1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Basically I just don't see any evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence of bad science.

    The only thing that might be real is the slight increased efficiency from pulsing. But there seems no evidence of this either.

    I don't really have anything to add to the above posts. Is it a deliberate scam? You'll never know unless they admit it - maybe they are simply mistaken. I certainly would not invest in it.
  2. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    You have posted 7897 times in 2.5 years.
    263 posts ave per month!
    You have too much time on your hands.
    Why don't you cut it down to 100 per month.
    We would not be worse off and you might have time to do some actual tests.
    You can bring some of your own data to the debate
    Time to do study to further yourself. Your family would be very proud of you.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    wow thanks.....
  4. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    How is Mick posting a lot causing "us" to be worse off?
  5. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Why shouldn't he post? He has intelligent, well thought out and often well researched comments.

    Now please tell us how this 'device' does what the folks claim it will do.
  6. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    He should post. Read what I said. I agree "often well researched"
    He should take a leaf out of your book. Your contributions are more concise. You only post ave 53 times a month.

    The science of the innovation works. A " device" of substance can only follow the testing. Early days.
    Cooling, pulsing advances are real. You will not take my word for it ( nor should you) so verify yourself.
  7. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    But does it do what it CLAIMS it can do? Why don't you produce some facts and stop attacking Mick.

    One can analyze it to see if it works.

    Let's see some evidence that it does.
  8. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    It is pretty clear.
    "The science of the innovation works. A " device" of substance can only follow the testing. Early days.
    Cooling, pulsing advances are real. You will not take my word for it ( nor should you) so verify yourself."

    Suit yourself.
    "Knowledge is the antidote for fear." meant something.

  9. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    One does not have to make something to prove that it will not work. Not with science and math available to test the basic premise to see if it has any chance of working.

    I asked you for EVIDENCE and you responded with yet another insult.
  10. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    "One does not have to make something to prove that it will not work."
    So you know it does not work without testing. (Is that an insult?) ( yes I suppose it is)
    Umm Ok hard to discuss on that basis.

    All I am asking you do is verify. Is that hiding behind something?
    Set up a test. publish the results if you so desire. Settle it for yourself.
    You can get the all the " EVIDENCE " you need to back your assertions.
    Please try to discredit me when I repeat this statement. (By credible testing)

    "The science of the innovation works. A " device" of substance can only follow the testing. Early days.
    Cooling, pulsing advances are real. You will not take my word for it ( nor should you) so verify yourself."

    I still agree with you and even more so
    "Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
  11. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I do not need to make one to prove it doesn't work. I look at the science and the math and I KNOW.

    You are the person saying it works, you need to offer the evidence that it does.

    Until you do, I am not discussing this anymore with you.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    Mike, our main problem with this vaporware is how it was being presented and advertised to investors/the public. from there we moved to how it works/doesnt vs other already existing technology. Couple that with the intentional or accidental "Nx more efficient" bit and its worth a thread.

    Alot of this may have to do with the capital/relations side being totally separate from R&D, which is a very common sad thing to happen. one look at their FB/ website would have you thinking these little cones are already in existence and produce loads of power with little to no correction from page admins.

    I donot understand your post count logic, already you are at a projected ~1300 posts a year, making for, by your logic, a very poor poster.... post count is irrelevant on any good forum.

    My personal gripe, why i bother to "waste my time" on this is because the whole idea of funneling tight public research money into this is appalling to me when such isolated one off units will never be the answer to full scale solar power production and appear to me little more than another pipedream and waste of time like those stupid 1000mah solar window hockey puck things. I feel grant money could be better spent elsewhere, on more industrial systems. not stuff that looks like toys with more effort put into public appeal than industrial functionality.

    I could be wrong, and their R&d team could work up something useful, but id bet it wont be anything like the individually packaged candy coated blue cones.
  13. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Dear Lotek,
    Re: V3Solar
    Understand your points.
    Notwithstanding criticisms of the advertising.
    You and many of your cohorts state the innovation does not work without doing any testing or scientific investigation whatsoever.
    The science of the innovation works with significant advances and breakthroughs that has hampered solar energy production since inception .
    On that basis I question your(pl) credibility.
    It is apparent that what I say is meaningless to you. You will not believe me anyhow.
    Therefore some verification is needed by you to get the data required to be taken seriously.
    Then the discussion has some currency.

    To that end. To clear the air I'll make you all an offer.
    Here's your chance to back the spirit of your convictions.

    Let's test my previous statement. (It's a big statement).

    ie "The science of the innovation works with SIGNIFICANT ADVANCES and BREAKTHROUGHS that has hampered solar energy production since inception"

    Points without expanding as follows:

    -Choose a University (prefer California) with a Solar Engineering Department.
    -Get them to formulate and set up the scientific tests needed to confirm or debunk the above statement.
    -Let them quantify base results required to confirm or debunk the statement.
    -Head of the Faculty of Engineering can adjudicate the University findings to confirm or debunk.

    If agreed we proceed.
    How will this be funded.
    I will put $20,000 into a designated University Bank Account controlled the criteria of the test results.
    You and any Metabunk members who have said the technology does not work pool your resources to put $10,000 in the same fund.
    If statement is debunked. You(pl) will receive $20,000 back (nett $10,000 windfall). My remaining $10000 will be left to the University as a donation for their efforts.
    If it is confirmed you will lose your $10.000. It will go to the University as a donation. And I will get my $20,000 back.
    We can work out the mechanics of Bank Accounts to protect either party upon deposit.

    Mick you must be rubbing your hands together to make some easy money.
    Enough talk.
    I purposely have made a strong statement on the technology.
    Good deal for you guys based on your endless postings!
    Need an independent third party to manage this offer.
    If you have any suggestions to make this offer fairer I would welcome it.

  14. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    Why don't you do it? You have the money.

    I doubt any university would be willing to fool with something that won't work. It would be like asking them to build a perpetual motion machine. They need to spend their time working on developments that will work, not ones that the math says won't.

    You do understand that the posters here are just interested citizens from many countries, I hope.
  15. Pete

    Pete Member

    Am I missing something with this 'product'?

    If you focus a given area of solar energy into a smaller point, for sure, you will get all that energy at that reduced point. But when scaling this up to a full size panel, you would need to have a rather large magnifying glass!!!!

    All they seem to have done is forced a small panel to do something one the size of the magnifying glass would do, albeit they need to spin the small panels as they would get too hot if left in the magnified (focused) area as a static panel would be. So they have then forced themselves to buy a lot more panels to mount around an axle, to allow this spin to occur (via a motor). Now they are wondering why this is not up-scalable/marketable to the real world?!!!

    But someone tell me if I've missed something.
  16. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    More talk. 1463 Posts
    "Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
  17. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Yes you are missing something. But have a chance to prove yourself correct.
    Kind of small talk I expected.
    Read the offer. You stand to benefit. (According to you)
    Well done.
    Waiting for personal abuse next for requesting 3rd party testing.
  18. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    i do think it is overly presumptuous to state it dosent work flat out, however i feel it is within our grasp to drawn from the other facts surrounding the situation to draw at least a cursory concision on the subject.

    Let me ask you, by it, do you mean the blue cone device, or the spinning wheel device? because that could be cause for confusion. The groups physical model of the cone absolutely does not work as per the original claims, and no where(at least at the time) do/did they say it was a semi/non functional demo. I do think it is in error to say it does not work based off of our musings and lack of testings, as a statement of fact. but "it" doesnt exist..

    And mike, mick doesnt make money off of the forum or associated websites so far as i know or can tell. and i make less than 20K usd a year so yea, nothing beyond arduino level testing going on over here.

    You may be correct, and if so good for them. but i hope a local government doesnt invest millions into a seemingly non durable good such as this. it just screams solar boondoggle like so many that have come before it.

    Alas mike, the philosophical burden of proof falls on them, not us.

    "The science of the innovation works with significant advances and breakthroughs that has hampered solar energy production since inception .
    On that basis I question your(pl) credibility."

    I question that the innovation exists, given the dodgy practices surrounding the vaporware, its advertising, the language used to describe it, and the device actually demoed. that coupled with the companies other host of dubious ventures and apparent yern for IP strongarming leads me to question this claim as it has not been substantiated or separated from it's producers many other pipedreams.
  19. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I have had useful comments in my posts.

    If you want to buy one or invest in it, please do. I have never forgotten wanting the life size doll that would walk for Christmas. My parents told me that it would walk like it did on the commercials, so I asked for a chemistry set instead. One of the neighbor girls got one, and it didn't walk.
  20. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I am a jewelry artist and the economy has hurt my sales. I don't have extra money, not for dinners out, not for new clothes and certainly not for what appears to be a 'scheme' to me.
  21. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Respect financial limitations. Seriously
    Times are tough accepted.

    This is, however, a genuine offer that may clear the air and make you some money. ( If you are right )
    If you read the offer it is designed to help and prove you correct.
    But as I said I wouldn't not want anyone to lose hard earned money.
    That is very possible.

    Maybe someone has the conviction that they stand to make a windfall given their assessment of the technology.

    Talk is cheap without substantiation. I expect more talk unfortunately and less substance!
  22. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    Are you personally involved in this project?

    The message on the companies website is very clear. any attempt to research into this subject or capitalize would likely be met with forceful and quick imaginary property litigation, which based purely on speculation, i believe to be the true profitable end to this project. Atleast the end to which the person(s) running the PR side of this is interested in.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Not employed by V3Solar.

    Good Point. Will look into testing without pursuing commercial advantage is legal.

    Do you want to see this technology independently tested?
  24. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    What makes you think this forum is interested in money, Mike? I'm starting to become a little suspicious of your behavior on this thread.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    And if a university could substantiate the claims why not do them anyway?
  26. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Very suspicious.... I want independent testing. No financial advantage to myself.
    Your so right!
    Maybe this forum might be interested in fact?
    This is a waste of time for you and me!
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    So get some independant testing done.
  28. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    They are.
  29. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    Naturally, However I am still not sure which technology we are talking about. The cone deally, the lens and spinning drum, or the air cooled concentrated PV, as fluid cooled CPV is being researched by many, in seemingly more scalable, industrially reliable and efficient approaches,

    Do you get where im coming from with the durable goods thing? this idea just hits me as something ill see as a 1:8 table top/cubicle toy sold by thickgeek to charge your cell phone in a window office 5 years down the road, not a viable answer to national/global solar power needs.

    Like this:http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/resea...-plug-that-sticks-to-windows-and-out-from-the
    Cute, but useless in the bigger picture. ill take a waterproof unit i can stick outside in direct sun that charges 10xAAA or 1-3 LiB in 1/2 the time, then do with them what i like, Something along those lines.

    Unless the, so far mystical, energy boost is real, In which case, awesome for them. Ill have a good laugh at myself if I see it come to fruition. But normally when someone makes engineering claims that seem totally off base, are vague about it, have no working prototype to clearly demonstrate the effect, and mention IP law on their first page, it turns out to be vaporware.

    Or at best they are paying someone todo just enough work to file patents to troll later when real engineers do real work and make real products. If you cant tell yet, i find the IP "threats" of their parent company more than a little suspicious which greatly adds to my skepticism.

    Thats my dropout armchair opinion. =]
    I respect that you seem to know what you are talking about. Would you care to speculate at all as to why you feel there is value in the claims behind the technology(after saying which technology it is we are talking about here).
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    Then if it a waste of time, why do you continue to post here merely proposing monetary offers this forum is not interested in, and making remarks about how often we post? Mike, I suggest you keep your posts to why you think there is value behind the claims of this product, and keep the remarks about posting averages and monetary wages to a minimum. Here is the Politeness Policy, if you haven't read it.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  31. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Yes I stand corrected. I am talking about the science of the innovation. The technology has to follow that.
    But there is significant strides in this innovation. Worthwhile for renewable solar as we know it.
    I guess a forum like this is not the place for me discuss the science.
    The job of this forum is to postulate not test.
    Often good comes out of it. But sometimes bad.
  32. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    The job of this forum is to BRING Facts to those that want them. To DEBUNK.
  33. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    nah this is a good place to talk about it, we love to talk about it, many of us are far more educated than you would assume.

    if you would only be so bold as to begin by perhaps stating what innovations, strides, or other such things you believe this technology to encompass.
    • Like Like x 2
  34. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Planet Earth
    Reread posts and then go away!
    Res Ipsa Loquitor.
  35. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    right then. perhaps we should not squalor this thread in the event someone down the line wishes to actually discuss the technology, product, company, or other items related to the subject at hand.
  36. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Cooling, pulsing advances are breakthrough innovation.
    Without data no squalor.

  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So why not simply do the parts in bold without the betting?

    If v3solar has already done such tests, then why not publish the results in full technical detail?
    • Like Like x 1
  38. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    I got the impression this was put to scientific test already on this forum, by using mathematics and basic known physics principles, and found wanting. No need to take it to a 'real-world' testing stage if it fails on paper.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    What specifics are you interested in or rather, do you have any supporting information about said pulsing advances? This effect has been previously demonstrated by others but not nearly to the effect claimed here. Do you have an insight into this we do not?

    Cooling CPV is not new or unique. Most people researching this however make an effort to put that energy to use. Whether its elaborate or tricky conversion to electricity or simply to offset energy wasted heating liquid or cooling air(hot fluid is useful in civil cooling as well)Why do you feel convicting the heat off instead of capturing it is superior? Simplicity of the unit? if so, why do you feel many less durable units would function Superior to a bank of tracking fluid cooled CPV?

    I am off to sleep. Id be more than happy to talk in depth with you about this tomorrow.
  40. MikeD

    MikeD New Member

    Same. At least you have considered opinions and a preparedness to assess.