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.
Not an unreasonable take, though I don't know that SWET's really done anything other than get current (and it was current the last time it went, so that would not have been an ask). Which PRs are you talking about and where do you want them thrown up? I don't believe moderators control the little news feed below the chart if that's what you're talking about. I suppose they could be stickied but I've never seen anything in a SWET PR that warranted a stickie.
SWET to present at the National Investment Banking Association in NY. Now why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, b/c SWET issued a nearly identical PR three years ago, almost to the day What goes around comes around I guess.
You either miss the point or are purposefully evading it. I was responding to your assertion about SWET getting funding.
Wasn't it about three years ago that Pickett announced he had financing from National Standard?
Nothing. See #15367.
I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Slojab got it right away. SWET is a share selling scheme and nothing else. Take a look at any of my prior posts if you continue to have any question about my opinion of SWET. Hopefully I've cleared that up for you.
What part of my calling this a POS did you miss? It wasn't "advice," it was "WTF, why isn't this back at 0.0001 by now?".
And yet, nevertheless, this POS is making a move to get out of the 0.000s!
That is some capital structure!
Ha! That was nearly two years ago at this point that SWET "retained" Aldwych Partners with no news on that front since. So no, I don't find it interesting at all.
You know what they say ... There's a sucker born every minute.
Fixed it for you
It changed because SWET's running out of BS to peddle.
If you need a really tall tower, then how is a "retrofitted" smoke stack going to get the job done?
No fair repeating back Pickett's conflicting statements!
Was thinking the same thing ... what kind of POS computer is SWET using to run these calculations.
Wait a minute ... I thought these things had to be built in very specific areas, i.e., desert conditions with access to water (if that makes any sense)
For all who's fingers seem to be broken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
You apparently have the internet. Look it up.
The financials here are very easy to understand ... SWET's insolvent. There are legitimate uses for convertible debt. SWET is not one of them. Have I missed anything?
Silly! The wind vanes on the side of the tower.
Keep dreaming!
What exactly was good about it. It was just more speculative/wishful thinking. There is just no support for any of the assertions made about SWET.
Israel, the so-called pioneer of solar wind energy towers, to build something completely different. And that lends credence to SWET how?
Whether SH numbers are increasing or decreasing is largely irrelevant to the merits of SWET's proposal. And to be clear, there are none. If anyone can explain to me how a start up with no operations and proposing a massive first of its kind project can legitimately spend millions on GS&A and comparatively little on R&D, then I could consider singing a different song. But I've lost count of how many times I've raised the issue with nary a response, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
I've printed and read them. Sorry, my perspective remains the same ... SWET is a share selling machine. It's the only logical conclusion one can reach.
Yes, real solar power ... not fake solar wind energy towers.
Does it really have to be explained? The point is that there's been lots of fly by posters talking about big news (and big moves in the pps) and, other than the few nonsense PRs, there's been nada. Glad I could clear that up for you.
And so begins the inexorable slide back to $0.0001?
Yes. It was a rhetorical question.
What'so important in the filings that we've missed that we should go back and read them. You've historically claimed they are (a) not required and (b) not important, so it'd be really interested to know why you now think they're so relevant add to completely change the views of some folks here to the better?
Yeah, doesn't answer the question. But thanks.
To which filings are you referring? Did I miss something?
Misery does love company.
What he's saying is that no one's going to take the time and energy to negotiate and enter into a PPA with an insolvent company with some never tested, not even on a scale model basis, experimental design (that's proposed to be located in the desert and run on water no less). Without the PPAs, no money. No money, no PPAs = a whole lotta nothing. Glad that I could clear that up for you.
And this just makes no sense:
So, you're saying that obtaining PPAs and financing is the easy part?
Nice job changing the subject
So too could Warren Buffett. How much one has made in the past bears little relevance to their motivation to do what they're doing.