I said it was from the quarterly report. Go to the OTCBB, enter in ZERO, click on 'filings'. On March 22nd they put out a 10-k quarterly report. On page 15 you will see:
"The commercial viability of AOT technology remains largely unproven and we may not be able to attract customers.
Despite the fact that we have entered into various discussions and received Non-Disclosure / Non-Competition Agreements, to the best of our knowledge, no consumer or pipeline operator has used the products incorporating the AOT technology to reduce crude oil viscosity to date. Accordingly, the commercial viability of our devices is not known at this time. If commercial opportunities are not realized from the use of products incorporating the AOT technology, our ability to generate revenue would be adversely affected. There can be no assurances that we will be successful in marketing our products, or that customers will ultimately purchase our products. Failure to have commercial success from the sale of our products will significantly and negatively impact our financial condition. There can be no assurances that we will be successful in marketing our products, or that customers will ultimately purchase our products. Failure to have commercial success from the sale of our products will significantly and negatively impact our financial condition.
"
This is not just a simple safe harbor statement, and is under risk factors. THere is no requirement to put in the report that your device is largely "unproven" if it wasn't.
Page 14, can you say dilution?
"We will need substantial additional capital to meet our operating needs, and we cannot be sure that additional financing will be available.
As of December 31, 2012 and thereafter, our expenses ran, and are expected to continue to run, at an approximate “cash burn rate” of $300,000 per month, which amount could increase during 2013.
"
This does not even count the over a million undeclared shares. Ask Cecil abou those.
Our independent auditors have expressed doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing.
In their report dated March 22, 2013, our independent auditors stated that our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2012 were prepared assuming that we would continue as a going concern. Our ability to continue as a going concern is an issue raised as a result of our recurring losses and accumulated deficit losses from operations since inception. We had an accumulated deficit of $82,381,854 as of December 31, 2012. Our ability to continue as a going concern is subject to our ability to obtain significant additional capital to fund our operations and to generate revenue from sales, of which there is no assurance. The going concern qualification in the auditor’s report could materially limit our ability to raise additional capital. If we fail to raise sufficient capital, we may have to liquidate our business and you may lose your investment.
This is a funny one:
Nondisclosure agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information... thought they had a bunch of patents locked up?
Another odd one to put in:
The manufacture, use or sale of our current and proposed products may infringe on the patent rights of others, and we may be forced to litigate if an intellectual property dispute arises.
We may face costly intellectual property disputes.
Our ability to compete effectively will depend in part on our ability to develop and maintain proprietary aspects of our technologies and either to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others or to obtain rights to technology owned by third parties. Our pending patent applications, specifically patent rights of the AOT technology, may not result in the issuance of any patents or any issued patents that will offer protection against competitors with similar technology. Patents we have received for our technologies, and which we may receive, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented in the future or the rights created by those patents may not provide a competitive advantage. We also rely on trade secrets, technical know-how and continuing invention to develop and maintain our competitive position. Others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets.
Anyways, in spite of this being "all about the AOT", the Elektra is mentioned quite often. I find it funny that a youtube video was posted shoing the results of 80 mil... some rubber tubing and a couple scales. I also find it funy that it was uploaded in 2010, which is after Cecils interview talking about profitability. STWA describes how it's relationship works right now on page 4.
We have two licenses (the “Licenses”) from Temple University for its patent-pending uniform electric field technology, which provides the intellectual property foundations upon which our products are based. The AOT product is based on a new and novel technology to the oil and gas industry for purposes of crude oil viscosity reduction, making it easier to pump oil through pipelines. The AOT product consists of passing crude oil through an array of dynamically-controlled electrical fields to reduce the viscosity of the oil without changing its temperature or chemical formula. Management believes that this technology holds key advantages supplemental to other viscosity reduction and flow assurance technologies currently in use by the industry.
The ELEKTRA technology consists of passing fuel through a dynamically controlled electrical field to assist in the atomization of fuel via fuel injectors. ELEKTRA introduces a uniform electrical field into the fuel flow to reduce the viscosity of diesel fuel, enabling smaller droplets to be released into the combustion chamber of a diesel engine.
The Company licenses the following patents from Temple University:
US Patent #6901917, effective May 21, 2001 and updated on May 2, 2006 for “DEVICE FOR SAVING FUEL AND REDUCING EMISSIONS” covered in the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Russia, India, Indonesia, Japan and Mexico for the legacy technology.
US Patent #11/519168, effective May 13, 2005 for “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF A FLUID” covered in the United States, China, Russia, Egypt, United Kingdom, Indonesia and Mexico. This Patent has been transferred to Temple University.
So the big 4-500,000$ payments to temple are for these patents.. which are not for the AOT.. money well spent I guess.. epsecially considering the first one was issued in 2001 so is more than likely the ZEFs device. But they never ever state their other 41 patents or patents pending. With all these other disclaimers about infringing..etc.. you would think shreholders would be interested in finding this out and seeing if they are adequately protecting themselves.. Because it doesn't even sound like they think they can... But this also assumes any of this actually works which in their own words, has not been proven yet.. If you invest in this company, it might be worthwhile to read things like the quarterly report as there is quite a bit of information in there right from the horses mouth. Pay careful attention to wordage though that never tie a company to it's claims.. like Cecils interview with "we want to become profitable".. "we may one day".. etc sort of thing.
Another thing I thought about as a result of a poster bringing up the pressure change into a larger chamber, is that the pressure in that chanber out be less than the 6" pipe on either end. If Tao simply tested before the AOT in-line for pressure, then tested the pressure right at the AOT, I believe he could get his pressure reduction before it went back to a 6" pipe and increased. Been a while since high school physics and engineering of hydraulics. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. This just goes to show how there should be a LOT more data for tests like these for investors to see. Quite often there is a reason for not showing it all or being clear.
