AI
| Followers | 207 |
| Posts | 39428 |
| Boards Moderated | 9 |
| Alias Born | 04/14/2010 |
Monday, May 25, 2026 6:10:14 PM
The Texatron is a scam through and through...
The “Six Independent Validations” — Are They Real?
The papers cited are real.
But none of them validate Texatron.
They validate:
General physics constraints
General confinement scaling
General REBCO coil performance
General economics of fusion
General neutronics of D–He3
General p-B11 feasibility
The document uses these papers to imply:
“These papers prove Texatron works.”
But the papers never mention Texatron, Kepler Fusion, AMFN, RTP, or any similar architecture.
This is a classic OTC pattern to scam folks with a bunch of mumbo jumbo they don't understand.
Use real citations to create the appearance of validation.
5. Regulatory Red Flags (SEC / NRC / FTC)
Red Flag 1 — Implied scientific validation
The document repeatedly implies that peer-reviewed papers validate Texatron.
None do.
Red Flag 2 — Unsupported performance claims
Examples:
“Q_circuit = 261x”
“EBITDA margin 80%+”
“1 GW by 2028”
These are not supported by any experimental data at all. These scammers don't even have the equipment to collect and record it.
Red Flag 3 — Commercial revenue claims
“$54M per year from a single 100 MW unit.”
No such unit exists.
No prototype is shown.
No test data is provided.
Red Flag 4 — Fuel supply (He-3)
The document claims:
“Topaz equity arrangement provides terrestrial supply.”
There is no public evidence of any He-3 supply agreement.
Red Flag 5 — Probability of success
“P(5 MW Q>1) = 53% / 59%.”
Assigning numerical probabilities to unbuilt fusion reactors is not a scientific practice at all.... It scammers scamming.
This is nothing but promotional material for the gulible...
More...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=177572051
.
.
Watch your wallet
Buyer Beware
Social Media Promoted Frontload Pump and Dump Share Selling Scam
..
.
The “Six Independent Validations” — Are They Real?
The papers cited are real.
But none of them validate Texatron.
They validate:
General physics constraints
General confinement scaling
General REBCO coil performance
General economics of fusion
General neutronics of D–He3
General p-B11 feasibility
The document uses these papers to imply:
“These papers prove Texatron works.”
But the papers never mention Texatron, Kepler Fusion, AMFN, RTP, or any similar architecture.
This is a classic OTC pattern to scam folks with a bunch of mumbo jumbo they don't understand.
Use real citations to create the appearance of validation.
5. Regulatory Red Flags (SEC / NRC / FTC)
Red Flag 1 — Implied scientific validation
The document repeatedly implies that peer-reviewed papers validate Texatron.
None do.
Red Flag 2 — Unsupported performance claims
Examples:
“Q_circuit = 261x”
“EBITDA margin 80%+”
“1 GW by 2028”
These are not supported by any experimental data at all. These scammers don't even have the equipment to collect and record it.
Red Flag 3 — Commercial revenue claims
“$54M per year from a single 100 MW unit.”
No such unit exists.
No prototype is shown.
No test data is provided.
Red Flag 4 — Fuel supply (He-3)
The document claims:
“Topaz equity arrangement provides terrestrial supply.”
There is no public evidence of any He-3 supply agreement.
Red Flag 5 — Probability of success
“P(5 MW Q>1) = 53% / 59%.”
Assigning numerical probabilities to unbuilt fusion reactors is not a scientific practice at all.... It scammers scamming.
This is nothing but promotional material for the gulible...
More...
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=177572051
.
.
Watch your wallet
Buyer Beware
Social Media Promoted Frontload Pump and Dump Share Selling Scam
..
.
I expose stock scams to gain knowledge about investigating the stock market players and for the entertainment it invariably generates. I've received NO compensation in any form for such, except for a few thank yous...
