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.
Don't know, but does not appear
http://micro.newswire.ca/70886-0.html
Sure was sluggish after the morning volume passed though.
So what do you figure ? Someone/Somehouse just wanted out asap?
Too bad their partner in the Zn is not obligated to do reporting.
So phase 1, phase 2, and a final phase 3
correct me please, but wasn't that map for actions by Wanderport that they used while working on the single-cavity unit ?
Again, in the conference call they indicated that that phase plan was old and discarded. The comment I then took to mean, and still do, that they had been thinking on bringing a single magnetron product to market, but after getting it going realized that they needed multiple magnetrons, so went back to the beginning, abandoning phase 3 for the single magnetron unit.
IMO Beers hit the nail on the head in indicating that the lab has probably been looking at their test results for some time. I believe that this is so and most of the on-going between Wanderport and the lab is about how to spin the numbers.
Remember WaterBoy, it appears we are not in a wait for numbers, we are not in a wait for the lab's efficiency test results. Per the PR we are waiting for the lab's interpretation of their analysis, which was to be undertaken sensitive to safety and the technology of the unit.
The numbers have been in-hand for quite some time. The challenge is how to normalize some EF or other rating relative to other products in the market. However that ends up being done, that is what we will hear.
Period. Nada mas. jmo
IMO this market will only react to something exceptional, something outside the expected. IOW if the next resource comes in low, below the 1.5 you will see pps erosion, and if it comes in high, significantly above 1.5 you will see a short-term pps gain that is dampered by sellers looking for the door. Remember also by then we will be heading into tax-loss season.
Thanks for posting that. I also notice the sell down, was up to their website early today after open but no info there. Major sale volume yesterday later.
I am not complaining.
I am injecting reality.
jmo
Hey Erin, let me first point out that there is a lightyear of difference between something being imminent (as you said) and something being claimed to be imminent (which I had said).
It was clear from before the meet and greet that eventually something working to apply microwaves to heat water would be given over to a lab for testing. Clear as day.
Just what has been handed over, and what the needed special considerations and safety care mentioned is, is an open question . . . is it still fragile relative to municipal water pressure ? is it liable to overheating water and blowing up from internal steam ? IOW is it very close to something that can be turned into a prototype ? Who really knows.
even when there is fantastic news
Sorry, but did I miss something ?
Having read all the PRs I don't know to what you refer.
An independent lab having its hands on a proof-of-concept unit?
Heck, after a year of promising that was imminent it was sort of something one could anticipate.
Eventually investors wise up. The stock price drops and the volume dries up, and sadly that's where we're at today.
well its like I predicted-name of lab only and no numbers until a later schedule date.
oh well-its worth waiting for IMO-there is a definite product or why bother testing nothing?!
It does look like it could be the same stainless steel box, but actually having some pipes coming in/out the top
He must have gotten the wiring done over the past year
Fresh out of law school, ey?
"TNRs attorney has never lost a case"
So who all is playing both sides of this one?
In the conference call they were given some heat over this phase 1, 2, 3 stuff and it not comparing to where they were at the time of the call.
As I recall they hand-waved it off by saying that was how they were looking at things back then, but that things had changed, and as far as they were concerned the phase 1, 2, 3 stuff was irrelevant then (at time of cc).
I took it as relating to the change from a single cavity to a multicavity unit (after they discovered one magnetron could not do much more than heat up water for a pot of tea)
What do you want for approx one dollar per piece ? shielding from the microwaves so you don't roast your flesh or fry your brain when you accidentally plug it in
To overcome the static condition, place in container of water, if in a sealed tank then just provide water flow (and make sure tank has a pressure relief)
But let's be real . . . at that price they could not even up the voltage sufficiently to generate microwaves, let alone fitting that into the displayed plastic rod (or be allowed to sell such without shielding).
Goes to show you that anyone can claim to heat water with microwaves, ey?
Disagree. The local universe has physical laws, measurable physical reality, that is the same for everything. The raw numbers would allow one to use any form of "twisting" desired to some EF number, but the raw numbers would tell all - for any water heating technology!
I don't disagree at all but an EF of 2.4 does not translate to 240% efficiency.
Electric heat pump water heaters are already available with an efficiency of 220 percent.
"Intertek's independent interpretation of their efficiency analysis"
under the impression they use off-the-shelf nagnetrons, but with use of water-cooled magnetrons and water cooling / heat scavenging from the voltage conversion that drives the magnetrons it is possible to use much of that heat not transferred by microwave.
seems the pps and volume prove the case, they need to adapt their approach to information flow
and Intertek's certified performance efficiency results will be provided
sounded to me like Intertek's interpretation of their testing analysis is what we are expecting to see
Big difference.
And no, if it does not pass my criteria does not mean that it is not valid, it only means that I will not respect it as fully important to me
I believe I am not alone.
And, what I am talking about it that we are not receiving what the company promised to us. I am not demanding anything. I am just reminding that the company needs to start building credibility in every way it can.
I am not concerned about "fully funtioning water heater" compared to MCMHU in a box. If it heats water, whichever, the rest is just off the shelf packaging.
it's humorous to me that you all are demanding that they provide this and that, actual test data . . . as if what, the company or Intertek answers to you or any other expert here on this board that their findings have to meet your criteria?
According to the Company, Intertek's mandate includes:
To evaluate a fully functioning microwave water heating unit
To safely complete performance efficiency testing services and analysis, while taking into consideration the unique nature and characteristics of Wanderport's microwave water heating unit and technology
To supply Intertek's independent interpretation of their efficiency analysis performed on the eco-friendly microwave tank-less water heater.
imo interest of any significant scale will only "brew" when there is something substantive from the company (and no, a video or a statement of opinion from a lab is not substantive).
I agree, things would start to get interesting for the pps and volume if numbers would be released.
But read the PR. It sounds to me even more clearly than before that I need to say REGRETTABLY we are not going to see any numbers that are analyzable in a meaningful way.
You mean that babble yesterday (and on the day of the PR on how investor confidence was building) was not computer generated ? It is hard to believe real humans would put up with doing that for hours . . . now a computer I can make do almost anything
That is what got me going on clarifying the properties, where the mill is sited compared to where Black Fox complex is, which parts are the "extension" and what Grey Fox, if you recall that exchange of posts.
It appears the stream agreement covers most of the present and near-term areas of production, but excludes much of the prospective Black Fox complex ground. Still looking toward stable cash-flow from increased ore volumes, stable to improving grades, and fine-tuned recoveries and the investment in bringing the next two properties toward production.
MUX right or wrong is still behaving as a leveraged tracker of silver for the most part.
Just chart out MUX and some stand-in for AG, like SLV, and look at their behavior since the start of August. AG up x, MUX up some small (more than 1) multiplier of x, AG down y then MUX down some similar, small multiplier of y. Sometimes a day delay, sometimes not, but very AG price sensitive.
MUX needs more recognition for its strengths beyond San Jose production (pipeline, conservative use of cash-flow, etc.) and some quarters of reported gold production, then the strong binding to AG volatility may start to weaken.
Exactly Beers. From reading the PR carefully it appears that an analysis by the lab will result in an assessment of the competitive advantage(s) of the unit, presented in a twisted verbal way like the recent PR quoted Robert as attempting to provide. "We believe the unit is 20 to 30% more cost-effective than any other product now in the market. It does this by adaptive heating controlling the amount of heat supplied to match the water demand and by allowing the user to adjust the output temperature to match their requirement in real time, something other units are not able to accomplish. Virtually 100% of the electricity consumption goes into heat in water that is consumed, with minimal loss by unused heated water. etc."
No, numbers. No, transparency. Just some twisted summary results.
I personally do not care how good of a lab such a statement is issued from if it is not worthy of scrutiny.
However, the PR makes it sound like Nov 15th at the latest will see a verbal paragraph or two describing the unit in the context of its unique qualifications and of its competitions' short-coming relative to the strong points of the unit design. That sounds like the mandate, and the lab will provide what is being bought by the client in so far as the unit allows.
Meaning no disrespect but I believe you have that entirely backwards.
I for one will not "trust" at summary opinion, even from a "respected lab" if presented without the information that can be used to validate the assumptions on which the opinion is based. I may be in a different boat as I am able to work from the raw numbers up to a final conclusion. Many in the market are not, but very many are, and very many of "us" have seen how things get spin applied and tend to discount anything thrown at "us" where there is no way to validate what is tossed out.
I think once upon a time, in a distant, different world, with a different company, not "the new Wanderport" as so dubbed by the voice of FB, there was a PR that set the unit price in the distribution chain at something like $650 (remember the PR that claimed an estimated hundreds of millions of sale, was it into Aussieland, over 5 years). That of course is likely now stale.
So, imo, some statement of the result of analysis if unsupported with figures, some presentation of the product to market with on mean-time-to-failure info, etc. will all constitute perhaps typical US marketing but also poor marketing if penetrating a larger market mix is the objective.
And, also imo, to move interest in WDRP transparency in terms of efficiency and performance, info on expected durability/lifespan, info on expected wholesale price into the distribution channel, business plan moving into being a company, etc., basically all the normal stuff one would expect, needs to be put into the investment space. Remember, they have said that there will be dilution, there is the part on the website about looking for investment/funding, etc.. Well, then they need to start working toward that and toward the product info transparency that can get the market anticipating the product, get tech writers interested to nibble on making a mention, publish some info, etc.. I agree that some of that info must wait, unit cost for feedback from potential manufacturers, mean-time-to-failure for parts (especially magnetron) selection and for field test, etc.. Sure, obviously. But this info does need to come out, and the soon the company starts showing this sort of maturity, such as by opening its internal testing info, perhaps in conjunction with the lab's summary opinion, etc. then the better for starting the walk down the marketing road.
But it all depend on how one defines "efficient"
There is a segment of the market that does not accept verbal handwaving
It is not just a matter of my own desire to assess the degree to which I will consider this risk a speculation or an investment, it is also a matter of the breadth of market acceptance
I have shopped the tankless market and seen the claims, goggled out the consumer sentiment and what is available on raw, base efficiency (i.e. electricity in to heat in water out) and performance (control of temperature out as function of flow-rate), and hope that the company steers clear of the sort of meaningless marketing that is to be found (albeit presented ever so meaningfully appearing)
Are they gone ? today's post seemed professional, and I am still left wondering how the company is paying for a quality company to work on this.
All in all, satisfying, except for the rubbish to wade through here, and the vacillating drift of the pps
The one thing I was uncomfortable with was the wording of the mandate provided
To supply Intertek's independent interpretation of their efficiency analysis
management's new objective is to use Intertek's certified performance efficiency results and a demonstration of our fully functioning unit o illustrate how our technology stacks up against other existing products in the industry
welcome aboard
not a whole lot of risk here
but I am not interested in settlement or buyout
a ruling in favor of rye would/could be the catalyst for bringing that trends properties into production (they were after all just almost next door to the new set of claims)
of course there is that further south property and the project with McEwen too
PS
can one trespass on property that has been relinquished back to the BLM ?
It is difficult to understand Zim, until one factors in marketing of the company, that is, some belief that this approach builds interest and potential momentum.
Remember, not only did they promise the in-house, preliminary numbers at the earliest possible time, but the voice behind FB also said that the UTube video was being produced and would be posted shortly, along with performance data.
There is also the pessimist viewpoint . . . the on or before Oct 18 date was set simple because some of the crew involved in the pump/dump (of existing held shares, no dilution needed) as may have shown up on the board for a day during the past PR (ostensibly in order to provide support for the claim about investor interest made the title of the PR) have schedule conflicts and needed to delay until approx Oct 18.
IMO anything is possible at this point, except for the unit having greater efficiency in the conversion of electric input to heat in water than is achieved by existing electric tanked water heaters (which do that with 100% energy transfer).
glta . . . this is sort of like being the operator of the camera for the finish line at the races - ha
who can trust these people that post at odd early hours anyway (or is that late)?
One day or less and counting, but I would rather they let us know how this lab is getting paid, although its name is ok info also
Great question PB . . . one would almost think working to drive the shareprice down would be in their interest, or participation in placements (which if I recall correctly does not trigger the rights plan).
That's a tough one JD. But if you are going with 15.4 billion pound copper resource (4.8 indicated, 10.6 inferred) then why is it unfair to go with the Au and Ag numbers also in that June resource update?
That would give 2.5 million Oz Au (0.71 indicated, 1.79 inferred) and 75.2 million Oz Ag (19.1 indicated, 56.1 inferred)
http://www.mcewenmining.com/Media-Events/News-Releases/News-Releases-Details/2012/McEwen-Mining-Announces-Resource-Update-at-the-Los-Azules-Copper-Project-in-Argentina1130031/default.aspx
Am I missing something in your question? Like for example the metallurgy, of which I have not seen any released, that would give an idea of the actual recovery of the Au and Ag byproducts. Or like the fact that this estimate is based on a pit envelope resulting from a $2.50US per pound price for copper with 100% recovery and $1.00US mining cost per tonne. By the time this is mined the price of copper that can be used in an estimate will almost certainly be significantly higher.
After the 2012-13 drill season results are in, with the core drills more suited for the terrain and the almost double meters as could be completed last season (15,000m planned compared to 8,100m) and the ability of those drills to finally reach to planned depths, then we might have a better idea of just how huge Los Azules is. Oh, and that is not to mention drilling on the currently contested part of the property possible toward the latter half of the season where the 2011-2012 drilling did nothing to transfer inferred to indicated or for step out expansion. It is worth keeping in mind that the drills are contracted and scheduled to start work in November, and if all and only the planned drilling is completed that will be a 34% increase over the drill meters used in the June resource update (which was 43,645m).
On a different note, I am not seeing much of anything in Ag prices differing from the range behavior of the past 18 or so months. Today it got close to, but did not touch, the 32.4 lower range support, but it got there very fast, and it then rebounded to the 32.8 +/- ask/bid upper. Ag has spent a LOT of time drifting in and between the 32.4/32.8 and 33.4/33.8 ranges to form a band which, once firmly exited either up or down saw rather quick 10% +/- moves in the exit direction. Sure looking like some uncertainty over the speed but that it is acting like it is moving into the lower range of the band (if not beyond, given the toying down at 32.46 today on that sharp drop after the London fix was in).
I held off posting this until metals closed for the afternoon. Ag bid/ask 32.7/32.8, outpacing Au down. The overnight markets will be interesting if not telling
I doubt the MCMHU would be considered a mini-tank water heater . . . as I understand these they attempt to reduce problem attaining
a) uniform water temp delivered
b) volume deliverable on demand
by maintaining 2 to 6 gallons at (or near) use temp, but at the same time make use of tankless style heating to provide fast recovery (compared to most tanked units' slower recovery). This lets the mini-tanked avoid the larger part of the heat loss from stored heated water.
If the tankless you mentioned at the firestation is electric I would certainly be interested in knowing its brand ! Seriously, I am shopping and not finding a good choice yet . . . if fact I am close to considering gas ! The "hybrid" electrics (pre-heat with heat-pump technology) are too expensive imo considering they do not seem to have extended lifespan/guarantee).
Orex and Astral Announce Merger by Way of Plan of Arrangement
http://www.orexminerals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=552381&_Type=News&_Title=Orex-and-Astral-Announce-Merger-by-Way-of-Plan-of-Arrangement
October 15, 2012
12 to 1 Astral for Orex shares
Astral's key assets are the Los Crestones Project in western Mexico, and the Jumping Josephine Project in southeastern British Columbia.
The Los Crestones Project is an early stage gold-silver-copper property located in the gold-silver belt of the Sierra Madre Occidental of Sinaloa State, western Mexico. The property totals 4,168 ha and is located approximately 110km from the state capital of Culiacan. The property hosts numerous mineralized showings and small scale workings and is prospective for vein and breccia-hosted low sulphidation epithermal gold and silver. Best drill results to date included 5 m averaging 39 g/t Au, 93 g/t Ag and 2.13% Cu.
The Jumping Josephine Project is a prospective exploration property with the potential to host an economic gold deposit and warrants further advanced exploration work. It is a large contiguous claim holding which covers 35,735 ha in the West Kootenay region of Southeastern British Columbia. The area is within a mining district boasting historical production in excess of 9 Moz of high-grade gold. The property is well-located close to existing infrastructure and approximately 40km north of Teck-Cominco's smelting operations in Trail. Drilling to date has identified a NI 43-101 Compliant Resource Estimate (using 0.5g/t Au cut-off) that has defined: 34,000 oz Au Indicated (363,000 tonnes grading 2.95 g/t Au) and 30,000 oz Au Inferred (448,000 tonnes grading 2.08 g/t Au) [June 24, 2011]. Astral has a 60% joint venture interest in the Project.
If the Transaction is completed, Orex will have approximately 46,615,762 common shares issued and outstanding, of which current Orex shareholders will own approximately 95.6% and former Astral shareholders will own approximately 4.4%.
WDRP stated 20-30% savings
I have always had a hard time with that bold claim, and I have taken it to be a statement of operational cost, i.e. same amount of water same temperature increase at 20-30% more efficient (less) electric consumption. That simply cannot be when a tanked electric resistive element unit transfers 100% of the electric energy in to heat in water. Heat loss storing in tank is an issue, but same no matter what kind of tankless one is comparing, so where is the 20-30% compared to other electric tankless?
On dependability, per your other post . . .
Are the tankless you are referencing gas ? I am under the impression that electric tankless are pretty unreliable. The impression I have gotten is that they have a more difficult time with scale build-up due to the "flashing" of the water to heat it fast as it flows. There are also indications that many electric tankless have a problem delivering uniformly heated water, i.e. showering and suddenly one gets a cold shower for a short time.
These are just the feedback I have picked up researching for electric tankless to install for my personal use by searching on the web for comments from people's volunteered evaluations/comments/reviews. I have yet to find an electric tankless with great reviews without also having negative experiences posted. I am not sure, but I think that is part of why one is seeing mini-tank point of use electric units showing up in the market.
The main factor that will make or break the Wanderport claimed water heater as far as the consumer, residential market will be unit life and maintenance. If the up-front cost to purchase, wire, and install can be offset against low to zero maintenance (due to lack of the scale buildup so problematic in other designs) and long lifespan (a magnetron burned out . . . screw in another at 15-20% of initial unit cost, compared to other electrics where the element is cheap but the scale by then often makes replacement a bad choice).
If the life-of-unit costs (how many of those others bought during lifespan of a Wanderport?) can be presented in a valid, trustworthy manner, then the initial cost may be something the consumer, residential market could look beyond. If the residential consumer is left to look only at how much to operate per month for their normal hot water consumption then they will likely not find much of interest except novelty - not even a "be green, save the planet" nerve being pulled, and that is not going to be any different for someone on the west coast, the northern plains, the southwest, the deep south, or ever that cramped eastern seaboard. The cost to raise the temperature one way or the other will be about the same, and the offset due to standby water loss of heat when compared to tanked designs will be exactly the same as for all tankless.
The market will be won based on total cost of ownership and use over the expected life span . . . as you argue, that is how low-e windows, solar power, etc. manage to eek out market share.
The wait is over
Bah Humbug !
The wait is being drawn out . . . 3 days max and counting down
for a name and another date
meaning even more wait
why? fear that the numbers will be torn apart
sounds like the numbers will deserve negative reception
good numbers would be well received - so why ?
imo this is not negative, just realist and skeptical
Wanderport has not yet shown it is a new Wanderport
But GW, you said
"last week you posted that there was already a Microwave Water Heater in the Residential Market space"
but clearly that post of mine was about
"non-residential markets you mention"