Replies to post #8158 on American Security Resources Corp. (ARSC)

[futrcash]

Nice update 'lowman'...reminds me of all those new mines,out in the middle of nowhere currently burning deisel costing them ungodly sums of $$$ especially when one factors in the transportation costs of delivering that same diesel,out to the middle of nowhere.

The owner of Personalized Power Systems mentioned that ARSC's hydrastax home power units produce heat and water as byproducts of the reaction within the cell,and that the heat is exchanged to heat water in the house.

Currently the most efficient way to heat apartments and homes in temperate climates is to use the domestic hot water loop for both heating[running forced air over a hot water radiator]as well as for its traditional use.

futrcash

[katrina2]

Not so fast,

I picture many Hydra as back up power source. In last month I have seen 2 Genarac generators installed. Both outside where they will face elements of a northern climate. I don't see the market as favorable with the need to locate inside or keep warm, whether needed or not. Hence, lets not toss that concern just yet.

I found nothing of use in their pep talk. No mention of cert. No mention of court case. Nothing we can look at and say, 'that's concrete'? Tia

[rocketeer357]

And any word on Certification? Any indication where the process stands at the current time?

[Minnesinger]

This is good information -- thanks...

It's always been obvious to me that, in new buildings, the unit would be installed indoors. Duh. My concern is for existing structures and how readily they could be integrated within or out. If out, a shed is an obvious solution, but that adds add'l cost and adds an add'l footprint. The add'l expense may be nominal, but it's an add'l expenditure just the same. For residential use and other applications, the larger footprint necessitated by a shed could be a hindrance. In an ideal situation the cost/benefit could/would be overcome by the benefit. The rub, of course, is in "ideal" situations.

Furthermore, in an enclosure, one would think that the heat expended by the unit during operation would be sufficient in and of itself to maintain operational efficiency as things became cold. It would seem that the need for add'l heating elements would only be needed in truly extreme conditions, which would likely only exist in a sliver of the market. As for the other end of the spectrum, cooling units would add even more expense and draw from the unit's contribution to outside sources. Regardless, we're talking about a bell curve here; the unit will always have its liabilities and limitations at the extremes. The question is, how far from the sweet spot on each end does the cost/benefit lose favor? This will determine the size and scope of the market. Undoubtedly it will be big. But how big...?

The longevity issue is a lesser concern. All machines require maintenance and repairs. Most people are accustomed to that. But, again, the cost/benefit has to be penciled out for the life of the unit to determine its economic feasibility. John Q Public won't pay attention to such things, but builders/developers will.

I still maintain that the quickest bang for the buck will be realized in the portable/mobile market. Futrcash's reference (in a previous reply) to remote locations burning tanks of diesel by the day is exactly the market I'd think would be most receptive to ARSC's technologies in the near-term. It's my opinon that the build-out to fixed locations will be protracted, but ultimately much more lucrative.

My line of questioning isn't intended to cast doubts or aspersions. To the contrary; I'm captivated by the possibilities and potential here. Nonetheless, I'll continue to question the vicissitudes of ARSC's evolution to prove or disprove the value of my investment. At this stage, I believe it has value -- the magnitude of which remains to be seen...










The first couple of times are excusable; thereafter, it's pitiful...