR doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same result. These are things that make you go hmmmm.
..doesn't square with your statement about IR and the lists of shareholders every week or whatever it was.
What does this mean from the 10K, p 14?:
(b) HOLDERS
As of the date of this report, there were approximately 600 registered holders of our common stock.
Yes Nerd, that is exactly the kind of revelation that consistantly steps embarassedly out from behind the whole cloth from which are spun the tall tales that shroud the outer shell of the many-layered Globetel/Sanswire slugger-naught.
('slugger naught': a duplicitous reference to a baseball entity known as the 'strike out king' and 'juggernaut', which in this case is a multi headed bat boy).
Congratulations to the Phillies and belated Happy Halloween wishes.
Judging someone to be of impeccable character is truly a subjective exercise.
Alan Greenspan was judged along those lines, yet he has shown that he was not able to resolve the financially disastrous outcome of the legislation he sponsored.
Your source could believe what he said and not even know that it was not what he thought he saw.
Since you were not there, you really have no idea what, if anything happened there.
But let the blind balderdash of unbridled optimism bubble forth unencumbered. (BLTBBOUOBFU)
It appears more and more clear that the owning of shares of stock in this company is a serious detriment to formulating objective analysis and executing rational thought processes in evaluating this company's activities, both past and present.
Objective opinions are usually considered to be most reliable as regards their veracity than are the biased ones. Clearly, the expressed opinions of and by the vested interests are the least deserving of serious consideration.
I'm a shareholder, so don't trust anything I say.
It is true, there is no stated agreement with GSAT. The CEO welcomes them (GTC and GSAT) as technology partners. I also welcome them as technology partners. It doesn't mean I have an agreement with GSAT. Just thrown in with the same pr. Meaningless drivel.
Nerd.... Now I see your meaning. I guess it is not unlike the story telling that occurs in most cultures. They are more or less the same stories told over and over. They are not repeated because something more is to be learned. It is done to confirm and to remind themselves of the values that they share and also to pass them on to those who have not heard them before.
Sorry to hear that we share the story of losing money in this. Also appreciate that you shared what you learned.
Nerd.. you seem to wish to villify my intent by ascribing to me anger and a desire to punish when all I said was; learn from the past. To learn from the past is generally regarded as an intelligent approach to life, politics, and investing.
You seem to wish to undermine that concept with regard to this shell. Odd really. Why is that?
I'm not angry and I don't believe I sound angry. You don't sound angry either, but you do seem to act out, in your way, against others who may not share your views.
"It's not a solid investment, it's a speculative investment, and we may very well lose our investment if they aren't successful in getting contracts before the investor's money dries up."
That clearly explains the predicament you are in. It is a precarious one at best. If you say you can lose the money, then that puts you in a small and unusual category of people who do not care about money, or at least some of their money. I know you will make big profits if the company succeeds.
That is an enormous "if", generously equal imo to using the same cash to buy lottery tickets.
My observations over the years yield a recognition by me of a pattern that has about a two to three year cycle for each of this entity's various previous incarnations. All I see it ever doing is making money for those 'private investors' who finance 'this thing'.
I agree with anyone who warns people off from buying shares in this until such time as the words become deeds, and the deeds become profits, and the stock shows upward movement on that basis. IMO this shell has never had a productive day in its life, yet there has always been plenty of talk, smoke, and mirrors, including plenty of half baked projects that don't fly.
I am what I consider to be a reformed supporter of this shell company. Now nothing short of flying profits will cause me to ever put another nickel into this shell of a company.
"I see the company moving forward and you continue to live in the past. Which one of us is more realistic?"
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.
Obviously there are those here who are concerned that your inquiry will result in a poor light being shed upon this sterling organization.
It is considered to be more seemly to regard these finer points of shell reconfiguration as best left to the nuanced discretion of the experts.
Following through with overt requests for information pursuant to an ostensibly stated free flow of data regarding matters you needn't be consumed with is not to appreciate more delicate norms of intercourse. Try to be more refined in your approach.
So it would be best if you don't make waves and go quietly. Leave us to savor the shell for what it stands for, and do not poison the atmosphere with such pedestrian concerns as structure, value, and productivity. Good day to you.
So is there a new Sanswire board coming?
Looking for potential killer apps for the catalyst discovered by Daniel Nocera of MIT. It can cheaply catalyze water into H and O2. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
As a manufacturer of large scale fuel cell plants that could become the key elements in distributed power generation, this company seems like it could be a great fit someday. Of course, the chemistry has to make the leap to industry, but that was the goal during 20 years of research.
Any eyes open to this possiblity? This discovery has the potential of transforming the energy base of the world from fossil to solar.
...or maybe he doesn't have any information at all.
Does this soaring volume also lend credence to a theory expressed elsewhere that with a 1 for 1 stock swap (rumored, that is), swapped into the Sanswire shell, existing air shares will be further evaporated?
That would be swell.
Suffice to say identities could be considered material, or at least indicative of something big (for example if it were the POTUS then it could be considered a matter of national security). Believe me, I don't think it was any of the above. I'm just trying to show that the premise of something along the lines of "if you just get off your behinds, drop your evil prejudices, and call the company you will find out something wonderful" is just illogical on the face of it.
And again, if it is none of the above and readily disseminated to the public, then why in the world wouldn't the company go ahead and boom it to high heaven in a PR?????
It doesn’t compute, not even to a math wiz.
warp...I have nothing against your investment decisions as you base them on DD as you say. I take it that you do not wish to disclose that DD to others because you are continuing to buy and you won't get this amazingly low price if you let that cat out of the bag, or at least that is how it reads to me, but that's all well and good. That's your business, not mine. Not accusing you of doing anything wrong.
What I don't think is appropriate is the self righteous attitude with respect to calling the company. After all that has transpired, it is perfectly rational to assume that anything the company says on the phone is simply untrue, imo. Further, if they were to tell me interesting facts about who attended and how to contact them, then it would be insider information since not released by PR. So take all the info you imply is there for the asking and simply roll it up into a PR and release it. If not, why not? Answer: nothing to tell, imo.
my thoughts exactly. The PR production potential is unlimited.
Globetel has been shown to be a poorly run disaster, populated by agents of failure every step of the way. That is their legacy going forward. They deserve no less and no more. Had they been a fantastic company, they would deserve the accolades that many prematurely bestowed upon them, before the virtually 100% failure rate was revealed.
Just because they are a speculative company, doesn't mean they don't deserve the consequences of their actions, whether in the form of low share price, or a poor reputation on message boards.
And this is definately not the faults of the shareholders, nor does it mean that any violators of the law that may or may not have been involved should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if they were involved.
This is true for any company in the world.
I mentioned this before and I'll mention it again. This is the battery HAA's have been waiting for, along with the rest of the planet:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/08/01/new-oxygen-hydrogen-battery-could-be-key-to-storing-solar-energy/
New Oxygen-Hydrogen Battery Could Be Key to Storing Solar Energy
Researchers have come up with a cheap and easy process for storing solar energy, in a finding that could provide one of the final elements for efficient solar power systems: the ability to store excess energy in a battery for use later when the sun isn’t shining.
Researchers are euphoric about their invention, which could mark a great leap forward in solar technology; previous experimental batteries used to store solar energy have been bulky, expensive and inefficient. “This is the nirvana of what we’ve been talking about for years,” said [lead researcher Daniel] Nocera in the press release. “Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon” [Christian Science Monitor].
The new technique involves the standard process of electrolysis, in which a current is run through a liquid and used to split apart its chemical components. In this case, water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen, which can be stored and recombined to power a hydrogen fuel cell. Current methods of producing hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cells operate in a highly corrosive environment, Nocera said, meaning the entire reaction must be carried out in an expensive highly-engineered container. But at MIT this week, the reaction was going on in an open glass container about the size of two shot glasses that researchers manipulated with their bare hands, with no heavy safety gloves or goggles [Reuters]. The researchers’ breakthrough was the creation of a new catalyst for the electrolysis reaction, using the common elements cobalt and phosphate.
The report, published in the journal Science [subscription required], is provoking speculation that the technology could do more than power houses at night; it could also figure into a larger switch to a “hydrogen economy,” in which fuel cells could be used as a clean energy source to power everything from cars to factories. Biochemist James Barber says that this work “opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production, thus reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem” [Reuters]. While much more research needs to be done to test the system’s economic viability, Nocera says he hopes commercial products will be available within a decade.
Actually, I don't want a company with alleged past criminal connections to get my phone number and I don't feel like using a pay phone.
You asked.
There's a malfunction on the Sanswire-Tao website. The tab that says "ABOUT SANSWIRE" links to a page that has a link "READ ABOUT THE SANSWIRE TAO MERGER". This link goes to a faulty page that is not readable. Maybe someone at the company could take a look at this and fix it.
Mide...my thoughts:
I think it is clear to most "the Professor" is an employee of the University. As far as the University acting as a hurdle, this has not been discussed or posited by anyone except for you in your last post. If that is not true, please show where this topic has ever been broached.
http://www.tti-stuttgart.de/rubriken/tti_info/folien/Homepage_en.pdf
The above web site spells out the relationship between TAO and the University fairly clearly. As you can see on pages 39 of 42 and 40 of 42, there are many other start ups beside TAO. The body of the presentation essentially promotes the University as an enabler and facilitator of these start-ups and their initiatives, with special preference given to start ups headed by professors.
As far as infrastructure goes, it looks as though the rent they receive from TAO is one among many, and that their facilities do not hinge on TAO's revenues. So it appears to me that your perceptions here are misconstrued.
Characterizing the University as a hurdle to the branching out of these start ups is in direct contradiction to the University’s stated purpose. Are you saying this illustrious institution is disingenuous in this respect? If so, again, what is your evidence of this?
It appears to me that you are presenting a false impediment so as to advance the conquering of same as being progress when in fact there is none beyond the meager content of the PR.
Looking forward to your thoughts, as always.
That's right. This is a convenient target of opportunity. Shareholder awarness of the patent issue is ripe after plenty of discussion over the last year or two. Now we're acting like a patent application is the latest stepping off point to the stratosphere.
It's always an inconsequential promise that pops the stock while an excited circle configuration is adopted by the willing.
This statement says absolutely nothing:
Leinwand continued, "Many programs have been working on high altitude long endurance platforms to meet the demands of today's world, but no design has been able to successfully remain in the stratosphere for an extended duration. Sanswire and TAO will demonstrate that long endurance stratospheric flight is possible."
The first sentance is merely a statement of facts known all too well by anyone concerned. The second statement has been "demonstrated" time and time again through publications, websites, and trade shows. He doesn't say how, does he?
Just more fluffernutter food for junk food junkies.
LTBBOUOBFU (Let the blind balderdash of unbridled optimism bubble forth unencumbered)
Hopefully the Energy Medium is more than Madam Sylvia wearing a turbine on her head.
Actually the energy medium should be a lightweight version of something that captures the technology described in the link below, since it is probably going to change the world as we know it. Lab demonstration just happened January 10 of this year. Really, read:
http://greensource.construction.com/people/0807_peoplewatch.asp
It would be used in a closed loop fuel cell system. Just take up a little water and keep reusing it. Basically a solar powered heat pump. Heck, we may be talking hot air balloons here. Maybe use the helium to get it up there, hot air to maintain altitude, then bring it down on a PADDS. Frankly, I have no faith in Globetel's ability to actually accomplish anything like this, even if it is feasible.
However, assuming this NR is real and not justanotherfluffernutter, the patent should be broad enough to capture this kind of technology for use in this particular application, if possible to do so.
Well, if they are so smart, why are they in this stupid mess to begin with?
You seem to exclude that something not discovered in the investigation could be discovered, or made concrete, in the 10K.
It's all fair game.
The operative assumption for you and others is that the SEC knew all the information as it is contained in the 10K in advance.
It is an assumption. If true you are right. If not, you are wrong.
Again, my assumption is that much of it would not be actionable, if it is actionable at all, until it is formally submitted, as in last week, and I could be wrong.
It is sound logic, assuming that the SEC was privy to the content of the 10K long before we were.
My assumption is that the SEC just last week received this 10K report, at least as a matter of formal record. Now that it is formalized, I think they would need at least some time to decide the proper course of action, if any action is called for at all.
I know there are those who believe the SEC reviews these things beforehand. I believe that it may have been you (and I could be wrong on that) who said that is not a feasible way for the SEC to operate, which also makes sense.