IS IT TRUE: March 15, 2012


The Mole #??

IS IT TRUE: March 15, 2012

IS IT TRUE that a fairly exhaustive search of patents at the United States Patent Office website issued in the name of Langson Energy as the assignee yielded exactly ZERO results?…that the previously discussed United States Patent #7,637,108 that is in the name of Richard K. Langson and assigned to Electratherm Incorporated of Carson City, Nevada seems to be the sole piece of intellectual property that bears the name of Richard K. Langson who was the founder of Electratherm Inc. and is now listed as the CEO of Langson Energy?…that two weeks ago in the news tab of the commercial website for Earthcare Energy there was indeed a letter stating that a license agreement had been entered into between Earthcare Energy and Langson Energy?…that this news release is no longer on the Earthcare Energy website and that a Google search using the terms Earthcare+Langson indeed does find multiple citations for this press release titled “Earthcare Energy signed a licensing agreement with Langson Energy” and dated July 22, 2011?…that the end result of selecting these citations is the same on every path and that is a Server 404 Error stating that the source searched for has been REMOVED, has had its NAME CHANGED, or has been REMOVED?…that when the 404 Server Error comes back from a Search Engine Citation that it nearly always means that content has been removed?…that the CCO wonders WHY THIS CONTENT HAS DISAPPEARED SINCE THE NEWS OF THE DEAL BETWEEN EVANSVILLE AND EARTHCARE?

IS IT TRUE that in the technology called Letdown Energy by Langson Energy closely resembles if not exactly replicates a technology that is over 100 years old that has been called by the name Turboexpander?…that when coupling a Turboexpander with a traditional turbine one would have what Langson refers to as a Letdown Generator?…that neither of these technologies is new but when coupled to capture enthalpy can actually make the gas transmission process slightly more efficient?…that San Diego Gas and Electric installed such a device in 1983 at a “city gate” and was followed by installations in other locations?…that if you really want to dig deeper into this technology you should start on the following link?

IS IT TRUE that this body of work and history of installed devices would be a good place for technically curious members of the Evansville City Council to start brushing up on just what they are being asked to make a $5 Million loan for?…that this coupling of two old technologies may really have some commercial viability and that maybe Earthcare Energy may become a player in this market?…that the nagging question becomes “what did Earthcare actually license” or “is there really anything licensable”?…that another question of immediate interest is that assuming that a license has some value how exclusive is this license and how defensible is it if some other enterprising engineering group buys a turboexpander and couples it to a turbine?…that there does not appear that there would be any barrier to entry to this market other than skill, money, and marketing?…that this is an area that the City Council needs to examine very carefully before making history by starting the country’s first episode of City Council Shark Tank?…that the City of London embarked upon some installations in 2009 with some lofty goals as stated on the following link?…that the results and the company that did any installs should also be of interest to the City of Evansville?

IS IT TRUE that between this proposal and the last minute jam through Johnson Controls project that invests between $53 Million and $79 Million public dollars to read water meters better the City of Evansville may be looking like an easy mark?…that 45% of the benefits to the Johnson Controls deal are not even advertised as measurable?…that if the Evansville City Council is playing Shark Tank, outsiders may be wondering just who is the Shark and who is in the Shark Tank?


  1. Sounds to me as if another naive group of Hossiers have been “had”…Again!

  2. It makes a little more sense, but the turboexpander is not exactlythe same as Langson’s motor. The difference is that Langson uses a screw not a turbine. One needs to look at the driver end of the machine not the generator. A turbo motor or screw motor could be driving an ice cream maker for all the motor knows.

    It appears that the greatest determent to the turboexpander is that each unit must be a one off and custom engineered unit. If Langson’s motor can significantly reduce that cost, then there is some potential.

    The other question is the source. If this line pressure is a byproduct of mother Earth,then indeed it would be relatively free except for the distribution system.

    What is the status of the San Diego or Memphis projects? Memphis is close enough to investigate the potential.

    But alas, we come to the matter of the city council shark tank and lack of private investors. To re-purpose a council into an entity that will bring jobs and new products to the top of the table is unique, but this council is catfish noodling in the shark tank. Put a team of engineers together and know into what mouth you’re sticking your hand.

  3. CCO:

    1) What nerve you show to question this deal in ALL CAPS ! Is it not possible that it is mere coincidence that the online information has disappeared due to techo-geek vacationing in Hawaii since the deal was announced ?

    2) On the Johnson Controls deal: it is not a range of $ 53 Million to $ 79 Million, it really is a lease transaction for $ 79 Million. The CCO published this 20 Year Amort. Schedule a few months back. With the fine print disclosure that only 45 % of the Savings can possibly be measured, this ranks as one of the biggest fleecing jobs in this town in many decades. This is a large shark tank, much larger than this $ 5 Million loan (which also needs to be voted down). In fact, Johnson Controls deal is even worse than the Arena–and coming from me that says a lot !

    • Jerry Brown put a significant crimp in their game recently.

      Will Indiana ever do the same?

  4. Be careful, Langson is using a common air compressor screw design run backwards where the links supplied above are using sophisticated turbines. That’s not even an apples to orange comparison. The idea is valid but that does not give Langson’s screw idea validity.

Comments are closed.