Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Energous Corporation Message Board

metrodavef 6 posts  |  Last Activity: 21 hours ago Member since: Mar 9, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • So they think a tier 1 consumer products company is going to put their brand on the line taking a "hoax" to the FCC. The shorts will have you think that all these board members are letting the company demo the tech behind a curtain saying "trust us" and as if accomplished and seasoned exe executives would agree that bloviating about a "hoax" would be a good career move.

    Energous isn't a hoax and the JV partners and the tier 1 partner that will be getting FCC approval are smart and accomplished entities that know their way around a rodeo. Listening to both sides makes sense until the point where one side goes off the rails of common sense and reality. True the tech has to be approved by the FCC but i don't think for a minute that the tier 1 partner would endanger their brand by rolling what the shorts call impossible tech that doesn't work and is an outright "hoax".

    Good luck and i for one am not going to engage Iran, i mean the off the rails shorts claiming "hoax" and the Easter Bunny.

  • metrodavef metrodavef Jul 27, 2015 9:13 AM Flag

    The only SCAM is Richard Roe. I will not respond to liars and scam artists. People read the regs. They are long and boring but the key areas, once you find them are pretty short and to the point. Seek and you can find. Good luck.

  • metrodavef metrodavef Jul 16, 2015 9:44 AM Flag

    Duntonmd - Until it passes you will see post after post from negative posters claiming pump and dump and that the tech can't pass, that is just the reality of things. They do that often just to create trading ranges. have a core position and trade in and out is my recommendation. Regarding the FCC I have read up on it extensively. The bottom line is that if a person looks only at the # of watts being beamed they its easy to conclude that its similar to a microwave oven. The FCC clearly has stated for years that aggregating watts OVER STATES the risk. It has asked openly for solutions to this. Cisco put forth the solution/proposal several years ago that states in summary that exposure is limited to the highest wattage beamed by an antenna. In other words if you have 10 antenna and 1 antenna is beaming a quarter of a watt and the other 9 are beaming 1/8th of a watt that the exposure is limited to a quarter of a watt (just illustrative examples). The FCC regs are not simply set by the FCC but is a group effort that companies such as Cisco participate in. In WATT's case, using multiple antennas limits the amount of exposure as those watts being beamed are aggregated on the receiving end (so x # of watts may be getting beamed but its not like they are getting beamed by a single antenna). The tech has to be extensively tested before any approvals and it will be by the Tier 1 partner. So far, the company has met with the FCC and they claim there are no "show stoppers". Also the bandwidth at which the watts are beamed are at a level that will not penetrate the skin. You are right that all of the partners would have to have an understanding of this and other things prior to agreeing to 'partner' with WATT. It takes time and until it passes the stock will move around aggressively and traders will attempt to manipulate it both directions. Also why would INTEL invest $x millions into Ossia if it were all a blatant scam??

  • Reply to

    not so fast

    by lau_kwon Jun 26, 2015 5:15 PM
    metrodavef metrodavef Jul 6, 2015 9:29 AM Flag

    The only scam i see are your BS posts....

  • Up today on volume...

  • Reply to

    What's with the pop today?

    by tmm426 May 28, 2015 1:40 PM
    metrodavef metrodavef May 28, 2015 2:19 PM Flag

    Not sure how "seller trolling" would induce an upward move with volume. Market appears to think they have something better to say at June 3 conference?

WATT
7.4308-0.0792(-1.05%)2:31 PMEDT