ADVFN Logo
Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
flooidCX Corporation (CE)

flooidCX Corporation (CE) (FLCX)

1.10
0.00
(0.00%)
Closed July 21 4:00PM

Real-time discussions and trading ideas: Trade with confidence with our powerful platform.

Key stats and details

Current Price
1.10
Bid
0.00
Ask
0.00
Volume
-
0.00 Day's Range 0.00
0.8001 52 Week Range 9.00
Market Cap
Previous Close
1.10
Open
-
Last Trade
Last Trade Time
Financial Volume
-
VWAP
-
Average Volume (3m)
3,484
Shares Outstanding
48,797,246
Dividend Yield
-
PE Ratio
-3,666.67
Earnings Per Share (EPS)
-0
Revenue
-
Net Profit
-13k

About flooidCX Corporation (CE)

flooidCX ( https://flooidcx.com/) is the customer experience solutions company. We are the global experts who help bridge the customer care and feedback gap between companies and consumers by unifying communications and collaborations over one seamless platform. We utilize our proprietary intuitive ... flooidCX ( https://flooidcx.com/) is the customer experience solutions company. We are the global experts who help bridge the customer care and feedback gap between companies and consumers by unifying communications and collaborations over one seamless platform. We utilize our proprietary intuitive suite of solutions that empower businesses to listen, learn, anticipate and respond to consumers at the right time. flooidCX's Customer Experience Solutions help organizations meet their strategic goals by simplifying, modernizing, and automating the entire customer experience process. flooidCX Show more

Sector
Business Services, Nec
Industry
Business Services, Nec
Headquarters
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Founded
1970
flooidCX Corporation (CE) is listed in the Business Services sector of the OTCMarkets with ticker FLCX. The last closing price for flooidCX (CE) was $1.10. Over the last year, flooidCX (CE) shares have traded in a share price range of $ 0.8001 to $ 9.00.

flooidCX (CE) currently has 48,797,246 shares outstanding. The market capitalization of flooidCX (CE) is $53.68 million. flooidCX (CE) has a price to earnings ratio (PE ratio) of -3666.67.

FLCX Latest News

PeriodChangeChange %OpenHighLowAvg. Daily VolVWAP
1-0.1-8.333333333331.21.20.8273591.08963038CS
4-0.1-8.333333333331.21.20.8236251.10059417CS
12-0.21-16.03053435111.311.450.80534841.19592085CS
26-2.11-65.73208722743.213.950.800134891.5760772CS
52-2.9-72.5490.800126832.14561511CS
1560.52591.30434782610.57590.077549231.99227138CS
2600.9325556.716417910.167590.005183230.37997175CS

Movers

View all
  • Most Active
  • % Gainers
  • % Losers
SymbolPriceVol.
SERVServe Robotics Inc
$ 7.51
(185.55%)
262.73M
AUGXAugmedix Inc
$ 2.27
(147.71%)
21.87M
XCURExicure Inc
$ 0.5351
(76.02%)
14.02M
PSNLPersonalis Inc
$ 3.83
(56.33%)
22.76M
MDBHMDB Capital Holdings LLC
$ 10.675
(37.21%)
126.13k
SPWRSunPower Corporation
$ 0.6735
(-55.40%)
119.98M
HYZNHyzon Motors Inc
$ 0.149
(-47.54%)
23.37M
MEDSTRxADE Health Inc
$ 14.92
(-33.45%)
204.34k
SILOSilo Pharma Inc
$ 2.50
(-27.95%)
11.12M
KITTNauticus Robotics Inc
$ 0.0935
(-27.46%)
26.52M
SERVServe Robotics Inc
$ 7.51
(185.55%)
262.73M
NVDANVIDIA Corporation
$ 117.93
(-2.61%)
206.41M
SXTP60 Degrees Pharmaceuticals Inc
$ 0.2602
(5.77%)
202.14M
SQQQProShares UltraPro Short QQQ
$ 8.46
(2.79%)
184.21M
SPWRSunPower Corporation
$ 0.6735
(-55.40%)
119.98M

FLCX Discussion

View Posts
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 4 days ago
Not surprised - thanks
👍️0
Mr.S Szilard Mr.S Szilard 4 days ago
Not new. All OTC companies get this notice when their filings are late. Investor relations says their audit and filings are within a week or so.
👍️0
MagnetLover MagnetLover 4 days ago
New status for FLCX on otcmarkets :

Warning! This security is eligible for Unsolicited Quotes Only

This stock is not eligible for proprietary broker-dealer quotations. All quotes in this stock reflect unsolicited customer orders. Unsolicited-Only stocks have a higher risk of wider spreads, increased volatility, and price dislocations. Investors may have difficulty selling this stock. An initial review by a broker-dealer under SEC Rule15c2-11 is required for brokers to publish competing quotes and provide continuous market making.
Warning! This security is traded on the Expert Market

The Expert Market® serves broker-dealer pricing and investor best execution needs. Quotations in Expert Market securities are restricted from public viewing. OTC Markets Group may designate securities for quoting on the Expert Market when it is not able to confirm that the company is making current information publicly available under SEC Rule 15c2-11, or when the security is otherwise restricted from public quoting. See additional information about the Expert Market here.
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 3 weeks ago
FLCX just keeps drifting lower and lower and I keep waiting and waiting.

At some point, I'll get back in, but not any time soon......
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 4 weeks ago
Maybe because there aren't any.......
👍️0
MJ16 MJ16 4 weeks ago
We still don't have Q1 statements for FLCX or QREE. They're 2 quarters behind - We haven't yet seen the impact of distributors and manufacturing.
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 2 months ago
Actually they do.

You might be right but at least I am limiting my losses at that level.........
👍️0
JayJay1982 JayJay1982 2 months ago
That may even be too high. I mean, no one actually still thinks this sham of a company is legitimate, do they?
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 2 months ago
I'm a buyer under a penny.....
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Hmmmm…interesting.

If that’s true, I wonder if they will refund all the early investors the extra $1,000 they paid (I believe that was the amount) to have one of the first earth engines installed at their home?

I have invested money into A LOT of different opportunities over the years and this one is by far the most bizarre.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Here's the reason why FlooidCX and Quantum have gotten shy about repeating their false "Photon Engine" claims, at least in public:
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”

Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
👍️0
MagnetLover MagnetLover 2 months ago
Not seeing the 'photon engine' is frankly not a big problem in my view. The 'Photon engine' is just a part of the Direct Energy System they do mention in the press release.

However, the 'soon to be released' is more symptomatic. I suspect the reason the magnetic propulsion section is blank is because they have transitioned from:

The 'earth engine'
Initial claim: 10-20kW generators powered by asymmetric magnets. Not perpetual motion since the magnets will 'discharge' at some point, the company just doesn’t know when. The 'earth engine' is the core of the 'zero grid' concept where classical grid system is replaced by in situ electric generation.

To

The ‘photon engine’
New Claim: the photon engine will 'condition' electric energy from interior PV panels to be stored in a series of batteries. The 'direct energy system' will reduce your electric bill.

And in that context, the ‘photon engine’ is essentially useless. Any electric ‘conditioning’ will be magnitudes more efficient with normal solid-state electronics. This is conventional technology and is called a Battery Management System.

So why describe it at all?
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Ain’t gonna lie—any current investor is delusional if unwilling to acknowledge that you’re right regarding the questionable nature of Quantum not mentioning the engine in that release. Also, would still like to know why the website page dedicated to the engine still indicates that it’s “coming soon.”

I know you have your view on this Dorick. Would love to hear a logical explanation from someone. Anyone???
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: And nowhere in the press release does FlooidCX even mention the so-called "Photon Engine." They no longer dare make in public the sort of claims they made a year ago in Las Vegas. But if they have actually made the wonderful agreements, then they must be making the same old claims in private that they no longer dare make in public. This puts them in a tough situation. If they put out a video that doesn't include the amazing false claims regarding the "Photon Engine" on which the deals must have been based, it's going to look very strange to the people who signed agreements.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Just a reminder of a snippet from Quantum’s ARC Energy distributorship announcement that was released 3.5 weeks ago—

“A more detailed informational video will be available on the Company’s YouTube Channel and on its website in the coming weeks.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/quantum-energy-corporation-dba-flooidcx-123000258.html
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Mr D: Very interesting. These AI tools feel a lot like attorneys—whichever side of the story you encourage (pay) them to represent, they’ll do their very best to logically justify that position.

They’re definitely helpful in quickly providing points to consider. And, of course, I just brushed past it’s points regarding scientific laws because that type of nonsense leaves me feeling like I may have lost my money…

👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Here's what happened when I tried your version of my question, and then ARGUED with Bing Copilot's answer:
FOLLOWUP QUESTION: I think that your answer is not correct. Using an electric motor to spin a generator to produce electricity will not save money, no matter how efficient the motor is, due to the law of conservation of energy. The generator would never produce more electricity than the motor consumes.

BING COPILOT: You are absolutely correct, and I apologize for any confusion my previous response may have caused. The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. In the case of using an electric motor to spin a generator, the amount of electrical energy produced by the generator will never exceed the amount of electrical energy consumed by the motor due to inherent inefficiencies in the system.

These inefficiencies arise from various factors, such as friction, heat loss, and resistance, which ensure that some energy is always lost in the conversion process. Therefore, it is not possible for such a system to generate more electricity than it consumes, and it cannot be a means of reducing electric bills by producing excess energy.

The only way to save money using an electric motor and generator system would be if the system is part of a larger setup that includes renewable energy sources (like solar or wind power) or if it’s used in conjunction with energy storage systems to take advantage of off-peak rates. However, the motor and generator themselves, no matter how efficient, cannot create a surplus of energy that would lead to cost savings on their own.

Thank you for pointing out the oversight, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct the information. The principles of thermodynamics are fundamental to understanding energy systems, and it’s important to accurately represent them.

FOLLOWUP QUESTION: I'm still not happy with this answer. Using an electric motor to spin an electric generator will not save money, no matter what "larger setup" they may be part of.

BING COPILOT: You are correct, and I apologize for any confusion. Using an electric motor to spin a generator will not result in a net gain of energy or a reduction in electric bills. The energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor due to the fundamental laws of physics, specifically the law of conservation of energy.

In any system where a motor drives a generator, the best outcome one can hope for is that the energy output is close to the energy input, minus inevitable losses due to inefficiencies. These inefficiencies include friction, resistance, and heat loss, which are present in all practical energy conversion systems. Therefore, it is not possible to create a system where the generator produces more energy than the motor consumes.

The only way to save money on electricity using a generator is if the generator is powered by a free or low-cost energy source, such as wind, water, or solar power. In such cases, the savings come from the use of renewable energy sources, not from the efficiency of the motor-generator system itself.

I appreciate your patience and the opportunity to clarify this matter. If you have any more questions or need further explanation, please feel free to ask.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Very good - you just proved how unreliable Bing Copilot is! Its answer to your version of my question flatly contradicts its answer to my original question! Both answers cannot be correct. I already knew that Bing Copilot is quite unreliable in answering physics questions, and that its "opinion" should never be taken as "proof" of anything. I just thought that maybe it would provide an understandable explanation of the matter. But you showed the drawbacks to that idea! Nonetheless, if you study its answer to my question, there's a chance you could still understand why its answer to your question is not correct. Both answers cannot be true. I have found that if you argue with it and give reasons why you think its answer is not correct, it will sometimes actually change its mind. I think this would probably happen with your own version of the question, if you argued with it by pointing out that its answer contradicted the law of conservation of energy, etc.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Mr D: You’ll have fun with this question/response…

Question—An anonymous internet poster is stating that a company claiming their newly invented magnet motor will change the world is a scam. How do I respond to this accusation?

Copilot response—When evaluating claims about newly invented magnet motors, it’s essential to consider both the scientific basis and the credibility of the company making the claim. Let’s break down the situation:

Robert Sansone’s Synchronous Reluctance Motor:
Robert Sansone, a 17-year-old inventor, created a prototype of a synchronous reluctance motor that doesn’t rely on rare-earth magnets1.
Unlike traditional permanent magnet motors (which use materials like neodymium, samarium, and dysprosium), Sansone’s motor uses a different design.
The synchronous reluctance motor has greater rotational force (torque) and efficiency than existing ones.
Sansone’s work earned him recognition and a prize at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair.

Motoflux Inc.'s Magnet Motor:
Another company, Motoflux Inc., claims to have harnessed magnetic fields for motor-driven energy2.
While the details of their motor are not provided in the snippet, it’s crucial to examine their scientific evidence and any independent validation.

Evaluating Claims:
When assessing such claims, consider the following:
Scientific Rigor: Has the company published research or undergone independent testing? Peer-reviewed studies provide credibility.
Material Costs: Traditional permanent magnet motors rely on expensive rare-earth materials. If a new motor design avoids these materials, it could be advantageous.
Trade-Offs: Evaluate trade-offs. Even if a motor design reduces costs, does it sacrifice performance or reliability?

Expert Opinions: Seek opinions from experts in electrical engineering and motor design.

Market Impact: Consider how the motor could impact industries (e.g., electric vehicles, renewable energy).

Avoiding Scams:
Beware of companies making grandiose claims without substantial evidence.
Look for transparency, technical details, and third-party validation.
Investigate the company’s background, team, and track record.
In summary, skepticism is healthy, but it’s essential to balance it with open-mindedness. Investigate the science behind the claims, seek expert opinions, and make informed judgments. If the company provides verifiable evidence and transparent information, it’s worth considering their motor’s potential impact. However, always exercise caution when encountering bold promises without proper validation.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Mr D: I’m not trying to debate you with this post. I am simply new to AI tools such as ChatGPT and Bing COPILOT, and because of that was curious what would happen if I changed the last sentence of your question slightly. I fully expected it to say something akin to “I’m sorry, the claim is fundamentally flawed and therefore cannot be true.” Interestingly, it didn’t go that direction….

(once again, not meaning to imply Quantum’s products work as claimed, but instead to experiment with how these AI tools approach questions)

QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. EXPLAIN HOW THIS CLAIM COULD BE TRUE.

BING COPILOT: (taken from COPILOT’s summary of it’s long spiel)

“In summary, the company’s claim could be true if the unconventional motor system combines high efficiency, energy storage, smart grid interaction, and favorable rate structures.“
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims (regarding their so-called "Photon Engine"):
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.

QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
BING COPILOT: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.

QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
BING COPILOT: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.

QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
BING COPILOT: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.

QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
BING COPILOT: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.

QUESTION: But I was referring to the wasted kinetic energy due to the motion of the stator itself. I realize this may be confusing, because the stator of a conventional electric motor does not move. But in this unconventional motor the stator is repositioned, as an alternative to reversing the flow of current. None of this movement is used to spin the generator, so it represents wasted kinetic energy.
BING COPILOT: You are absolutely right. In the unconventional motor design you’ve described, where the stator is physically repositioned instead of reversing the current flow, the kinetic energy used to move the stator indeed represents an additional form of energy loss. This is because the energy expended to reposition the stator does not contribute to the generation of electrical energy; it is essentially an overhead cost to the operation of the motor.
In a conventional motor, the stator is stationary and the magnetic field it produces is altered by changing the current flow through its windings. This process does not involve moving the stator itself, thus avoiding the kinetic energy losses associated with such movement.
The unconventional motor’s design, which includes moving the stator, would likely result in lower overall efficiency due to these extra energy expenditures that do not occur in traditional electric motors. The movement of the stator, while it may serve a purpose in the operation of this motor, does not directly contribute to the production of electrical energy and thus could be considered a wasteful step in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous messages. The efficiency of any motor is a critical aspect, and it’s important to consider all forms of energy input and output, including any that may be wasted, when evaluating a motor’s performance.

(The first paragraph of this last answer was still not quite right, but the rest of it was good.)
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims (regarding their so-called "Photon Engine):
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.

QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
Bing Copilot: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.

QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.

QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
Bing Copilot: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:
Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.
Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.
Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.
Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.

QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
Bing Copilot: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.

QUESTION: But I was referring to the wasted kinetic energy due to the motion of the stator itself. I realize this may be confusing, because the stator of a conventional electric motor does not move. But in this unconventional motor the stator is repositioned, as an alternative to reversing the flow of current. None of this movement is used to spin the generator, so it represents wasted kinetic energy.
Bing Copilot: You are absolutely right. In the unconventional motor design you’ve described, where the stator is physically repositioned instead of reversing the current flow, the kinetic energy used to move the stator indeed represents an additional form of energy loss. This is because the energy expended to reposition the stator does not contribute to the generation of electrical energy; it is essentially an overhead cost to the operation of the motor.
In a conventional motor, the stator is stationary and the magnetic field it produces is altered by changing the current flow through its windings. This process does not involve moving the stator itself, thus avoiding the kinetic energy losses associated with such movement.
The unconventional motor’s design, which includes moving the stator, would likely result in lower overall efficiency due to these extra energy expenditures that do not occur in traditional electric motors. The movement of the stator, while it may serve a purpose in the operation of this motor, does not directly contribute to the production of electrical energy and thus could be considered a wasteful step in terms of energy conversion efficiency.
Thank you for clarifying your point, and I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous messages. The efficiency of any motor is a critical aspect, and it’s important to consider all forms of energy input and output, including any that may be wasted, when evaluating a motor’s performance.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
CONTINUATION of conversation with Bing Copilot below: (please read PREVIOUS conversation FIRST:)
QUESTION: You suggested that the unconventional electric motor might be more efficient than a conventional electric motor! But I am sure that is not correct, because the motion of the moving stator during repositioning would actually waste energy in the form of kinetic energy which would not be recovered by the generator. A convention electric motor does not waste energy in this way. Therefore I think you made a mistake by suggesting that the unconventional motor could be more efficient.
Bing Copilot: You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to detail. The unconventional motor design you described, which involves repositioning the stator using an actuator, would indeed introduce additional energy losses that are not present in a conventional motor. The kinetic energy used to move the stator would not be fully recoverable by the generator, as some of it would be dissipated as heat and other forms of energy loss due to friction and resistance.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Let's see how Bing Copilot deals with Quantum Energy's false claims:
QUESTION: A certain company has developed an unconventional type of electric motor. The company has claimed in the past that by using this motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity to run appliances, customers will be able to reduce their electric bills and save money. Explain why this claim cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that using an unconventional electric motor to spin a generator or alternator to provide electricity for appliances will reduce electric bills and save money is fundamentally flawed due to the principles of energy conservation and efficiency.
Energy Conservation and Efficiency: The law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In the context of electric motors and generators, this means that the electrical energy output cannot exceed the mechanical energy input. Electric motors convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, while generators do the opposite. However, no conversion process is 100% efficient due to inevitable energy losses, primarily as heat.
Efficiency of Electric Motors: Even the most advanced electric motors, which are highly efficient, have an efficiency range between 80% and 90%. This means that there is always a loss of energy in the form of heat, sound, and other forms of energy dissipation. Therefore, the energy output from a generator spun by an electric motor will always be less than the electrical energy input required to run the motor.
Practical Considerations: In practice, if a company claims that their motor can generate more energy than it consumes, they are suggesting a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. The claim disregards the fact that some energy is always lost due to resistance in electrical components, friction, air resistance, and other inefficiencies.

QUESTION: Which "law of thermodynamics" are you referring to?
Bing Copilot: I was referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics when discussing the claim about the unconventional electric motor. This law, also known as the Law of Energy Conservation, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. It implies that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant, though it can change forms, such as from mechanical to electrical energy or vice versa.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also relevant to the claim. It states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases over time. This law implies that energy transformations are not 100% efficient because some energy is always lost as heat or other forms of unusable energy, which is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
These laws are fundamental in physics and apply universally to all energy conversion processes, including those involving electric motors and generators. Therefore, any claim that suggests a device can produce more energy than it consumes would violate these laws.

QUESTION: The company claimed that their system does not violate the Coservation of Energy, because the "extra" energy will come from permanent magnets within the motor, which (according to the company's claims) will be depleted after 3 years of operation. Explain why this claim, also, cannot be true.
Bing Copilot: The claim that “extra” energy can be obtained from permanent magnets within an electric motor, and that these magnets will be depleted after 3 years, is not consistent with the principles of physics as we understand them.
Permanent Magnets and Energy: Permanent magnets do not provide a continuous source of usable energy. Instead, they create a magnetic field due to the alignment of magnetic domains within the material. The energy used to magnetize these domains is finite and already accounted for during the manufacturing process. Once a permanent magnet is magnetized, it does not provide additional energy that can be harvested; it simply exerts a magnetic force.
Magnetic Field and Work: A magnetic field, by itself, does not perform work. In the context of an electric motor, the magnetic field interacts with electric currents to produce force (and thus, work), but this requires an external energy source, such as a battery or the electrical grid. The magnetic field from the permanent magnets can help improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the energy needed to create the magnetic field, but it cannot create energy.
Energy Conservation: The claim also seems to suggest that the magnets would “run out” of energy after a certain period. This is a misunderstanding of how magnets work. While it’s true that permanent magnets can lose their magnetization over time due to factors like heat, physical damage, or stray electromagnetic fields, this does not equate to a depletion of energy that could be used to do work. The loss of magnetization is a change in the material’s internal structure, not a release of usable energy.
Conclusion: Therefore, any system that claims to produce more energy than it consumes by using permanent magnets is not feasible according to current scientific understanding. Such a system would imply a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy. Customers should be wary of claims that contradict these fundamental principles.

QUESTION: Instead of reversing the flow of electricity, as in a conventional motor, the unconventional electric motor works by using an electric actuator to reposition or rotate the stator magnet, which is a permanent magnet and not an electromagnet. The rotor magnets are also permanent magnets and not electromagnets. Does this change your conclusions?
Bing Copilot: The unconventional electric motor you described, which uses an electric actuator to reposition or rotate a permanent magnet stator, and has permanent magnets in the rotor, still operates within the bounds of established physical principles. Here’s how this design aligns with the laws of thermodynamics:

Energy Input and Output: Even with the use of permanent magnets and an electric actuator to reposition the stator magnet, the system requires an external energy source to operate the actuator. The energy used by the actuator to move the stator magnet must come from somewhere, typically the electrical grid or a battery.

Conservation of Energy: The energy provided to the actuator for repositioning the stator magnet will be converted into mechanical energy. This mechanical energy is then used to generate electricity through the interaction of the stator and rotor magnets. However, due to energy losses (such as friction, air resistance, and inefficiencies in the actuator itself), the energy output from the generator will always be less than the energy input to the motor.

Permanent Magnets and Efficiency: While permanent magnets do not require an electrical current to maintain their magnetic field, they do not provide a source of energy themselves. They can improve the efficiency of the motor by reducing the need for an electromagnet, which would require continuous electrical power, but they cannot create energy. The efficiency of any motor or generator is always less than 100% due to inherent losses.

Conclusion: The design you’ve described may offer certain advantages, such as potentially reduced energy consumption for the actuation process compared to maintaining an electromagnet. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the system cannot produce more energy than it consumes. Any claim that suggests a net energy gain from such a system would still be in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It’s important to critically evaluate the claims of any company against the backdrop of established scientific principles. Innovations in motor design can lead to improvements in efficiency, but they cannot circumvent the laws of physics.
👍️0
Mr.S Szilard Mr.S Szilard 2 months ago
Thank you for this article. Looks like some very high level people are aligning themselves and their projects with Quantum.
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 2 months ago
Oh okay.

Time will tell - so far it has..........
👍️ 1
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
The prob right now for Quantum is they are caught up in “The boy who cried wolf!” syndrome—a history of unfulfilled promises. My gut tells me that once it’s been verified a company like ARC Energy has actually poured a foundation you’ll see an uptick in share price, and that those higher levels will persist until reports are received regarding the performance of Quantum’s products.
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 2 months ago
Boring is the board about FLCX.

Personally I have very little faith that this or QREE will ever amount to anything........

It was great while it lasted - I made some good money on it.

Good luck with the digging!!!!!!
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Boring? Really??? What could possibly be more exhilarating than digging through Google searches trying to connect dots and figure out whether or not you got screwed on an investment?

Investing in a world-leading AI company like Nvidia? Now that’s boring….
👍️0
splintered sunlight splintered sunlight 2 months ago
Boring.......
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
I thought you might find this article interesting.

Romel Canete, (the CEO of newly formed ARC Energy) who is a very successful real estate developer, expressed intent just last year in investing in the Phillipine’s push for more housing.

https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/daily-tribune-philippines/20230828/281848648162641
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Okay pardner, I will now sign off from this board until the Fourth of July, in order to prepare for the Great Day.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
I appreciate your reply. And honestly, I appreciate you “calling them to the carpet.” I’m hoping critical reviews like yours will help in some way to expedite the eventual outcome of my investment. But I do think you nailed it—the SEC’s wheels turn slowly. And for that reason I still think you would be wasting your time with filing a complaint—investors will surely know within a shorter timeframe whether or not the products work as claimed, and if they learn that the whole thing is a fraud, attorneys will be contacted and quickly get involved (sorry, I know the word “if” drives you crazy!). Having said that, maybe you should just let it go and turn your attention elsewhere.

Regarding the Filipinos, while I appreciate your altruism, ironically I just recently read an article about all the various ways they are defrauding foreigners who enter their country. It was basically a “Tourists beware!” type of article. I get that one screw job doesn’t justify another, but it was a strange coincidence to read on this site that your passion was re-kindled upon thinking Filipinos may be taken advantage of, and then later that day to read that Filipinos are busy taking advantage of foreigners. I think it’s fairly obvious that not ALL Filipinos are scam artists. Maybe a way could be found to sell non-working products to only those who are!
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: I'm sorry I said that you sounded foolish, but it just gets frustrating when I have tried so many times to explain why we know that certain claims are false, and you still come back and talk as if there were some sort of doubt about it. There is not. Nobody needs a degree from MIT to understand the matter. To go from "The Photon Engine generates electricity without needing the sun, the wind, or any other fuel source" to "The Photon Engine is an energy storage system" is not just a "change in symantics." It's an abandonment, at least in public communications, of the "big lie" that they told for years. The SEC's team of investigators on the case probably investigated Theranos for at least a year before filing their complaint. I'm just one single little old man. I put the Quantum Energy matter aside for several months while another matter distracted me, but now the other matter is finished. But I actually wanted to concentrate on a different project, so I said "adios amigos," but the news release about the Philippines deal made me change my mind after I thought about it for a while. It's not just a matter of "firing off a complaint." Quantum is not a huge national story, as Theranos was. To persuade the SEC to investigate Quantum is a major project. I already spent months on it before putting it aside. I don't know whether the SEC will ever investigate, but if it does, a likely result is that Quantum will be forced to return tens of millions of fraudulently-obtained dollars to investors like you. That's why I said that you shouldn't want to rush me.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
I have a record of these things as well. And I agree that it looks suspect. But I still think Dorick is wrong. He has stated that pointing these things out to the SEC will result in an open-and-shut case. If it was as simple and “indisputable” as he says, he would have fired off a complaint a long time ago. Instead, he has spent (and will likely continue to spend) hours combing through videos and archived websites gathering evidence to support his accusations.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
File your complaint. We’ll see who’s right. And make it snappy. The suspense is killing me.

In the meantime, I’m not arguing that Quantum’s products work. What I am arguing is that their shift in semantics and business strategy could be argued by them as an attempt to make things more clear, and to take advantage of new products that can play a helpful part in their system. The SEC isn’t comprised of individuals who graduated from MIT. What’s foolish is you thinking they will read your complaint through the eyes of someone who did graduate from such an institution.


👍️0
MagnetLover MagnetLover 2 months ago
Yes.

The sheer magnitude of the shift from the initial promises is a problem. From the WSJ and IE.energy website's claims to today's 'photonics' distraction offramp

From :
https://web.archive.org/web/20230402053158/https://ie.energy/earth_engine/
and
https://archive.is/20220426095954/https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-mans-unlikely-quest-to-power-the-world-with-magnets-11558029179#selection-663.0-673.74


Mr. Danzik, the science and technology officer for Wyoming-based Inductance Energy Corp., says he has invented a magnetic generator, a flywheel system that extracts usable energy from the interplay of exotic magnets—also known as a free-energy device, a cousin to the fabled perpetual-motion machine.
Mr. Danzik winces at the phrase “perpetual motion,” with centuries of humbug behind it. “It’s a generator,” he said during an interview at IEC’s lab and training facility in Scottsdale, Ariz. Left running, the machines, known as Earth Engines, will eventually exhaust themselves. He just isn’t sure when.
“We really don’t know how long the magnets will perform,” Mr. Danzik said.

To :

https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/QREE/news/Quantum-Energy-Moves-to-Revenue-Producing-Position-with-FlooidCX-Corporation-Merger?id=390624

Since 2015, this highly focused team invested over $50 million to quietly develop a unique energy system (originally nicknamed the “Earth Engine”) that uses highly efficient photon collection (in a manner similar to solar energy, but from both natural and produced light), that is first stored in a permanent magnet assisted flywheel system called a Photon Engine. The electrical energy is then conditioned and stored in a series of iron-air batteries. The use of permanent magnets to mechanically assist flywheels was long thought to be impossible.

Internet doesn't forget. Neither do IEC's investors I would imagine.
👍️ 3
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Maybe you should wait until you read the SEC complaint before declaring what your "takeaway" will be, for crying out loud. "Being unethical" is not a crime. The complaint specifies exactly what crimes Theranos committed. It just amazes me that you still think there is any uncertainty as to whether Quantum's blatantly false claims were false. There is no uncertainty at all. We already know they were false with absolute 100% certainty. That's why Inductance Energy took them off their public website. That's why Dustin Hamby no longer repeats them in public presentations like the one he gave a year ago in Las Vegas. That's why Danzik quit posting public videos about the so-called "Photon Engine" which he no longer dares to lie about in public. It is a type of electric motor, powered by electricity and not by "magnetic propulsion." Electric motors do not "create energy." Magnets do not "create energy." All their claims to the contrary were simply lies, and there is not the slightest doubt about it. When you talk as if this indisputable fact still remained to be "proven," you just sound foolish.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
Great points
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
I’ll read the complaint when I have more time. For now I’ll give you my gut feeling on what my takeaway will be after reading it—if it weren’t for Theranos fabricating results (which didn’t happen until near the tail end), a complaint could still have been filed and they likely would have been FINED. Holmes wouldn’t be sitting in prison. The SEC, whose job is to protect investors, would actually be screwing them if they shut down a company that had working products, and whose only apparent crime was in being unethical in the marketing they directed towards potential investors.

Your complaint against Quantum could result in a fine, but no one’s going to jail and the company won’t be shut down without solid proof the technology can’t do what it’s claimed to do. And that just circles us back to my “laughable” question—what’s the SEC going to do? Send their expert to Scottsdale with a meter?
No…instead installations will have to tell the tale or maybe the SEC will be concerned enough to ask for third-party results from a trusted entity
👍️0
MJ16 MJ16 2 months ago
What about the various patents besides putting solar cells in a light source? Flooid was to contribute 136 patents to the merger. Are there patents for the magnetic propulsion or rare earth processing? There was also a Tampa office to open Feb 1.

FLCX:
*136 filed and to be filed utility and design patents involving photonic collection systems;
*$14 million in non-amortized intellectual property from FLCX processes related to treating and separating rare earth materials.
Quantum Energy Moves to Revenue Producing Position with FlooidCX - Feb 2023
👍️0
MagnetLover MagnetLover 2 months ago
And additionally, it is not uncommon at all for individuals to form new business entities prior to starting construction on large developments, nor is it uncommon for individuals to create new entities when engaging in new business activities

I agree. However, you can't execute a contract pre formation of those entities as stated in the press release. Recall:

May 6th
today announces it has executed a Manufacturing and Distribution Agreement (“Agreement”) with ARC Energy, Inc. (“ARC Energy”), located at BCS Prime Building, Third Floor, 2297 Chino Roces Avenue, Makati City, NCR, Philippines. The Agreement was executed and made effective on March 28, 2024 with funding committed on April 30, 2024.


This can't technically happen. Agreement executed in March and the entity formed in May?

Also 500 000 units, at the conservative price of 25 000 USD per unit (we don't know where they are located) is 12.5 bn USD. Which is significant, and I can't fathom a reason one forms the entity which is supposed to co develop with PNOC a $12.5 bn project in May when construction is supposed to start in Q2.

This doesn't add up for me.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Quantum Energy doesn't have a "questionable history." They have a KNOWN and indefensible history of blatant SECURITIES FRAUD going back years, involving countless blatantly false and fraudulent statements and blatantly deceptive and misleading demonstrations - just like Theranos. Your idea of how the SEC will conduct an investigation is just laughable. Here's an actual example of the handiwork of the SEC: their actual complaint against Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. Maybe if you read it, you will get a better idea of the seriousness of an SEC investigation: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp-pr2018-41-theranos-holmes.pdf
The "CLAIMS FOR RELIEF" submitted by the SEC regarding Theranos are identical (except for the "incorporated paragraphs") to the CLAIMS FOR RELIEF that they ought to submit regarding Quantum Energy. The SEC can literally cut and paste from one complaint to the other.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
No need to apologize. My pride is neither tied to my investments nor to my opinions.

And by the way, if the bomb you intend to drop involves filing a complaint with the SEC, I still think you’re wasting your time. What’s the SEC going to do? Send an employee to Scottsdale with a meter? And even if your thorough notes regarding Quantum's “fraudulent” behavior do result in the SEC taking a road trip to Scottsdale, they will be won over by the same “trickery” that’s resulted in sane individuals dumping their millions into it. There’s only one thing that would put an end to all this, and unfortunately for consumers/distributors that would be a slew of installations that couldn’t deliver the promised results. Circling back to Theranos, this is the same point where they crashed and burned—when they had to finally deliver results in a real-world setting.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
If it weren’t for IEC’s convoluted path to becoming Quantum combined with their questionable breakthroughs, it’s unlikely anyone would ask questions of this nature. They would be happy with the few logical “leaps” they would have to make—1. the Philippines have acknowledged a huge housing shortage and that their goal of having millions of new units built within a short timeframe 2. PNOC has history of being involved in property developments 3. A principal of ARC Energy has a track record of success in real estate.

In short, setting Quantum’s involvement aside, all the dots line up. And additionally, it is not uncommon at all for individuals to form new business entities prior to starting construction on large developments, nor is it uncommon for individuals to create new entities when engaging in new business activities.

One other thought— what value is there for the principals of ARC or PNOC to jump on making a huge announcement in the Philippines?
It is plausible that PNOC has already secured land for a development and that they have truly contracted with the newly formed entity ARC. With these things in place neither would have anything to gain by receiving kudos from the general public. I’ve seen very large commercial/residential projects quietly start in my hometown, and only knew about them because I happened to drive past, saw a sign, and wondered “what the heck is going on there?”

And so it is with Quantum—they have a questionable history that’s resulted in every breath they take being analyzed through a microscope.
👍️0
MagnetLover MagnetLover 2 months ago
I would love to see an acknowledgement of that cooperation from PNOC (or even ARC).
For now, we only have Quantum's word for it.

Besides, I am really surprised 1/ not being able to find any trace of "ARC Energy has contracted with PNOC to develop 500,000 affordable housing units" online. It is a big, nation level deal and there should be echos at least in the financial news outlets. 2/ even more surprised not finding any online presence of ARC, a developer that can undertake such a project.

Let me know if anyone has more info.
👍️0
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: Sorry, I don't see any "big difference" at all. Theranos and Quantum Energy both exerted themselves to make actual devices, and then used them to conduct elaborate scams based on deceptive demonstrations and blatant lies. I don't see the point of arguing about how gullible anyone was. If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry. I don't blame anybody for being scammed or deceived, I only blame the scammers.
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
You often compare Quantum to Theranos. From a distance they seem quite comparable. When viewed more closely, there’s a big difference between the two.

Theranos gained the attention (and investment) from many influential and wealthy people based off of the company’s vision. That vision coupled with an appeal to emotion and a sense of urgency created a flow of investment from folks who didn’t want to miss out. When the time came for actual results to be provided, Theranos then embarked on a journey of fabricated results that ultimately landed Holmes in prison. Up to that point, and even afterwards, no one was ever allowed to “bring their meter (or expert) to Scottsdale”, so to speak, to test Holmes’s device. And therein lies the difference—Surely individuals who take a year to investigate Quantum’s products before investing millions, and who have the financial means to have those products properly vetted are not as gullible as you think.
👍️ 1
Dorick Dorick 2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: How many large companies and eminent people took Elizabeth Holmes' word?
Walgreens: Theranos had a multimillion-dollar contract with Walgreens.
Safeway: Safeway also had a business contract with Theranos.
Rupert Murdoch: The media mogul led a $5.8 million Series A in February 2005.
Tim Draper: The venture capitalist and Draper Fisher Jurvetson partner was an investor and remained an outspoken defender of Theranos at least until 2018.
Larry Ellison: The Oracle founder was one of the high-profile investors in the company.
Henry Kissinger: The former U.S. Secretary of State was a member of the Theranos board.
George Shultz: The former U.S. Secretary of State was also a member of the Theranos board.
James Mattis: The former U.S. Secretary of Defense was a member of the Theranos board.
Betsy DeVos: The former U.S. Secretary of Education was a member of the Theranos board.
Harvard Medical School: actually made Holmes a member of their Board of Fellows!
👍️0
Curious Bystander Curious Bystander 2 months ago
I’m less surprised by your re-kindled passion than by the thought that Arc Energy would write a check and sign an agreement without doing their due diligence.

Do you really think they simply took Hamby’s word for it? If I recall, a certain Mr Dansie lives in the Phillipines. Maybe they consulted with individuals like him before signing the dotted line…
👍️0

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock