Comments on: Oil Drum Limited awarded prize for product that cannot work

By: jh

jh — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:35:22 +0000

hi jon, when are you going to post my letter on here?

By: Lolatron

Lolatron — Wed, 26 May 2010 09:17:32 +0000

UKC are publicly funded so they definitely have to respond to FOI’s. I would ask them for email correspondence between the electronics department and Oil Drum, any other correspondence between the university and oil Drum LTD and any internal documents regarding oil drum. If they say that is too wide a scope, you can narrow it down later.
If Kent hasn’t been responding to your FOI’s then it has quite simply broken the law. Likewise with SEEDA, Complain here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom_of_information.aspx

Here is the web adress for FOI’s to Kent. There is an email on there somewhere. http://www.kent.ac.uk/foi/

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:14:40 +0000

Hi Lolatron,
I am not sure Kent UNi (UKC) do have to respond to an FOI request. What would you ask them?
I wrote to UKC several times, but they never replied or took any action that I know of.
I put several FOI requests through SEEDA, but they deliberately-misunderstood/dodged the question.
The Sittingbourne Enterprise Hub also chose to not answer me at all.

By: Lolatron

Lolatron — Tue, 25 May 2010 19:03:50 +0000

Hi Jon, have you put through an FOI to kent uni. about this. They would legally have to respond within 20 working days and unless they have good reason (i.e. invasion of privacy) they cannot reject your FOI.

By: jh

jh — Sun, 23 May 2010 15:17:43 +0000

what a joke that docu was,i have e-mailed a copy of the letter to you for publication on this site which will prove that darryl watts and steve martin did not design or invent the product, a copy of the letter was also sent to seeda, carol barren at the enterprise hub, kos media(who have been praising the product)and the universitys media dept along with my concerns within 1 week of them awarding the innovation prize, the university were fully aware that the product was not his invention two years ago,

http://www.seeda.co.uk/news-and-publications/news/recent-news/1/archive/2008/250
notice how oil drum are used as a platform to justify the £7.3 million pound grant to rebuild the business center, no other companies are mentioned, no doubt it was taxpayers money they were awarding

By: Conor

Conor — Sun, 23 May 2010 12:50:15 +0000

I’ve just watched the programme with sheer disbelief that anyone could think it works. I can only imagine that they think that the electricity from an alternator is free. It isn’t.
You’re burning fuel to generate another fuel - hydrogen. Even if you could do that with 1005 efficiency, where’s the saving? It’s just another perpetual motion machine.

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:52:37 +0000

Thanks Rich!
There is indeed a full page article in the Kentish Gazette today.
See here - http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/714

By: rich

rich — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:44:34 +0000

There is apparently a story about this in the Kentish Gazette today. I haven’t got a copy, and there is no sign of it on the website.

By: jh

jh — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:26:01 +0000

Daryl Watts purchased a hydrogen generator from me in July 2007, he took it apart and wrote me a letter telling me how well the product worked when the fitted it on there own “hydrogen enabled demno truck” then ripped the idea off and claimed it was his!!

I have a letter from Daryl on headed notepaper, signed by him, saying how good my product was (dated long before he ever sold or made one) and admitting that they took it apart to try and fix a fault.

I spoke to Carol Barron at the University and explained the situation and my concerns and in return received a letter from a solicitor threatening me with harassment charges!!!

I contacted SEEDA and informed them of the letter and also spoke to the Kent newspaper that was printing all the positive crap at the time, nobody was interested.

I tested my idea at Milbrook and proved that it does not work, since testing i have not made or sold any more, reading between the lines the company that was giving the testimonials out was a shareholder in oil drum, Daryl Watts was stupid enough to spend tens-of-thousands patenting a product that i told them didn’t work.

If you read between the lines again you will see that at the time oil drum were awarded the prize fund the uni were angling after a £7,000,000 grant to rebuild their facility, Google it and you will find that the award was given due to them helping to start up companies with world class products such as “oil drums innovative world class idea”,

the whole thing stinks of a big conspiracy to get a huge grant, despite my feelings towards Mr. Watts i get the impression he was used by the uni in order to secure the grant,

Please contact me via the email address, i want the uni’s blood after the way they treated me and i have dates, times and proof that the idea was taken from my product, nicking a disabled persons product and claiming it is your own is bad enough, nicking an idea that doesn’t even work is stupid!!,

This is no mistake, it’s a giant fraud and i have the proof in writing!

By: Lez

Lez — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:42:57 +0000

George, I’m almost sure Jon is. As for Uni of Kent, I’ve only just realised why Jon is not getting any response from them, it is because they own 10% of Oil Drum.. that is a bit like owning 10% of a rotting corpse!!