POSTED AND DELETED LAST NIGHT ON "THE OTHER" WEBSITE. THE REASON WAS " OFF TOPIC" . MABE IT WAS BECAUSE OF A REFERENCE TO BEAR, A NEW POSTER WHO SAS HE IS/WAS CLOSE TO HLNT. OH WELL..........
Hey, ... smarter than the average BEAR,.... pretty good day(9.5m traded) for a company that doesn't have the lights turned on, EH? This is a surely a ecologically minded company who saving on the light bill, HAH!
Were you in Springfield when the company showed the visiting group around the HLNT facility(now closed for a cost savings) and the manufacturing and electronics shops? We should of met then and I'm trying to recall who you were. In the picture I was the taller guy with the NASA ball cap. Where you in the picture?
Were you in Springfield when the company showed the visiting group around the HLNT facility(now closed for a cost savings) and the manufacturing and electronics shops? We should of met then and I'm trying to recall who you were. In the picture I was the taller guy with the NASA ball cap. Where you in the picture?
In my opinion, HLNT has a great product. We had a great facility for producing this great product. It is a shame that the events which transpired have brought things to almost a standstill for all these months. The HHO unit that we all saw is a excellent assembly but I believe the problem was that it lacked the ability to operate at the level HLNT wanted in OTR trucking. Leaks were not the problem in the new design. The problem was the electronics needed to adjust the injection of the required amount of hydrogen into the engine as the engine needed it. YES, it worked, as have the past units have worked but HLNT demanded better because that is what our customers will demand. As for stationary engines, the unit is over-kill. Not in it's design, but in it's capability. A smaller unit, of the same design, would be a better unit and cheaper to manufacture with a simpler electronics package that could allow the units to be sold at a more competitive price point.
Now the "testing" has been delayed for whatever reason. I believe [u]it is money[/u] to pay for the continued [b]"development"[/b] (testing) of the units for both stationary and OTR vehicles AND operating costs required to complete all the continuing ligation, which should be winding down sooner than later, IMhO. Litigation has been discussed to no end on this board and I'm sure discussion will continue as will the call for new management. I'm personally staying on-board. Good luck to all! HLNT
