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.
NASA may scrap plans to build moon base
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/04/nasa-likely-to-scrap-plans-to-build-moon-base.html
NASA apparently has changed its mind about building a permanent base on the moon and may instead focus on sending astronauts to Mars, the space agency's acting head has told Congress, NewScientist reports.
In January 2004, then president Bush announced his "vision" for U.S. missions to the moon and Mars. NASA announced in December 2006 that it would land a crew on the moon by 2020.
Acting administrator Chris Scolese testified yesterday to the House Committee on Appropriations subcommittee that oversees space. He indicated that NASA is open to putting more emphasis on human missions to destinations like Mars or a near-Earth asteroid, the magazine writes.
Read NASA's rationale for continued lunar exploration.
Dread,
RE: Channel 13 WHAM News, was there any news to report?
Sorry for the novice question, but are the institionals buying or selling?
TORVC's increase in fuel effeciency would immediately reduce emmissions:
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schoolbus25may25,0,1290393.story?coll=la-home-h....
From the Los Angeles Times
Aging U.S. School Buses Still Fouling Air
A report says $16 billion is needed to replace or upgrade 500,000 of the worst-polluting vehicles.
By Janet Wilson
Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2006
Aging school buses continue to spew harmful diesel across the United States, a new report based on federal and state data says, and major funding is needed to address the problem.
The report, released Wednesday by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Berkeley, found that the nation's 505,000 school buses were some of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the road. More than a third have been in use for more than a decade, and a single bus can produce between twice and 10 times as much diesel soot as a big rig.
Although school buses have become safer to ride because of safety belts and other improvements, the authors and other experts said related studies were showing large amounts of soot could accumulate inside the buses from open crankshafts.
About 95% of the nation's school bus fleet is powered by diesel, and high levels of diesel exhaust and soot expose children to higher risk of asthma, cancer and other significant health problems, the report said.
California leads the nation in regulatory efforts and funds to replace aging buses, the study said, but still has made limited progress. State cleanup programs reduced school bus soot by less than 9% from 1999 to 2005, the report said. Less than 10% of California's fleet is retrofitted with sophisticated soot-traps, and less than 5% is powered by cleaner natural gas.
"Even if you have a very good program, kids are still riding on very high-polluting buses," said lead author Patricia Monahan, a former air pollution and toxics scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The picture is worse nationally. Action on federal, state and local levels has reduced average soot emissions by about 2% in recent years, the study said. The EPA has $6 million allocated for school bus cleanup this year. The House of Representatives recently earmarked $28 million for a variety of diesel cleanup programs, including for school buses; the Senate has yet to act.
A new bus costs between $100,000 and $130,000. Some buses built after 1994 can be retrofitted with a diesel trap for about $7,500.
Experts estimated that $16 billion would be needed to retrofit or replace more than half a million school buses in the U.S., including $715 million for California. "That's a huge amount of money … but we think kids deserve to ride on clean buses," Monahan said. "The state and federal government really need to step in. Cash-strapped local school districts should not have to choose between books and buses."
A request for $215 million to clean up or replace school buses has been placed before California voters as part of a $20-billion transportation bond measure on the November ballot. The state Legislature allocated $25 million this year for retrofitting or replacing buses, and vehicle fees bring in additional funds.
Districts in the Central Valley, rural desert areas, Fontana, Downey, Lake Arrowhead, Huntington Beach and elsewhere still have older, polluting buses, according to state air board data. Fontana has eight buses built between 1959 and 1969 still on the road, and a ninth built before 1977.
Mary Stevens, transportation director for Fontana schools, said older buses built by a now-defunct bus manufacturer — nicknamed "Twinkies" because of their round, yellow shape — were still used to help transport 11,000 pupils daily because they were extremely durable. But she said the district was "very excited" because the South Coast Air Quality Management District was due to vote next week to approve funds to replace the oldest buses with new, natural gas models and to provide a fueling station.
AQMD staffers said the board was expected to approve $1.7 million to replace the eight oldest buses and build the fuel station. Funds also are expected for seven buses in other area districts.
In 2001, the AQMD passed the first regulation in the nation requiring school districts to replace fleets with cleaner-burning natural gas buses, provided that funds were available. The AQMD has allocated $55.7 million to the program so far, with the money coming from state budget funds, polluter penalties and vehicle registration fees.
I learned that last week on this board. Post 6194
Did I miss something, or is there no new "material" information in the 10k?
Ford stops production at 7 plants to fix transmission problem
DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — Ford (F) has stopped production at seven plants, idling about 15,000 workers, after a problem was discovered with a part for engine transmissions, the company said Friday. The problem was discovered in a testing of a clutch mechanism in a four-speed, rear-wheel-drive automatic transmission, and the company sent night shift workers home three hours early on Thursday, spokeswoman Anne Marie Gattari said. Day shift and afternoon workers were told to stay home Friday, and it was unclear when production would resume, Gattari said.
Affected Ford vehicles include F-150 pickups, Expeditions, E-Series vans and buses, and the Lincoln Town Car, Gattari said. Gattari said Ford believes no customers have bought the affected vehicles. "We have no indication that trucks in the hands of customers are affected. At this point we believe we've contained the issue internally," Gattari said.
Three plants were shut down in Michigan, including Dearborn Truck, Michigan Truck and Wixom Assembly, along with plants in Norfolk, Va., Avon Lake, Ohio, and Cuautitlan, Mexico, Gattari said. The truck side of Kansas City Assembly plant in Claycomo, Mo., also was shut down.
Gattari said problem was with a component of the clutch mechanism that makes it shift smoothly between first and second gears. She would not identify the supplier, but said the company was working with Ford to fix the problem. "As a result, we made a decision, the right decision for the customer, to stop production at the affected assembly plants," Gattari said.
JPMorgan auto analyst Himanshu Patel estimated the company produces more than 4,300 vehicles per day at the affected plants, and the shutdown could cost the automaker $34.4 million a day before taxes. Gattari wouldn't comment on those figures, but said all production will be made up at a later date. "This is not lost production by any means," she said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
I have a SMALL amount of knowledge in M&A process. It seems that having delegations visit is more about fact finding. Negotiations may, or may not, follow. I think we'll be at a more serious place when TORVEC representatives are heading to China, versus a Chinese delegation arriving in Rochester. One signals fact finding, one signals closing the deal. Just my two cents.
two things concern me in the information you proviced:
1. "Antonov is initially introducing the device into the US tuner market—exposing the first production units to a tough performance engine environment and, in many instances, aggressive track racing conditions." Where is TOVC in proving the durability of its products
2."We have experienced strong interest and have already supplied units to OEM clients for assessment and development trials. —John Moore, chief executive of Antonov".... "Antonov is also embroiled in litigation against Toyota for the Japanese company’s alleged infringement of Antonov patents in the Prius." Is TORVEC shipping units for assessment? How much of a legal battle can Torvec withstand to defend its patents if our products are infringed upon.
Dread, I was able to find the link to the tachometer test on the website that answered my question about fuel efficiency in low rpm states. Please address the higher freeway speeds. NOTE: The Nissan track spinout and accelerating from various road surfaces video show a great safe product. Pretty cool stuff.
Hey Dread, Help me better understand the fuel efficiency impact of the IVT at different RPMs. Does a traditional transmission outperform the IVT above 55 mph? If so, it seems that a school or city bus may be the best implementation of the IVT as it rarely exceeds 55mph. My real question is about idle speed. My truck drops to about 600 rpm. What is the idle RPM of vehicle with the Torvec IVT? If an IVT idles at a higher RPM, was the time a vehicle sits in idle calculated into the formula presented to the State of NY?
Unscientific test: This morning I kept careful eye on my RPM gauge. I drive a Ford Expedition, and at 55 mph, my RPM was about 1,520. It sounds like Torvec would produce a 15% improvement in the fuel efficiency of my SUV.
Dread. Thanks for the post. This is an area that I find personally fascinating. The global impact to our national economic structure is complicating an area of science that already had much disagreement (i.e. Galbraith vs. Friedman). Let's hope TOVC hits big. This time around, I am taking some off the table when it returns near the $10 mark. Like Bernake and the Great Depression, I hope to learn from past mistakes, even my own.
New invention will slash fuel bills
By Kelvin Healey
May 22, 2005
From: Sunday Herald Sun
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15369579-421,00.html
Saving money ... Shaun Rigney with his invention, the Vaporate, fitted to a fuel injector.
A MELBOURNE invention that claims to slash vehicle petrol bills by up to 20 per cent and reduce harmful engine emissions will go on sale tomorrow.
The Vaporate Fuel Saving System is the brainchild of Shaun Rigney, 44, of Doncaster.
Vaporate, which will retail for a recommended $289 and must be fitted by a mechanic, will be distributed by Repco.
Mr Rigney said it worked by enabling vehicles to use petrol that normally was spewed into the environment.
He said most cars wasted between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of petrol because they failed to turn it into vapour.
Vaporate added heat to a fuel system, ensuring all petrol was vapourised and used.
Mr Rigney, who spent more than seven years developing the device, said extensive testing had shown four in five family cars and four-wheel-drive vehicles fitted with the device used between 10 per cent and 20 per cent less fuel.
Advertisement:
He claimed that in some vehicles fuel use dropped by more than a quarter.
The device also allowed motorists who ran cars on premium unleaded to swap to regular unleaded without losing power.
Mr Rigney said Vaporate was fitted to the fuel injector.
"It is a relatively simple principle that has been around for a long time and we have been able to adapt it to modern-day fuel injection," he said.
Mr Rigney said the device would not affect new car warranties.
He had patented it in Australia and the US and an international patent was pending.
Repco merchandise manager Stephen Bird said: "We are very excited. It has a very important place in the history of the motor car.
"We believe it is going to be pretty big."
Mr Bird said the company had thoroughly analysed the extensive testing on the device and was satisfied it worked.
He said Vaporate was less effective on commercial vehicles carrying heavy loads, vehicles driven on mostly country roads and those driven too fast.
Repco authorised service national manager Peter Webb added: "From the testing we have done with the product, it works."
What is a reasonable price? $100 per share = $3 Billion. This doesn't seem likely. What is a likely price per share with 29 million shares outstanding?
I invested (twice) responding to a friend's advice who lives in upstate NY and hears local community news about TOVC. I am a novice investor and hanging in there on TOVC. I don't understand how the price can go through the roof with so many shares outstanding. What would the price be if just the patents were sold? I don't know what the inventions are valued at nor what they would sell for. My guess is that the Fast Tracked Vehicle will need to go into production to make this stock payoff huge. Even then, what is the plan to put it into production? Most of what I hear is the IVT being tested and hopefully picked up by one or more of the big three. I would really love to hear more about the plans to manufacture the FTV.
Dread, there may be more of us "quiet" types out here than you know. I was in this stock about 8 years ago and jumped out quickly. I jumped back in about 2 years ago and have been long eversince. I found this board earlier in the year and read frequently. I can't contribute much intellect so I don't post. However, I do find many posts interesting and valuable.