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.
You mean this one?
Note: you can also use 72 instead of about 134
The reason why is those seem questionable as part of the initial CRO which had problems. At one time the difference was removed from published enrollment and later after arbitration it was put back.
You can try your sheets both ways.
We don't know and can only assume the total will be included because all this will be reviewed yet again when (presumably) the FDA looks at it all.
Maybe they will discount those (to our favor, or, to our detriment, or a wash), we don't know that either.
We can suspect the possibility that if these are already discounted then this is one possible factor toward the seemingly extended the duration of the trial (to some degree). If that needs to be expanded upon, then the short story is that it is a difference of about 53 potential "events" from the very oldest trial population.
( The difference is 62 in population, 3/7, 3/7 being test/control and 1/7th being auxiliary, so ... 53)
Call it good enough math at this point
oh... I am going blind I guess :(
In the PDF you referenced I have to image that is related to Exxon carbon capture and reduced flaring. You can see large logistics for petro-chemicals and a catalytic converter being placed.
Whether or not it is an Exxon site, you can guess it is part of the Exxon FCEL thing.
Easier to incorporate a new FCEL thing at a new site than to try to interrupt an already built and operational site. i.e., Reduced Opportinity Cost aka Downtime.
It is highly unlikely that we made less than 9% effectiveness (OAS+), I've never been able to arrange numbers fudging and all to get less than that.
Merry Christmas all
Truth is, you never know.
Geert is smart though, so it is smart to put up and maintain a "superposition" - i.e., undetermined could be this could be that sort of thing.
I can't blame him for that.
So far there is scarce evidence of ideas resembling "fraud" in all that.
And at the same time there is positive evidence that the trial is being successful.
Fosco, myself, others... math... it is hard to cheat the math.
In a nutshell, that's all I've got. ( hours and hours and hours... of that though, software models, etc., )
I think what you do is cut the man some slack
He is speaking to a mass audience that may know nothing of this type of thing to start
Do you read something into it ? Different question... I'd say no
Hey man, good to hear from you
I am still lurking, it is all hurry up and wait over here :)
The link doesn't work
Sold for some profits earlier, let's see where it settles.
One, in about an hour or so, and two, in about 2 days or so.
Never catch a falling knife, never dump a shooting star
I am still in wait and see mode, no idea where this ride stops
History is not exactly repeating at the moment
A lot of things can yet happen, more news of more new sales, more news of "yay let's do another offering" etc., etc., etc.,
Too soon to tell
geez, what a spike
That's almost the right color for hydrogen plasma too...
https://www.google.com/search?q=hydrogen+plasma+images&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjs3eTmpJntAhVPUawKHUkiDpUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=hydrogen+plasma+images&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoCCAA6BwgAELEDEEM6BQgAELEDOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEB5Q5aABWPK7AWDbvAFoAHAAeACAAUGIAbgJkgECMjKYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=Sf67X6yVD8-isQXJxLioCQ&bih=751&biw=1344
Dunno, not sure the new admin will be friendly towards nuclear power, which would have been swell, gen 3/4 etc., + FCEL to make the hydrogen
When you are spending millions $ to run a study and it is taking longer than expected and you have bet the farm what you do is that you do not ask permission, you beg forgiveness.
No mystery
Giggles
Basically I just mean that it is very important to do this part right, it is not simply a matter of counting.
Everything has to stand up to severe scrutiny, especially if it is successful in crude terms.
If you make a critical mass before you fire the implosion charge all you get is a splatter of molten slag instead of a big kaboom.
Horses don't work better if you put 'em behind the cart they are pulling.
What's in the BoxedCart? patients lived too long.
Either way, if we knocked it out of the park or merely got close to the goal, the quality of the science is the difference between a nuclear bomb that works and a K-Mart special cleanup on isle 6.
Going over $5 is a big deal
Curious if there is a sudden announcement of a new offering in the next few days.
See what "Chip" says...
:)
Wow yep... time to buy more, $5 should be a new floor
Still too soon
Give it a couple weeks. If it holds it holds.
When there is a lull in volume if a depression effort strikes and fails then that's a new kind of support.
But it is too early to see a lull. The shorts wait for doldrums and pounce.
No idea if that is going to happen again now or not, but if it does, it will be after a lull.
Dunno
imho - they are somewhat tempered on FCEL compared to share price volatility.
They move, but not as fast and not by as much as you'd think, until there are whole dollar moves in the share price.
My puts purchase from yesterday is down a whole penny.
Granted that can get worse fast but I don't see the volatility into the options at the moment.
I feel like a lot of people do like I do, have shares, buy insurance, and play calls to the up-side on larger time scales.
So the liquidity is not great (yet).
It is a completely different game, large liquidity high volume index funds vs. a small thing like this with options.
Everything I just said is subject to change :)
Various kinds of news can make a big dent in options. The kind of news that moves the TIME needle, then people re-adjust for proper expiration, etc.,
Oh good, I was afraid to go back and look how long ago I got those, time goes so fast, it tends to make me feel old when I do that :)
In one account I had left shares from a long long time ago
They've been like -90% forever
Today those are in the green.
Sort of "back to zero" so to speak; or back to where we used to be.
If it makes it over $5 and hold that would be swell, new ball-game
There's plenty of room for both hydrogen and batteries
It will take a long time to build out hydrogen infrastructure
Meanwhile, think carefully
While you are parked, say, at work, a SMALL hydrogen fuel cell can recharge your batteries.
So a new kind of "hybrid", one that does not require large hydrogen capacity in the vehicle and also does not require a large fuel cell.
The goal being simply to extend your daily range, from 300 or 400 miles to perhaps up to 1000 eventually.
The combination of the two therefore is also a potential winner, one that is not discussed much.
It is easy to imagine also trailer hookups for longer distances where more juice battery and or hydrogen is in the trailer.
Yeah, dunno.
Sold my calls, they were getting long in the tooth, and got some puts, not a lot of puts.
We'll see
There's a lot of sources
For the purposes of this conversation I am referring to the leaking that occurs constantly from human production (wells/fracking/compression/storage/transportation) - not including massive accidental leaks like recent major leak in California
The production(extraction) of nat gas releases a greater greenhouse harm into the atmosphere than all the Co2 of all the cars and factories and coal plants combined. Just "on accident-incidental".
Volume per volume, depending on who you ask, nat gas is between 1700 and 20,000 times worse of a greenhouse gas. A big reason why is that the Earth is reluctant to absorb it back out of the atmosphere, where Co2 (plants love it)
So the idea that all this is "green" is rather the opposite, this is as black as it gets.
I am not complaining, gotta do what you gotta do.
But, I'll have the truth of it while we're at it.
If there were a way to capture all the nat gas that seeps naturally out of the warming tundra that would be swell, then we'd be "green-ier" and the math would prove it. Otherwise... we are all lemmings to the stupid tunes of silly pipers.
It's not about what we convert or burn, it is about what is leaked, and it far exceeds any conversation about co2 production by any other means in terms of greenhouse gas effect.
We are talking all the processes before the methane gets to the burner, the turbine, or the fuel cell. The damage has already been done far in excess of inane fear of co2.
Well, great but...
Do some research on natural gas vs. co2
See how much of that stuff we leak and how many tens of thousands of times worse it is than co2 as a greenhouse gas.
Then all this great stuff we are doing comes back to reality, we're merely a form of distribution of energy, and it only sounds good until you look really close.
co2 is easy to deal with. Methane is not.
Not to be a party pooper on that note, just realist. You can't feel good about nat gas replacing coal if you really know what the difference is.
Seems to be a coincidence of terminology
Testing a theory
Seems to do the opposite of whatever I say, so...
It will go down more
Yeah... I hit a fair amount of 100%, 150%... but this is just ridiculous, I think it is my best one, in those terms ever.
I'd have to look, it's been a couple years
We got that one drax thing but I wouldn't call it a "sale"
Could be my bad, I thought we had dropped off completely