Member Info for briansmith100000

RedLeg review http://www.allstarcask.com/rum-reviews/redleg-review/ Good feedback Reviewed 11 December 2012 What a find,this wonderfully decorated Bar in the busy heart of historic York,fantastic selection of food and the staff were professional and the choice of drinks most impressive, new to the Bar was an amazing Spiced Rum called RedLeg, WOW you must give it a try, definitely visit again as below Kennedys is a new concept namely Sotano!! Visited December 2012 http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g186346-d1497593-r147211321-Kennedys_Bar_Restaurant-York_North_Yorkshire_England.html Some more selling. Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars ( 4 reviews ) http://www.rumundco.de/RedLeg-Spiced-Rum-07l-375 http://www.wein-und-winzer.de/redleg-spiced-rum-07l-375-3271-eur-liter_o_10037-3411/ http://www.amazon.de/RedLeg-Spiced-Rum-EUR-Liter/dp/B009A8DI84/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1365361810&sr=8-3&keywords=redlegs Spain too. http://elwhisky.es/botella/red-leg-spiced-rum http://www.blavod.com/ http://www.blavoddrinks.com/brands/rum/redleg_rum http://www.blavodwinesandspirits.com/index.php Another site is coming, from the link top right there is blavodstore.com http://www.butterflycannon.com/redleg/prod_30.html A former RedLeg Rum event "Rum tastings and deals on RedLeg Spiced Rum all night long". http://allevents.in/Brighton/7x7-at-The-Queens-Head-Wat-brighton-and-RedLeg-rum/442160575846828

Worth a read of this again. http://www.investegate.co.uk/blavod-wines---38--spirits-plc--bes-/one/trading-update/20120906070146H9033/

N+1 Singer still has a 3p target on Blavod which is 250% up from here. Once they are confident the recovery is under way that target will go up. I prefer to stay 3 steps ahead of brokers. http://sharedealing.nandp.co.uk/broker-views/BES/Blavod-Extreme-Spirits

I just went to http://wal-mart.suggestionbox.com/ and http://corporate.walmart.com/contact-us/store-corporate-feedback I suggested they stock RedLeg Rum and pointed them to the double gold award. I am all for helping the companies I hold a part of. I help by finding potential partners, products, market opportunities, etc. I e-mail the company with these as well as the other end, so that the potential has double the chance of being followed up. I am also sending Blavod details of a premium spirit product I bought on a far east flight recently, something that is not currently being distributed in the EU or down under.

Want some RedLeg? You can get it at these major internet shops. http://www.thedrinkshop.com/products/nlpdetail.php?prodid=7838 http://www.drinksdirect.co.uk/acatalog/Red_Leg_Spiced_Rum.html http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-17045.aspx http://www.drinkfinder.co.uk/index.php/catalog/product/view/id/16594/s/red-leg-spiced-rum-37-5-70cl/ http://www.masterofmalt.com/rum/redleg/redleg-spiced-rum/ http://www.drinksupermarket.com/red-leg-carribean-spiced-rum-70cl-37-5-abv.html http://www.johngordons.co.uk/red-leg-129-p.asp I just ordered a bottle for my home bar ;-)

More great news today. This adds more confidence to my theory that BES is in the early stages of a comeback.

That was a great bit of news for BES today! Work it out, 450 + 175 = 625 stores. These are all big shops with plenty of storage and shelf space. If each store took a stock of four cases (just 48 bottles) it would be 30,000 bottles. Red Leg Rum retails in the UK around £20 a bottle, so that's a big sale for BES. "Well done" I say. Going back and checking the half year results to 30 September 2012 and I see "Sales net of duty of £1.99 million". So this sale is a good percentage increase on half year sales. Not to be sniffed at. Add to that the announcement on 22 November 2012, after the half year results: "multiple retailer Tesco has agreed to increase availability of Blackwood's Vintage Dry Gin to larger stores in England and Wales. Previously Blackwood's Gin was only available through Tesco stores in Scotland" http://www.investegate.co.uk/blavod-wines-38-spts-(bes)/rns/blackwoods-gin-listed-in-uk-multiple-retailer/201211220700157228R/ BES are hitting some big retailers, I expect they have more in the pipeline including supplyint other products to Tesco and Woolies Australia. The MCap is only £2.75m but BES has plenty of cash ahving raised £1.6m last October: "On 19 October 2012, the Company was successfully refinanced following the conversion of £400,000 of loan notes (together with accrued, unpaid interest totalling £37,580) into equity and raising £1.2 million (before expenses) by way of a placing of new ordinary shares. The expenses associated with this amounted to £63,000." This could be the turning point for BES, so I dipped my toe in for 250,000 shares this morning. I will continue to accumulate while the stock is so cheap.

No maths degree required to work out CFU will be out of cash in 6 months, so fund raising again within about 3 months. So far only 255 Bluegens installed. On 15 Dec 2012 it was 244, so nearly 2 months and all that has been installed is 11 of them, equal to 66 per annum, so it's still a cottage industry. https://www.bluegen.net/ Not a word in the last RNS about the big furnaces being 100% fixed yet either. (despite pumping everything positive they could think of in that RNS). CFU Net operating cash outflow for the September quarter was AUD 4.6m (GBP 3.0m). Receipts from customers were AUD 2.2m (GBP 1.5m) which was up by AUD 0.5m (GBP 0.3m) from the previous quarter. The net cash outflow from financing activities includes AUD 0.5m (GBP 0.3m) of payments relating to costs of the fund raising undertaken in September 2012. Unrestricted cash on hand at 31 December was AUD 8.6m (GBP 5.7m). http://www.investegate.co.uk/ceramic-fuel-cells-(cfu)/rns/cashflow-report-for-the-december-quarter/201301310700047545W/

I see the rampers are going round acusing me of malicious posts, even threatening me with the BoD of CICR for that, but fact is, and I have no fear of standing up in court to defend myself gainst that, because my posts on CICR are based on investor caution, even investor concern about the claims by CIC Fuels that IMVHO do not mirror any of the 'rules of thumb' for an emulsion fuel, as I will detail below. My posts are not malicious, that is just the angle the rampers want to take against me, it is no different to their personal abuse directed against me, their harrassment of me on other companies BB's and their failed attemps at defamation, all in the name of ramping this stock on false information about a £100m IPO for CIC Fuels. QFI is going commercial this year after many years of developing a perfect emulsion fuel, CIC Fuels is only at the very start of it's road towards commercial sales, how can it be worth as much as QFI? Of course it's not, but the rampers just keep pumping it with that misinformation. Also, acusing me of wanting people to buy a stock I am holding at the expense of CICR is a joke. All I do is research the facts and give you the facts, you can do whatever you like with those facts, it's your money not mine!! Every other Water-In-Fuel company claims go with the industry rules of thumb: 1) Reduces NO'x by 1% for every 1% of water added 2) Reduces particulates (soot) by 60% 3) Reduces smoke by 80% 4) Reduces CO2 by up to 5% 5) Power/energy of the fuel is reduced by aproximately 1% for every 1% of water added 6) Saves up to 5% fuel usage So now compare that to CIC Fuels clams: 1) No loss of calorific value(energy loss) 2) Reducing CO2 gases by up to 75% 3) Reduces NOx gasses to 0.4% I don't see anything in there that goes with the industry norm. Where does the CO2 vanish to? According to the equations I posted it either comes out as particulates (is that why CIC do not make any claims on particulate reduction, even though every other company claims 60%+?) or it comes out as Carbon Monoxide, a poisonous gas, but it would only come out as that if there was enough Oxygen in the cylinder to make that happen, which is unlikley. How is it a good commercial product if it actually increases particulates by 75%, even if it does reduce CO2, these particulates are blamed for serious health issues. http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html How come they don't reduce NOx by 1% for every 1% of water added? How can they claim no "energy loss" when everyone in the emulsion industry states that adding each 1% water to the fuel reduces energy by 1%? These are the questions that CICR shareholders should be asking THEIR COMPANY. I am not concerned about CICR being a competitor to QFI, because they are not, they are Water in Fuel which is further down the food chain. If QFI are as successful as everyone hopes then there won't be any HFO left for CICR because QFI will have made the emulsion at the refine

Just to clear up anyone's doubts about CIC and any other Water-In-Fuel companies, here is the low down on why QFI is unlikely to be squeezed out in any of its HFO markets, but Water-In-Fuel companies will have loads of competition for the Diesel market. Wärtsilä fuel flexibility Emulsified fuels There are two types of fuel-water- emulsions available, which can be utilized as a fuel in Wärtsilä engines. • Water-in-Fuel-emulsion containing water droplets in fuel, being called FWE W/O • Fuel-in-Water-emulsion containing fuel droplets in water, being called FWE O/W The first one (FWE W/O) is purposed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), since the presence of water in fuel will result in lower combustion temperature. Viscosity of this type of emulsion is slightly higher than viscosity of dry fuel being used as emulsion blending component. The second one (FWE O/W) is designed to allow utilization of heavy residuals originating from fuel refineries and other special fuels having such a high viscosity that the fuel cannot be used as such only by heating, due to the fact that the temperature to achieve a proper injection viscosity would be too high. Fuel-in-water emulsions significantly decrease the viscosity and thusenable utilization of very high viscosity feedstocks. http://www.wartsila.com/en/power-plants/technology/fuel-flexibility/introduction Water-In-Fuel companies take existing Heavy Fuel Oil and make an emulsion of it by adding water. The only benefit is to the end user. QFI use Fuel-In-Water, taking the RESIDUE from oil processing and make an emulsified version of Heavy Fuel Oil at THE REFINERY. Saving money for everyone in the chain, from the refinery to the end user as well as lowering emissions for the end user. 1) If QFI are successful with Maersk then all Bunker Fuel (HFO for ships) will likely become MSAR2 at THE REFINERY. 2) If QFI are successful with power generation, and there is no reason I can see that they wouldn't after the success of Orimulsion, then all HFO for power generation will likely become MSAR2 at THE REFINERY. If 1+2 happen then there will be NO HFO that Water-In-Fuel companies can add water to, because all HFO will already be emulsion!! The only market that Water-In-Fuel can then apply its technology to is the Diesel market. But there are a few DOZEN Water-In-Fuel companies out there, so competition will be strong. QFI are one step ahead of all the competitors, literally!!

Nipping back to the BIG question about where 75% of the CO2 disappears to, here is another fact to throw in the pot: "Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions increase with increase in water percentage in the fuel. This is due to the fact that most of the hydrocarbons are burnt at lower loads." http://ethesis.nitrkl.ac.in/3401/1/combo_thesis.pdf And a little bit more science below to help you try and work out where that CO2 could possibly disappear to. Somehow you must create a formula that prevents 3 carbon molecules(75% reduction) from joining with Oxygen molecules to form CO2, whilst at the same time (like a circus juggler LOL!) you must prevent those 3 carbon molecules from forming soot, whilst still producing the same amount of energy as they would if they had oxidised (joined with Oxygen to form CO2). Tricky eh!! -------------------- Oxidation The chemical process that enables fuel to be burned to release energy is called oxidation. The fuel chemically combines with oxygen, releasing excess energy that drives the engine. Chemical Equation Fossil fuels are typically complex mixtures of different compounds, but are comprised mainly of carbon and hydrogen, so we can represent them in an equation as "CH," Given this, an idealized equation showing the production of carbon dioxide (CO2) is as follows: 4CH + 5O2 ==> 4CO2 + 2H20. In words, four "units" of fuel combine with five oxygen molecules to produce four carbon dioxide molecules and two water molecules. Other Products In practice, there is not always enough oxygen to convert all the fuel to carbon dioxide. In that case, the reaction also produces carbon monoxide (CO) and pure carbon (soot and smoke). http://www.ehow.com/facts_7383867_do-engines-produce-carbon-dioxide_.html

Well nobody (the one's I haven't filtered) has answered my BIG question about where the 75% of the CO2 goes. Lets try another question, one that is just as tricky to answer! Here we have some more facts: Reduction of Pollutants in CI Engine Using Emulsion Fuels To Reduce Overall Traffic-Induced Emissions By R.Venkatesh Babu , Dr.S.Sendilvelan Dr.MGR Universtiy "NOx can roughly be lowered on one-percent reduction of for every percent of water added to the fuel, depending on engine design and service profile. This reduction is achieved by lowering the peak combustion temperature in the engine cylinders. Better fuel atomization and more complete combustion serve to offset any reduced thermal efficiency from the quenching effect of water during the combustion process. The net impact on engine power development and fuel economy is minimal." http://globaljournals.org/GJRE_Volume11/2-Reduction-of-Pollutants-in-CI-Engine-Using-Emulsion-Fuels.pdf So people, do you understand that for every 1% of water added to the fuel, the NOx is reduced by 1%? Before you read any further are you 100% sure you get that? If not, read it again ;-) So now we look at CIC Fuels claims again: "Our technologies allow up to fifty (50%) percent water to be molecularly bonded with heavy oils without the loss of calorific value(energy loss) whilst reducing CO2 gases by up to 75% and NOx gasses to 0.4%" So a 30% water emulsion would, by the scientific data above, reduce NOx by 30%, do you get that? But CIC Fuels are only cutting NOx by 0.4%, not 30%. How can that be so when "for every 1% of water added to the fuel, the NOx is reduced by 1%"?????????????? If you reverse engineer the equation and take 0.4% NOx reduction then you must have an emulsion that only has 0.4% water in it. Which is not far from the JIS K 2275 date showing the emulsion only has 0.23% water in it. So maybe the JIS K 2275 is correct and the sample sent for testing really only had 0.23% water in it. Can anyone explain this?

So where is your answer? You are the one spouting as I see no facts, not even a formula to show ehere the CO2 is supposed to be going, you can post your ridiculous one liners all you like, but the people reading can see that you are the one that knows nothing.

So here is the BIGGEST question of all!! WHERE DOES 75% OF THE CO2 DISAPPEAR TO, AS CIC FUELS CLAIMS WITH THEIR FUEL??????? Below are the details of how CO2 is created in a Diesel Engine. Note that if the combustion is almost perfect then 99% of the carbon in the fuel will be converted to CO2. If the engine or fuel is not that efficient then the carbon will be emitted as particulates or unburned hydrocarbons rather than CO2. FACT as stated below. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Every gallon of diesel fuel contains 2,778 grams of pure carbon. Every gram of atomic carbon, when oxidized with oxygen, forms 3.666 grams of carbon dioxide. (This is another way of saying that each molecule of CO2 weighs 3.66 times more than an atom of carbon alone.) In an average liquid hydrocarbon-burning engine, it can be assumed that about 99 percent of the fuel will oxidize. (It is assumed that somewhat less than 1 percent will fail to fully oxidize, and will be emitted as particulates or unburned hydrocarbons instead of CO2). Therefore, we can multiply the amount of carbon per gallon of diesel by the ratio of carbon weight to CO2 weight by 99 percent. 2,778 g x 3.66 x 0.99 = 10,084 g. Each gallon of diesel fuel produces, on average, 10,084 g of CO2, or about 22.2 lb. So if your diesel generator uses, for example, 15 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, it'll be producing: 15 gallons/hour x 22.2 lb./gallon = 333 lb. Just insert the fuel burn rate for your diesel generator, and you'll get the amount of CO2 that it produces. http://www.ehow.com/how_6023500_calculate-dioxide-emissions-diesel-generator.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- So here is your dilema: If CIC emulsion reduces CO2 by up to 75% where is that carbon going? It has to go somewhere as it cannot be reduced to anything else in an internal combustion engine, it either comes out of the engine as CO2, or Carbon soot, or as part of uncombusted fuel which is clearly wasted fuel. If they are cutting CO2 by 75% there are only a couple of reactions I can think of that could explain it: 1) The fuel is not being fully combusted, so fuel is wasted and performance is reduced significantly (by up to 75%, obviously) 2) There is not enough oxygen getting into the engine to join up with the Carbon and make CO2. This would lead to an increase of 75% in the amount of particulates (soot) that will eventually clog up the piston, valves and exhaust. Also the fuel is not combusting at very high efficiency, so the energy produced by this fuel will be significantly reduced. Can you think of any other possibilities that I cannot to solve this mystery, as I REALLY would like to know the answer! Now off you trot and see if you can explain: WHERE DOES 75% OF THE CO2 DISAPPEAR TO, AS CIC FUELS CLAIMS??????????????

Check out the below from ADVFN BB where it appears a shareholder has just helped me clarify that the JIS K 2275 test used on CIC's emulsion fuel to determine the water content cannot actually be used on emulsion fuels (he proved that, not me). It looks like it is because the emulsion fuel has far more water in it than the test can determine as a maximum DOH!! What great scientists they must have testing it LOL! ---------------------------------- ultrapunch 25 Jan'13 - 19:13 - 3390 of 3401 http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-GB&dl=en&lp=JA_EN&a=http%3a%2f%2fkikakurui.com%2fk2%2fK2275-1996-02.html This link to a Japanese site (I translated into English) states the JIS K 2275 test is not applicable to Emulsions, eg ashpalt emulsion.

Oh dear, I accidentally picked the wrong item from the drop down list, tut-tut! Strong Sell it should have been and Strong Sell is what it is.

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DI DIESEL ENGINE FUELLED WITH EMULSION FUEL "From analysis of the experiment, it is observed that the fuel consumption due to usage of emulsion fuel is lower compared to diesel fuel after the content of the diesel fraction (79% diesel content) in the emulsion fuel is taken into account." So we have a fuel-water emulsion that is 79% fuel and 21% water. What we get is this: *Calorific Value for Diesel: 46.165 kJ kg-1 *Calorific Value for Emulsion Fuel: 36.0671 kJ Kg-1 So the Calorific Value for Emulsion Fuel is 78.1265% of the original fuel, not far off the 79% which is fuel, the water adds NOTHING!! http://umpir.ump.edu.my/2444/2/An_Experimental_Study_Of_Di_Diesel_Engine_Fuelled_With_Emulsion_Fuel.pdf Any claims that water provides any valuable Calorific Value in an emulsion fuel are BOGUS! Every single shipping company, every single refinery, every single power station operator WOULD KNOW THIS BASIC CHEMISTRY!!

I see the same group of rampers that post on ADVFN are on here too, so I will post the truth here too. Any scientist reading the CIC Fuels front page would laugh their pants off :-))))))))))))) "Our technologies allow up to fifty (50%) percent water to be molecularly bonded with heavy oils without the loss of calorific value(energy loss) whilst reducing CO2 gases by up to 75% and Nox gasses to 0.4%" http://cicfuels.com/home.html "reducing CO2 gases by up to 75%" Adding 50% percent water in theory would reduce CO2 by .... 50% .... so where does the other 25% dissapear to? It doesn't because it's impossible!! "without the loss of calorific value(energy loss)" Putting 50% water into fuel means 50% of the fuels calorific value has been replaced by the calorific value of WATER, which is far lower that the fuel and is only of any use as STEAM!! Fact is some rampers on here and on ADVFN are claiming CIC Fuels will IPO at £100m, which is hilarious, because anyone with a few million to spare for IPO stock will do every bit of due diligence they can on the stock before they put any cash into it. Why do you think it's taken so long to get that IPO completed? DUH!! They only need to ask someone with a grade E in chemistry "if I have some heavy fuel oil, I take away 50% of it and replace that with water, will I have something with the same calorific value and will I have reduced CO2 emissions by 75%?" The reply to that would be a visible shaking of the head, raised eyebrows and hysterical laughter. Yet those are the claims on the front page of the CIC Fuels Website!! What is just as hilarious is that water does indeed have a calorific value, but unless you use it as steam you have to split the stuff into Hydrogen and Oxygen to make use of the energy. In a combustion engine, which is where HFO and emulsion fuels are used, water provides no energy in the combustion process as water is NOT split into Hydrogen and Oxygen, otherwise we would all be driving round in water powered cars. The fuel combusts and drives the piston down. Take 50% of the fuel away and you have 50% of the power. Take 50% of the fuel away and replace it with 50% water and you still only have 50% of the power because the fuel combusts and the water doesn't. Therefore the calorific value of water in a combustion engine IS ZERO. DUH!! Likewise, if I have fuel going into a combustion engine, I take away 50% of the fuel, I have now halved the CO2 emissions. So now I have the fuel, I take away 50% of the fuel and put water in it's place, I still have 50% of the original emissions because I still have 50% fuel going into the engine, the 50% water will NEVER reduce the emissions any further than 50% of the original fuel because I will always be burning 50% of that original fuel. DUH!! Some people here obviously didn't even get a grade E in chemistry, they are SO easy to spot too!!

It was only a matter of time IMVHO before a big name like this would short CWR, after all it is crazy to pay so much for a stock that's going to either be bought out cheap (and yes, even 10p is cheap if you are a holder with an average of more than 20p a share, some hold this much higher!) or diluted to hell again in the next fund raising. It's only reasons for being so high a price is the placees buying up the stock and some ramping from a few lunatics. Sell Ceres power (CWR) 6.5p By Lucien Miers, East London’s most-feared short-seller When Ceres Power, the fuel cell technology company, was floated on AIM in 2004 , its fate was pretty much sealed by Tony Blair, who described it as a “world leader”. Eight years, four Nomads, several directors and some £63mn later the company had run out of money and backers and was preparing for a wind down of the business, having failed to generate any meaningful sales. Then in Late November of last year Ceres announced a radical slimmed down business plan and the raising of £3.3 mn (before expenses) at 1p per share supported chiefly by Ora Capital, the quoted investment vehicle of Welsh financier Richard Griffiths, and a firm named IP Group PLC who took control of some 54 % of the company between them, valuing the company at some £4mn. Fast forward a month and the shares were trading at 8p valuing Ceres at over £30mn. Now I don’t claim to know a lot about fuel cell technology (from its financial track record it would appear that the company has similar limitations) but for private investors to be happy to pay an eightfold premium to what the insiders have stumped up less than a few weeks before, seems pretty barmy, particularly as Ceres has said it must raise more funds in a year’s time. Griffiths is clearly, for the most part, a wily stock operator (although he did go blundering into Blacks Leisure shortly before it failed) but is it really a good idea to effectively pay eight times what he has for an investment in such a short time? Would one do it even if he were Warren Buffet? I don’t think so. Predictably the shares have slipped a bit to around 6.5p and will surely settle lower once the excitement subsides. I have sold them short on this basis. Posted by ShareCrazy on Jan 14, 12:28 PM http://sharecrazy.com/beta/daily/7879/sell-ceres-power-cwr-65p

The only bid will be from those that bought most of the company at 1p in the placing. It is they IMVHO that are hoovering up the stock and getting everyone's hopes up, hopes that I expect will be dashed yet again. At even 6p for 1m shares it makes bog all difference to their average price of .. 1p. The bid will be at a price they dictate, a low price, because between them they own enough of the company to vote it through themselves.