How I have invested for the e-cat

For reasons that have nothing to do with Dr. Rossi’s e-cat, investing is a challenge right now to say the least.  I have, however made some changes to my personal portfolio (though it isn’t huge) in response to the pending e-cat (see article in

I have placed some money in Cyclone Power Technologies (CYPW) as I am sure that they will skyrocket if/when the e-cat is revealed.  At 30 cents a share, it doesn’t take much to hold a meaningful stake in the company.  An investment of $300 gets you 1000 shares.  This is enough to make a small fortune from the e-cat, but the downside risk is minimal.  (I love the huge upside, small downside equations of penny stocks.)

I have purged myself of everything in the energy sector.  If I were more confident of the legitimacy of the e-cat I may have shorted the sector, but I’m not.  (Turns out I’d have done just fine so far by shorting the sector due to the world’s economic state.)

I am making no investment in nickel because the e-cat actually will do little to boost the nickel sector.  Because it gets so much energy out of nickel, it’s likely that a pound of the stuff would suffice for a lifetime even if we end up using 100 times the energy that we use today.

Mostly I am holding my breath, I will be on the buy and sell buttons the moment that the e-cat gets top billing on every news source.

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

70 Responses to “How I have invested for the e-cat”

  1. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Sold all utilities but still own some EXXON and hope to sell it but it’s already so cheap. Bought some ERY, an inverse (3X-bear-energy) for $12.10, which was close to its all time low. It’s up 61% and briefly was up double. Own CYPW but unfortunately bought at .46. E-mailed CYPW several months ago and management claimed he’d never heard of E-cat but promised he would read up.

    E-cat will be long term super-bullish but I fear bearish in short term because it’ll be so disruptive. Bye bye boom in Texas, N Dakota, Russia, and Middle-East.

    Believe Rossi would have been smarter to develop E-cat in an energy poor company like S Korea. He’s amongst many enemies here.

  2. Mirco Romanato Says:

    My suggestion, now, is to keep your money in gold and silver (silver is more bullish long term, but really more instable in the short).
    As the 1 MW plant is showed, tested and confirmed, smart people will have time to buy the shares of the right companies.

    In the meantime enjoy the rising gold and study well the pros and cons of the various possible investments concerning the e-cat.

  3. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Like gold and also PRPFX, a fund that’s 20% gold, 5% silver, a portion in Swiss Francs, with the balance expertly invested in stocks and bonds. Has a great 10 yr chart.

  4. brucefast Says:

    “study well the pros and cons of the various possible investments concerning the e-cat”

    That is much of what I am attempting to do, for myself and for others, with this blog. The e-cat will send societies through a time of major adjustment. Those who have thought out, and discussed out the issues ahead of time will find the transition much easier than those who are blind-sided by the e-cat’s arrival.

  5. bibi Says:

    You might want to short Cu, as that can be made much easier than mined ;-). Shorting energy, not sure. I don’t think we will spend less money on energy, just different. But the oil research and alternative energy such as solar: definitely gone!

    • brucefast Says:

      Interesting thought. First, however, I still am not truly convinced of the truth of Dr. Rossi’s claim. As such, I am only adjusting my portfolio to consider that Dr. Rossi’s claims are valid, not betting that they are.

      Further, Copper usage has been growing exponentially, and is currently at about 15 million tons per year. Nickel, on the other hand has a usage of about 1.2 million tons per year. Nickel’s price will be affected far more than copper’s will. As I am not expecting nickel usage to go up notably in an e-cat world, I would hardly expect Cu’s to go through the floor. Actually, Cu may do very well in a world where electricity is free, as it is used so heavily in an electrical world.

    • Mirco Romanato Says:

      About “alternative” energy sources like PV, Wind, and like I agree, they are dead if the e-cat work as advertised.
      Oil, maybe not. The ICE have not substitutes, for now. And oil is needed for plastic production, lubricant, etc.
      What will be damaged is the conventional producers, as the e-cat make easier to extract shale oil and tar sand

  6. k.w.hilborn Says:

    Steam will need to be converted into electricity for most of our power needs with E-cat. I cannot make toast with steam, or power my laptop.

    One problem I have with steam engines winning the automotive battle is the noise. With 1 or 2 small ecats built into where my fuel tank/batteries might normally be I could generate (even if ineffeciently for starters) more than enough electricity to power any sized vehicle. Even monster truck s.u.v.’s.

    Electric cars would be much quietter. Electric motors are also very simple, and the framework for electric car manufacturing is already in place with many automotive plants, they will simply need to redesign the cars to be much larger. If all the corner gas stations are going to vanish, I at least want a vehicle with an on board washroom.

    I suppose steam would be in the battle, and will eventually prove successful. Toiday there is hardly a trained steam engine mechanic around, and the testing and designs of great engines by car companies may take several years.

    Who is to say Nissan (or any company) will buy their engines from Cyclone? Steam engines are not new, and I am sure most automotive companies could come up with similar version that do not break their patents.

    I would invest in a magnet company. Magnets are used in construction of electricity generators and motors, and both will be strong growth industries.

    I do think the car will be electric before it is steam, but I know for a fact that homes and business are a long way from steam operation.

    • brucefast Says:

      “One problem I have with steam engines winning the automotive battle is the noise.”
      As discussed in, If you check out the tail end of this video: you will see that the best of steam cars aren’t all that loud.

      The vast majority of steam engine noise is the noise of combustion, which wouldn’t be relevant in an e-cat environment and the exiting steam which doesn’t happen with a modern regenerative motor. They won’t be silent like electric, but they won’t be louder than a modern car at all. (Turns out that people with electrics are having trouble because their cars are so quiet — not being noticed by pedestrians etc. As a result some electrics are coming out with “artificial noise”.)

  7. Craig Binns Says:


    “I love the huge upside, small downside, of penny stocks”

    Not what you were saying back in May, just after Cyclone stocks went wild.

    Craig Binns Says:
    May 16, 2011 at 9:47 pm | Reply
    Well, if Rossi’s going to take it over, maybe he should do so quite soon! According to the latest Auditors’ Report, April 18 2011:

    “[T]he Company’s dependence on outside financing, lack of sufficient working capital, and recurring losses raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”


    In spite of this, enthusiasm seems to undampened. According to a penny stocks news sheet (26 April)

    “Cyclone Power Technologies Inc. (PINK:CYPW) reached up 20.69% in morning trading to $.35 with 400K shares traded.”


    Your reply:

    Craig, Cyclone power is clearly not going to go anyware unless the Rossi proves valid. Even then I wonder if their “no lubrication” model will be robust enough for the real world. Penny stocks are a funny game, where 100% loss is rather common, but upsides of 10,000% are not unheard of. Play in the risk, or don’t play at that table.

    Are you now minimising the risk. Why? You open yourself to grievous suspicions of conflict of interest. Now is the time to deny them.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, please understand me. I’m figuring that there’s a 10% chance that the e-cat or Piantelli’s technology is for real (despite the damning video from Steve Krivit.) I also think that when/if one of these technologies gets introduced to the world formally, cyclone power is destined for a HUGE ride! I am figuring it’ll go up at least 100 times as the world scrambles to rediscover interest in heat to usable energy conversion. (I believe that the main advantage that cyclone power will have is a “first to market” advantage — but that is a HUGE advantage in this world.)

      So despite recognizing that cyclone power is an unlikely candidate for success without the e-cat, I still find it a good bet exactly because “the huge upside, small downside, of penny stocks”.

      So, Craig, we see the difference in outlook between you and me. You would go with the 90% because it is the more likely, and you are the one likely to say “I told you so”. I’d rather ride the 10% horse because if a primary system like the world’s energy supply system transforms, I want to be in it from the beginning.

      A further note on Steve Krivit. I looked into his career as a cold fusion reporter. He has clearly been interested in cold fusion for a long time. He is also obviously positively predisposed to seeing cold fusion/LENR work. This positive predisposition, unlike your own lack of it, makes his damning case much stronger.

  8. timycelyn Says:

    Guys, elsewhere someone noted that lead was a very finite resource (40 year left before the e-cat came on the scene?). Looks like e-cats will initially at least need lead screening in many applications – will lead go short?

    • brucefast Says:

      timycelyn, you bring up an interesting point. I did a bit of exploring. When I search google for “running out of lead”, I find nothing interesting. When I search for “peak lead” I find this article: But only this one.

      Currently about twice as much lead is mined than nickel. But the current lead usage is about 70 times the usage of lithium, a substance found in virtually all laptop and handheld devices ('s_crust). In addition, most cars use a significant amount of lead in their lead-acid batteries.

      I conclude the following:
      > If 1/70th of the usage of lead covers all of the laptops and handhelds in the world, providing e-cats for everything isn’t going to require all that much lead — unless the lead becomes radioactive, and has to be abandoned into might toxic lead dumps.
      > Lead has by no means been explored for with the determination that oil has been explored for. There are likely many lead finds to be had.
      > Lead is not critical to the e-cat process. Everything absorbs gamma rays to some extent (which seems to be the reason for the shielding). While lead is particularly good at gamma ray absorption, if there truly was a shortage, we’d soon find out what substance is second best.

      I, therefore, am not worried that lead will be a problem any time soon. While e-cats may make lead an attractive investment some time in the future, I don’t expect it to become so with any haste.

  9. Mirco Romanato Says:

    Improbable. The gamma emitted are very weak and easily shielded by metal and water. Rossi and Focardi tested the first prototypes without shielding and they are living and well.

    From what appear, I think the materials used are pretty common. Their price will not grow because the e-cat.
    What will be used more if energy is cheap?
    What will be used more if heat is cheaper than ever and it is in scarce supply?

    This is the question an investor need to answer?

    • Bob Norman Says:

      Shielding is needed. I read somewhere that Rossi had increased the thickness of his shielding, so it must be an issue.
      There are plastic Resins and tungsten heavy Metal that work as good or better than lead with no pollution. Lead availability will not be an issue.
      Has the amount of radiation emitted ever been given. I don’t remember seeing this number given. It would be interesting to know to figure the lead thickness or equivalent required to shield it properly.

  10. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “Even then I wonder if their “no lubrication” model will be robust enough for the real world.”

    Raytheon seems convinced.

    • brucefast Says:

      Yes, I saw that order come through. However, the engine they ordered has a fairly limited duty cycle. The most attractive feature that they have gone for is the fact that the steam engine doesn’t need to idle to be ready to output power. I don’t know if this compares well to a vehicle usage situation that expects a couple hundred thousand miles out of a motor.

  11. timycelyn Says:

    Yes, that seems reasonable – weak gamma rays can be shielded in a number of ways, so lead is probably not key to success here, certainly in 10 yrs or so one would expect to find other shileding that could be approved.

    I think the upcoming possible shortage of lead for other reasons may be real though, I found the following in <> Wikipedia: “At current use rates, the supply of lead is estimated to run out in 42 years.[18] Environmental analyst Lester Brown has suggested lead could run out within 18 years based on an extrapolation of 2% growth per year.[19] This may need to be reviewed to take account of renewed interest in recycling, and rapid progress in fuel cell technology.”

  12. water engineer Says:

    Ive discussed having a system like the ecat and its effect on production and consumption. The design and construction of automobiles will change, why make a car energy efficient if the fuel is almost free. Why use expensive lightweight materials, aerodynamic streamlining, when you could build them using cheap heavy materials and long lasting components. Electricity from the grid will see a gradual decline until all power is generated locally. 50% of the cost of electricity comes from transmission, distribution and metering. Having a self contained power plant in my backyard of say 100 KWh/H would allow me to have several times my usage at a fraction of the cost. No more outages from storms, downed powerlines, and accidents. AC and heating costs will disappear, and be replaced with maintenance and purchase costs. Clean drinking water from distillation or RO will allow deserts to bloom and along the seas of the world.
    No more wars to control energy resources allows all the wasted manpower to be used at home. What the internet did to communications the Ecat will do for energy… hopefully

  13. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Just about everything would be cheaper. Transportation fuel costs are a sizable portion of retail costs. Basic construction materials such as metals, cement, and asphalt require high heat to produce. Asphalt, plastics, and some fertilizers will benefit from lower oil prices. Freighter ships, cruise lines, and residential ships will boom. Real estate and agriculture will reign.

    I don’t believe there will be a problem with lead supply. Lead is the most highly recycled material.

  14. kwhilborn Says:

    I could take my houseboat into the middle of the lake and stay there forever with a few grams of nickel. Until i get tired of fish and antenna based television.

    Everyone will want a motor-home. Why drive a tiny car when you can have a 5 ton entertainment system and living room at your disposal while stuck in traffic. It will be air conditioned; and I’ll hang Christmas lights all around and underneath. Plus I can charge up my segways while i drive. Why walk now?

    So yes.. Plant my money in portable toilets and motor-homes.

    You can park at an empty corner lot that used to have a gas station and charge a dime to let people use your toilet, it’s not like the corner stations are going to be there any more.

    What kind of business would thrive in an old gas station lot? I know coffee sounds good, but don’t forget we have fully stocked fridges and stoves and coffee machines in our motor-homes. I’m driving clean fuel, then let me up-size. Governments will have to implement size restrictions on vehicles. Get a massive one while you still can and refurbish them to resell to yuppies.

    with energy being so cheap maybe i’ll take my motorhome and stake out a mining claim. Instead of costly sluice machines I could operate twenty of them for less cost. Thar’s gold in them there streams..

    Lot of people will do what i said, and live off the grid.

    So boats/mining/motor-homes/ any electric generation or magnet companies. Portable toilets, and emptying stations. remote internet access devices.

    I really don’t want to see my daughter going on her first date in a motor-home… Thanks Mr. Rossi…

    Bicycles have Push trailers. Basically a trailer that is electric and can push the bike. Could (WIde thinking here) a car have a steam or electric push trailer. I doubt it, but it’s a thought and in brainstorming there is no bad ideas..

    My cottage will have a tesla coil security system that also hunts ducks while i sleep. Forget bugs.. I’m gonna fry me some instant duck. Every car/motorhome will be able to light up a football field for night sports, and huge lighting tracks will be a fad for sure.

    pipelines of ocean water will be brought inland for desalination at desert locals, and for farmers to exploit. Engineers can be trained to build man made lakes and direct water for forest fire uses.

    Good luck Mr Rossi, and please be sure to leave lots of information about your catalyst, and protect yourself. oil companies may soon dislike you.

  15. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The funniest post.

  16. brucefast Says:

    kwhilborn, you also have my vote for funniest post, this was great!

    BTW, “charge a dime to let people use your toilet.”

    I’d charge two nickels.

  17. Bob Norman Says:

    A most interesting discussion! I would be very hesitant to make stock moves at this early stage. Even though the Ecat may truly be revolutionary, changes will take time and infrastructure and market acceptance will take time. The first home systems will require loans and finance, banks will need to step up and put finance in place. Sometimes a late starting company can end up number 1 by out innovating and out manufacturing. Don’t short stocks, its way to early, based on Ecat. Investing in steam engines could work out, but the dominant company feeding the market will pick suppliers and will determine winners and losers. IMHO

  18. kwhilborn Says:

    Ty, Ty, I’m here every week.

  19. Roger Bird Says:

    Since I have no money, I am hoping that just owning an E-Cat will help me somehow make money in my basement, and I don’t just mean unhooking from the grid. I could set up a machine and make widgets or something.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I’m no financial guru nor am I a technophobe, but common sense dictates that if eCat is for real, then old energy is doomed. ERY is an etf that bets against old energy. ERY is dirt cheap, $11.45/share. ERY was over $300 in late 2008, during the depths of despair during the crash. The fundamentals of a new energy era dwarf the rationale of the ’08 crash. I’m accumulating ERA and the current low price is a gift, however I can’t cash in until WallStreet acknowledges the new era.

      Do your own due diligence

      • bibi Says:

        Iggy, That was my thinking too. But then how was ERY during the boom years 2005-2007? Supposed to be even much lower than today, right?

        And won’t the fund managers adjust the allocation when ecat comes around? the description says bear ENERGY, not bear OIL. And energy we will be using only more, oil will become cheap, stimulating more use of that too while at the same time more expensive exploration of oil becomes obsolete…

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Apparently ERY wasn’t started until late ’07.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Today the market was down about 2%, yet ERY gained 13% (the 1st full day after the big demo).
        Is the word getting around?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        ERY finished Oct 28 (e-Cat demo day) at $11.45/share.
        Today, 2 days later, ERY finished at $14.18. A coincidence? Maybe, but on the other hand, the e-CAT may be out of the bag.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        There’s a new leveraged inverse etf for natural gas, symbol: KOLD. I figure that natural gas will be the first segment of energy to be adversely affected by the eCat.

        There are other nat gas etfs on the Toronto exchange.

        I would prefer a non-leveraged etf.

  20. Fast Buck Says:

    For Rossi’s invention to reach its full potential, some of the heat will need to be converted to electricity. This can be done with Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) generators. Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, a United Technologies company, has been producing these for years. Perhaps they were the “mystery customer” at Rossi’s test. UTX is my E-cat bet.

  21. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    20 yr wait for eCat in cars. 2 yr for home heat.

    That tells me I shouldn’t focus on shorting energy in general,
    but focus on shorting natural gas. Diesel next, oil impacted last.


    Rita Ekholm
    November 2nd, 2011 at 1:57

    How long do you think it will take before we here in the cold north to warm our houses with E-cat
    What if E-cat could also be used in cars
    Andrea Rossi
    November 2nd, 2011 at 2:09 PM

    Dear Rita Ekholm:
    up to 2 years, mainly for authorizations for heating systems; 20 years for cars.
    Warm Regards,

    • brucefast Says:

      I don’t believe that it’ll take 20 years for cars. I think the first cars will show up in showrooms in 5 years. By 20 years I believe that it’ll be difficult to find a place to buy gas.

      Heat engines for cars already exist. Cyclone power has car-sized steam engines (1/2 size of the gas engine, no transmission required). I understand that some years ago Ford experimented with a stirling drive car. Electric and hybrid cars will be easily convertible with just a stirling or steam generator. Most importantly, once the e-cat is fully realized (I figure that’ll take most of a year), there will be a mad race to be the first out with an e-cat car.

  22. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Assuming the eCat is widely adopted, there would still be good demand for copper because of the new cheapness of electricity, however once the grid became obsolete and started to be dismantled, there would be a huge glut of the metal.

  23. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Rossi has announced that Leonardo Corporation is now owned by an investors’ trust. There is speculation by commentators on eCatWorld that EON or E.ON is the new owner. One of the commentators pointed out that EON was a large European natural gas utility. I’ve long thought that natural gas would be the 1st casualty of eCat competition, since both are use primarily to produce heat.

  24. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Enel is the owner of E.ON

    Italy sees gas shortfall from Russia

  25. Kevin O Says:

    There has been a large spike in CYPW shares within the couple of weeks. I bought in a position when shares were at 1.3 cents, contributing to the spike. I perceive this volume spike is due to other people like me moving in just as this discussion has covered. Rossi’s (2nd) independent third party test report will be coming out in June. And NASA’s been evaluating this technology as well.

    • iggydalrymple Says:

      Kevin, why don’t you contact CYPW and ask if they’re in contact with IH/Rossi? I wrote them months ago and they replied that they were in talks with a competitor with Rossi. I figured it was Defkalion then, so maybe they’ve changed. I suspect that IH is discouraging small scale application at the point.

      • Kevin O Says:

        Andrea Rossi Comments on Cyclone Engine
        Posted on December 5, 2013 by admin • 27 Comments

        In light of the recent news that Dr. Yeoung E. Kim will be advising Cyclone Power Technologies about LENR, the question has been brought up again on the Journal of Nuclear Physics. Andrea Rossi just posted about the matter.

        Malcom Lear:
        We did not receive an offer for an industrialized product, yet. If we will receive an offer for a product ready for the market, which means with acceptable price/kW, we will buy one item and test it. We have received offers for similar issues, but they were prototypes with unacceptable prices, upon which more research and development was necessary. We are not interested to be involved in this R&D, so far, because we are focused on our E-Cats, therefore we will apply to our E-Cats the existing well consolidated technologies. If new technologies will arrive in the marked, well tested, certified, consolidated and competitive with the existing $/kW prices, we will be delighted to buy units and test them in our laboratories.
        Warm Regards,

        I have done a little research into the Cyclone Engine, and found that as yet, the company has not yet put any of its engines into industrial production for sale in the marketplace. A recent press release from Cyclone Power Technologies reports on its recent developments saying, “We’re moving ahead steadily with our development partners at Ohio State University, and aiming to complete initial durability testing by the end of this year in order to shift into limited scale manufacturing mode soon thereafter.” So it looks like it will be a while before Rossi will be able to do any testing with this engine.

    • kwhill Says:

      Nickel is far too abundant to become valuable from a switch to Cold Fusion. Nickel is the Fifth most common element. Many people cannot comprehend how abundant that really is, but we could use LENR for hundreds of years without increasing its worth.

      It’s like investing in dirt.

      Better investments would be with Electrical generator companies who will be swarmed with orders to build LENR compliant generators when this hits. Even magnet companies, etc.

      Look for industries that will collapse (solar, wind, Fission), and look at industries that will grow (everything else).

      Cheap transportation will drive up cottage and off grid prices, just as high gas prices have diminished them. LENR will make city homes fall in value and cottages raise.

      Investing in Nickel is silly and hardly original. This article is a few years old now. Read the article and comments fully.

      Any price spikes or changes in Nickel Prices have more to do with weather, seasons, and mining success than with eager LENR investors.

  26. Kevin O Says:

    kwhill Says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Steam Engines may be the way, but is Cyclone unique enough to have no competition?
    ***Probably not, but they are uniquely situated as a publicly traded company that has IP in this area of necessity. Like the microcomputer flood, there will be a huge rush by tons of other companies to enter this market. CYWP will have pole position.

    I doubt it. As soon as steam becomes viable you will see old patents becoming empowered again.
    ***I am not familiar with the concept of patents becoming empowered again. When a patent expires, you can’t just renew it. It becomes public property.

    My point is that there are dozens of businesses to invest in, and steam engines is just one.
    ***I have not found dozens to invest in, dozens that would directly benefit in a skyrocketing fashion if LENR breaks out. For instance, National Instruments will get a healthy boost to their earnings, but maybe 20 or 30%, not 500% like a penny stock.

    Sell your house and buy a cottage.
    ***That is precisely the economic sentiment that will be expressed hundreds of millions of times when LENR goes live. There will be a $Trillion economic shift.

    • iggydalrymple Says:

      I agree that once LENR trickles down to homeowners then remote wilderness property values will skyrocket. In fact all real estate will boom as it always does when disposable income increases.

      Cyclone may not have a monopoly on heat engines but they must have something that’s attracted the Defense Dept, Raytheon, and Phoenix Power Group. I doubt that Ohio State U’s Center of Automotive Research would engage in what they describe as a partnership, unless they thought Cyclone’s technology held a lot of promise.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        As for the so-called spike in the price of CYPW, I would
        not be surprised to see sub 1¢ before we see over 3¢.

    • kwhill Says:

      Good points all round, but look at this…

      Steam is not necessarily the way power generation will continue. Computers are advancing science so quickly we will soon see many viable energy alternatives.

      Imagine Blacklight Power was successful and no steam was needed.
      This is the life work of Doctor Mills. He is a Harvard Educated Medical Doctor who graduated in the top 10% of his class. A man who invented an entire class of body imaging, that has helped Brain Map Epileptics worldwide.

      Dr Mills thinks he has something.. Maybe he does?

      Now let’s look at all the money looking at hydrogen now and in the near future. If splitting water becomes easier than with standard electrolysis, then Hydrogen fuel may become a fuel of choice for many.

      There are many companies (like with LENR) now claiming they can split water much easier and quicker.

      There are alternatives to steam.

      If Either of those was affected then Real estate prices would shift, but anybody investing in steam power might get left out, although I could see a large Toyota type corporate entity buying Cyclone as soon as they decide to make a LENR push.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        Maybe Blacklight does have something. That’s why I donated to their kickstarter a few weeks ago.

      • kwhill Says:

        Yes. Godspeed to their patent. Tick Tock.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy, you gave money to Blacklight? You must be off your head. They’ve already raised $60 m and produced nothing in return. They are a clear scam of the most shameless kind.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        No, I gave to Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. LPP/Focus Fusion.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        I misspoke when I said I donated to Blacklight. It was LPP/Focus Fusion.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig, I soooo disagree with your analysis. I think I disagree with your definition. In fact, I think that there is a definition that you just don’t get.

        Do you understand well intentioned people who believe that they have something, and work really hard for years to make it happen, only to end up with the whole thing ending up in the garbage? Do you label such as “scam”? I don’t.

        To me, scam is limited to those who have devised a con, and are playing their game. Their purpose is to suck money out of the unwary. They know right well that they don’t have the goods. They don’t even pretend to themselves that they have the goods.

        There is, in my opinion, a secondary type of scam. This scam starts with a well-meaning person who believes that he has something. At some point he decides to, well, be knowingly dishonest about the state of the project. This person often believes that he is about to accomplish what he claims that he has already accomplished. However, he also knows that he just, well, fed a line to keep the project going. I would classify this as a scam.

        As far as Blacklight goes, well, I believe that they believe that they are on to something. I believe that they are getting some results. I believe that they have not achieved a producible solution. I am not convinced that they ever will, well, “make it”.

        Placing your bets with Blacklight, in my opinion, is risky. Risky means that you are likely to take a loss on the bet. However, as with horse racing, The risk is offset by the potential reward. If one has a bet riding on the train that rolls, he will cover for many bad investments, potentially all of his bad investments and much more.

        Risky is not equal to scam in my opinion.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Risky is not equal to scam. But this is equal to scam. It’s from
        “Of course, Mills could be a genius whose theories are going to completely revolutionize modern science (and modern industry). That’s what his supporters claim. But that’s what the supporters of ALL free-energy schemers claim. The fact is that for almost fifteen years Mills has been promising that practical applications of his hydrino technology are just around the corner. But nothing ever materializes. And meanwhile he keeps luring in new investors with his wild promises of limitless energy. So it seems to me that Mills and his hydrinos match the familiar free-energy pattern of big promises, but no results.”

      • brucefast Says:

        Ho, Craig. You have introduced new terms here — “hoax” and “schemer”.

        The museum of hoaxes calls Mills a schemer. The dictionary seems to agree with it. defines scheme as: “3. a visionary or impractical project.” This definition undoubtedly fits Dr. Mills’ blacklight project.

        Hoax: 1. Something intended to deceive or defraud. The key difference between a hoax and a scam, it appears to me, is that the hoax may intend to deceive (cause people to believe what is incorrect.) without defrauding (taking their stuff from them through deception).

        The key word in the definition of hoax is “intend”. It goes to motivation. A situation may deceive someone, or a person may deceive another. A mirage, for instance can be deceptive. To say that the mirage had “intention” is a bit thick, so we don’t call it a “hoax”.

        Scam, 1. A confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle. Fraud is a legal term. fraud n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.

        Two words are important here, “intentional”, and “deprive”. It appears to me that “scam” and “fraud” are tight similes. Both require intent, both require depriving. It is clear that Dr. Mills has received “investment money”. So he has deprived.

        However, what is his intent? Does Dr. Mills really believe that he is on to something, does he really continually believe that the “breakthrough” is just around the corner? Or does he lay in his bed at night and chuckle at the suckers that invested their money?

        Surely you don’t believe that you can know that the latter is true. My experience says otherwise, my experience says that Dr. Mills may be deceived, but that he, with reasonable honesty, represents what he believes is happening.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        Here’s a fairly recent viral video hoax:

      • Craig Binns Says:


        One of the things Dr Mills KNOWS is happening is that his undertaking has received a reported $60m of investment money, and another thing he KNOWS is happening is that his absurd theories have been trashed by the scientific community, and that he has yet to make good a single one of his promises. So if he’s deceiving himself, he’s nuts. If he’s deceiving others he’s a crook.

      • brucefast Says:

        Unfortunately, Craig, self-deception is so ubiquitous that if that’s all it took to declare a person “nuts” then we’d all be nuts.

        There is, however, one thing that Dr. Mills has that you and I don’t have, which is his data. His data may be giving him a picture that motivates him to keep going despite the scientific community’s back seat driving.

        So, we have three possibilities:
        1 – Dr. Mills is nuts (and so are pretty much all of us.)
        2 – Dr. Mills has data that properly counters the view of the “scientific community”.
        3 – Dr. Mills continues his little con in hopes of getting more millions from investors. (Lets ignore the fact that nobody has found him to be a party boy celebrating his winnings. He’s too busy scamming more, more.)

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Mills can’t be a scammer because he’s not partying enough? Eh?

      • brucefast Says:

        Yes, Craig, I think that is correct. The scammer makes a plot, the plot has an end game. Scams, if successful, don’t take years and years to move a person to the “wealthy” category. If scams aren’t successful, the scammer doesn’t just keep beating at the stupid idea for year upon year.

        That said, if somebody believes that they are sitting on the real thing, they often do stick with it for years and years. They may be self-deluded, as Dr. Mills may be, but self-delusion isn’t scam.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        True, perhaps, but not the point. You said he can’t be a scammer because (at least to your personal knowledge, however accurate that may be) he’s not a “party boy”. To you a person can’t be accumulating ill-gotten wealth without being a party boy? I really can’t accept “not being a party boy” (if indeed he’s not) as proof of financial integrity.

  27. Kevin O Says:

    iggydalrymple Says:
    May 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    As for the so-called spike in the price of CYPW, I would
    not be surprised to see sub 1¢ before we see over 3¢.

    ***I’m not talking about a spike in the price, I’m talking about a spike in volume. Look at the 10 year history to see the last time there was a (much larger) spike in volume. It precipitated a huge price spike.

  28. Kevin O Says:

    Here’s an example of some early-adopter money starting to move into this space. The problem is, it’s not available to just anyone, and in particular, they already closed it off for this fund.

    Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC, which is in the Pooled Investment Fund business, filed a new Form D on May 13, 2014.
    Offering Details

    The total reported offering size was $205,000.
    Of this amount, Lenr-Invest Fund I, LLC sold $205,000 or (100% of the offering), with the first sale occuring on May 01, 2014.
    The minimum investment for this offering was set at $15,000.

    Analysis of Offering

    On average, companies in this industry sell 34.75% of the total offering size. $0 was reported remaining.
    The average floor on investment size for companies in the Pooled Investment Fund industry is $100,000.
    The method of investment was Equity.

    Registration Exemptions

    The company reported the following exemptions: Rule 506(b).

    Rule 506(b): A federal and state registration exmeption provided under Regulation D. Allows the issuer to raise unlimited funds with no limitations on the number of accredited investos and up to 35 non-accredited investors. The issuer is not allowed to publicly solicit the offering. For more information on Rule 506 see Key Regulation D Rules.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: