|
reg. the link
www.DBKsolar.com from cs1992
Interesting picture " http://www.dbksolar.com/JIL-3000.htm " display 2.8kW
but leads don't have a load.
Current Sensor measures current what goes to the Voltage Probe? How can that
than be 2.8kW ????
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/european_scienc.html
Locke |
Jun 13, 2006 2:20:57 PM 50in X 40in = ~1.3 sq m
1 sq m of sunlight is roughly 1350W of power on average at the distance of
the earth from the sun BEFORE accounting for atmospheric losses and WITH
consideration of a 90 degree angle of incidence.
So how are they magically
collecting more power than is available? I smell something that could be
used to produce methane gases...
Posted by:
Andrey | Jun 15, 2006 1:37:10 AM
I can only assume that the
DBK solar 3000 watt panel is either fraudulent, or they really don't know
what they're talking about. It's pretty clear that even with a 100%
conversion efficiency, they couldn't generate more than 1200W with a panel
that size (50x40"), to say nothing of the fact that the shadow produced by
the panel indicates that they're not getting max solar to produce their
"3000W". To say nothing of the lack of a load. Got to be a hoax. I wonder
about the rest of their site?
Tom Jolly | Jun 22, 2006 8:45:28 AM
I sent DBK an email which
said;
"I’m a little confused on
where the 3000W rating comes from; you’ve tested with 1000W/m^2, and you
have an area of 1.29 m^2, so even with an efficiency of 100%, you could only
be putting out 1290W. And with the stated efficiency of 75%, that’s only
970W. Am I missing something?"
Their odd response was; "Yes, we link it a DC to DC
inverter before it get to the DC to AC inverter."
Uh...okay. What? Did they
get the wrong question? TJ
Posted by:
Tom Jolly | Jun 23, 2006 7:43:17 AMI tried to get info out of
these DBK people to use their panels on a boat. No answer at all. Seems they
can be rather shady when it comes to exact facts and figures on the site.
Any way they could be checked out?
Posted by:
Brian Hmurovich | Aug 14, 2006 9:26:45 PM February 20, 2006
South Africa Claims Break thorough in PV Solar
According to an article on the IOL, South Africa website, scientist
Professor Vivan Alberts and his colleagues at the University of Johannesburg
(formerly Rand Afrikaans University) have achieved a breakthrough in
developing a "revolutionary, new highly efficient solar power technology"
after 10 years of research. Panels will be available within a year. The
technology has been patented throughout the world. It is claimed to be "much
more efficient than the costly old silicon solar panels."
The article goes on to say:
A German company IFE Solar
Systems, has invested more than R500-million (US $83-million) in the South
African invention and is set to manufacture 500,000 of the panels before the
end of the year at a new plant in Germany. Production will start next month
and the factory will run 24 hours a day, producing more than 1,000 panels a
day to meet expected demand. ....
The South African solar
panels consist of a thin layer of a unique metal alloy that converts light
into energy. The photo-responsive alloy can operate on virtually all
flexible surfaces, which means it could in future find a host of other
applications.
Alberts said the new panels
are approximately five microns thick (a human hair is 20 microns thick)
while the older silicon panels are 350 microns thick. the cost of the South
African technology is a fraction of the less effective silicone solar
panels.
According to this November
2004 article:
Prof Vivian Alberts of the
Department of Physics at the Rand Afrikaans University in South Africa and
team have developed and patented a novel manufacturing technique that
finally makes it possible to construct CIGS solar panels at a very low cost.
....Work done over the last two years indicates that panels can be produced
in commercial volumes at a cost of about R 500 (US $83 or $1.66/W) for a 50
Watt panel. This is much cheaper than existing solar panels available on the
market.
$1.66/W is much lower than anyone else is achieving right now but, if you
believe their price, they could be on about the same pace as some other
non-silicon thin film producers will be in a year, so I don't see their
technology as "revolutionary." Their installed price might be about
$3.00-$3.50/W (at 2x panel price). The key to low cost cells is the
manufacturing methods and it is awful ambitious of anyone to assume they can
reach that price in one year, even with a "novel" manufacturing process.
Daystar and others are
developing similar technology. Daystar may be reaching $3.00-$3.50/W
installed price in 2007 with their Gen II production if everything goes
right. They are achieving 20% efficiency in the laboratory which is much
better than anyone most get with silicon. Daystar plans on reducing its
installed price to the range of $1.00/W when its Gen III production is tuned
up in 2009, but I suspect they may have to go to a Gen IV process, producing
wider width cell panels and a higher production rate before they reach that
price.
NREL has said that industry
needs to get its price down to about $0.52 per watt (cost $0.26) to achieve
installed price of under a $1.00/W, (for 13% efficiency CIGS panels) the
holy grail of pricing necessary to compete with utility power without any
subsidies in the US. Electricity is much more expensive in South Africa than
in the US, so maybe their price is competitive over there. Prices this low
are for large multi-MW installations, not for household installations, so
that is another factor to consider. Supplies of Indium and Gallium become
tight when you are talking about multi-GW production so yet another obstacle
to overcome. And then could we have patent infringement lawsuits at some
time? Life is so complicated.
Technorati tags: solar, PV
solar, solar power, energy, technology
February 20, 2006 at 11:43 PM in Solar-PV | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4305569 Listed below are links to
weblogs that reference South Africa Claims Breakthorough in PV Solar:
Posted by:
Steven G Merrill |
Aug 23, 2006 4:02:36 PMI signed up for an exclusive
territory with DBK for their 1,500 and 3,000 panels and was accepted; but
before sending any money or signing a contract I did some research and read
a lot of negative comments. When I inquired to DBK their only comment was
that they are not a "fly by night company". I have a 100 house project
pending and asked that they prove up before I promote their solar systems -
no response after numerous requests. Does anyone have further comments?Posted by:
Nelson Mensch | Jun 18, 2007 5:29:07 AM
There's a lot of things on
the DBK home page which don't add up. Should I name just a few?
* address = Suite A, but photos up top strongly imply they're building two
different $20 million buildings.
* English is pretty good to be a foreign internet scam -- but not perfect.
Read the sight CLOSELY. 3 to 5 grammatical errors (not just typos) that a
native speaker wouldn't make and a large company would let be posted.
* Odd "home page" Employment link right up top. Either they're gonna take
your money or your identity -- I'm not sure which.
* This company claims to do
it all. What do you want to hear? Design? Development? Implementation?
Research? Manufacturing? General Contracting? Oh, they do all this yet still
need reps in most USA area codes. hmmmm. Apparently they've done it all, but
not made sales???? Oh they do ALL this in BOTH solar cells and they also
construct solar hydrogen fuel cell power plants
* This huge company, located in Suite A, employs an answering service.
Should I go on? Smells
awfully phishy.
Let us know if you see other
inconsistencies.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/european_scienc.html
WoodyG -
29/Jan/2007, 09:12PM
I was researching anything I could find about DBK panels and ran across your
comment on a OtherPower.com page. I\'m no electrical expert by any means but I
do have a question if you don\'t mind. They claim rated power is at 3000 watts
.. they also list that \"Voltage at Max. Power (DC Volts)\" was 220 volts. Also
the input into the dc-dc inverter is 950 Watts. So the question is, would or
could they be using the dc to dc inverter to step up the wattage output by
dropping the dc voltage? If so, I would guess a static test is very different
from a test under load .. yes??
http://www.repowered.co.uk/
WoodyG, these panels are
almost certainly a fake. They cannot get more than 1000w/sq/m which is what
they are claiming with their 3000w/sq/m. A DC-DC converter would not
increase the wattage. It can only change the voltage and current. Wattage
stays the same. Remember that DC-DC converters have losses too so it would
be impractical to use one anyway.
Thankfully, this isn’t about
CitizenRE. Instead, we have the
DBK Corporation, “The Energy Family - Low Cost Electricity”…
Step 1:
Anything ridiculous?
DBK has a goal of 1,000,000 megwatts by the end of 2007
(at least CitizenRE had the sense to wait until 2025). For reference, there
were about
5900 megawatts in the whole world in 2005.
Step 2:
Anything strange?
Their “new” solar panel has a reported 70% efficiency, a
312% increase over the standard 17%. Look
here, they can prove it with fancy language (”multi-junction”) and show
you that it puts out 2.8 amps with a fancy meter. For reference, the
theoretical limit for photovoltaic efficiency is around 45%.
Step 3:
Anything impossible?
It only takes one solar panel to power your whole house.
Nothing says powerful like a solar panel on a gravel roof (picture above).
No doubt, that’s powering the whole building. For reference, it would take
6-8 solar panels to generate what they are claiming for their single smaller
panel, and it would take 15-20 to offset 50% of the average American home.
Step 4:
Anything fishy?
All of their break-through technology costs half as much
as their “competitors.” For reference, a 3 kilowatt residential solar system
might cost $24,000 before incentives and $14,500 thousand after (really
depends on your location and available incentives).
Step 5:
Review
No basis in reality. Miraculous technology. Half the
cost. It’s gotta be legit! Give them your credit card!
Solar energy works but is expensive. So is a hybrid car.
So are new windows and a high efficiency furnace. None are your first
choices for reducing energy use and environmental impact when money matters
- do the
simple, low-cost things first. Use your brain in making decisions. There
are reasons it sounds too good to be true…
This
entry was posted on Wednesday, February 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pm and is filed
under
Renewable Energy,
Energy,
Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed. You can
leave a response, or
trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to “How to Detect a Solar Scam”
-
Alan
Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[Editor’s Note: I stand
corrected on two points. World wide capacity was around 4300 MW in 2004 and
grew 1560 MW in 2005 to a total of about 5900 MW (this has been corrected
above). The current world record for cell efficiency
was announced last December at 40.6% using a multi-junction concentrator
cell. I’ll be waiting for DBK’s Nobel Prize announcement…]
Certainly DBK has all of the
hallmarks of a scam, and their 1,000,000 MW goal by the end of 2007 is
laughable if for no other reason than that it amounts to 20% of the new
capacity the entire world will need over the next 20 years. Even if they
could make that much by the end of the year, they would sell only a small
fraction of it.
So I don’t really disagree with
the substance of your comments. I do, however, have a couple of nitpicks.
First, I think you misread the Solarbuzz article you linked to (that, or I
misread what you wrote about it). It says that the amount of PV installed in
the world in 2005 was 1460 MW. That is only the amount that was put into
service for the first time in 2005, it is not the total amount actually
operating worldwide. That total, at the end of 2005, was a bit above 5000
MW. Still tiny compared to a million, but much larger than 1460 MW.
Second, the theoretical limit
for photovoltaic efficiency really depends on exactly what sort of device
you assume. A plain old silicon solar cell has a theoretical limit of about
29%. A single-junction solar cell made of an arbitrary, idealized material
has a theoretical limit of about 41%. An ideal two-junction cell has a
theoretical limit of about 56%, three-junction about 64%, four-junction
about 69%, on up to an infinite number of junctions (after all, we’re
talking theory here) with a limit of about 87%. While the five-junction cell
that DBK claims to have would appear not to violate the laws of
thermodynamics on the basis of a 70% efficiency alone, in order to achieve
such an efficiency it would have to be made from five materials so close to
ideal that suitable materials are unlikely to even exist, let alone be
assembled nearly perfectly at half the cost of conventional PV materials. I
can’t see any way that they could possibly even come close to justifying
their claim, and I would be that skeptical even if they weren’t claiming low
cost and had the money-is-no-object budget of a defense contractor.
It is possible that they’re
convinced their product is genuine because they simply don’t know how to
make the electrical measurements properly or they’ve set up their solar
simulator improperly. That has happened before. However, the photo of the
module on their web site is quite clearly a multicrystalline silicon PV
module, or at least some sort of cast material (though it looks exactly like
cast silicon). A cast material of any sort is far, far, far from the ideal
material I described above — it will be full of impurities, and the grain
boundaries will wreak havoc electronically — so if it’s an active part of
the solar cell the 70% claim is utterly and completely hosed. I suppose they
could claim it’s only a substrate and plays no role electronically, but if
that were the case then the substrate would not be visible — at 70%
efficiency, not enough visible light could possibly pass through the cell
and escape to make the substrate stand out so clearly.
I’ll tell you one thing: If, by
some miracle, they can back up their claims, the module in the photo is not
their actual product, and folks from the company will win at least one Nobel
Prize. If you can engineer not one, but five, perfect materials, assemble
them in layers without introducing defects into neighboring layers, and make
a working solar panel with 70% efficiency from them at half the cost of
conventional panels, well, it wouldn’t surprise me if you get three Nobel
Prizes.
-
niels
Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Note, that they are selling
franchises… that is their angle. My advise - do not buy one!
(please) As solar gets popular we will
be seeing more and more of these scams. The solar industry and solar
advocates must be diligent and get the word out before the public is sucker
into a sour deal, and the image of solar electric systems drops a notch. My tip for the day is AMAT
(they look like the real thing when it comes to reducing panel cost over the
near term). Thanks Sir Solar Kismet! n
-
don johnson
Says:
May 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
[Editor’s Note: There’s no such
thing as a 3000 watt panel, much less a 1500 watt one…that’s the point.
We’ll throw rocks but they won’t break anything because there’s nothing to
break. It’s a scam (or a severe misunderstanding of physics).]
HAS ANYONE TESTED THE 3000 WATT
PANEL?AND IF SO WHAT WAS THE OUT COME? OR ARE WE JUST GONNA THROW ROCKS ?
-
Rajesh
Says:
June 19th, 2007 at 3:58 am
[Editor’s Note: If the fact
that their “solar
division” website doesn’t work is any indication, I’d stop payment.]
Dear Editor,
Dbk corp.is giving us dealership for india,they are asking 200000$deposit
for and today i came across your web site and feeling very scare,please
advice me, should we stop all the transactiom.
Thanks
-
Keef Says:
July 11th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Hi Folks
Here is a solar scammer that just can’t help himself
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102146&messages=54&page=1
What an idiot!
Keef
|
|
DBK CLAIM:
http://www.dbksolar.com/
DBK's Multiple Energy
Level (MEL) Patent Pending Solar Panels!
JIL-1500 and 3000 solar panels are IEC 61215 certified.
DBK's new technologically advanced (MEL) solar panels are using 70
percent of the sun wavelengths instead of 17 percent. This is link to DC
to DC conversion process that gets the 1500 or the 3000 watts needed to
supply your home or business. One or two JIL panels are all that is
needed for most homes, 5-6 panels for most small businesses.
|
cs1992
Tar Sands
Joined:
Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 23
|
Posted:
Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:52 am
Post subject: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
I have mentioned this
company before (DBKsolar.com) and they continue their claims.
DBK Solar claims to have a 3kw & 1.5kw panels
that are only ~15 sq ft in surface area. Their website now claims to be
IEC 61215 certified.
Through e-mail conversations, they have
repeatedly assured me that these panels are legitimate. I was told to
wait until a dealer was available in my area if I was hesitant in any
manner so I could see a system first hand. I am in NC and and most of
their dealers are located in CA.
I apologize for beating this horse, but this
company truly irks me. Claims of this nature need to be investigated and
neutralized if they are proven false.
I suppose that IEC certificaton has plucked my
last nerve. If I lived in southern
California, I'd be paying
them a visit. Anyone in southern California care to follow up?
DBK Solar |
NeoPeasant
Intermediate Crude
Joined:
Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 883
Location: Giant Pickup Truck Country
|
Posted:
Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
The demo picture is clearly
a fraud. The wattmeter operates by making a voltage measurement and an
amperage measurement at the same time, and displaying the product of the
two measurements as watts. If you look at the photograph, the otherwise
open output leads of the cell are connected to the extremely high
impedance voltmeter inputs of the wattmeter. It is impossible for any
significant current to flow and consequently any significant wattage to
be measured.
Secondly if the cell were generating 2.8
kilowatts as claimed, it would have to be attached to a load dissipating
that 2.8 kilowatts. IOW something continuously generating the heat of
two plug in space heaters running full blast. Where is the load?
_________________
The knowledge to survive post peak will not come
from our laboratories. It will come from our museums. |
NeoPeasant
Intermediate Crude
Joined:
Oct 12, 2004
Posts: 883
Location: Giant Pickup Truck Country
|
Posted:
Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:26 pm
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
There was an
earlier post
where a
different DBK solar panel demo picture was clearly exposed as a fraud.
In that case, the shadows proved that the sun was hitting the panel from
the side at an extremely low angle, making it impossible to recieve much
solar input, and once again there was no load.
The url to the earlier fraudulent demo picture
now takes you to the more recent fraudulent demo picture.
_________________
The knowledge to survive post peak will not come
from our laboratories. It will come from our museums. |
coyote
Light Sweet Crude
Joined:
Oct 23, 2005
Posts: 1282
Location: East of Eden
|
Posted:
Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:59 pm
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
It's right down the street
from me, I'd be happy to visit them -- problem is, I'd have no idea what
to look for. Take a camera with me maybe?
_________________
Because of substitutability, peak oil is not
just a liquid fuels crisis.
It is an ecological crisis.
"If the Earth really were your mother, she would
grab you with one rocky hand and hold you under water until you no
longer bubbled." |
Kez
Heavy Crude
Joined:
May 06, 2005
Posts: 204
Location:
North Texas
|
Posted:
Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:08 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
cs1992 wrote: |
|
DBK Solar claims to have a 3kw & 1.5kw panels that are only ~15 sq
ft in surface area. Their website now claims to be IEC 61215
certified. |
Well the top of the line 165
W
Kyocera panels are 14.1 square feet and they claim 14%-15% efficiency.
15 square foot = 1.3935456 square meters
Since at absolute best in space
only 1366 Watts hits a square meter, and on earth at best it's around
1000 Watts/square meter, they are clearly full of crap. Unless they are
focusing the sun in an area at least 3 square meters (using additional
mirrors, fresnel lenses, etc), and then getting 100% efficiency from the
panels, there is no way to get 3kw from that.
The picture also shows a typical silicon panel.
To capture more rays from the sun you can't even use silicon, but the
very expensive stuff, and that stuff costs thousands of dollars for just
1 square foot of it and is designed to be focused on, not some big huge
50" x 40" panel. They claim they are capturing the stuff that silicon
doesn't, yet they show a silicon panel. Big time fraud in my estimation.
Someone go visit their 'office' to see if they
are even there.
|
Alton
Coal
Joined:
Nov 07, 2006
Posts: 2
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
I'm attending a
demonstration at DBK tomorrow (Wednesday, Nov. 8th). I'll be happy to
pursue any reasonable questions anyone may present. |
Alton
Coal
Joined:
Nov 07, 2006
Posts: 2
|
Posted:
Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:38 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected on my
previous posting. I'm attending the demonstration at DBK on the 15th of
November, not on the 8th as previously stated. |
RandyPark
Coal
Joined:
Jan 21, 2006
Posts: 4
Location:
Toronto
|
Posted:
Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:17 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
Okay, so I ran into DBK
today, started searching, found this post, read down thinking "here it
comes" then.... nothing! Did Alton ever visit DBK?
_________________
Randy Park
Speaker, Author <b>Thinking for Results</b>
web site <b>www.EnergyPredicament.com</b> |
gg3
Fusion
Joined:
May 24, 2004
Posts: 3084
Location:
California, USA
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:02 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
I
just did a bit of research and came up with some interesting stuff
--- One: contractor's license?? ---
They claim to be a licensed contractor and yet I
was unable to find a record of their name or license.
From DBK's website:
|
Quote: |
|
"DBK
currently consists of three divisions: Engineering and
Construction, Solar and Power Generators.
DBK Engineering and Construction is a California Licensed General
Engineering Contractor, bonded and insured; specializing in
designing and installing solar power systems." |
URL for above:
DBK page link
Now we go look up records for all
California contractors with similar names. First we go here:
California Contractor search link
Then we try typing "DBK" into the search, and the
first listing starts with DBL. So next we proceed by typing "DBH" into
the search, since this should bring up all listings starting with DBH,
that is, going through DBI, DBJ, and DBK.
This also produces nothing on DBK. Instead we
get:
|
Quote: |
|
DBH CONSTRUCTION
DBH CONSTRUCTION
DBJB INC
DBL D FISH
DBLA INC
DBLT NASCA CONSTRUCTION
...etc. |
That is, no listing for a DBK-anything. Unless
I'm missing a subtlety somewhere, DBK should be listed between DBJB and
DBL D FISH (the latter is probably a reference to the name of the
license holder, for example Doug Fish).
(Note if you try this, the first column shows
"name type," where the term "DBA" frequently recurs, but that stands for
"Doing Business As," which is a term for a sole proprietorship that uses
a business name to represent the business activities of an individual
person. This use of "DBA" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
alphabetization of the "Contractor name" column, nor with DBK.)
So now we have two possible hypotheses here.
One, DBK has mis-quoted the name under which they
do in fact hold a valid General Engineering Contractor's license in the
state of
California, or,
Two, DBK does not have such a license under any
name, and thus their claim is entirely fictional.
--- Two: Ho Ho Ho!, an IPO! ---
Now let's go back to DBK's home page.
There we find the following announcement:
|
Quote: |
|
"Coming!
DBK Solar Utilities of California (IPO), DBK Solar Utilities of
Nevada (IPO) and other countries. Our objectives are to design,
build, construct and operate one megawatts and larger solar power
plants in the stated locations. DBK is promoting a cleaner
environment while reducing our dependence on fossil fuel. Contact:
Synesi Group for investment opportunities. " |
The term "IPO" stands for "Initial Public
Offering," which is to say, the occasion on which the shares in a
company's stock are offered for sale to the public for the first time.
For example a few years ago Google had its first IPO, and the value of
the shares rapidly rose, and people with the foresight to invest in
Google earned a decent profit from doing so.
Any smart investor can tell you that one of the
first things they look for when scoping out a potential IPO, is
information on the company's management team. There are a couple
of types that investors tend to look for. One is a management team
composed of people with verifyable track records: resumes that can be
checked, that include background with companies that can also be checked
out to see if they are successful. Two is a management team composed of
unknowns who seem to be smart & capable and who can be interviewed in
some depth to determine if they have what it takes to make a successful
company. Usually in the latter case there will be a "board of advisors"
as well as the board of directors, and the advisors will include people
with verifyable track record who are in effect acting as mentors to the
new smart kids on the block.
However, seldom does a company go directly to an
IPO. More often, a company goes through an initial fund raising stage,
to raise capital from "friends & family," who know the key people at the
company well enough to decide if the venture is a worthwhile investment.
Next the company may go through a "Regulation D Offering," or some other
mechanism where it raises additional funds from sophisticated investors
on the basis of personal introductions. Only after a company has
operated for long enough to have built up some track record, is it
likely to go to an IPO.
In any case, companies expecting to offer stock
to the public typically promote their management teams on their
websites: the board of directors, the board of advisors, the various
CXOs or at least the CEO and key management people (sales, engineering,
etc.). Typically you will see this information on a page link called
"management team" or you'll find it in the "About (XYZ Company)" link.
Well guess what?
No such page that I could find. Nada, zip, nyet.
What should we make of that?
I'll tell you what I make of all of it, taken
together.
--- Three: If it ducks like a quack*... ---
(*Note for non-native-English speakers:
that's a pun. The normal usage is, "If it quacks like a duck, it must be
a duck." This is often used in the context of expressing skepticism that
someone or something is not exactly what they claim. However, the word
"duck" can also be used as a verb that means "to quickly hide," and the
word "quack" can also be used as a noun that means "a faker who claims
to practice a profession, for example, as a medical doctor." Thus, the
translation in literal terms would be, "If it quickly hides like someone
who is faking...")
I may be wrong, but it would seem to me that DBK
has been working its way toward promoting IPOs in solar utilities using
their panels. And the whole "look and feel" about it, suggests to me
something called a "pump & dump" operation.
First, you build up what appears to be a viable
company. Next, you offer stock to the public. Initially a small group of
insiders invests in the company, and they are fully aware of the nature
of what's being done. After that, you start promoting the stock
publicly, and members of the public start to buy. The share price goes
up: looks as if the company is doing well, shares are gaining value,
everyone is set to earn a decent profit if the trends continue. This is
the "pump" stage: pumping up the value of the company.
However, at that point the initial group of
insiders sells their shares into the public market at a much higher
price than they originally paid. They make serious profits and then they
go away, "laughing their way to the bank," as it were. This is the
"dump" stage: dumping the early shares back onto the market where they
are eagerly snapped up by the next wave of people who think they have
found a good thing.
After that, the company just drifts and goes
nowhere. The initial investors have gotten theirs, the company's
existence serves no further purpose. As time goes by, the company's
share price sinks back down to its real value, which is very very low:
often, next to nothing. The subsequent investors are left holding stock
that's worthless, having watched their money go 'round and 'round before
it finally goes down the drain.
Yes, doing the ol' pump & dump is very illegal.
---Four: what to do about this---
On the surface it looks like it might be worth
blowing the whistle and reporting these guys to the SEC for an
investigation. However, SEC like most Federal agencies, has a serious
backlog and will need more substantial evidence before deciding whether
the case is truly a law enforcement issue.
Thus it would be worthwhile for people here to
investigate this on their own, and then file reports to SEC if it
appears something illegal is actually going on.
Anyone here who has experience doing venture
investments, should make an innocent inquiry to DBK and ask for the
usual information an investor would request. Also ask to speak with
people on the management team, by way of doing your own due diligence.
If you think you've got something illegal here,
then bundle up all of your email & other correspondence with DBK
and call up the SEC to let them know what you have. If you go in there
with something that is more substantial evidence of a scam, they will
make it a priority to investigate and bring charges if needed.
Or it might turn out that this is entirely
legitimate, including the claims of producing more electricity per
square meter of full sunlight than even comes from the sun in the first
place. After all, stranger things have happened, and the French
government has just started to put its UFO files on the internet.
Either way, happy hunting!
|
MD
Moderator
Joined:
May 02, 2005
Posts: 2012
Location: "we're in a tight spot!"
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:10 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
The only way you will take
these guys down is to actually buy their systems after getting them to
make prosecutable fraudulent claims.
It may even take multiple buys and multiple
complaints from within their jurisdiction to get action.
Thus is the reality of this kind of internet
fraud.
Anything less and they will simply disappear and
pop up again elsewhere.
Give it up. Ignore them.
_________________
"Grow or die . . . that's the name of the game,
son. Grow or die." |
Aaron
800 lb Gorilla
Joined:
Apr 15, 2004
Posts: 5346
Location:
Houston
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:23 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
Legitimate companies don't
use privacy listing on their domain name.
The
WHOIS for this website intentionally hides the actual owner of the
domain.
This is a scam.
_________________
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time." - TS
Eliot* |
Bioman
permanently banned
Joined:
Feb 08, 2007
Posts: 74
|
Posted:
Sat Mar 24, 2007 9:04 am
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
|
|
I never believe companies
with crappy, ugly websites. The website is clearly the first proof of a
company's seriousness and trustworthiness.
Look at
PO - well kept and stylish.
Very credible!! |
Sierrasparky
Coal
Joined:
Jul 20, 2007
Posts: 2
|
Posted:
Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:35 pm
Post subject: Re: This Solar Panel company needs to be investigated |
|
|
Hi
everyone
I too stumbled onto this site..
I too was concerned over the claims made.
They do have a contractors license
D B K ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION
300 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR #108A
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Business Phone Number: (760) 804-5760
Other than that I have not a clue.
If they do have some sort of Pv panel that
pruduces 10 times more than any other Cudos.
Although I cannot believe that cost is so much. so these folks are
Greedy
THe
whole PV industry is Greedy as far as I see it.
Those current panels should not cost what they do.
I
just don't see how they could cost so much. We are getting ripped off. I
think the actual profit margin is way to high... |
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=42488&sid=510927717a8382dfea55af96f13dd8f7#42488
http://form.dailyreckoning.com/PPC/webinar/SolarReportFUL.html
Beware of DBK Solar Panels
http://www.kanwehelp.com/FIGHT%20BACK.htm
DBK Corporation - Low
Cost Electricity
We design, build, package and install module solar power plants, solar based
fuel cell generators and solar systems for homes and the commercial sector.
Solar Energy - Low Cost Electricity
DBK's patent pending Alpha Solar Panel™ line (1500 and 3000 watts) are large
enough to supply power to the average home and are designed for residential
and
WoodyG
- 29/Jan/2007, 09:12PM
I was researching anything I could find about DBK panels and ran across your
comment on a OtherPower.com page. I\'m no electrical expert by any means but
I do have a question if you don\'t mind. They claim rated power is at 3000
watts .. they also list that \"Voltage at Max. Power (DC Volts)\" was 220
volts. Also the input into the dc-dc inverter is 950 Watts. So the question
is, would or could they be using the dc to dc inverter to step up the
wattage output by dropping the dc voltage? If so, I would guess a static
test is very different from a test under load .. yes??
Admin
- 29/Jan/2007, 09:22PM
WoodyG, these panels are almost certainly a fake. They cannot get more than
1000w/sq/m which is what they are claiming with their 3000w/sq/m. A DC-DC
converter would not increase the wattage. It can only change the voltage and
current. Wattage stays the same. Remember that DC-DC converters have losses
too so it would be impractical to use one anyway.
http://www.repowered.co.uk/
-
Solar and Fuel Cells Energy Systems - generators, solar
power plants ...
DBK Solar Utilities of California (IPO), DBK Solar
Utilities of Nevada (IPO), and other countries. Our objectives are to
design, build, ...
http://www.dbkengineering.com/
-
DBK Engineering and Construction
Electric Power ... DBK ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION dIVISION ...
http://www.dbkengineering.com/Project%20Gallery.htm
-
Solar Energy - Low Cost Electricity
DBK Solar Utilities of California (IPO), DBK Solar
Utilities of Nevada (IPO) and other countries. Our objectives are to
design, build, ...
http://www.dbksolar.com/
-
Solar Energy - Frequently Asked Questions
If not, you can fill out the "load evaluation form" Using this
information, DBK Solar can design a system to meet your
needs.
http://www.dbksolar.com/FAQ's.htm
-
Solar Power Generators
DBK Solar Utilities of California (IPO), DBK Solar
Utilities of Nevada (IPO) and other countries. Our objectives are to
design, build, ...
http://www.dbkpowergenerators.com/
-
DBK - Solar Energy Dealerships
A dealer get to market and sell DBK's full line of products;
solar panels, fuel cells, energy monitoring systems, installations,
service ...
http://www.dbkpowergenerators.com/Dealership.htm
TO: Board of Supervisors
Agenda Date:
August 15, 2006
FROM:
Robert K. Sorv g,l
Director
Zoning & Building
inspection Requests
12 (530)
257-LAND
SUBJECT: Request from Lassen
MAJOR CURRENT PLANNING PROJECTS
DBK Engineering Solar Power Plant, Wendel
December
11, 2006
Boeing Spectrolab Achieves 40% Solar Cell
Efficiency
Here's a big advance in solar
photovoltaic technology:
ST. LOUIS, Dec. 06, 2006 --
Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced that Spectrolab, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary, has achieved a new world record in terrestrial concentrator
solar cell efficiency. Using concentrated sunlight, Spectrolab demonstrated
the ability of a photovoltaic cell to convert 40.7 percent of the sun's
energy into electricity. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo., verified the milestone.
Note the use of the term
"concentrator". Sounds like they are focusing light down from larger to
smaller areas. So does the photovoltaic cell achieve 40% efficiency even
with more intense concentrated light? Sounds like it.
"This solar cell
performance is the highest efficiency level any photovoltaic device has ever
achieved," said Dr. David Lillington, president of Spectrolab. "The
terrestrial cell we have developed uses the same technology base as our
space-based cells. So, once qualified, they can be manufactured in very high
volumes with minimal impact to production flow."
High efficiency
multijunction cells have a significant advantage over conventional silicon
cells in concentrator systems because fewer solar cells are required to
achieve the same power output. This technology will continue to dramatically
reduce the cost of generating electricity from solar energy as well as the
cost of materials used in high-power space satellites and terrestrial
applications.
They think they can
increase the conversion efficiency even higher.
|
Solar
Scams
