Dorick
1 month ago
In view of FlooidCX Corp's "Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities" of 2025-05-09, I would like to warn investors as follows:
I allege that Dennis Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX have violated the Exchange Act and the Securities Act in that they have made use of deceptive and fraudulent contrivances, devices, schemes, and artifices, have made untrue statements, have omitted to reveal crucially material facts, and have engaged in practices which operated as a fraud, in connection with the sale of securities. The violations occurred in the course of their fraudulent efforts to deceive investors by blatantly misrepresenting the capabilities of a device which they have called the “Earth Engine,” or “Photon Engine.” While employing deceptive contrivances to cause investors to believe their false claims that the so-called “Earth Engine” or “Photon Engine” is powered by “magnetic propulsion,” and could therefore make the electric grid unnecessary, they withheld from investors the crucially material fact that the so-called “Earth Engine” or “Photon Engine” is actually powered entirely by electricity and not at all by magnets. Furthermore, they withheld the fact that when used spin a generator, the device will actually consume more electricity than the generator produces.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Thereunder by Dennis Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, And FlooidCX
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails, or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
To use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, or any securities-based swap agreement, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
I now re-allege and incorporate by reference the paragraphs within the section entitled “FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.”
By engaging in the conduct described above, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy and FlooidCX, directly or indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or of the mails, or of a facility of a national securities exchange, with scienter:
(a) Employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud;
(b) Made untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and
(c) Engaged in acts, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons, including purchasers and sellers of securities.
By reason of the foregoing, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections 17(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Securities Act By Dennis Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, And FlooidCX
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities (including security-based swaps) or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 78c (a) (78) of this title) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly,
(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
(3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.”
I now re-allege and incorporate by reference the paragraphs within the section entitled “FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.”
By engaging in the conduct described above, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails,
(1) with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
(2) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and
(3) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers.
By reason of the foregoing, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)].
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
I ask the SEC to thoroughly and properly investigate the fraudulent claims and conduct of Inductance Energy Corp, Quantum Energy Inc, FlooidCX Corp, and Dennis Danzik over the past several years, since the time when Inductance Energy first began to publish false claims regarding the “Earth Engine” while selling bonds to investors. I believe that a proper investigation will show very clearly that Danzik and the three companies have indeed committed the violations mentioned above. Therefore I also ask the SEC to properly prosecute Danzik and the three companies in an appropriate court of law.
G$$
2 months ago
There are some pretty big names listed on the recent 10 K filing. I'd be shocked if they just signed multi-million dollar contracts without doing their due diligence!
"The Company’s active customer base for executed letters of intent, customer contracts, and ongoing Energy Surveys, engineering, system design and installation currently include; Embassy Suites (Hilton), Holiday Inn Express (IHG Hotels), Nokia, Karmali Holdings (Exxon Campus A, Houston), Texas Health Resources, Faith United, New Freedom (heath and human services), Verizon/Frontier Communications, Hampton Inns (Hilton), Humanetics Companies, RIMA Manufacturing. Governmental include; Lincoln County, Wyoming, City of Hillsdale, Michigan, City of Rosemond Community Service District (California).
The Company began its first large-scale contract on March 10, 2025, for Karmali Holdings, of Southlake Texas, located 222 Benmar Drive in Houston Texas, the former Exxon campus a location. The approved installation includes an 8-story class A office complex, and attached large-scale parking structure. The contract for installation is valued at between $17.5 and $23.2 million, (variance depends on new Central Plant heating and air-conditioning costs), and additional estimated recurring revenue of approximately $14 million over the term of the twenty-year contract.
From October of 2024 the Company has completed Letters of Intent, and has completed Energy Surveys on just under 3,000,000 ft.² of commercial and industrial facilities, representing approximately $52.1 million in potential installation fees, representing only six (6) of its current 109 facility installations, and additional contractual recurring revenue (monthly) of approximately $25.2 million over the twenty-year contracts. The Company has completed contractual negotiations and is expecting executed customer contracts for an estimated $52.1 million in installation fees no later than April 30, 2025. The Company has begun the engineering process for installations on one facility installation and Michigan, one facility installation in Houston Texas, one facility location in Dallas Texas, to facility locations in Phoenix Arizona, and one government awarded contract, (expected execution on or before April 30, 2025), located in Lincoln County Wyoming. The Company has active survey and installation work related to 109 facility locations in Arizona, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington State, California, Massachusetts, and Wyoming for its Direct Energy Systems. The Company anticipates that its first permitting for installation will be issued in late April to end of May 2025"
Dorick
2 months ago
Mr. Bystander: I recently bought a giant velociraptor from a local "Jurassic Pet Store," since they had it "on sale" at half price for only $39,000. But as soon as my neighbor saw it, he immediately said "That's not a giant velociraptor - that's a young Australian emu!"
So I brought it back to the store and said, "I demand a refund for this velociraptor, since it's not a velociraptor!"
But the proprietor replied, "How could a velociraptor be anything other than a velociraptor? Your complaint is nonsensical, and we can't accept returns of velociraptors, due to our national policy."
"A velociraptor can indeed be something other than a velociraptor," I replied, "if the velociraptor consists of an Australian emu!"
But he simply pointed to a sign, that said: "NO Velociraptor Returns Accepted."
When I got back home, I told my neighbor: "They refused to take back the velociraptor, or give me any refund!"
And my neighbor said, "That's too bad - but as I said before, it's not a velociraptor, it's actually an Australian emu."
So now I've wasted 39,000 dollars, plus tax - but all my neighbor can do is just to keep harping on what I CALL the darn thing! What is WRONG with that guy?
Dorick
2 months ago
Revolutionize Your Energy Bill with the Dennis Danzik Magnetic Generator: The Ultimate Solution for Sustainable Power!
"Introducing the innovative product, the Dennis Danzik Magnetic Generator, designed to provide a sustainable and cost-effective solution for generating electricity. This state-of-the-art generator is brought to you by Jinhua Huilong Machinery Co., Ltd., a reliable supplier, factory, and manufacturer based in China. With the increasing demand for renewable energy sources, the Dennis Danzik Magnetic Generator has proven to be one of the most efficient and reliable energy sources available today. Its unique design uses magnetic fields to generate electricity, which means it has no emission or pollution, making it an eco-friendly option. This magnetic generator is easy to maintain and can operate for an extended period without any interruption, making it a reliable option for homes, businesses, and industries. The Dennis Danzik Magnetic Generator is a game-changer in the world of energy generation, providing an affordable and sustainable solution that meets the needs of today's world. Order now from Jinhua Huilong Machinery Co., Ltd. and experience the benefits of this game-changing product."
For Pete's sake, Mr. PC - stop worrying about what "soon" means, and just ORDER ONE now! How else are you ever going to Revolutionize Your Energy Bill?
Dorick
2 months ago
Mr. MagnetLover: Here’s a technical critique (by Grok) of the statements and claims made by Danzik’s company regarding their SAFEwatt ethernet power adapter and related EET technology, based on the provided description:
Overview of Claims
Danzik’s company asserts that their SAFEwatt ethernet power adapter, part of a broader series of electrical accessories under EET technology, revolutionizes power delivery for devices like laptops, desktops, monitors, and servers. They claim it replaces traditional "high consumption inversion and conversion electrical devices," reducing power usage significantly. Specifically, they state that a typical laptop adapter consumes 140–200 watts from a 110–120V AC wall plug, while their SAFEwatt adapter cuts this to "15–20 volts DC and an average of 60 watts," or about one-third the power consumption. They also suggest this technology scales to over 200 custom adapters for various low-voltage DC devices, which they argue are currently "overpowered" by standard AC sources.
Let’s dissect these claims technically and evaluate their validity.
1. Mischaracterization of Typical Adapter Power Consumption
Claim: A typical laptop power adapter consumes 140–200 watts from a 110–120V AC wall plug.
Critique:
This figure is significantly inflated for laptops. Standard laptop chargers typically range from 45W to 90W, with high-performance models (e.g., gaming laptops) reaching up to 120W. Even accounting for efficiency losses (modern adapters are often 85–90% efficient), the input power from the wall would be closer to 50–100W, not 140–200W. For example:
A 65W laptop charger at 90% efficiency draws approximately 72W from the wall (65W ÷ 0.9).
A 120W charger at 85% efficiency draws about 141W, which is at the low end of their range but still rare for a "typical" laptop.
The 140–200W range might apply to desktop power supplies or other devices, but desktops use internal power supplies (often 300W+), not standalone adapters. The claim lacks specificity and exaggerates typical laptop adapter consumption, undermining its credibility.
2. Confusing Power Reduction Metrics
Claim: The SAFEwatt adapter reduces power consumption to "15–20 volts DC and an average of 60 watts," or about one-third of a typical adapter’s consumption.
Critique:
This statement conflates voltage (volts) and power (watts), which is a fundamental technical error:
Voltage (V) is the potential difference, not a measure of power consumption.
Power (W) is the product of voltage (V) and current (A), i.e., P = V × I.
Saying it "reduces consumption to 15–20 volts DC" is nonsensical without specifying current. They likely mean the adapter outputs 15–20V DC at a current yielding 60W (e.g., 20V × 3A = 60W). However:
If a laptop requires 65W (e.g., 19V × 3.42A), supplying only 60W could result in insufficient power, leading to slow charging or performance throttling.
Reducing power to "one-third" (e.g., from 180W to 60W) implies the device operates normally on less power, which contradicts basic electronics—devices draw what they need, not what the adapter arbitrarily limits.
This suggests either a misunderstanding of power delivery or an unstated assumption about efficiency gains, which they fail to clarify.
3. Applicability Across Diverse Devices
Claim: The technology applies to laptops, desktops, monitors, broadcast stations, and servers, with over 200 custom adapters planned.
Critique:
Device power needs vary widely:
Monitors: Typically 20–50W.
Laptops: 45–120W.
Desktops: 300W+ (via internal power supplies).
Servers: Hundreds to thousands of watts, depending on scale.
A single adapter outputting "an average of 60W" cannot feasibly power such a range. For example:
A 60W adapter might suffice for a monitor but not a 65W+ laptop or a 500W server.
Power over Ethernet (PoE), implied by "ethernet power adapter," has limits: standard PoE delivers 15.4W, PoE+ up to 30W, and PoE++ up to 60–90W per port. Even at 60W, it’s inadequate for desktops or servers.
Scaling to "over 200 custom adapters" suggests tailored solutions, but without details on how they overcome these power disparities, the claim feels impractical and speculative.
4. Misuse of Terminology: "Inversion and Conversion" and "Overpowered" Devices
Claim: The adapters replace "high consumption inversion and conversion electrical devices" and address devices "overpowered by common 110 to 120 V AC and 240-volt AC power sources."
Critique:
Inversion and Conversion: Inversion (DC to AC) is irrelevant here; most devices use AC-to-DC conversion via adapters. "High consumption" conversion likely refers to inefficient AC-DC adapters, but modern switching power supplies are already 85–95% efficient. Any improvement would be incremental, not a two-thirds reduction.
Overpowered: Devices aren’t "overpowered" by wall voltage (110–120V AC or 240V AC). Adapters step down and regulate voltage/current to match device needs (e.g., 19V DC for laptops). The term is misused—wall voltage is standard, not excessive.
This terminology is either sloppy or deliberately vague, obscuring the actual mechanism of improvement.
5. Feasibility of Ethernet-Based Power Delivery
Claim: The SAFEwatt is an "ethernet power adapter."
Critique:
Power over Ethernet (PoE) is a known technology, but its limitations challenge the claim:
PoE standards cap at 60–90W (PoE++), which aligns with their "60W average" but falls short for many laptops, desktops, and servers.
Delivering higher power over ethernet cables (e.g., Cat5e/Cat6) risks heat buildup, voltage drop, or cable damage unless they’ve innovated beyond IEEE 802.3 standards—yet no such breakthrough is specified.
Without evidence of a novel PoE approach, this restricts the adapter’s practical use to low-power devices, not the broad range claimed.
6. Efficiency and Savings Potential
Analysis:
If the intent is improved efficiency (less wasted power in conversion), let’s estimate:
A 65W laptop with a 90% efficient adapter draws ~72W from the wall.
At 95% efficiency (optimistic for SAFEwatt), it draws ~68W—a 4W savings, not two-thirds.
Achieving a 60W input (from 180W) implies either:
A device needing only 60W (unrealistic for many cited devices), or
Efficiency exceeding 100%, which is physically impossible.
Without a radical new technology (unspecified), the claimed reduction is implausible.
Conclusion
The claims from Danzik’s company are technically questionable:
Exaggerated baselines: 140–200W for laptop adapters is overstated.
Confused metrics: Mixing volts and watts muddies the explanation.
Impractical scope: A 60W adapter can’t universally power such diverse devices.
Vague innovation: No clear mechanism justifies the dramatic savings.
It’s possible they’ve developed an efficient PoE-based adapter, but the lack of specificity, incorrect terminology, and unrealistic figures suggest hype over substance. For credibility, they’d need to provide patents, technical specs, or test data showing how they achieve these reductions—otherwise, this reads as an overhyped marketing pitch. If considering their products, demand hard evidence of power savings and compatibility before trusting these claims over established solutions.
Dorick
2 months ago
As in practically all of his deceptive and fraudulent videos, Danzik refers in his 10-K report to the "minimal input power" consumed by his so-called "Photon Engine" - without ever disclosing the highly material fact that the output power produced is just as minimal as the input power consumed. This is FRAUD BY OMISSION.
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)] states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person in the offer or sale of any securities (including security-based swaps) or any security-based swap agreement (as defined in section 78c (a) (78) of this title) by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, directly or indirectly,
(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
(3) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.”
I now re-allege and incorporate by reference the paragraphs within the section entitled “FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.”
By engaging in the conduct described above, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX, directly or indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails,
(1) with scienter, employed devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud;
(2) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of material fact or by omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and
(3) engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers.
By reason of the foregoing, Danzik, Inductance Energy, Quantum Energy, and FlooidCX violated, and unless restrained and enjoined will continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)].
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
Hot Features
Premium
