Marc Jason Dannenberg (CRD #2569254, Registered Representative, Thornwood, New York) submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent pursuant to which he was fined $7,500 and suspended from association with any NASD member in any capacity for 17 months and one week. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Dannenberg consented to the described sanctions and to the entry of findings that he effected a transaction in the securities account of a public customer without the customers prior knowledge, authorization, or consent and left a threatening message on the customers home telephone answering machine after he refused to pay for the stock purchase. The findings also stated that Dannenberg made false statements on his Form U-4 concerning violations of state investment regulations or statutes. (NASD Case #C10990199)
SHEPHERD, SMITH & EDWARDS, LLP contact info below:
Posting shit about me anonymously will not get you invited to Christmas dinner. I know I will never meet you to bitch slap you as you are a washwoman. This one infraction in my 12 years happened in 1996, for those that care what a worthless individual posts anonymously. If you have any questions about this infraction, feel free to call me at 011 34 952 853 542. If you are friends of Al, too bad.>
However, given the cult following Mallove enjoyed, his death, no matter how it may be solved, will go down as "suspicious" in the annals of the cold fusion and free energy crowd.
Give it a few years, and you'll be reading stories similar to those about Stanley Meyer supposedly groaning "I've been poisoned!" immediately before keeling over dead after inking a $50 million deal to build research laboratories for his Water Fuel Cell.
Marc wrote: > However, given the cult following Mallove enjoyed, his death, no > matter how it may be solved, will go down as "suspicious" in the > annals of the cold fusion and free energy crowd.
> Give it a few years, and you'll be reading stories similar to those > about Stanley Meyer supposedly groaning "I've been poisoned!" > immediately before keeling over dead after inking a $50 million deal > to build research laboratories for his Water Fuel Cell.
You sound sort of like a loaded weapon rather than a salesman. I hope they are paying you well.
> I have posted a link to the chemical equation. What are you asking for > exactly?
> Marc
Posting a link to a chemical equation is insufficient. It would be more useful to see:
Cost of technology cost of input cost of processing cost of output
plus a comparison to existing methods (ie. the cost of coal)
they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than the energy input in the form of methane.""
Then it gets even more weird:
""It is important to note that the overall cost competitiveness of hydrogen extends beyond hydrogen production to hydrogen compression, storage, and distribution. The cost models are currently being expanded to include these elements and involve some innovative hydrogen distribution cost savings.""
I haven't seen any hard facts about this rather important part of the equation.
It's also useful to talk about how the hydrogen is going to be used. Transportation, electrical generating? Each of these has efficiencies associated with them. If you take hydrogen from an admittedly inefficient process, and then lose more through another energy conversion, all of the sudden gasoline starts to sound good.
> I have posted a link to the chemical equation. What are you asking for > exactly?
This is about turning a perfectly good fuel into hydrogen. And at what cost? We have peaked in the production of methane on this continent. We don't have extra methane for a 'hydrogen economy'.
What of there claims to produce hydrogen from water? How do you separate the oxygen from the hydrogen assuming a somewhat viable output. And what of the cost to do this?
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:19:21 -0700, Mike McWilliams
<michael.mcwilli...@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote: >they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
>"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than >the energy input in the form of methane.""
Mike, a correction: They state that they get 14% more energy out in the form of hydrogen than goes in in the form of methane.
Some would call this 114% efficiency (and they would make the thermodynamicist in each of us cringe).
The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good.
But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen economy".)
Al wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:19:21 -0700, Mike McWilliams > <michael.mcwilli...@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
> >they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
> >"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than > >the energy input in the form of methane.""
> Mike, a correction: They state that they get 14% more energy out in > the form of hydrogen than goes in in the form of methane.
> Some would call this 114% efficiency (and they would make the > thermodynamicist in each of us cringe).
> The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be > better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar > collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost > breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the > capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good
It's plenty good. I have the numbers, but certainly not to give out on a usenet forum. I think you now have backpeddled enough
> But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce > hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after > government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen > economy".)
they are a hydrogen producer, and they do it cheaper and cleaner than anyone else.
On 30 Jun 2005 03:54:01 -0700, "Marc" <mdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Al wrote: >> The long and the short of it is that for a measly 14% gain, you'd be >> better off just burning the methane directly and using the solar >> collector in a more conventional manner. I'd like to see a full cost >> breakdown of the SHEC system, including full amortization of the >> capital costs. I suspect it's not all that good
>It's plenty good. I have the numbers, but certainly not to give out on >a usenet forum. I think you now have backpeddled enough
One of us is certainly backpedaling, and it certainly isn't me. I point out the 14%, you scream that I'm misunderstanding things, then you say oops, we're talking apples and oranges.
>> But if your goal is not to produce energy, but rather produce >> hydrogen, this process may be OK. (Especially if you're after >> government grants and subsidies aimed at promoting "the hydrogen >> economy".)
>they are a hydrogen producer, and they do it cheaper and cleaner than >anyone else.
>Go SHEC.
So, all your blather about how SHEC is our energy future was just that: blather.
If you had numbers that supported your assertions, you'd certainly post them.
Come on, Marc. This is a science-based hydrogen energy group. We're big boys here. We can understand cost analyses in addition to the thermodynamics.
Please show us how the capital outlay necessary to build and maintain this SHEC process for a 14% gain in chemical energy is justified over simply using the methane directly.
On 30 Jun 2005 23:55:59 -0700, "Marc" <mdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>No, Call SHEC. Very simple. If you guys were "big boys" you would be >able to pick up the phone and call them. What is holding you back?
Not my job. You're the flake they're paying to pump the stock, and you're too lazy or incompetent to present even a moderately entertaining scam for us to laugh at. You are pathetic, but still annoying.
Go away and at least try to get your act together.
Marc wrote: > No, Call SHEC. Very simple. If you guys were "big boys" you would be > able to pick up the phone and call them. What is holding you back?
Sci.energy.hydrogen is for discussing the science and technology of hydrogen. It's not for generating "buzz" regarding the product you're trying to sell. If you want to discuss the technology, then present some results and tell us why you think they're significant. The last time you tried this, you didn't pay enough attention to what you were pointing to.
Some people may agree with you that they're significant. Others may disagree. Scientists and engineers are, by and large, a sceptical group. If you make an extraordinary claim -- such as "This process will revolutionize energy production" -- you should be prepared to show extraordinary evidence that this is so.
I'm not sure why you'd want to bother, because you have repeatedly expressed disdain for the opinions given by this newsgroup. Obviously, it's not the forum you expected. You might be happier posting to one of the alt.hydrogen or alt.solar groups.
I notice this thread is cross-posted into a couple of misc.invest groups. Followups have been set to sci.energy.hydrogen.
You keep telling people to call SHEC, yet you yourself said earlier that "I don't know what to think right now as SHEC Labs has not been forthcoming with investors."
If they're not forthcoming with the people who've invested money with them, what makes you think they're going to be any more forthcoming with an anonymous voice from the Internet?
The more you talk about this company, the more it sounds like a scam. People in sci.energy.hydrogen sure have poked holes in the "science" behind it. It seems you're taking care of poking holes in the rest of it.
> You keep telling people to call SHEC, yet you yourself said earlier > that "I don't know what to think right now as SHEC Labs has not been > forthcoming with investors."
> If they're not forthcoming with the people who've invested money with > them, what makes you think they're going to be any more forthcoming > with an anonymous voice from the Internet?
> The more you talk about this company, the more it sounds like a scam. > People in sci.energy.hydrogen sure have poked holes in the "science" > behind it. It seems you're taking care of poking holes in the rest of > it.
Not just sci.energy.hydrogen. He can't convince rec.uk.gardening, either.
No one has poked holes in their technology. Please tell me where you see this. They have not been forthcoming in the terms of their money raising but that is because they are not professional businessmen. They are from the same area as the company and they have not raised enough funds to bring the major change needed in Management to bring the company to commerciability. There is no scam, Dave, as no one has become enriched in 9 years. They will talk to you, and they have learned a valuable lesson regarding Business in the real world.
>>You keep telling people to call SHEC, yet you yourself said earlier >>that "I don't know what to think right now as SHEC Labs has not been >>forthcoming with investors."
>>If they're not forthcoming with the people who've invested money with >>them, what makes you think they're going to be any more forthcoming >>with an anonymous voice from the Internet?
>>The more you talk about this company, the more it sounds like a scam. >>People in sci.energy.hydrogen sure have poked holes in the "science" >>behind it. It seems you're taking care of poking holes in the rest of >>it.
> Not just sci.energy.hydrogen. He can't convince rec.uk.gardening, either.
Even alt.sex.sheep would likely prove a challenge.
-- Many thanks,
Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com
the whole flat earth thing was a "common" myth. Tell any fisherman of the time the world was flat and he would have taken you for an idiot. It's like claiming the bumblebee can't fly story of recent times.
|
