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.
Testing of the hydraulic hybrid system still ongoing...
Could you explain a little more about your...
conclusion that:
RIT removes the traditional road blocks to research...
I'll now venture my guess on that question...
The company has mentioned significant improvements to the Iso-torque that were made in 2009. This could have been a reason to delay the commercialization of the earlier version of the Iso-torque. Now that it appears that they are done with revisions, there would not any longer be a reason to delay commercialization of the invention with the OEMs.
Here is the way the company communicates this matter:
I'm not sure of an answer to that...
but I'm convinced that it was not due to afordability. Maybe someone could as this question at the meeting.
On your earlier question from today, my recollection is that they can call it a commercialization event if they want to, however, they have specifically chosen not to classify other small commercialization events as being worthy of the plan.
Here is some of the lingo from the reports:
Actually, that would be a good point if...
it were true
No problem, I'm glad you enjoyed those posts...
Here is a tidbit on what is being said about the new Cadillac...
I too remember (sadly) all of your points...
That's quite a (partial) list of the items of concern.
However, the difference is that the post about the SMS 620 Camaro didn't come from HQ.
This might be a good time for Torvec to see if any of the RIT students can freshen up the Torvec website especially in the area of the Iso-Torque Differential information.
I got a feeling that there may be some people at the auto show that want to find out more about that piece of equipment.
It does appear that we will be hearing...
very soon all about Torvec's manufacturing plans to fill the orders for the units that include the optional Torvec Iso-Torque Differential; don't you think?
2010 North American International Auto Show in Detroit...
Scheduled market launch in second quarter of 2010...
SMS 620 Camaro features optional Torvec Isotorque Differential...
Actually the company has lots of new items...
all of the time to update us on if they wanted to.
For an example they have told us that Torvec:
Senate passed the $636 billion DOD appropriations bill...
this week.
One company got funding for:
Hybrid transmission that runs on a hydraulic system...
Senate OKs bill that benefits some Michigan companies...
It appears that the news update is ...
Here is something to look forward to: ...
"Dec 8, 2009: Subcommittee on Energy. Date of scheduled hearing. SD-366. 2:30 p.m."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3246
That is what I thought you would say...
Isn't it a stretch to imply that someone is paying for a prototype when Torvec has to build a special design in order to have the actual testing of it paid for by a different company?
If you have to call the company soon, could you see if you can find out why they are testing it for only 28 degree when they have built it for a 60 degree total angle? That would leave 6.67% of the stated capability untested.
http://www.torvec.com/images/Next_Gen_CVJ/Half_Shaft_angle.jpg
Where did you get the idea that? ...
There is no misinterpreting of the testing plan...
Torvec is testing with a 30 HP electric motor that will simulate the load required for a 25 ton mining vehicle.
All of that is fine.
I still think that the test will be quite successful and be similar to a slam-dunk.
Why exactly is it then, that mining companies don’t put 30 HP motors in the 25 ton mining vehicles?
If the testing is not successful; only then will we have a problem.
Of course if that were ever to happen, it is not likely that word of that will ever be heard.
Thanks for pointing out that I was right...
They are testing for 30 HP.
Why do you try to twist it around to make anyone think that I was talking about the IVT?
You can twist it all you want but it will not change the facts.
It is the CVJ that is being tested for 30 HP.
Do you need a link to the 8K report?
Why don't you post it here about six times so that it is clear?
Lockheed Martin announces management changes at Systems Integration-Owego...
"The ground vehicle line of business, which includes the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, will be realigned from Systems Integration-Owego to Missiles and Fire Control"
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/yb/137912700
Did someone say Fire Control?
"Introduced a new hydromechanical variable transmission (HVT) that"...
http://www.dieselprogress.com/mobilehydraulicforum/forum1_news_detail.asp?pick=246&fm=N
"26-ton wheel loader application, with 200 kW (268 hp) input power"?
Isn't this a perfect application for the Torvec IVT?
Oh, that's right Torvec is testing for 30 HP.
Putting some of this in perspective, please remember...
This invention's patent was applied for on March 24, 1995.
This invention's patent was issued on March 25, 1997.
The test is for only a phase one application.
The test is for only a 30 HP motor.
The test is for only 750 ft lbs of torque.
The test is for only 300 RPM.
The test is for only up to 28 degrees.
After almost 15 years, they are just now getting the software for a test.
After almost 15 years, they are just now going to build a test fixture.
After almost 15 years, they need $28,000 from a prospect.
After almost 15 years, they need $34,715 from a grant.
After almost 15 years, they need a college lab.
Exactly what little tidbit is the exciting part (other than the test should be a slam-dunk)?
Another meaningful part of the announcement could be...
the section in the agreement with RIT:
"This Agreement is an agreement between the parties named above for the Project entitled Testing of Mining Vehicle and 1/2 Shaft ATV CV Joints."
It appears to me that there is a good chance that testing for the 1/2 Shaft ATV CV Joints will soon be done.
The CV Joint testing should be slam dunk...
seeing as the testing would be limited to "a constant velocity joint would be exposed to by a 30 HP electric motor utilizing approximately 750 ft. lbs. at 300 RPM in a 25 ton mining vehicle. The testing apparatus will deliver these loads at 5 degree angle increments from zero to 28 degrees (0—28 degree angles)."
We have been told many times about the fact that this equipment should be up to the challenges that involve much more HP, RPM's and angles all throughout the CEO update and annual meetings history.
I thought it was interesting that there was some need to collect a measly $28,000 from a participant at this stage when so much has been invested to date, and this is such a small revenue source.
Also, there is $34,715 to be received from the state of New York? After all the whining about keeping government money out to the process, why take it for such a small amount?
"$4,500—— testing Torvec’s constant velocity joint (total cost of $39,215 for testing minus $34,715 funded by State of New York);"
I would guess that these monetary crumbs are quite innocent and not binding in any material way for loosing rights to the information to be acquired and to the future revenue streams from licensing agreement to come.
Taking that discussion to the next step, and...
assuming that:
The 5,536,131 non-voting shares were all "non-affiliated" shares, and that,
These shares, if voted, would have been withheld votes, and that
The 1.2% vote of "non-affiliated" shares was from the approximately 200,000 actual withheld votes, then:
There could have potentially been a 34.2% of the total "non-affiliated" shares actual result of the vote against the slated board of directors last year (even with the reported prospect of the watershed / water board event).
How are the votes counted for shares that...
do not cast a vote. It sounds like you are quite knowledgeable about this topic.
I think that there must have been a lot of common shareholders (myself included) that simply do not vote their shares due to the fact that the company is really "family controlled".
If the final voting results are reported this way, and there are so many share votes not cast, then isn't the company really counting the shares that are not voted as being "not withheld" from the support of management?
If not, then these numbers just don't add up. There must have been more than 200,000 shares either not voted or voted "Withheld from support of management".
Before thinking about any of this, in this much detail, I would have thought that "not voting" would have been construed as "withholding support". Apparently it is not.
If all of that is correct, then it really would be important to actually vote in order to send any message.
Thanks for the HQ visit juicy little tidbit...
but most of that (actually all of it) was covered in the CEO Update when they told us that "Using the same IsoTorque gears used in our 300 HP Nissan 350Z, Torvec built a differential for the 475+ HP Corvette" along with "This reduction in lap time is the equivalent having an additional 40+ HP in the car". The whole point of the CEO update was that it "performed remarkably well!!"
Wasn’t there anything new in the tidbit department?
I don't suppose that they mentioned exactly how much time was trimmed on the A-B lap trials.
Did they mention why they decided to choose the video segments that show the cornering that includes the out of bounds crossing of the right track line on the left turns for the CEO updates Corvette video segment?
When I went to Watkins Glen to see the earlier race live, that process of crossing the right track line on the left turns was a regular event for the entire race for the Torvec equipped car anytime the race was at full speed and/or not under caution. Is that somehow a benefit for the driver or is it necessary to achieve the results? That phenomenon has always bothered me a bit, and now it is featured in the company update.
I'm glad to see that you are still...
a buyer. For a moment there I thought we lost you to the holder's group. So many of the old guard have moved to that hold on group, afraid to buy more shares to average down. You must admit that buying and holding are really very different. Most around here are holding because they want to sell and can't sell till the daily price and volume comes up; and they don't buy for some personal reasons. Then you come in with all the excitement from just being at a meeting and declare to be a holder. Wow!
Thanks for explaining the timetable thing for the others as I already understood all of that.
Were there any other tidbits from your visit that you can share?
It could be best to let KNOT BAD...
respond to his decision to buy or not to buy to take advantage of these low prices. (And OBTW the price is low)
After all, he twice said that he is holding, which translates to Knot buying and Knot selling.
If he is buying and telling us that he is holding, well.... I just couldn't believe that he would purposely mislead us.
On your "no timetable" concern, I think that maybe you took that one out of context a bit. After all, Torvec has prematurely repeatedly projected to us timetables that are controlled buy the other party to the contract that ended up being too optimistic. I think that they have learned to restrain from that activity. If you take that new restrained strategy and accompany it with decisions to not accept less than worthy deals, it could look like they have lost motivation or ability to deal.
That just has to be an illusion which is easy to fall for.
After all, if the inventions are capable of accomplishing the claims that are stated in the patents, then there is not any way that they can prevent a deal. They will only be able to hold out for the right deal but won't be able to prevent the deal. The buyer is the only one who will be able to prevent the commercialization. Don't you agree that the buyers that are willing to shelve inventions to prevent commercialization are the participants that the G's are trying to avoid? After all, what good is a royalty deal on an invention that is on a buyer’s shelf?
In your posts yesterday, twice, you mentioned that...
"I`m in and holding!!" after you were hearing and seeing updated details about the progress at head quarters.
I am confused why you are in, just holding and not buying after being so excited about the new updated information.
Could you explain why it still is not a good time for you to be a buyer?
I can only conclude that you now possess information that prevents you from being a buyer. Is it possible that you now feel compelled to remove yourself from the group of people that can take advantage of these low prices? The CEO has mentioned in the past that they (on the inside) would all like to get more shares and are unable to do that unless they take shares in exchange for work that is being done. Has the group of people that are not able to purchase shares now grown to the extent that it has removed most of the buyers that know about this little company from being able to buy?
Did you have to sign some sort of confidentiality agreement?
Can you fill us in a little more...
about your trip to HQ. It seems like you have a renewed excitement about a hard nut that is about to crack.
Was there anything else that you were able to learn there?
What else are they working on now?
Is there any progress with the elimination of Torque-Steer on the front wheel drive cars?
Did they have any time trial results about the A-B Iso-Torque lap time improvement posted?
Did they discuss any of the new patents?
Of course, any news item would be of interest.
2010 Toyota Land Cruiser Prado hits the streets...
"In addition, it also inherits full-time four-wheel drive with a Torsen LSD transfer case."
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Business_News&subsection=Local+Business&month=November2009&file=Business_News2009111221710.xml
Another mighty fine application for a limited slip differential!
"torque-steer a phenomenon that causes cars to lurch"...
"The effect (of torque steer) is present on the 2009 RS, particularly on rough roads, but it's minimal at best on smooth surfaces, thanks to some things called a Quaif and a RevoKnuckle."
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/0,250000513,49304253,00.htm
It looks like the front wheel drive problem, after all, is not solved yet, & there still may be sufficient time for proving the Iso-Torque differential for front wheel drive applications.
Is there any update on Torvec's progress with Torque Steer for the front wheel drive?
Hydraulic technology could be used for wind turbines...
"Although it was born out of the need to make more efficient systems for wave power systems, Digital Displacement technology has already proved its merits in a hybrid transmission for a car. Here, a transmission comprising a Digital Displacement pump mounted to an internal combustion engine that drove hydraulic motors coupled to the wheels of a BMW 530i increased the miles per gallon by 50 per cent compared to a six-speed manual transmission in city driving."
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/313919/Efficiency+gains+for+wind+turbines.htm
RIT Wins Award and a $500,000 Grant ...
"The award was given to RIT because of its Center for Integrated Manufacturing Studies program."
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/RIT-Wins-Award-and-500-000-Grant/w4xfuxOTVU-sfNzcX-1Srg.cspx
ArvinMeritor Inc. F4Q09 (Qtr End 09/30/2009) Earnings Call...
"We've also commenced on delivering our advanced independent suspension systems to Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems in support of the military's technology, development and demonstration phase of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/172579-arvinmeritor-inc-f4q09-qtr-end-09-30-2009-earnings-call-transcript?page=-1
"-- Continue to grow high-margin segments
Working with Lockheed Martin Systems Integration and BAE Systems U.S. Combat Systems on a technology demonstrator contract for the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program;"
http://www.rttnews.com/ViewPR.aspx?PrID=498597&SMap=1&Id=VendorFeed/11102009/200911100800PR_NEWS_USPR_____DE08425.XML
Well; at least they consider this to be a "high-margin" segment. Must be they can do this with a respectable positive gross profit percentage.