1. ExPVengineer

    ExPVengineer New Member

    Great questions Mick, let me address the latter first: I have several reasons for not doing it: I just started a new job with a considerable learning curve which takes more time and mental energy than my old job, so I don't have the time at work; I just enrolled in a part-time master's program and I'm in the middle of my first accelerated course which demands the vast majority of my personal time; as my screen name states, I am no longer an engineer at a PV manufacturing facility [due to plant shutdown and outsourcing manufacturing] and, as a result, no longer have access to the programs used for modelling various scenarios. I do believe presenting the math/physics in a documented proof of why the product can't substantiate their claims is a rather critical accompaniment to the letter itself. Really the only reason I got on here to post was that I remembered reading this thread a few months ago and given that I'd already spent several hours studying prior to this morning's post and one of the topics of my next exam is the Lanham act, so I figured it would be an appropriate study break.

    Why would someone send such a letter? For starters, refer to your post on 2 April 2013 (#61 on this thread): "Because it might not work, and people might waste money investing in it." Furthermore, Jazzy mentioned that "debunking bunkum is our self-appointed task," isn't part of that to put a stop the people pushing the aforementioned "snake oil"? Lotek also writes, "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." One other point not mentioned at any point earlier in this discussion is that the solar industry has suffered numerous "black eyes" and I know of at least one on the horizon, so it doesn't need V3 making things worse by getting people's hopes up only to have them realize later that they were duped (and hopefully they didn't invest any money before making that discovery).

    Clearly there are a lot of strong feelings about this, and some people in this thread seem to have either temporal or financial resources (or both) to dedicate to stopping the perpetuation of this scam. It seems to me that the first logical step is doing what I stated in my earlier post, sending a C&D letter to V3, hence my question.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ExPVengineer

    ExPVengineer New Member

    Gbrecke, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that it's worthless to try and stop V3 because they're no worse than our own government?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it fair to say that the more that people get away with taking investors' money via psuedo-scientific scam products, more people will get into the business of startups that don't have a legitimate product and continue operating/behaving the same way?
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't get what legal basis an individual would have for sending a C&D letter to someone just because he thought their product was defective. Can you give a comparable example?
  4. gbrecke

    gbrecke New Member

    It's quite likely you are younger and far less cynical than I am. I am only attempting to point out that this company is fairly typical of many out there. Hydrovolts was a startup in Seattle, their idea was to get energy out of irrigation canals. Their claims were pretty crazy, but the 'green' awards they touted were impressive to some.

    For those who study the irrigation canals they were going to exploit, they were purposely designed to assure the water flowed from one end to the other with low energy in the water flow. Several reasons, one, is high velocities help destroy a canal, another, is it is an advantage to deliver the water high as possible above points of use. Not one green mind I know did anything but applaud the idea. the Greenies are destroying their own market place and their credibility, it is they who should weed out the crooks. I do know a woman so sweet..... she heads up a group that helps decide what green idea gets their award. She's good in diction, but doesn't know a BTU from an IOU.
  5. Uwe Zimmermann

    Uwe Zimmermann New Member

    Why should anyone? As a European scientist in the field of photovoltaics I have nothing to gain from them stopping their efforts to get vulture capital. I don't even know what this Lanham Act is about. Even US scientists have neither the time nor the means to bother, I assume. And finally: from the way I understand the system (not the PV system, but the legal one) I as a private person would never dare to try to put any company into its borders.

    The best thing we scientists can do is to try to educate the public and try to debunk myths in forums like this one.
  6. Eric H

    Eric H New Member

  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think they are cleaning up the site to focus more on their newer claims. The Revers pieces is still available via archive:
  8. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Would such a letter take as long to compose as this robust post? (I'll address the envelope) :)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Maury Markowitz

    Maury Markowitz New Member

    This is a perfect example to illustrate how rapidly this market has been moving.

    A couple of years ago, 25 cents/meter would sound amazing. Back then you might be looking at $2/meter for a conventional panel.

    But today, you can buy panels in bulk for about 40 cents/watt.

    This has killed off pretty much all of the alternative approaches. Theoretically they sill outperform traditional flat-plate modules, but getting to that point will require a whole lot of money that's currently being directed to the traditional companies. There's still more that can be squeezed out of those lines, so I suspect it will be a few more years before that well starts bottoming out and people really start to look at other options.
  10. Curious

    Curious New Member

    Fascinating insight, Mick West, so glad to have read you, so much so I've joined this forum. Thanks!
  11. Graham2001

    Graham2001 Active Member

    A good detailed explanation of why this does not work. Sadly it looks as if the company has removed a lot of their marketing videos from YouTube. Thunderf00t did a debunking video about four months ago, what I find more interesting is the ease with which these types of 'green scam' promoters seem to get positive and enthusiastic press.

  12. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Newspapers and websites are increasingly understaffed and want to fill space as easily and cheaply as possible. Press releases often get copied and pasted almost verbatim with minimal (if any) fact checking before publication. It's sad but that is the state of the majority of modern journalism.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Graham2001

    Graham2001 Active Member

    Jason Colavito today discussed the same issue, albeit in a topic he covers (PseudoArchaeology) in his latest blog post which deals with a Buzzfeed promotion of Ancient Aliens claims which he traced to: