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.
Nobody knows a date here, they just like to cheer alot and speculate.
However according to the SEC rules a 10Q for second quarter should be coming out first or second week of august.
About production, in previous PR's and financial statements, it would take about 60 days to produce a unit from the time they recieved funding. We will see if that holds up.
------
Charger said he spoke with Bob Farr and it would be sometime in August.
Sorry, and what calendar are you using, it is last week in July next week.
Sorry its bugging me, its "of" not "off". sorry i just had to do it. all your posts. Hope your first language isnt english because it is terrible.
Charger, did you ask why their main website has been down for a week?
I hope it is updating and maybe will show what will be going on in the future.
I received 3 Million @ .0001 on the 19th and my order was in for about 1-1/2 weeks.
07/19/2010 0.0001 1,122,496 $0.0001
07/19/2010 0.0001 1,877,504 $0.0001
The key that i found out was not to mark (all or none)
If you read the article that is a big risk to them and the stockholders due to potential lawsuits, etc.
---------
The article goes on to talk about local requirements and other regulations they would have to meet(it even talks about UL,CSA,etc. So it is very important for them to get. I would say all or most of the companies that are similar to ARSC like hydrogenics, etc. have certifications of the product which protects the company and stockholders:
SAFETY STANDARDS WHICH MIGHT BE FOLLOWED, ALTHOUGH REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THIS:
ANSI/CSA America FC1-2004 (formerly ANSI Z21.83) American National Standard For [Stationary] Fuel Cell Power Systems
ANSI/CSA America FC3-2004 American National Standard For Portable Fuel Cell Power Systems
IEC 62282-5-1 International Electrotechnical Commission Portable Fuel Cell Appliance – Safety
IEC/PAS 62282-6-1 (2006-02) International Electrotechnical Commission Micro Fuel Cells - Safety
IEC 62282-2 Edition 1.1: 2007-03; Fuel cell technologies – Part 2: Fuel cell modules
Underwriters Laboratories Outlines of Investigation for portable fuel cells:
a) OI 2265A Methanol Fueled Micro Fuel Cells
b) OI 2265C Borohydride Fueled Micro Fuel Cells
c) OI 2262A Borohydride Fuel Cartridges
CE Marking is not required to sell a product in the US.
Manufacturers may choose to have independent, third-party (not by the manufacturer and not by the user) certification by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory, such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), CSA America (CSA), Factory Mutual (FM) or another testing laboratory. These laboratories can mark the product with their logo to show evidence of such certification. These marks have come to reflect a certain level of quality assurance and oversight by these testing laboratories and have come to be expected on electrical and gas equipment, although strictly speaking it is not necessarily required for consumer products.
POWER GENERATING PLANTS
In the United States, there is no nationwide requirement or regulation that applies to power plants. Neither large generating plants nor small generating plants have nationwide regulations. There are US federal requirements regarding the inter-state sales of electrical power and energy, but the construction of the power plant is a local issue, not a national issue.
Local laws do apply to power generating plants since almost every US location has a local building code that requires buildings, equipment and other structures to be designed and built safely, for the good of everyone. This might be under the jurisdiction of a city or a county or a parish or a special district. For instance, New York City has its own unique requirements, different from Seattle, Washington. Even areas which are not in a city are covered by laws that apply to other larger jurisdictions such as counties or parishes. Some states, such as California, also have statewide standards. This situation is well known to construction professionals and is enforced by the typical requirement to obtain a building permit, have periodic inspections by the local Building Department or other authority having jurisdiction over the project, and obtain a final permit to occupy or use the facility. Local jurisdictions have local deviations and sometimes deviations are applied on a use-by-use basis. Hospitals may have more stringent requirements than office buildings, for instance. A typical set of building and construction regulations might include the following:
Building Code – including seismic and structural standards
Mechanical Code – including ventilation requirements
Plumbing Code – including fuel piping, water and waste piping and process piping
Energy Code – including energy efficiency and insulation
Fire Code – including ventilation and fire protection requirements
Electrical Code – including wiring, hazardous locations and fire protection requirements
Administrative Requirements – including the requirements to obtain permits, mitigate environmental impacts, fees and inspection requirements
Air Quality Regulations – including gaseous and particulate emissions
THESE REGULATIONS NORMALLY REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
Some local regulations require that fuel cells be certified to comply with ANSI/CSA America FC1-2004 (formerly ANSI Z21.83); American National Standard For Fuel Cell Power Systems. This standard is similar to 62282-3-1: Fuel Cell Power Systems – Safety, but it is different enough that in order to meet the local regulations, the fuel cell must be certified to comply with ANSI/CSA America FC1-2004. In addition to compliance, it is normally required that the fuel cell be certified to comply by a “third-party” Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory such as Underwriters Laboratories (UL), CSA America (CSA), Factory Mutual (FM) or another testing laboratory to comply. This “third party testing” (not done by the manufacturer or by the user) is normally required by the building code regulations to ensure that a high level of quality assurance is provided.
Other regulatory requirements might include compliance with the following standards:
NFPA 54: National Fuel Gas Code
NFPA 55: Standard for the Storage, Use, and Handling of Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids in Portable and Stationary Containers, Cylinders, and Tanks, 2005 Edition
US Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910 Subpart H – Hazardous Materials 1910.103 – Hydrogen
NFPA 853: Standard for the Installation of Stationary Fuel Cell Power Plants 2003 Edition
NFPA 70: National Electrical Code Article 692 Fuel Cell Systems
ANSI / IEEE 1547-2003: IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems
ANSI/CSA America FC1-2004 (formerly ANSI Z21.83) American National Standard For Fuel Cell Power Systems
IEC 62282-3-1: Fuel Cell Power Systems – Safety
American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 50: Performance Test Code, For Fuel Cell Power System Performance
IEC 62282-3-2 (2006-03): Fuel Cell Power System – Performance
The specific standards that must be followed may be called out in the local regulations specifically. But the local regulations may not discuss fuel cells at all. If this is the case, WHEN NO STANDARDS EXIST, THE REGULATORY OFFICIALS CAN USE THEIR BEST JUDGEMENT, OR JUST SAY “NO” TO THE PROJECT. If a fuel cell is certified to the above standards, however, it might have a better chance to be approved by the local officials.
that is what it shows, correct!
I believe the certification news (if there is any in future) will be key in investors getting more bullish and moving the pps up here. That is very important when you are talking about equipment that generates power and the risk it could cause to the structure it is used in. The certification is to make insurance and mortgage lenders more comfortable with the products used in the buildings. This helps them reduce there risk.
So, imo, get the certification and this thing will start to move big time. Also, showing that units are moving out where certs are not necessary required for remote use and other places that dont require it.
If you look at past PR's from ARSC that always was the most important thing to do. Hope it still is.
What Does Bid Size Mean?
The number of shares a buyer is willing to purchase at the quoted bid price.
Investopedia explains Bid Size
For example, if the bid price is $20 and the bid size is 2000, that means someone is willing to purchase 2000 shares @ $20 per share.
---------------------------
What Does Ask Size Mean?
The number of shares a seller is selling at a quoted ask price.
Investopedia explains Ask Size
If someone is willing to sell 10,000 shares @ $2 per share, then the ask size is 10,000 shares.
-----
Hope this clears up what the bid-shares and ask-shares means. The MM's can also disguise their actual ask and bid shares.
Good reference and source: http://www.investopedia.com/
what did he say about Franks SEC Form 4? Was the dispose a mistake? Are they going to finish the certification? Im sure you asked these questions as well, correct?
I just called TA around 11:50am and it was still same as last update.
I also asked for a clarification on Franks Form 4 and they said that i would have to call the company about that.
I dont think they will sell, they didnt sell the other 200+million they each had on the last run they just had and those were purchased at .00015 i believe.
I believe they may be restricted shares because the same day they purchased these 400M shares the restricted shares amt. went up by 400Million shares as well.
Even if they are not restricted i dont think they would sell them because that would kill the stock once they put that out on a new form 4. I think they are acquiring for future profits and controlling interest in company.
See the last share structure update or ibox.
THey would have to disclose that on the Form 4 if that were true but it is marked (P), therefore it was a purchase directly by them.
ok mine are SEC form too the Form 4 is the SEC document! You guys should read the forms we send it is the same form. read the instruction page for the form by googling it (instructions for form 4).
look at previous April form 4 for frank and he had exactly 200 Million less than he does after this recent transaction. It was a purchase. Read table 1 item 3 (P) stands for purchase and the (D) was a mistake and should be A for acquired. The total after this recent transaction is 200M more than he had in his April form filing which was the last one.
@.00007 per share see filing.
so are mine and if you read it closer it has to be a purchase under item#3 in table 1 (P) stands for a purchase and the Dispose in item #4 was a mistake. The next part of table has total shares following this transaction on 7/19/10 and it is 200Million more shares than his previous total on April form 4
400 Million purchased between Bob & Frank
Jul 19, 2010 NEUKOMM FRANK R
Officer direct Buy 200,000,000
Jul 19, 2010 FARR ROBERT C
Officer direct Buy 200,000,000
Source: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ARSC/insider-transactions
----
Also the form 4 says he purchased the shares under item 3 in table 1. and the total shares after transaction went up 200M from his last form 4 filing, so it was a purchase. the Dispose selection was an error. imo.
I'm sure that is what is going to happen since CEO and COO directly own close to 1 Billion shares of common stock as of 7/19/2010. I'm sure they wanted to pay for shares just to reduce them. Sure. hahahaha
Form 4s for COO and CEO 7/19/2010
Bob Farr, COO; Open Market or private purchase of non-derivative or derivative security - (P); 200,000,000 shares @ .00007 on 7/19/2010.
Bob Farr's total direct ownership following this transaction is 489,352,948 shares.
Form 4 for Robert Farr, COO Below:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7366844
------------
Frank Neukomm, CEO; Table 1 -#3: Open Market or private purchase of non-derivative or derivative security - (P); 200,000,000 shares @ 0.00007 on 7/19/2010.
Frank Neukomm's total direct ownership following this transaction is 456,879,116 shares.
Form 4 for Frank Neukomm, CEO Below:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7366881
------------
Looks like a total purchase of 400,000,000 Million shares by CEO and COO.
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC OF ARSC
DELETION PORTION OF HANDBOOK BELOW:
http://ihwiki.advfn.com/index.php?title=Handbook#Deletion_of_Posts
makes since because Frank gave 6M as a gift in the April 2010 Form 4.
They both added from the previous April form 4s they filled out.
i dont think that happened. After reviewing their form 's from April it appears to be typo and it should be an (A) for acquired inlieu of (D) for dispose. So that would mean that Frank and Bob together just purchased 400,000,000 Million common shares on 7/19/10.
I will look into it tomorrow.
After looking at previous Form's in April. It looks they Frank purchased has an additional 200,000,000 Million in common stock now. So i guess he purchased it.
Wow this is great news.
Can someone that understand these forms explain what the Dispose means in table 1 - item 4 even though it is a purchase in table 1 -item 3? I thought Dispose means to sell.
Form 4s for COO and CEO 7/19/2010
Bob Farr, COO; Open Market or private purchase of non-derivative or derivative security - (P); acquired 200,000,000 shares @ .00007 on 7/19/2010.
Bob Farr's total direct ownership following this transaction is 489,352,948 shares.
Form 4 for Robert Farr, COO Below:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7366844
------------
Frank Neukomm, CEO; Table 1 -#3: Open Market or private purchase of non-derivative or derivative security - (P); Table 1 -#4: disposed (Sell) of 200,000,000 shares @ 0.00007 on 7/19/2010.
Frank Neukomm's total direct ownership following this transaction is 456,879,116 shares.
Form 4 for Frank Neukomm, CEO Below:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=7366881
------------
In summary, this looks like Frank sold Bob 200,000,000 Million of his shares @ .00007. JMO
What do others make of this? (Franks form 4 is confusing to me. It says he purchased but disposed of them @ .00007)
Updated Share Structure as of 7/20/2010
A/S: 17,999,999,999
(Last Verified at Nevada SOS @ 12:20pm ET 7-20-2010)
(Last increase was July 2, 2010)
O/S: 13,955,668,120
(Verified with TA @ 12:20pm ET 7-20-2010)
(Change +443,205,000 from last Update)
Float: 11,445,217,335
(Verified with TA @ 12:20pm ET 7-20-2010)
(Change of only +33,205,000 from last Update)
Restricted Shares: 2,500,450,785
(Verified with TA @ 12:20am ET 7-20-2010)
(Change of +400,000,000 from last Update)
WHICH MEANS OVER 90% OF THE INCREASE IN 0/S WERE RESTRICTED SHARES
Call TA, they are restricted. how about some facts lowman. I guess just like there isnt a product according to you. sure look at the PR's showing they were installed and seen by people in the industry. Also your false statements about 10 days till production which were later proven incorrect. So you continue with false information.
THere are 2Billion plus restricted shares as of the 15th according to the TA.
Typically the shares that the finance companies get for funding are restricted and cant just be sold right back into the market. If you were the finance company why would u presell into .0002 or .0003 when this will go way higher in the future. Not very good math imo.
2Billion Plus restricted shares now and 750 Million just on the 15th of the month. Be care who you listen too. imo
This is a similiar (not same) example of what might happen here. imo.
"Transaction Summary
Hughes Aircraft will be spun off to the holders of GM's $1-2/3 and Class H common stocks in a transaction intended to be tax free. In connection with the spin-off and subsequent merger, two classes of common stock will be created: Class A common stock, which will be held by GM $1-2/3 and Class H stockholders after the spin-off and will be entirely held by the public; and Class B common stock.
Immediately following the spin-off of Hughes Aircraft, Raytheon and Hughes Aircraft will merge. In the merger, Raytheon stockholders will receive all of the Class B common stock of the combined company. The Class B common stock will represent approximately 70 percent of the equity of the combined company, and the Class A common stock will represent the remaining, approximately 30 percent.
The merger terms provide that Hughes Aircraft's total debt will be adjusted to reflect variations in the market price of Raytheon stock, subject to specified limits, so that the two components of value will total $9.5 billion so long as such market price is between $44.42 and $54.29 per share. The approximately $5.1 billion in common stock issued to the Class A stockholders is based upon the midpoint of this range. The balance of the $9.5 billion transaction value will be made up of approximately $4.4 billion in Hughes Aircraft debt.
In the election of directors to the combined company board, Class A common stock will have an 80.1 percent voting interest, and Class B common stock will have a 19.9 percent voting interest. The board of directors will have staggered terms for directors. Except as to voting rights for directors, each class will vote separately as to all other matters, and the Class A and Class B stock will have identical rights. In a merger, acquisition or any other type of reorganization, Class A and Class B common stock must receive the same consideration."
Source: http://www.fas.org/man/company/docs/970116-raytheon.html
If they start filling the backlog i believe it could be around .02 to .05. Even higher if they get new sales and can produce alot of units.
No ECCM on my quotes from OTCmarket website
I believe it will be a reverse merger.
Look at PR about European Group:
“This group calls for providing a public vehicle to merge with Hydra. The group would then organize the funding so as to complete Hydra’s business plan. We will prepare a proxy for ARSC shareholders when the proposed transaction is complete that will fix the dividend ratio and date. The Group has indicated they could have the transaction finished by late summer or early fall 2010. We have been working to achieve this since last spring and it looks like we finally have the right plan for our shareholders and Hydra,”
Look here for reverse merger and steps. ARSC seems to be in step 4 and 5 based on the European PR.
..."Once an entrepreneur decides that a reverse merger makes sense for their company, a number of steps need to be taken before filing with the SEC.
•Locate a public company that meets minimum due diligence thresholds, which includes a company that fully reports to the SEC, is free of material actual or contingent liabilities, and has no history of other issues that could hinder the approval process. The best sources for locating public companies are service providers and select companies that make a market in public shells.
•Sign Letter of Intent to merge between the private and public company.
•Finalize a definitive merger agreement.
•Structure the transaction.
•Prepare documents, including board and shareholder consents that signify approval. To the extent corporate approval has been obtained by written consent as opposed to shareholder meetings, send an information statement to the remaining shareholders of the public company..."
Read entire article here: http://www.entrepreneurship.org/reverse-mergers-an-alternative-for-going-public.html
Archipelago Trading Services Inc. (ARCA) is not showing up on the quotes. Is this a sign of something? Good or Bad? Who knows about these MM's?
Show us some documentation please! Otherwise just hot air.
what news from today?
That SR&R is not news. Speculation website. imo
Looking good everyone, they are coming out of the woodwork looking for "scare shares".
Look at the accum/dist and CMF chart rise from yesterday. This stock is looking good to move upward on the right news of production numbers and sales starting up again i hope.
Like i expected CMF chart moving up and accum/dist line moving up after today's trading. This is very good.
ARSC's main website still down after the weekend.
http://www.americansecurityresources.com/
Could it be upgrading and revising? I hope so.
Hey, look in the ibox under hydra fuel cell corp and it shows the links to PRs where they were installed and viewed by varies groups of industry.
i want to see the CMF at EOD.