“New Gas Molecule That Burns Hotter than the Sun” — Dr. Kent Moors says “there’s never been a moneymaking situation quite like this in the entire history of energy!”

This is teased as having potential for 146,000% profits "on the low end" and the "Biggest Investment Payday of Your Life." Seriously?

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, December 9, 2015

I haven’t rushed in to cover this teaser pitch over the past few days, partly because I’ve already written about so many of the overhyped Money Map Press ads recently and partly because Gumshoe readers have already discussed it a little bit (and identified the stock) …

… but a lot of you have been asking me about it, so I thought I better give it a look-see.

The ad is for Micro Energy Trader from Dr. Kent Moors, which would run you $3,500 if you subscribed — he’s got several newsletters, this is one of the “upgrade” one that they try to funnel folks up to in their marketing (Energy Advantage is about $200, Energy Inner Circle is $4,000).

We last wrote about him a few weeks ago when he was pitching Energy Advantage using that solar “free energy forever” teaser (here and here) — this time he’s talking about combustion (“hotter than the sun” instead of solar power).

So what’s the big idea?

Well, the spiel sounds like lots of his (and other) ads — a tiny company, a miraculous invention, perfect timing. Oh, if only claims like these were always (or even often) true. We’d all be rich.

This is the opening:

“This Tiny $50mm Company Has Invented…

“A New Gas Molecule That Burns Hotter than the Sun”

And Dr. Moors says that “I’ve been tracking this Radical Invention for 17 years… and the time is NOW.”

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


So what is it? More from the email I got about this ad:

“Their technology produces a unique new hydrogen-based gas molecule…

“A hyper-flammable molecule that literally didn’t exist before this company created it.

“It quickly produces large quantities of a gas that burns hotter than any other gas known to man – up to 10,500° Fahrenheit.

“That’s more than five times as hot as molten lava…

“And it’s actually hotter than the surface of the sun!”

And here’s the big picture from Dr. Moors that reinforces that timing, market size and “immediacy” argument:

“In fact, there’s never been a moneymaking situation quite like this in the entire history of energy!

“It’s nothing less than a game-changing breakthrough that’ll completely transform the $1 trillion-a-year global coal sector in very short order…

“And it’ll start by immediately bringing America’s coal-fired electricity industry back

“The key to this opportunity is a radical invention I’ve been tracking ever since the first rumors of it began to swirl in scientific circles back in 1998.

“Throughout this period, I’ve kept very close tabs on this invention – and the American micro-cap company that developed it.

“Everything from their original idea, their string of patent applications, their prototyping, refinement, and testing…

“And mere weeks from now, we could finally see this world-changing invention take the global marketplace by storm.”

So what’s this “radical invention” that he’s hinting at as he tries to get us to sign up for his Micro Energy Trader? Here’s how he sums it up:

“… it uses liquid or semi-liquid waste from just about ANY source…

“Including used motor oil and industrial fluids, antifreeze, paint thinner, human sewage, manure and poultry litter, contaminated water, and more…

“To quickly produce large quantities of a gas that burns hotter than any other gas known to man – up to 10,500° Fahrenheit”

And the silly “secret” stuff:

“Of course, the invention I’m talking about has an official name. So does the gas it produces…

“However, I can’t reveal those names in a public forum like this without tipping off every hedge fund on Wall Street to this tiny $1-per-share company….

“for ‘camouflage’ purposes…

“In this presentation, I’m going to refer to this invention as the ‘H-Arc Generator.’

“And I’m going to call the clean, ultra-hot-burning gas it produces ‘plasmalene.'”

This is really why Stock Gumshoe started — many, many years ago, I got sick of these “secrets” and “camouflage” names and started researching them. So I guess it’s good that they still do this, it gives me a reason to jump into work each morning with renewed vigor — even if 90% of the “secrets” we uncover aren’t actually that interesting once you find out the reality, at least we’ll hopefully help some folks avoid making expensive mistakes. Subscribing to newsletters isn’t always a mistake, of course, we can learn a lot from plenty of them… but putting real capital at risk in some microcap idea because you believe the wild promises of the hype-filled ad is very often going to lead to disappointment (or worse).

The argument he puts forth, though it’s very long and I won’t go into the whole thing here, is that the government is regulating coal and requiring lower emissions, and that they don’t want to do away with coal entirely because of jobs and low cost and because the other baseload option, natural gas, is easier to export (I don’t know if that’s true or not — coal is heavy, so it is expensive to ship… but LNG will still be pretty expensive to ship as well, even when US LNG exports reach critical mass in five or ten years). Here’s some more from the ad:

“… everyone in Washington – Republican or Democrat – wants the same thing for Christmas this year…

“A technological miracle that’ll instantly make America’s vast reserves of dirt-cheap coal 30% less carbon-emissive.
And as I’m going to show you, the H-Arc Generator is that miracle….

“… the catch is that everybody is going to know this by January 2016, just a few short weeks from now.

“If you’re holding shares of this company, that’s when I’m predicting you could see an immediate pop of up to 542%.”

So you can see why folks are asking about this one, right? He says that 146,000% profits are his “low end” expectation, and that he thinks there could be an “immediate pop” of 542% next month when “everybody” will know about this.

He says this will happen because the company and it’s “H-Arc Generator” will make it possible to move toward “coal co-combustion” globally… here’s how he explains it:

“Instead of simply diluting the CO2 and other pollutants from coal combustion with slightly less carbon-dense exhaust…

“Plasmalene’s 10,500-degree flame temperature almost completely consumes the carbon (also sulphur and nitrogen) in the coal base fuel.

“In simplest terms, the more ultra-hot combustion of plasmalene gas actually turns the pollutants themselves into a sort of ‘secondary fuel.’….

“The proof of this is now a matter of record. Not only is the testing showing a 30-40% reduction in CO2 from plasmalene co-combustion…

“But they’re already seeing up to a 90% decrease in nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide…

“Plus virtually no residual particulate matter (like soot, etc.).

“Now as I said before, this information is NOT highly publicized….”

So yes, as several Gumshoe readers have jumped in to note, this must be a little company called MagneGas (MNGA). They went public seven or eight years ago, they’ve never generated any meaningful revenue… though they have, at least, grown revenue a bit faster than operating expenses in the last few years.

They do indeed manufacture a gas that burns hotter, and they do use liquid waste to produce it — they essentially zap the waste with electricity (that arc), capture the gases produced, and turn those gases into a fuel that they call (naturally) MagneGas. The prime use of the fuel right now seems to be as a replacement for acetylene in metal cutting applications, since it burns hotter and cuts better and the production of the fuel is apparently “greener” than producing aceytlene. I don’t know how they produce acetylene, or if those claims about MagneGas being better are true, you can see one of the company’s presentations here if you want to see what they claim in more detail.

That acetylene replacement seems to have been the core revenue-generating focus of the company for quite a while, though they’re still trying to build that business up to becoming self-sustaining — they’re trying to sell the little refineries (fit on a flatbed truck) that can create this MagneGas from a liquid waste stream (plus lots of electricity, presumably). They say the production of the gas generates no pollution, and that the by-products are heat, solid carbon, and purified “nutrient rich” but sterile water that can be used in fertilizers.

Dr. Kent Moors says he got his first college degree, in Physics, at the age of 16, so I’m sure he knows more about this process than I do — I don’t get how the gas they produce can have more energy than the electricity they use to produce the gas, but that’s probably just me. And even if it does consume a lot of energy to produce this gas, perhaps it’s worthwhile to create an acetylene alternative that burns hotter and cleaner, I don’t know.

The co-generation stuff Moors talks about is the next wave of what the company is trying to do, they have indeed tested it and shown the results that Moors talks about, they say, with reductions of 20-30-40% in C02 and more significant reductions in other pollutants, but it seems to me like they’re still pretty early on in testing it. I don’t know how the energy business works in terms of adopting new technologies, but here’s what they say on their website:

“MagneGas is currently developing and verifying a Co-Combustion technology that results in unique combustion characteristics, namely burning MagneGas with less efficient fuels and wastes results in improved emissions, improved efficiency and a dramatic reduction in CO2. These combustion improvements are related to the extremely high flame temperature of the MagneGas fuel as independently verified by the City College of New York.

“Working with one of the largest US power company’s independent laboratories MagneGas Corp and it’s partners have been verifying these claims since early 2014 and is nearing conclusion.”

We’ll give them a pass on the odd grammar there, but it does seem like they expect to be announcing some sort of results about their co-combustion testing in the US in the relatively near future — and they are quite “press-release happy” whenever anything of potential positive impact happens, so I’m sure investors will hear about it if there is good news.

Whether that means it would be worthwhile for lots of companies to suddenly jump in as MagneGas customers or not, I have absolutely no idea. They have a 50/50 joint venture with an unnamed electrical power generation company of some sort to explore and test the technology in the US, and they say that so far the testing is confirming the 20%+ CO2 reduction — though I’d guess that this is a ways from saying that it’s economically viable, or that it’s practical to convert lots of old coal plants or build that potential part of the business, and I don’t know enough about the power business to have any idea what other technologies might show similar (or better) promise for reducing emissions from coal.

The US is apparently a little ways behind the rest of the world in this “MagneGas for Co-Combustion” research — there’s a press release from their Australian partner here that reiterates a lot of the enthusiasm Moors shares, but, well, it’s a press release. Those are supposed to be full of enthusiasm.

MagneGas has presented at the LD Micro conference for two years in a row, and that conference tends to produce a lot of microcap stocks that get favorable writeups from newsletters (and sometimes teaser campaigns) — so that, frankly, gives me a little moment of pause on this one. And it has also been a “paid promotion” stock in the last year or so, which is usually a red flag for me — I haven’t looked deep enough to be sure whether the promotion is being paid for by the company or by outside pump-and-dump investors, but that usually turns me off a stock either way.

The stock has been quite volatile this year as they had a death at their plant in Florida (a big deal for a company with only a couple million dollars in the bank), then got a delisting warning from Nasdaq, then announced a few orders for their MagneGas as an acetylene replacement and saw their stock recover sharply higher. It’s still way below where it peaked in 2012, when they uplisted to the Nasdaq, but it’s been a positive few months for the stock.

And you’d have to be a wiser person than I to understand why. Maybe it’s all based on a reasonable speculation, as Moors seems to be suggesting, that this co-combustion testing in coal power plants will result in positive press coverage and a flurry of new orders in the new year, or maybe it’s all just driven by marketing fluff — I don’t know enough to tell you which is more likely.

The revenue from MagneGas sales as an acetylene replacement have been growing, and growing fairly steadily, but are nowhere near large enough for a $70 million company and show no signs of getting there in the near future — and it’s hard to take them seriously as an R&D-focused company pioneering the development of this technology when they spend only $300,000 a year on R&D. When I feel myself getting infected by the optimism these companies evince, or when the newsletters or stock promoters seem to be making a strong case, I try to take my eyes straight back to the financials to get a little reality check: Over the past two years they have grown the annual run rate of revenues from about $500,000 to about $2.25 million… that’s pretty good growth, but increasing sales by $1.75 million has effectively cost them $3 million in increased selling, general and administrative costs.

Something has to shift for that to start making sense.

Their MagneGas sales seem to pretty consistently come at a cost of about 2/3 of revenues, so if that gross margin stays consistent in the 30-35% range (meaning the direct cost of creating and delivering $1 of gas is about 35 cents, before you account for sales, marketing, or overhead costs), then they will have to increase their revenues tenfold to cover the current level of selling, general and administrative expenses… if revenues were $25 million (instead of $2.2 million), then gross profit would be about $8 million, and that would mean they’d (roughly) break even today with their $8 million of SG&A expenses. And that assumes that the selling expenses wouldn’t rise as sales rise, which is just silly. The only way to get out of this math problem that I can see is if they could suddenly convince a much larger company to expand the business dramatically by licensing MagneGas’s technology or patents and paying royalties, which would mean MagneGas would have much lower operating costs… perhaps their joint venture exploring co-combustion could be the first step in moving toward that possibility, but even typing that makes me squint up my face a bit. Seems awfully future-y.

The fact that they’ve been saying much the same thing about the future potential for several years without meaningful (to me) financial results is a turnoff for me, as is the stock promotion, but I like to keep a little optimism on board: maybe there’s something real underneath it all and this technology really will become commercially viable someday. If so, I suspect it will take far, far longer than a couple months for it to bring 500% returns for any fundamental reason (like big increases in revenue, etc.), but you never know what a lot of attention or press releases or promotion can do to a tiny little stock… so I can’t promise that Moors will be wrong about it rising 542% by January. I’ll just tell you that I wouldn’t bet on it personally, and there would have to be a strong belief in the merits of the technology to justify a valuation anywhere near the $70 million market cap the company carries today.

I’ll leave it to you to make your call on that, I’m not interested in betting on or against this particular stock. Have an opinion on what the next few months or years will bring for MagneGas? Want to explain the technology better than I did? That’s what the friendly little comment box below is for, throw your thoughts on the wall and we can see if they stick.


Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

107
Share your thoughts...

avatar
43 Comment threads
64 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
51 Comment authors
marineoneclay levineLisa RosatiTulipsVance Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

bananafish
Irregular
👍3
bananafish

Also, the company founder, Dr. Ruggero Santilli looks to be a bit of a quack, or scientific oddball at least, to me.

Ed Fillmore
Guest
Ed Fillmore

Travis,

I’m just blown away by the breadth of your knowledge and your analytical skills. Thank you.
Have you ever consider making a list of who has been wrong the most times or wrong in the timing or the amount?

Richard Hildebrand
Guest
Richard Hildebrand

While I don’t have a PhD, I was a Professional, Graduate Chemical Engineer with over 30 years experience with 4 major Oil companies & the US Dept. of Energy. I also authored 8 US patents & numerous corresponding foreign patents. There are 2 major fundamental errors in Dr. Moor’s analysis – 1) There is this thing called “The Second Law of Thermodynamics”. You made have heard of it. This is a fundamental property of all energy systems. In its essence, it says there can never be a Perpetual Motion machine. This is because no energy system can produce more energy… Read more »

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
200
Add a Topic
2773
larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

You may have knowledge of what you speak, but you are simply stating the laws of physics. Without any common knowlegde of the companies scientific expertise and how the companies equipment operates, you are spitting in the wind! In other words, you don’t know what your talking about. Investigate!

KURT WILLIAM SWOGGER
Guest

Sorry Larry, not much investigation is needed. The second law of thermo. has not changed with or without hype. The energy balance is off. So some of the claims may be true, but for sure not all of them.

larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

Dr. Santilla has been recognized for his works in quantum physcics. He believes some of the laws of thermodymics are incorrect due to atomic events on the quantum scale. You may be assuming all present laws of thermodynamics are correct. When infact they are not. Remember when the earth was flat?

arch1
Member
👍7788

Larry are you perhaps speaking of Dr R Santilli? The supposed discoverer of the magnecule that produces H H O? Something that does not seem to exist in nature, ( or anywhere) that would produce magnetic water ,,,if it existed. Where are his learned theses that have been peer reviewed? If his propositions are correct the Nobel comittee should be hammering on his door. By all means if that is who you mean invest every ruble or drachma you can scrape up in MagneGas as it is sure to replace lunar green cheese as a source of tremendous wealth. If… Read more »

Add a Topic
540
Al
Guest
Al

If you ignore the laws of physics, you are urinating into a strong wind.
Perhaps you know of a ‘miracle’. (oops, magic). I will side with the guy that has the chemical formulas, and also has patents. Formulas and the end result of the chemical reaction are far more predictable than miracles.

arch1
Member
👍7788

Most of these story stock ,too good to be true, schemes are like a shovel with a rope handle.
They may look good hanging on the wall but not in practice. IMHO

Add a Topic
5971
James Brown
Guest
James Brown

What’s your opinion of Hydrogen as a fuel made from natural gas? I have read that one ton of hydrogen produces nine to twelve ton of co2. Can Carbonic anhydrase be produced, and injected into a well with co2? Can saliva be artificially produced? I am a machinist and failed chemistry in high school.
Cordially
Jim Brown

Add a Topic
338
Al
Guest
Al

Natural gas is petty much methane. He gave the answer:
Every one thinks that hydrogen is a very clean fuel but it it typically produced from methane, CH4. The C in the methane is converted to CO2 and released when the H2 is made. Thus, using H2 as fuel has the same overall effect as burning the methane.

Add a Topic
338
Al
Guest
Al

Re the electric cars… Batteries have to be charged, then in use discharged. The energy loss from generating electricity and then transporting it, then using it makes for 50% efficiency. (the battery gets hot). Ohms law says that half the power is used to generate the electricity. This is why electric cars, hybrid cars are not good for the long hauls. You might be able to get ‘cheap’ electricity out of the wall, but to make electricity with gasoline/generator, then move the electricity to the motor is not too efficient.

Add a Topic
1614
D
Guest
D

Yes, the carbon has to go somewhere. The only way to get it out of the gas emissions is to get it into a liquid or solid form, for example, photosynthesis. Right now, the practical way to reduce emissions is to burn more natural gas.

Add a Topic
338
RJR
Guest
RJR

The practical way to reduce emissions is to use less energy. Reduce, Reuse. Recycle.

F. Mackintosh
Guest
F. Mackintosh

Nuclear power for electricity production is pretty non carbon, however.

RJR
Guest
RJR

Nuclear’s contribution to GHG emaissions is in the building and maintenance. The billions spent on nuclear systems is not carbon-free.

marineone
Member
👍0
marineone

Richard ,I agree with your evaluation. My Chemical Engineer friends agree with your analogy too. I am sure there are things not stated by the Engineer that released this information. It also described everything it was washing, converting or releasing. I would hope it could be envisioned as an energy as it does sound good to me. As you say Everything has its emissions. Commercial use is probably way out for now. Not sure? Even the writer is saying well, yes, and then maybe, no? Either it has to be burned, churned or turned. Every action has a reaction. Nothing… Read more »

Tulips
Guest
Tulips

Most scientists that invented something worthy of note also seemed to be a bit off one way or another. I’m interested to see if this technology does what it’s supposed to do, it seems like instead of taking the normal scientific route by begging for grants to further the technology it has been replaced by taking the product public. This is an interesting move considering physicists usually don’t think free market, nevertheless it’s a solution to a problem. I’d personally love to see this tech work it would mean a bit cleaner planet for my children, I’ll be keeping an… Read more »

Sagenot
Guest
Sagenot

Dr. Kent Moors is a bit wacky himself, look up his Bio!

Add a Topic
1567
jkottens
Member
👍10
jkottens

This investment story is total baloney. If one wanted a fuel stock to burn hotter than acetylene does, he/she would just replace some of the acetylene feed stock with an equivalent amount of hydrogen. If you get rid of all of the acetylene, and just burn hydrogen with the oxygen in air, that combination will produce the highest possible flame temperature for any fuel burned with air. Think of the story this way, when the inventors discovered that the CO2 level in their combustion products had dropped some 40% after a magic fuel experiment, they would have found that the… Read more »

Add a Topic
1340
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
arch1
Member
👍7788

Offon Temperature, otherwise correct.
Fuel Flame Temperature
acetylene 3,100 °C (oxygen), 2,400 °C (air)
blowtorch 1,300 °C (2,400 °F, air)
Bunsen burner 1,300-1,600 °C (2,400-2,900 °F, air)
butane 1,970 °C (air)
candle 1,000 °C (1,800 °F, air)
carbon monoxide 2,121 °C (air)
cigarette 400-700 °C (750-1,300 °F, air)
ethane 1,960 °C (air)
hydrogen 2,660 °C (oxygen), 2,045 °C (air)
MAPP 2,980 °C (oxygen)
methane 2,810 °C (oxygen), 1,957 °C (air)
natural gas 2,770 °C (oxygen)
oxyhydrogen 2,000 °C or more (3,600 °F, air)
propane 2,820 °C (oxygen), 1,980 °C (air)
propane butane mix 1,970 °C (air)
propylene 2870 °C (oxygen)

Add a Topic
338
pmd3nka
Member
👍7
pmd3nka

Dicyanoacetylene (carbon dinitride) is the hottest burning substance. Found it on Google when trying to find the Company (didn’t).

Cheers, pmd3nka

FRANK7851
Guest
FRANK7851

what is the company?please state the name.

larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

So, your saying water came out instead of CO2. Is that not miraculous? Is that not a game changer and a profitable venture to procede on? Who is the inventor? I hear he was a professor who taught at Harvard and MIT. He can’t be too smart can he?

Add a Topic
540
Rusty Brown in Canada
Guest
Rusty Brown in Canada

Well, smart enough to know the difference between “you’re” and “your” perhaps.
We hope.

larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

Really? So you are (you’re) the smartest guy on the planet, since you never made a typo or mispelled a word? Nice display of you’re intelligence. What you are, is an ass!

bludolphint
Irregular
👍155

Can they lynch a “PROFESSOR” for writing such garbage. And just what 1 month after he tells us that solar is now cheap enough that it can compete with NATGAS. Which is probably true. My theory is that he doesn’t write this crap, only the letter to the “INSIDERS” to get them to shell out $4,000 for this garbage which according to him if he wrote this the garbage will be worth more than $4,000. If I had the time I would call him out on a “PROFESSOR” saying that the sun only burns at 10,500 Degrees. I can see… Read more »

Add a Topic
605
Add a Topic
5916
Brian H
Guest
Brian H

Um, the surface of the sun is about 5,000 Degrees, and there is no such thing as hydrogen fission. Hydrogen is as as small as it gets. You mean fusion? Duh.

sagesteve
Member
👍1
sagesteve

Yeah, like in a Ford Fusion!!

larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

You don’t know much about the surface of the sun do you? Did you know you can’t even see the sun when your in outerspace? From the earth, what you see is the reaction of the earth’s atmosphere with radiated particles from the sun. Without
earth’s atmosphere you couldn’t see it. Wow!

D
Guest
D

Yes, the carbon has to go somewhere. The only way to get it out of the gas emissions is to get it into a liquid or solid form, for example, photosynthesis. Right now, the practical way to reduce emissions is to burn more natural gas.

Add a Topic
338
D
Guest
D

What? The sun is ultra bright in space, if you look directly at it. There’s no atmosphere to light up with radiate diffusion, though.

Perhaps this is sarcasm ….

RJR
Guest
RJR

The ‘radiated particles’ are called photons. They do not need an atmosphere
to be detected. A camera will do just fine.

K. Kaiser
Guest

Another “perpetuum mobile” idea. For sure, a mixture of 60% hydrogen with other gases may burn hotter than acetylene, but that hydrogen needs to be created by using energy.
It may be of technical benefit for some welding purposes but is not a “free energy spigot.”

Jim Leavenworth
Guest
Jim Leavenworth

What a dandy new technology we have here (snark). Supposedly it will revive the coal industry by eliminating most carbon emissions thus saving natural gas for the lucrative LNG export business (take that, Putin). But would that have prevented have prevented the infamous coal sludge leakage of the North Carolina section of the Dan River or the lesser known (occurring in 12/08 while everyone was focused on the economic train wreck in progress) but at least equally horrific Kingston, Tennessee leakage? Nope. How about halting mountain top removal, mitigating deep mining disasters, Black Lung disease, underground fires and so on?… Read more »

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
653
chuck
Guest
chuck

Acetylene replacement should be a big deal, providing replacement gas does not have some bad things that are associated with acetylene. However, the making of acetylene is a well known and cheap process, probably cheaper than its replacement even given that the basic starting material is waste. The major bad thing about acetylene is it does not like to be compressed (very explosively dangerous), so very distinctive special tanks had to be designed and manufactured to cope with this. Also don’t expect any process to produce a fuel with more energy than it consumes, things in physics and chemistry don’t… Read more »

sarcola
Member
👍4
sarcola

Acetylene gas has traditionally been generated with a mixture of calcium carbide and water, like what took place in miner’s headlamps. Now days, it is also produced from petroleum distillation.

Add a Topic
540
hans
Guest

you do not cut metals with acetylene, acetylene and oxygen are mixed to get a flame and heat up the metal, once the metal is hot enough you can switch off the acetylene and the metal burns itself with the oxygen, that is how you cut steel

Vic
Guest
Vic

I received a tout on this stock about 2-3 mos. ago and decided to take a flyer. I bought several thousand shares @ .95 and it moved up a little so I bought some more and they started coming out with news every few days so I bought more and before you know it I had 25,000 shares.volume the last few days. This could be from Kent Moors tout or something else brewing. I have taken some profits and will see where it goes from here. Everyone seems to be expecting a big announcement concerning this co-combustion thing. Fingers crossed.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
1567
Vance
Guest
Vance

Did you sell any yesterday Vic? No news, I didn’t sell any. I have a fifth of your position…5,500 shares.

Brad
Guest
Brad

Vic…the way things are going, eneryg markets are falling like a rock, you might want to consider selling..even at $1.80 you would have made some money..just saying

larry_pettie
Member
👍6
larry_pettie

I bought 3000 initially at 1.10 months ago. Bought 3000 more at 1.65 which I got stopped out on at 2.30 on Friday. Great profit.
I just turned around and bought 3450 more shares at 1.80 on friday too. From my math this will be an 80 billion market cap in 15 years.

arch1
Member
👍7788

Dicyanoacetylene, a compound of carbon and nitrogen with chemical formula C4N2 burns in oxygen with a bright blue-white flame at a temperature of 5260 K (4986.85 °C, 9008.33 °F), and at up to 6000 K in ozone. This high flame temperature is partially due to the absence of hydrogen in the fuel (dicyanoacetylene is not a hydrocarbon) thus there is no water among the combustion products which would lower temp by absorbing some of the heat . This is probably the “mystery” gas as that is very close to sun surface temperature. It is possible to get temperatures higher than… Read more »

Add a Topic
540
Fabian
Guest
Fabian

Great post, thanks.

nick
Guest
nick

Yeah, I got this letter from Moors earlier today, and I was very skeptical. I even called Moneymap press about how you pay, and you have to pay the $3500 up front, and then you can get a refund if you want after 30 days (not sure if that’s true or not). I actually tried researching myself and trying to find what this could be, and I was pretty convinced that it was talking about GlidArc generators developed by a tiny French company called Etudes Chiminiques et Physiques (ECP), founded by Albin Czernichowski. It really seemed like it, because everything… Read more »

Add a Topic
372
Add a Topic
372
PF
Guest
PF

Is this magnegas like the plasma gasification I read about in Popular Science a year or two ago?

RJR
Guest
RJR

I thought the same thing but recent Replies here make me wonder. It may have some similar features but that is not a recommendation. Our city government has been through the wringer with a local bright light who was going to burn a large part of our garbage-dump-bound waste using a ‘plasma’ process. Result: business failure, garbage mountain still rising.

arch1
Member
👍7788

The idea is the same but would use a gas to reach the high temperatures instead of an electric arc. Good catch.

atmotsi
Member
👍6

I checked out the good Dr’s linkedin page and he does look like a mad scientist!