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.
It is very obvious to me that Sanswire has completely lost focus of their original goal; to put a telecom airship into the sky. The very same goal that took this penny stock to more than $5.00/share. Now it is trading at less than 2 cents/share. I don't think there is any way that this stock will ever rebound.
After all of Hyff's hype and the PR's that NEVER materialized it is amazing this company is still trading. I personally think that Lienwand is going to let this sour grape die on the vine.
Yeah, I'm sure that the government will take an active role in loaning money to a has-been company under investigation by the SEC. Maybe Huff could pay the company back for those "borrowed" shares. That would be $1.6M back in SNSR's coffers.
Yep, I think Huff will soon be bunking with Big Bubba. It looks to me as though Jiminez is rolling on Huff. In order for Huff to save his own fanny, he'll probably roll on Coleman. Vern told me that Monterosso said the FBI was looking for Coleman - for whatever that's worth!
To think that at one time this stock was worth nearly $5/share and now it is worth less than 4 cents/share. I put all of the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of Huff and Monterosso. These guys weren't "executives," they were MANIPULATORS.
WOW! Looks as though someone bought $20 worth. That would hardly keep Bill in cigar money.
Speaking of Huff....did he ever repay that "borrowed" stock used as loan collateral? It would seem to me that stock belongs not only to the company, but the shareholders as well!
Another day just above a mil and zilch volume. I wonder how much Bill will sell the shell for???
Pagan: If what you say is true about SNSR leasing technology from TAO, then it appears fairly obvious that SNSR had no technology to lend or trade to TAO. As I recall, Huffer kept hyping about all the new airship technology being developed at Palmdale - so, where is it at?
Pagan: If that is so, then why did SNSR agree to pay TAO a large sum of cash (which I sincerely doubt they've paid) as well as hand them a huge amount of SNSR stock?
You say that SNSR leased TAO the "technology." What "technology" might that be? If I lease something, a car or a building, I fully expect to pay the landlord. In this case, TAO "leased" the "technology" but SNSR is PAYING THEM! That doesn't make sense to me.
Now it appears that SNSR shareholder-posters have once again fallen into the proverbial 'speculation-hype' mode. "Maybe this will happen, maybe that will happen....maybe, maybe, maybe!
Nobody is going to loan SNSR any money. If TAO uses their own cash to develop anything, do you honestly think they'll allow SNSR to step in and take over?
SNSR doesn't have patents on anything! All they have done is apply for a few provisional patents which are little more than an application form and a $100 check. If they had anything of substance to patent, they would have gone the full patent search route. Provisional patents are virtually worthless unless someone else tries to pirateer your idea and all you have is little more than a filing date to prove you were the original inventor.
In fact, if you had a provisional patent and completed your invention, you might find out that someone else already has a hard patent on that idea and you would be infringing on their patent.
Now PLFM is just above 1/10th of a cent. Looks as though someone is trying to dump the last of their shares for whatever pittance they can derive.
Now, little more than a dead corporate shell.
Cole: I forgot the due date and the contracted amount of money that was to be given to TAO. I don't think that Sanswire is able to pay them squat. So, why should the Germans develop anything? I don't think TAO will put up any of their own money. Why should they try to create a high altitude Strat with their own cash, get it to work, and then have Sanswire step in and take over? That is precisely what Sanswire would do.
I personally think that TAO is sitting back quitely trying to decide what to do next. And, without cash, they won't be doing much of anything. I think they'll hold on to the stock for a brief period. If nothing materializes, they'll dump it for whatever they can get.
Yeah, it looks to me as though Jiminez might be rolling on the rest of the crew. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Monterosso isn't planning to do the same. The BIG question now is who will get to the feds 'firstest with the mostest?'
I think Huff may have made a bad deal with the feds in the long run. He may have unwittingly set himself up as the major fall guy in this little enterprise by taking the $30K deal offered him, especially if Jiminez is about to roll on the others. Huff got let off easily on the single charge, but may be facing additional charges once Jiminez turns 'stoolie.'
If Jiminez DID go for a plea deal, he'll have to spill his guts about everything he knows, if he hasn't done so already. My gut feeling is he is singing to the feds like a canary.
I look to see arrests being made very soon.
PLFM; Gone, but not forgotten. RIP
Nobody is going to get any straight answers out of this company. All that Bleckman has done is sprinkle sugar on the proverbial piles this company has been dropping for the past several years.
Who is going to loan money to Sanswire? Actually, who in their RIGHT MIND would loan money to Sanswire? Nobody! They don't have a product to sell, or sufficient money to pay their handful of "loyal" employees. I'm beginning to think that they don't even have a workable business plan.
If Sanswire can't raise any money, as I strongly suspect, then how are they going to satisfy the contract with the Germans? If they can't afford to pay their employees, how will they manage to fund construction of an airship? They can't! So, if the Germans SOMEHOW get a high altitude airship constructed and flown, WHO NEEDS SANSWIRE?
PLATFORMS WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL IS DEAD. It is only being maintained so it can be sold as a shell. Like Old Marley from Dickens' "Christmas Carol," Platforms is dead alright, dead as a door nail.
What is so NEW about yet ANOTHER default judgement? The only question in my mind is how long they will keep "accumulating?"
Huff, Coleman, Monterosso and Vargas sure did a number on this company! Hardly to mention the K-men and the NASA boys.
I have no doubt that SNSR will go the same way as PLFM which is now trading in the mils.
Like PLFM, Globetel's execs got too rich too quickly at the expense of the shareholders and then contracted a serious case of greed.
Gee whiz! What is happening to Platforms? Now they are down to less than 2 mils per share. I thought Bill would bail them out. Too bad he didn't take that last offer someone made to him regarding taking PLFM into a new direction. The only trade thus far is 500 shares @.0016 which amounts to less than $2.50.
Tim Huff, Joe Monterosso and 'fake invoices' all seem to rhyme, don't they?
From what I've heard, Huff, Monterosso and Jiminez won't be the only ones busting bolders into pea gravel.
If you want to see a company who was trying to do the same thing as Sanswire, go look at PLFM. The PLFM execs were not only accused of securities fraud, but were convicted as well. Their stock is still trading around three shares for a penny.
They virtually had the same idea as Sanswire. Do I think anything will become of PLFM? Absolutely NOT! They're in the financial dumps and I think they will ultimately be culled from the herd as a shell. SkyStation is dead - but SNSR keeps chugging along. I think that is a good sign.
SNSR stock is worth 15 times that of PLFM. SNSR at least has some projects underway along with what appears to be a relatively competent group of people working on them. Another good sign.
Unlike PLFM, SNSR had a major house cleaning and removed the deadwood. PLFM still has the same old cronies with new executive titles and no hope of ever being productive, in my opinion.
I think SNSR still has a chance.
Probably a little site maintenance. It has been down for short periods before and some needlessly freaked out. I wouldn't worry about it. There might even be an update or a new video.
Well, Frank, that email ended up in my email box and I answered it.
Skunk, you are absolutely correct. SNSR seems to have lost direction and are now following the lead of Kroplin. Kroplin seems to be fixated on the sky-snake concept. To me, the sky-snake is more of a novelty than a practical vehicle for any type of telecommunications application.
With Altvader gone, does SNSR even have a communications package to put aboard it? The BIG payoff would be revenue generated from the cellular communications traffic handled by the aerial platform.
I was originally enamored by the concept of Globetel putting up an airship with their own equipment aboard. They could have put a 'lock' on the majority of cellular telecom traffic and the $10M to $20M price tag for each airship would have been chump change compared to what each vehicle could earn in revenue.
Now it seems as though SNSR is in the airship R&D business and have abandoned the cellular telecom phase altogether.
I stand corrected: I meant an ascension rate of 10 feet per second. Now the arithmetic works.
(Why don't I proof read more carefully?)
Poke, whaaaa??? The idea is to tow the Strat up to altitude and then disengage allowing the Strat to function as designed. At an ascension rate of 10 feet per minute, it would take 1 hour and 48 minute to be towed to altitude.
Given the prevailing surface and winds aloft forecast, I don't think the Strat would be allowed to drift over any international borders.
Strange as it seems, the airspace at 60,001 feet and higher over the entire United States is OPEN TO ANYONE, INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS AND CHINESE, WHO WISH TO FLY OVER US UNCHALLENGED. Nearly every other country is party to that treaty as well. I have absolutely no idea which idiot in Washington signed us up for that.
It seems as though the emphasis on the Strat has been refocused to that of a reconnaisance vehicle. If all it can achieve is an altitude of 65,000 feet, it would be a prime target for new age fighter aircraft capable of altitudes in excess of 100,000 feet, re; MiG-29's and Sukhoi's.
In fact, for $15,000 the Russian Air Force will take you for a ride in a two-seat fighter up to 100,000 feet in a full pressure suit. And, for a couple million $$ more you can get an E-ticket ride into orbit on one of their rockets.
Why wasn't I born into wealth as opposed to being so darn good looking?
Poke, one idea I've had is to use a separate balloon to 'tow' the Strat up to altitude. Once it has arrived at 65,000 feet the tow balloon would be released. Helium will have expanded completely within the airship and it would be ready to perform whatever job it has been programmed to do.
In fact, the Strat could be sent up with absolutely no helium in it whatsoever. When the airship/balloon reaches 65,000 feet, helium from the balloon could be transferred to the airship. No pumps would be required because the gas would try to equalize itself in both gas cells (balloon/strat). The only requirement would be some type of solenoid that could be opened sometime during the ascent. When repressurization of the Strat cell is completed, any valving, plumbing, etc., would be jettisoned with the balloon tow vehicle. The jettisoned balloon would then have negative bouyancy and the entire assembly could be safely returned to earth.
Frank, in a private email to me, you said, "Sure might explain how the share price arrived here but does not effect where it may go. Last I heard stock doesn't trade on what happened in the past but what is anticipated to happen in the future. So with both those parties gone they have no further impact on the future.
Basically saying those events brought the share price to this level but no one is going to sell now based on those events you seem to want to revisit over and over. Just as they are not going to buy revisiting the Russian announcement. Only thing those events may add to the current circumstances is caution but with the individuals gone that you are harping on , that caution is not as big of factor as it wold be if they were still involved.
Anticipation of future events both positive or negative is now moves the share price."
- * -
In reply to your email; You and I go to the racetrack. In the first race, there is a longshot horse named Huff'n'Fluff whose odds are 120 to 1. He's run 10 races but lost them all:
In his first race, he threw his jockey.
In his second race, he stumbled out of the gate.
In his third race, he couldn't pass a young philly.
In his fourth race, refused the whip, throwing a new jockey.
In his fifth race, he came down with Hoof in Mouth.
In his sixth race, the owners entry fee check bounced.
In his seventh race, his owner couldn't pay the stable fees.
In his eighth race, had new owners but no racing experience.
In his ninth race, judges charged jockey with rough riding.
In his tenth race, owners couldn't afford silks, blinkers or saddle.
Huff'n'Fluff is going off at 120 to 1. Given the results of his last ten races, do you think that would be a safe bet? You might love old Huff'n'Fluff, BUT THAT ISN'T THE WAY YOU BET THE RACE.
You say, "Once the fuel is consumed, the helium has expanded, and the engine has served it's useful purpose, perhaps it is jettisoned...."
Then what?
Bob, all those engines would have the same problem with extreme high altitude. I can't remember the name of the company, but the Italians make a wet sump 2-stoke with fuel injection. The brand name escapes me at the moment, but it is a 2-cylinder, horizontally opposed. I think you could hold it in your hand. The hp output was 36. They are used for ultralights and drones. If I were to attempt to turbocharge a 2-stroke, that would be the first engine I'd choose.
Bob: I've flown with that engine many times. Notice how the carburetors are affixed to the crankcase with rubber hose and clamps. That set-up will not work with engine pressurization. That engine, prior to CDI ignition was about as reliable as, "The check is in the mail." CDI makes the engine somewhat more reliable but that engine is absolutely NOT a candidate for extreme high altitude use.
Les, liquid gasoline still weighs 6 lbs per gallon regardless of altitude.
You can actually burn gasoline in a jet engine. Because it has less BTU's of available energy per gallon than conventional jet fuel, you would run out of fuel sooner.
A turbojet engine could run on peanut oil if it had to. There are more BTU's of energy in a gallon of peanut oil than a gallon of jet fuel. Jet fuel (kerosene) is a byproduct of the catalytic cracking of automotive gasoline. Believe it or not, a turbojet could run on Wesson Oil or liquid Crisco.
That is why jets use kerosene instead of gas. They can actually fly farther and cheaper per gallon. Peanut oil would be horrendously expensive but very efficient per gallon.
Bob: What might that "fuel gas" be? Methane gas is lighter than air, but is extremely poor when compared to He or H. However, it is very combustable. Like the Hindenburg, all it takes is one spark of static electricity.....boom!
The "fuel gas" has to be a hydrocarbon of some sort which means it is FLAMMABLE. The Germans tried the same thing with most of their airships. The hydrogen was referred to as "blaugas." It would burn in the engines. So, therefore I have no problem with that idea....except:
....at extreme high altitude, the gas would need to be recompressed by the turbo charger to sea level pressure If gas expands 18 times enroute to 65,000 feet, a lot of it will have to be vented overboard. At 65,000 feet you now have 1/18th the fuel volume you started out with. The engine chargers will then try to compress the air to sea level pressure and burn fuel at the same rate as it. That "fuel gas" would be expended in no time.
Some of the early RIGID German airships of WWI could actually fly at 20,000 feet. They were gutted of all unnecessary weight. The objective was to avoid the Sopwith fighters who came up to greet them over England. Sopwiths had a ceiling of about 15,000 feet. It worked until higher altitude fighters armed with tracer bullets arrived.
The Hindenburg and the Graf had pressure ceilings of 6,000 feet and rarely, if ever, exceeded that altitude.
Cygnus, you're right, this is not the Science Channel. All I am trying to do is point out potential problems with their airship design.
I'm not trying to give an intelligence demonstration. I'll bet there are areas of knowledge where you could beat me into the ground. They say, "Them that can...do! And, them that can't....teach!" I teach! When someone asks a question, I try to provide an intelligent answer. No question is stupid. Some aren't too well thought out, but none are stupid.
All I'm endeavoring to do is provide lucid answers to questions we both have regarding this project.
Do I think TAO will reach 65,000 feet with 2-stroke engines. Absolutely not.
Do I think TAO might eventually get to that altitude? Perhaps, but they'll have to learn from their mistakes and one of them is engine selection.
I'm not ruling anything out....YET!
Big, absolutely not. It is all simple science. That's what I teach. I have his phone number and private email address and we discuss airships from time to time.
One thing he told me that really stuck out was, unlike the former NASA people, at least TAO has made good attempts at getting their hardware into the sky. At the very least, their airships have flown relatively well. He also stated that he believes Kroplin is fixated on the sky snake vehicle concept. All of the German engineering emphasis has seemingly been focused in that direction. He also said that the Germans are at least earning their money.
Mike: 2-stroke engines consume fuel at a much faster rate. The 4-stroke engine operates on a principle called the Otto 4-stroke cycle. The power stroke only occurs once every two revolutions of the crankshaft. With a 2-stroke engine, the power stroke occurs every revolution. Wouldn't it seem logical to you that a 2-stroke engine MIGHT be consuming fuel at TWICE the rate of a 4-stroke? The tradeoff between the two is higher RPM.
All engines are rated at sea level. A 100 hp engine will give you 100 hp at SEA LEVEL. The only engines I know of that are NOT rated at sea level are 2-stroke MODEL AIRPLANE ENGINES which are rated by piston displacement. I happen to own a Cox .010 (worlds smallest model airplane engine) still in the package.
If an aircraft engine is rated at 100 hp at sea level and has a maximum ceiling of 19,000 feet, normally aspirated, means that the engine will be STARVING for air at that altitude. OK, so at 18,000 feet, do you think your mill is still putting out 100 hp? Absolutely not. In all likelihood, it is only spitting out about 40 at the most. Near the service ceiling, the fuel/air ratio goes haywire.
Carburetors operate on the venturi effect. An increase in air velocity in the throat of the carburetor produces an decrease in pressure (Bernouli's principle). That decrease, causes liquid fuel to be drawn THROUGH the carburet jets into the air intake stream. It is a mixing process. Carburetor float bowls are vented to ambient pressure. If the air pressure on the fuel in the bowl is low, and the venturi pressure is low as well, little or no fuel will be mixed with the air in the carb intake. Starvation!
Why bother with all those engine problems when a relatively simple electric motor will do the trick?
Mike: A 100 hp., 4-stroke Continental aircraft known as an O-200 consumes approximately 4.5 gallons of fuel per hour (AT CRUISE). Assuming it is mounted in a Cessna 150, the 150 cruises at 100 mph. That translates into 22.2 miles per gallon.
Gasoline has 325,000 BTU's of energy per gallon. Jet fuel has approximately 365,000. If you are burning 4.5 gallons of gas per hour, you are expending 1,462,500 BTU's of energy per hour. Assuming the 150 weighs 900 lbs and you weigh 200, that is a combined weight of 1100 lbs. To keep each POUND of aircraft and pilot weight in the air per hour, it takes 1329 BTU's of energy PER POUND. At that rate, you are burning 24,475 BTU's per minute, or 406 BTU's per second.
What is wrong with that last statement?
Mike: I really hope the moderator leaves your last post up on the board.
When you design something, especially a flying vehicle, the objective is to keep it as simple as possible and avoid any potential problems.
If an electric motor would work better at high altitude, why then would you want to use a 3-stage boosted diesel or conventional 2-stroke? The idea is to avoid the pitfalls.
Batteries are capable of being recharged. Why then would you want to carry an expendable fuel load of gaoline? When the fuel is burnt off, you now have 216 lbs of lift that you don't need. Then you must vent helium overboard to compensate. Electrical energy in a battery doesn't weigh a thing. Battery weight is a constant and not a variable, full or depleted.
You desperately want to believe what you've been told. Gasoline and sugar are both made from carbon. If I told you that putting 5 lbs of sugar and 10 gallons of water in your auto gas tank will produce 10 gallons of hydro-carbon fuel, would you believe me? It's possible, but no one has done it yet.
Mike: The 2 gph was a LOW end arbitrary number. If you want to fool yourself into believing TAO will be using 3-stage boosted engines at 65,000 feet. Please continue to do so. They're totally impractical.