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.
Great post. Thanks.
A buy-out between $6-$8? Not what I was hoping for. Big disappointment for me if that's the way it goes... after all these years (as long as yours). But for those with 100 million shares, it's a different story obviously. But can we please not speculate and instead keep the potential payoff undefined and open for greatness for us smaller shareholders? Thanks.
I was involved in a class action shareholder lawsuit against a company which declared a fraudulent bankruptcy. The litigation went on for years. Many stories were written about our efforts in the business press. Unfortunately, the small shareholders never win. In the end it's a waste of money and time, and very disheartening for those who made the effort. But that company had absolutely nothing in common with QSEP, which is actually moving toward success (however long it's taking).
Another way to look at this is would be to ask... how many actual shareholders does QSEP have? I would guess the figure is low compared to other OTC companies. Because most of QSEP's shareholders are longs who have kept adding through the years and through the downs (and sometimes ups).
In Diluentsville.
From the link you posted:
as of 03/15/2018 QS Energy, Inc. Common Stock QSEP OTC 93,030 sh (Current short interest) 97,216 sh (Previous short interest)
I prefer to look toward the future, not the past. QSEP's R&D period used its time successfully. Commercialization and revenues are imminent. We may or may not see you in the times ahead.
Here's more re: patent expirations:
In the United States, for utility patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application on which the patent was granted and any prior U.S. or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications from which the patent claims priority. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest filing date as above (excluding provisional applications) or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may be had for certain administrative delays.
The patent term will additionally be adjusted to compensate for delays in the issuance of a patent. The reasons for extensions include:
Delayed response to an application request for patent.
Exceeding 3 years to consider a patent application.
Delays due to a secrecy order or appeal.
Because of significant backlog of pending applications at the USPTO, the majority of newly issued patents receive some adjustment that extends the term for a period longer than 20 years.
Just my opinion as I'm not an expert, but commonsense tells me that using the dates the patents were formally issued (not the original filing of the application or publication date), we have nothing to worry about re: the expirations on Dr. Tao's AOT underlying patents:
Date of expiration: 20 years from April 19, 2016 = April 19, 2036
Electric-field assisted fuel atomization system and methods of use
Patent number: 9316184
Abstract: An apparatus (100) for reducing the size of fuel particles injected into a combustion chamber is disclosed. The apparatus includes fuel line (110), a first metallic mesh (114) disposed within the fuel line (110), and a second metallic mesh (112) disposed within the fuel line (110), upstream of the first metallic mesh (114). An electrical supply (130) is electrically coupled to the first metallic mesh (114) and the second metallic mesh (112). Operation of the electrical supply (130) generates an electrical field between the first metallic mesh (114) and the second metallic mesh (112). A fuel injector (120) is disposed at an end of the fuel line (110), downstream from the first metallic mesh (114). Methods of reducing the size of fuel particles, improving gas mileage in a vehicle, increasing power output from a combustion engine, and improving emissions for a combustion engine are also provided.
Type: Grant
Filed: October 30, 2007
Date of Patent: April 19, 2016
Assignee: Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Inventors: Rongjia Tao, Ke Huang, Deepika Khilnaney-Chhabria, Edward Kaczanowicz
-------
Date of expiration: 20 years from May 8, 2012 = May 8, 2032
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF A FLUID
Publication number: 20120228205
Abstract: An apparatus for the magnetic treatment of a fluid which produces at least one magnetic field for a period of time, Tc at or above a critical magnetic field strength, Hc, the period Tc and the field strength Hc determined relative to one another and dependant upon the properties of the fluid.
Type: Application
Filed: March 13, 2012
Publication date: September 13, 2012
Applicant: Temple University of the Commonwealth of System of Higher Education
Inventors: Rongjia Tao, Xiaojun Xu
Method and apparatus for treatment of a fluid
Patent number: 8173023
Abstract: An apparatus for the magnetic treatment of a fluid which produces at least one magnetic field for a period of time, Tc at or above a critical magnetic field strength, Hc, the period Tc and the field strength Hc determined relative to one another and dependant upon the properties of the fluid.
Type: Grant
Filed: May 13, 2005
Date of Patent: May 8, 2012
Assignee: Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education
Inventors: Rongjia Tao, Xiaojun Xu
It was a one of webcast. Cannot watch it anymore.
Yes, he said that. And I think he said there will be a special arrangement to guarantee no proprietary info is shared.
I think he said AOTs would not have to replace DRAs, although they could, at times depending on what type of oil was being transported and a client's preferences. But he also made it clear that the oil industry is very excited about the AOTs' potential to increase their profits.
You only ever quote the past, which will always be irrelevant in the present. We investors know that the AOT is finally ready for commercialization, so the points in your post are moot.
just because there's a link, it doesn't mean it's public. We might have to sign in to attend the simultaneous webcast. We'll see how it works on Friday.
I think you have to be a shareholder to attend the webcast of the ASM. My understanding says it's not a public meeting. We enter through a link and I'm sure our names are checked, just like at the door of the physical meeting. Just a guess, and we'll soon see.
I agree. John Valenti worked hard and contributed to getting QS where it is today. Just my opinion, but I think this complaining by this new poster is meant as a diversion or distraction. The company has moved on, and so have we.
The company recently transitioned from a long time R&D company to a company about to commercialize its products. That's why a new CEO was needed... someone who was already part of the industry, and a Board that was also industry connected. Well, that's what QS has now. Forget about what CEOS might have been paid in the past. In my opinion, they earned their keep getting the AOT tested, tweaked, and now commercialization-ready and the company SEC compliant.
Nonsense. Dr. Tao's/Temple's patents underlying the AOT and licensed to QS Energy, Inc. have been tested successfully in and out of the lab, defended, and granted worldwide.
This is AMAZING! Thank you for posting it, Smile!
Here and there, but not at RB.
Yes, that's what I've been waiting for... the green solution for oil pollution. Regards, Whacky!
According to his LinkedIn Profile, John Valenti has been working for QS/STWA since 2002, longer than I've been a shareholder (since 2003):
John Valenti
Project Manager at QS Energy
Santa Barbara, California AreaOil & Energy
Current Project Manager at QS Energy, Inc.
Summary QS Energy Pipeline Flow Improvement Technologies Project Manager. Various duties since 2002 (company was formerly known as STWA): ...
Here's a scenario: Someone sells shares from their online account which were bought early on many years ago at much higher prices to take a big tax loss this year... at the same time as they buy these same depressed shares at this very low price in another of their online accounts.
His preferred plan awhile back was to do leases. I remember him saying that at an ASM.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But it seemed to me that the press release revealed that QS and their partners are focusing now on solving the turbulence issue. And that once that third prong is resolved and embedded, the AOT will be a perfected, all-encompassing, minutely adjustable hi-tech product for the field. To me, that was something new.
Still disagree with that mindset.
I disagree on one point. I would never want QS to avoid paying US taxes by relocating their business offshore... like "Google" and "Apple"? (I didn't know.) But I do understand how Ireland can provide a convenient, affordable location for the European manufacturing needs for the AOT since it is closer to both the North Sea and Middle East, and therefore could save money on transportation, cost of materials, and labor.
Goleta is where the University of California, Santa Barbara is. Still part of the Santa Barbara city area. Good decision in my opinion.
If a company sends in oil samples to QS/Temple to be tested, I believe they would be called a "client." That's only one example.
Every test has been successful in that useful practical information was obtained. I think we'll be hearing about this latest test result soon. Very good chance it will be what the company and shareholders have been wanting. Just my opinion.
Yes, exactly. The core technology and its package are evolving/moving in several different commercial directions at the same time. While the underlying physics is the same. And QS has the patent lock on the invention in all of its permutations.
We have different perspectives obviously. To me this press release wasn't fluff. Sometimes it's easy to fail to see the forest for the trees. Like Zerosum speculates, possibly this press release wasn't for us, but for the industrial/investment audience.
I wouldn't call putting OPEC on notice in today's oil industry "fluff".
Who's Cecil?
Nothing was ever stated to that effect by the company. Only by people here speculating. I wouldn't expect anything till news happens.
I think we should accept that nobody here actually knows what they're talking about on this issue, since we don't know any details about these targeted acquisitions. Can we leave it at that? Hope so!
Who ever said anything about "reorganizations"?
For business debtors, Section 1141(d)(1) generally provides that confirmation of a reorganization plan discharges a debtor from any debt that arose before the date of confirmation. After the plan is confirmed, the debtor is required to make plan payments and both the debtor and its creditors and other parties in interest are bound by the provisions of the reorganization plan. The confirmed plan creates new contractual rights, replacing or superseding pre-bankruptcy contracts.
However, if the debtor chooses to liquidate under Chapter 11, then there is no discharge—the business debtor simply ceases to exist.
I do understand this, Zerosum. I am hoping, like all of us, that this bifurcated acquisition strategy means that the company finds solid footing, that the share price will quickly rise, and that QS will move to the NASDAQ as soon as possible. QS needs to become profitable on both sides of this equation... without more dilution of our shares, or a resultant falling stock price.
Funds for what, though? For more major stock dilution? No thanks.