Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Toups Technology Licensing, Inc (TOUP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard Williams who wrote (140)	12/20/1998 8:35:00 PM
From: PaperProphet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 317

I agree. Their statement that they found a new type of molecular bond which has never been discovered before was one of many that I thought was just a bit hard to swallow. Other things mentioned like atmospheric oxygen depletion which would be alleviated with this technology seemed just a bit strange to me. Apparently they seem to be the only people who know anything about this. While the world has been able to measure tiny increases in carbon dioxide and everyone has heard of the global warming threats due to that, and scientists have been also able to determine that there is a depletion of ozone at the south pole, the people at Toups are the only ones who seem to know about the world threat of oxygen depletion. Here is a cut and paste from them: "According to unverifiable leaks from confidential governmental satellite surveillance and other tests done in the USA and Europe, at this moment our planet is presumed to have lost about 10% of the Oxygen content present in our atmosphere compared to one century ago." They go on to say that in our lifetimes people will have to carry around oxygen bottles. In my lifetime so far, as far as I know, oxygen has always been 20.8%. Also, wouldn't a 10% decrease in oxygen also mean that we would have at least 2% atmospheric carbon dioxide? (minus any CO2 which may have been absorbed in the ocean.) We don't have anywhere near 2% CO2 right now. Not just that, but it seems anyone can make a good case against most of the statements they made regarding their fuel. To me, it almost sounds as though they rediscovered coal gasification and are trying to pass it off as something else. Again, all opinions are my own.

To: Howard Williams who wrote (140)	12/20/1998 10:01:00 PM
From: Andrew H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 317

Howard, I really think you are overdoing the "over unity" bit. It is completely irrelevant to the production of AquaFuel. No one at TOUP is claiming that AquaFuel has, is, or will ever be produced in an "over unity" situation. I see it merely as a remote theoretical possibility. No one is claiming it can be produced for free, except possibly as a by-product of some process like cleaning waste water in which the electrical costs are accounted for in the purification of water. This remains to be demonstrated. Whether or not it is a "new form of matter" is completely irrelevant to its production, use and marketing as well, although it may certainly be of theoretical interest. What is relevant in regard to AquaFuel as a marketable product is its characteristics as an energy source and its cost of production. These matters are still under investigation, although much progress has been made. I think we will be hearing more from the company soon in this regard.