Connect with us


New NASA Tests Confirm Anomalous EmDrive Thrust



Paul March, a senior staff scientist at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, has posted an update on NASA’s work to test the controversial EmDrive propulsion, which uses electromagnetic microwave cavities to directly convert electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant.

First proposed by Satellite Propulsion Research, a research company based in the UK founded by aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer, the EM Drive concept was predictably scorned by much of the mainstream research community for allegedly violating the laws of physics, including the conservation of momentum.

However, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold G. “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – investigated the EM Drive and presented encouraging test results in 2014 at the 50th Joint Propulsion Conference.

Breakthrough Space Propulsion Physics

NASAOther encouraging test results were presented in July by Martin Tajmar is a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology, interested in space propulsion systems and breakthrough propulsion physics.

On July 10, EmDrive inventor Roger Shawyer published a paper titled “Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe” in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Astronautica (the paper will appear in Volume 116, November–December 2015, Pages 166–174 of the print edition of the journal), with a 5 minute audio/slide presentation with the same title, updated to include the latest test data from the University of Dresden in Germany. Shawyer emphasized that published test data of eight EmDrive thrusters from five independent sources in four countries confirm EmDrive theory and noted that:

Second generation EmDrive offers the best solution for low cost access to space, and for a near term interstellar mission.

In view of the breathtaking implications, it’s understandable that the EmDrive test results have generated heated debates in the scientific community. Some scientists viscerally criticize EmDrive research because it seems to go against the law of conservation of momentum, which is a cornerstone of physics. But other scientists have proposed theoretical explanations of the test results that conserve momentum.

For example, White thinks that the EmDrive’s thrust could be due to virtual particles in the quantum vacuum that behave like propellant ions in magneto-hydrodynamical propulsion systems, extracting “fuel” from the very fabric of space-time and eliminating the need to carry propellant. The EmDrive tests are “potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma,” noted NASA scientists in a research paper.

Current EmDrive research work in the lab is focused on spotting possible experimental errors. “I will tell you that we first built and installed a 2nd generation, closed face magnetic damper that reduced the stray magnetic fields in the vacuum chamber by at least an order of magnitude and any Lorentz force interactions it could produce,” writes March in the popular discussion forum. March describes other measures that have been taken to rule out experimental errors, and concludes:

And yet the anomalous thrust signals remain…

The NASA scientists can’t disclose more information and show the supporting data until a forthcoming peer-reviewed paper is published.

Images from NASA and Ryan Somma/Flickr.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

Giulio Prisco is a freelance writer specialized in science, technology, business and future studies.

Feedback or Requests?



  1. SirEvilJebus

    November 6, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    Make it so

  2. William Morrish

    November 7, 2015 at 12:54 am

    From reading Shawyer’s paper last time, it looked like any usable amount of thrust would require a multi-gigawatt powerplant. And that’s just to have a very small satellite putz about. It would be very neat if it works, but I don’t see it altering the face of space travel. It would take a long time to ramp up to usable speeds based on the numbers in his paper. I think rockets have a better thrust to weight ratio.

  3. IgnoranceBeater

    November 7, 2015 at 1:51 am

    Here we go again.

    It’s mind-boggling how the media overhypes and gets it wrong every god-damn time. I think they’re doing it on purpose. They don’t really give a rats’ ass about how correct it is, nor about adequate journalism, they just want attention-grabbing headlines.


    The tests just show they haven’t figured out what the cause of the anomaly is, which is what happens when you measure a force that’s barely detectable in the set-up one is trying to measure it.

    When we read the article…well, only a passing comment, really, we can read this: “However these new plus and minus thrust signatures are still contaminated by thermally induced TP center of gravity (cg) zero-thrust baseline shifts brought on by the expansion of the copper frustum and
    aluminum RF amp and its heat sink when heated by the RF, even though these copper and aluminum cg shifts are now fighting each other. (Sadly these TP cg baseline shifts are ~3X larger in-vacuum than in-air due to the better insulating qualities of the vacuum, so the in-vacuum thrust
    runs look very thermally contaminated whereas the in-air run look very impulsive.)”

    So they still didn’t even account for the termal-error possibility. And they still didn’t make a new EM-drive with a power-envelope that supersedes the old one with at least a factor of 4, which would make it FAR more easy to actually measure the force, and rule out it’s an artefact – and make it possible for other labs to check the results.

    Every time – and this is currently every few weeks – some ‘news’ of the EM drive comes up, a lot of the more gullible people and the scoop-searching media try to argument that ‘new proof’ has been delivered for the EM-drive actually working. This is not, and has not been the case. At all. It’s just doesn’t sink through. Even after all this time, there has been not a shred of actual evidence that the EM actually works *as advertised*. Or ‘works’ at all, in the sense that is meant here.

    Unless one wants to portray the EM drive as a machine where thermal or other influences or artefacts cause a minute force. Then it ‘works’. These are *still* vastly more probable than the EM-device working as it is claimed it works.

    The only news here is, that of the dozens of possible artefacts and errors, they reduced the possibility of it being due to – specifically – Lorentz force interactions. Well, great. Let’s go for the other 49 possible errors, then, each of which is more likely to be the culprit of the ‘force’ measured, then the EM actually working as advertised, by a vast margin.

    • Giulio Prisco

      November 9, 2015 at 10:40 am

      Re “the tests just show they haven’t figured out what the cause of the anomaly is”

      which means that, based on current experimental evidence, the tests confirm the anomalous thrust and exclude some possible sources of experimental errors. Other teats will either find a source of errors or continue to confirm the anomalous thrust. That’s how science works.

      • IgnoranceBeater

        November 10, 2015 at 1:02 am

        That the tests confirm they haven’t found the cause yet is apparent. That there is a connotation, let alone proof (or even indication) this is due to a reactionless (or virtusal-magic pushing) device, is what is the contention made here in the article, however, and it’s that which is absurd.

        It’s also the contention in the papers themselves, since they don’t claim they have found an unexpected force due to magnet, thermal, artefacts or measure-errors. You don’t *need* an explanation of virtual plasma for that, now do we?

        So let’s cut the crap with the “that’s how science work”. The claim which is explicitly or implicitly made here, about the source of the force, is the *least* likely one (to an extreme degree), instead of the most likely one. And all because it *sounds* good and cool, and one can fantasise about going to Mars in 4 weeks, and reaching the stars and all that. Just like cold fusion strikes the chords of fanfappers about cheap, eternal energy pouring into our houses. Or E-cats. Or perpetuum mobile devices.

        That, however, is not science, it’s wishful thinking disguised as science.

        The claim it’s due to the em-drive working as a reactionless device (or equivalent) has as much weight as claiming it’s due to dragon-magic.

    • PacificMaelstrom

      November 9, 2015 at 6:01 pm

      As somone who has actually looked into what is going on with emdrive, You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

      • IgnoranceBeater

        November 10, 2015 at 12:42 am

        “As somone who has actually looked into what is going on with emdrive”… you feel you know you what’s all about, and are entitled to say who is clueless and who not. An appeal to self-proclaimed authority, thus.

        Right, right. That sounds like a real compelling argument.

        • PacificMaelstrom

          November 10, 2015 at 12:49 am

          On the contrary, it isnt an arguement at all. I am just telling you to do your homework and read and understand the sourse material so you don’t sound clueless. Seriously, Im not kidding, do your own investigation. It looks like you got your info from one of many “skeptical” articles, which have been (ignorantly) pushing the same glaring errors and misinformation.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 10, 2015 at 1:29 am

            Well, if it isn’t an argument, then what use is it in a debate? It’s a mere opinion, in that case. In which case, you will agree I can give you a response in the same way (reciprocity).

            I am just telling you that *you* should actually try to use some logical thought and reason and if you want to discuss something, at least try to use rational arguments instead of just spouting your personal opinions. Seriously, I’m not kidding neither. All assertions you make, without any (logically valid) arguments, are as much worth as the next one, which is as good as nothing. A mere opinion can’t elevate itself above any other mere opinion.

            So, please, follow your own advise and do a FAR better job at doing your homework, then you did now, because you seem severely lacking in logical discerning what is being said or claimed. Maybe start with comprehensive reading, I might suggest.

            I came to my conclusion of my own, btw. (maybe you need to be handheld by ‘fanfapper’ articles?). I’ve read a lot of the sceptical and non-sceptical ones. I find the sceptical ones make (far) more logical sense. Period.

          • PacificMaelstrom

            November 18, 2015 at 7:39 am

            I’ve read not just the (skeptical) articles but also the SOURCE MATERIAL. In order to make your “own conclusion”, you need to read the SOURCES, not merely choose between two popular viewpoints.

            There is no point in trying to “debate” you since you don’t know the subject you are trying to debate.

            For example, you said:

            “So they still didn’t even account for the thermal-error possibility”

            But you have no clue what that even means. It just seems like some sort of weakness to you, so you picked up on it and parroted it, but you clearly have no conceptual understanding of what is meant by “thermal-error”, because if you did, you would not be talking as if it were a deal breaker.

            Further, you say “there has been not a shred of actual evidence that the EM actually works *as advertised*. Or ‘works’ at all, in the sense that is meant here.”

            WHAT? Not a “shred” of evidence? That is ludicrous. There is far more than a “shred” of evidence. So far, at least 3 independent labs (China, Germany, and NASA) (and two commercial efforts) have confirmed the phenomenon. To say there is “no evidence” is… just idiotic. The possibility that something may ultimately be dis-proven IS NOT grounds for saying their is NO EVIDENCE for it. There is very clearly evidence. So far, the Em Drive has been ONLY and REPEATEDLY been CONFIRMED. Even in a VACUUM. And now (in this latest news) in a vacuum without ambient magnetic fields.

            And yet you and people like you keep saying there is no evidence at all. It seems like some form of pathological denial, but I want to believe the best in people so I assume you are merely ignorant.

            That is why I suggested you do your homework.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 18, 2015 at 9:42 pm

            “I’ve read not just the (skeptical) articles but also the SOURCE
            MATERIAL. In order to make your “own conclusion”, you need to read the
            SOURCES, not merely choose between two popular viewpoints.”

            I have done the same. Alainco provided me (and everyone else, and always, even to the point of being totally annoying) a truckload of links. I’ve said this again and again: don’t you people never read beyond your own posts and the reply on it?

            I’ll repeat it, once again: the VAST majority of those links to ‘sources’ where COMPLETELY worthless, in a scientific context. It were blogs, book excerpts, fora, etc. for believers to believers, who were continuously preaching to the choir and referencing eachother, like some mental incestiousity. More then 80% was completely worthless. Fact.

            Then there were papers. Most of those papers, I repeat, were not peer-reviewed. Most of them were nor replicated by independent third parties. Only a handful of them remain. Most of THOSE claimed to note “excess heat”, nothing more, nothing less. Note that ‘excess heat’ does not equal ‘fusion’. Furthermore, most of them – and some of those papers actually acknowledged this themselves – could not even reliably reproduce the effect themselves.

            Also, of the few remaining, it was a complete mess of mixed results that sometimes even contradicted eachother. Some claimed heat excess, but no neutrons, some claimed neutrons, but no heat excess. Some claimed gamma rays, some didn’t. Some claimed isotopes in the waste, others found nothing. And all possible variations in between. This makes NOT for a compelling case, I must say.

            Then , there are those, like the one about the lasers, that one can ask oneself if it’s even ‘cold’ fusion anymore. It’s not because the surrounding material remains cool, that the high energies involved don’t count anymore. In fact, some of the papers say themselves one could debate if it’s ‘cold’ and if it’s ‘fusion’ – they claim it still is nuclear, though. Which is still unproven, but at least isn’t as farfetched anymore.

            Then, some just do not provide any details on their research, or aren’t even really ‘papers’ in the strict sense. Alainco ALWAYS gives the link to COLD FUSION:REALITY or FICTION? by Larry Forsley. Note that this is a powerpoint representation, NOT a paper. It CLAIMS that many researchers have duplicated their research and proven cold fusion, but when I check – you guys never seem to do that – he DOES NOT give the exact titles of the papers, nor any direct references to it. He, for instance, says

            Pierre Carbonelle has replicated his findings, but nowhere to you see a link, nor a reference, nor even the name or title of that paper. And that is the same with all of the people he names that he claims have replicated it: nowhere is the ACTUAL paper to be seen, nor even to be researched, since he gives absolutely no info or reference to it!!

            For a scientific mind, this becomes immidiately apparent. You guys never seem to note that.

            But what it means is, that all his claims have, in fact, NOT been substantiated.

            Another very, very frequent link you guys use, is the one to SPAWAR. I’ve repeated this again and again: that set-up (as many others- was FLAWED. They claimed to have measured neutrons, but they DID NOT provide a control mechanism. This means, while they *assumed* the neutrons came from the experiment, there is NO WAY to know for sure what the source actually was. This makes the entire claim that the experiment was creating neutrons unreliable and unproven. Why don’t you guys see that? THAT is how science work; a claim must be substantiated by scientific evidence, which follow the scientific methodology. When it doesn’t, and you do only half work, you don’t have ‘half proof’, you have NO proof.

            Now, back to the em-drive. Let me explain it to you ONCE AGAIN, since you simply do not seem to comprehend:

            First of all, I know it’s annoying to your fanfapping spree, but the thermal error IS there. He even said so himself. Secondly, your rebuttal is really, really weak. I mean, really? Is that the best counterargument you can do? “You have no clue what it means?” How self-centered and arrogant can you be? did you give ANY logical and rationally argumented counterclaim to what I said? No. Enough said.

            And no, they did NOT provide ANY evidence, nor have they ‘proven’, nor did they make ‘a strong case’ for a reactionless drive (or equivalent). What they did, was measuring a tiny force on the brink of what they can measure, under complex conditions with variables they have not all accounted for. Nothing more, nothing less. Your insistence that they HAVE showed evidence of a EM-drive only shows you are incapable in comprehending the difference between what they’ve measured, and the claim they do about the cause of that measurement.

            I’ll try my analogy ONCE AGAIN. Try to keep up and follow the argumentation, this time. Say I claim that the tiny force they measured, is due to the dragon-magic of my magical dragon in my garage. I now claim: “Look, and THREE independent labs have measured and confirmed that force! YOU SEE! There IS evidence for my magical dragon!”

            Now, do you NOT understand the fallacy and logical error you are making here? Are you mentally impaired, that you are incapable of noting that NO proof has been delivered for my magical dragon AT ALL?

            Now, let me continue in the same way as you did, being as irrational and making the same logical error:

            “The possibility that something may ultimately be dis-proven IS NOT grounds for saying their is NO EVIDENCE for it. Therefore, the possibility that my theory of dragon-magic might be disproven, is NO GROUNDS for saying there is no evidence for it.”

            Don’t you realise how stupid this sort of reasoning is?

          • PacificMaelstrom

            November 18, 2015 at 10:16 pm

            No I don’t “see how stupid it is.” It isn’t stupid. And you saying it is doesn’t make it so. Yes 3 labs HAVE PROVIDED EVIDENCE. There is no if, and’s or buts.

            Magic dragon? You mean the FORCE WHICH HAS BEEN OBSERVED EVERY TIME? Pathetic.

            “Excess heat” “Fusion” “Cold fusion”???? WTF thats NOT EVEN THE RIGHT TOPIC. These are totally distinct things. No one says EmDrive is
            related to cold fusion, and by conflating the two, you are way off base. It also shows you don’t know much about what you are talking about… yet again. If you think the EmDrive is comparable to (the lack of evidence for) cold fusion, you clearly haven’t looked at the Emdrive info closely… that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

            “Fanfapping”… yeah real mature.

            “Thermal error” refers to thermal expansion of the test apparatus,
            there are various reasons why it is very unlikely that thermal effects are the
            source of the observed forces. Most obviously, the observed response is
            instantaneous, not consistent with a gradual warm up. There, I told you because you still didn’t know.

            The forces measured in the NASA experiment are not “on the
            brink of what [the apparatus] can measure”… that is another mischaracterization
            that is being pushed around. The observed effect is an order of magnitude above
            the instrument resolution in the NASA experiment. Other tests show the em-drive visibly moving.

            There definitely is a force. The question is why, and does it work in space.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 18, 2015 at 11:43 pm

            Of course it is. I just explained it to you. I used the EXACT same reasoning as you did. So it’s not ‘my saying it’, it’s *your* reasoning that doesn’t make sense.

            You have not made any logical rebuttal. Or maybe you didn’t understand, still.

            Let me say it again: there is a difference between the measurement, and the claim of the cause for that measurement. Since you do not agree with this, I give you my analogy with the magical dragon. Say I (or whomever) make the claim the tiny force is due to dragon-magic. Now I say (exactly as you do): “Look, THREE independent labs have measured that force! This is EVIDENCE for my magical dragon!” I’m using your words here, btw. It’s YOUR reasoning I’m using, to show you the absurdity of it.

            Now… is the contention that, because three labs measured a tiny force, *in any way* indicative that they’ve proven it’s due to dragon magic?


            Exactly the same goes for the EM-drive.

            I don’t know what you find so difficult to comprehend about it. It’s as clear day.

            Temper, temper. Of course cold fusion is not the same as the em-drive. But it’s the same kind of arguments and ‘evidence’. Note: the same KIND. I wasn’t saying it’s the same thing. I just thought I would tackle that one as well, since I’ve been discussing this too. Your insistence that that proves “I conflate the two” and hence the conclusion that “I know nothing about it” only underscores your lack of comprehensive reading. I clearly said, in the second half of my post: “and now, back to the EM-drive”. This *should* have made it clear to you, that I wasn’t confounding the two. But you didn’t note that …yet again.

            Or maybe you did, since next thing you say is: “If you think the EmDrive is comparable to (the lack of evidence for) cold fusion”. Indeed, I do think that. There is, indeed, the same lack of evidence, and the same kind of argumentation and reasonings going on in both cases. I could also make a third similar case, of the so called E-cats of Rossi. With the difference that is clearly a scam. Yet, fanfappers use the same arguments and reasonings, with the same level of ‘evidence’. If you understood, why do you now act as if I confounded both things. They show similar aspects, yes, and THAT is why I mention both of them.

            The reason, if you might not get it, why I say that there is the same level of evidence, is because for all three there is NO actual scientific evidence of the machine working as it is claimed it works.

            Yes, I know you disagree, but you have not provided any argument for it. The only thing you repeated, again and again, is that they measured a force *and therefore* they have provided evidence for the em-drive. You simply do not see the difference between measuring something, and claiming a certain cause is the source for it. I’ve tried – oh, how I tried – to make you see the error in your ways/reasoning, but you just do not *want* to see it, and instead of argumenting, you simply refuse to acknowledge even the most basic of logical reasonings.

            Fanfapping is not mature, but it describes it well enough. Certainly to people who claim “I have no clue” and “I should do my homework” and that I’m a “pathosceptic”, etc. Let’s be honest here. You can’t expect me to mince my words and be diplomatic, if you aren’t doing any effort neither. I’m a great proponent of free speech, but also of reciprocity, after all. Which means, I react to someone the way he/she is reacting to me. The more civil one is towards me, the more civil I am towards them. So basically, if you want to push the debate to something more amiable, try to withold arrogant remarks in your own posts. Yes, yes, I know you may think it’s not arrogant, but just ‘true’, but so do I with my remarks. I repeat: reciprocity.

            I know very well what a thermal error is. So you “didn’t have to tell me” (aka, what I just said; it’s arrogant in a *personal* manner, not disputing any arguments I gave. You’re basically making an ad hominem remark.) I do not agree with the argument, however. It first would have to be demonstrated how ‘instantaneous’ it really is. After all, do note the discrepancy between the results of White and Tajmar; one claims it’s immediate, the other claims the opposite. It’s common sense to rule out the thermal influences, I don’t see where you have any problems with that. Ofcourse, it is not ‘proven’ that it is a thermal cause, and I never claimed that. It’s *you* who make claims of ‘the source’ of what they measured is due to a reactionless drive. I make no such claims. I only note that they’ve measured a tiny force, and they haven’t been able to pinpoint the cause yet. I also note that it’s FAR more likely that a far less exotic source is responsible for it, than a reactionless device. And lastly, I claim it makes more sense to first look at the more likely causes than at the (far more) unlikely causes, and since a reactionless drive is EXTREMELY unlikely, claiming the measurement is due to a reactionless drive makes no logical sense whatsoever.

            And yes, it IS at the brink of what they can measure. It’s barely enough TO be able to tell there is something effectively there. One of THE obvious things to do, would be to make a far stronger one, so the force becomes an order of two bigger. In that case, a lot of experimental noise would be eliminated, and it would become far easier to pinpoint the cause of it. Why they don’t do that is beyond me… I know you’re going to deny what I said about it being ‘on the brink’, so let me give you an example: in his former research White claimed to have measure 50 micronewton one way, but only 16 micronewton in the other direction. That means 34 micronewton just ‘disappeared’; that’s two thirds of the supposedly measured force!! OBVIOUSLY, this is highly indicative of an artefact or measure-error, because if the engine worked as advertised, it would have shown 50 micronewton in BOTH directions. And that’s why it’s not a good idea working with such tiny forces. The slightest imbalance or error, and all or the majority of your ‘force’ dissipates into nothing.To rule out false positives (or also negatives, in fact) you need to crank up the force, so the disturbances by noise are far more minute than the actual force measured.

            Yes, there might be a force. But, as said numerous times by now, that does not equal evidence for a reactionless device.

          • PacificMaelstrom

            November 18, 2015 at 11:54 pm

            Youre using things I havent said to argue against something you dont even want to understand because you think you already know the anwser.

            Its funny how you think youre doing the world a service when youre really just being a condescending moron. Maybe if alternate universes exist, theres one where you arent an idiot.

            Im done.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 19, 2015 at 12:07 am

            Not said? This is your direct quote: “So far, the Em Drive has been ONLY and REPEATEDLY been CONFIRMED.” You can find it back in your own post.

            The EM-drive, as described to work (aka, as a reactionless device or equivalent) has EXACTLY as much been confirmed as dragon-magic is.

            You content there has been ‘provided evidence’ because they measured a force they haven’t pinpointed the cause of yet. I – for arguments’ sake – claim it’s due to dragon-magic, and claim the same thing as you, but that dragon magic is the cause and has now been confirmed, since they measured that force.

            So, I rather think you saying “but your putting words in my mouth I never said” is rather a cop-out. You just realised your stance didn’t make any logical sense.

            “just being a condescending moron.”

            U-huh. I guess that is ‘mature’, then? 😉

            Imho, the one who doesn’t want to understand is you.

            You’re done, indeed. But if you feel like actually using arguments instead of ad honimem attacks, feel free to try again.

    • phxmarker mark

      December 6, 2015 at 11:37 pm

      mainstream physics cannot explain EM-Drive (and many other unsolved problems). It’s going to take a LOT of study to catch up, re-write science/physics, and understand this stuff. That is why the status-quote mainstream resist so much, they’re afraid of the work. (and losing power/control)

      • IgnoranceBeater

        December 7, 2015 at 12:38 am

        Actually, mainstream physics can perfectly give several possible explanations for the measured force, each of which is *far* more likely than a reactionless device made by a microwave-oven.

        That’s not the say any single thing, at this moment, has been proven to be the cause, but it does mean you don’t need the *least* likely explanation to be considered the most likely, as the less-sceptical inclined persons around here seems to think. That does not make any logical sense at all.

  4. Jack Ryan

    November 9, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    Well we just have to shoot down an ufo, without too much damage, cause they seem to have figured out how this anomaly works as they use some kind of advanced EM drive, many seem to have separate domes beeing thrust provided from the dome beneath with the help of a rotationary effect created between the 2 domes and running on…solar power.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Encrypgen Beta Launch Sends Token Soaring



Encrypgen (DNA) provides customers and partners best-in-class, next generation, blockchain security for protecting, sharing and re-marketing genomic data. Although the company has only been around for a few years, it appears to be a major player in the genomic blockchain security space. Security breaches at and privacy concerns at 23andMe have created a void that Encrypgen hopes to fill.

Price Action

Earlier this week, Encrypgen reached a significant milestone after launching its Gene-Chain beta platform. DNA token is soaring by 20% since the announcement on Wednesday evening.

Encrypgen Price Chart

Encrypgen is far ahead of schedule since the initial expectation was the end of August. The company expects the final live version of the Gene-Chain to be available by the end of September. DNA is a utility token so platform usage will determine its value. DNA is inching its way closer to the finish line and traders appear to be backing it.

Since August 1, DNA is one of the best performing ERC20 tokens. I created a list of the top 50 ERC20 tokens and analyzed their returns since August 1. None of them have a positive return. In comparison, DNA has generated a 7% return during the same period. While the return is negligible compared to the fall 2017, it’s still a positive development. Especially since the price rise coincides with a major development milestone.

Encrypgen Value Proposition

Genetics is playing an increasingly pivotal role in the world of drug discovery. Researchers use genetic data to help them understand how diseases start and how they progress. One of the main reasons that Encrypgen caught my attention is that it is attempting to fill a real world void as a few of the largest non-crypto companies are facing serious issues. Two of those companies are and 23andMe. is the most popular genealogical and family tree tracking company. Unfortunately, it appears that popularity comes at a cost. In December, a server on the company’s RootsWeb service exposed a file that has usernames, email addresses and passwords of 300,000 registered users. The stolen information was then leaked and posted online in plain text.

Another popular company in the industry, 23andMe, has its own issues regarding privacy. Lawmakers and consumers are expressing concern regarding privacy after a consumer submits their genetic test to the company. This is especially true in light of the recent $300 million collaboration deal that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) struck with 23andMe.

Encrypgen’s Gene-Chain platform appears to be the answer to the problem. Consumers will be able to upload their genetic data via Encrypgen’s secure portal which then goes into the company’s database. That data will then be secured with the company’s Gene-Chain. One of the most interesting parts is that consumers get paid when researchers want to purchase their data. According to a recent article from Reuters, consumers can expect an average payment of $130 each time that researchers buy their data. This is an excellent way for consumers to generate passive income.


Investors need to keep their eyes on Encrypgen as the company finalizes its Gene-Chain platform. With the recent price action, the coming catalysts, and the compelling value proposition, the DNA token may be one to begin accumulating.

Featured image courtesy of Shutterstock. 

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

5 stars on average, based on 1 rated posts

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading


Biotech Dominates July Penny Stock Picks



July brings new opportunities to trade penny stocks, according to the Investopedia top 10 penny stocks to watch. Biotechnology stocks in particular are poised for a breakout. Biotechnology funds broke out of the long-term basing pattern in June, forcing rotational buying pressure, which bodes well for the low-priced sub-sector, with many penny stocks ready to hit multi-year highs.

At the same time, the tech sector is getting sold with equal force in a profit-taking exercise that could deliver a period of under-performance for the sector’s lower-priced issues.

June’s biotechnology picks drew strong buying interest, led by ImmunoGen, Inc.’s 48% advance to a 52-week high. Small China stocks also posted strength, as China Commercial Credit, Inc. gained close to 35%. China Commercial Credit and June’s three biotech picks return to the July top penny stock list, joined by six new penny stocks.

1. ImmunoGen Inc. (IMGN)

Source: Investopedia

ImmunoGen, a provider of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for the treatment of cancer, jumped from number four in June to the top spot in July.

The stock posted a 12-year high at $20.25 in 2013 and sold off to $5.34 in December 2014. A recovery in 2015 stalled less than a point below the prior peak, creating a decline that continued into an 18-year low at $1.51 in November 2016.

Buyers took over in 2017, generating an uptick that reversed at the 2014 resistance approximately three weeks ago. In June, the stock broke out and made the top 10 list for the first time. It could end up in the $8.00 to $10.00 price zone.

ImmunoGen creates targeted cancer therapeutics using its proprietary ADC technology. The company’s candidate, mirvetuximab soravtansine, is in a Phase 3 trial for an ovarian cancer, and is in Phase 1b/2 testing in combination regimens for earlier-stage disease.

The technology is used in Roche’s Kadcyla, in three other clinical-stage ImmunoGen product candidates, and in programs in development by Amgen, Bayer, Biotest, CytomX, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi and Takeda.

2. China Commercial Credit, Inc. (CCCR)

Source: Investopedia

China Commercial Credit Inc. (CCCR), which provides business loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), farmers and individuals in China’s Jiangsu Province, jumped from number five in June to second place in July.

The company went public on the U.S. exchanges at $6.50 in August 2013.

The stock experienced a downtrend that bottomed out at 25 cents in February 2016 and began an upward trend that stalled at $3.20 in September. The stock hit a higher low in March 2017 before recovering, testing the 2016 high. A breakout should bring broad buying interest that could support a continued upside that could double the price by year’s end.

The company was founded in 2008 and provides business loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium enterprises, farmers and individuals in China’s Jiangsu Province.

3. CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc. (CBAY)

Source: Investopedia

CymaBay Therapeutics Inc. (CBAY), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing therapies to treat specialty and orphan diseases, returns from the June list, where it ranked number 9. The stock rallied to an all-time high at $13.78 in February 2015, then suffered a steep downtrend that continued into the first quarter of 2016. The stock then dropped to an all-time low at 82 cents before bouncing to $3.04 in April, a yearly high, ahead of a pullback that continued into the November low at $1.15.

The stock broke above the 2016 high in February 2017, reaching a two-year high at $4.81.

Net loss for the 2017 first quarter was $5.4 million, or ($0.20) per diluted share, compared to $6.8 million, or ($0.29) per diluted share in the first quarter of 2016. Net loss in the 2017 first quarter was $1.4 million lower compared to the prior year period, primarily due to the recognition of collaboration revenue in 2017.

The rally has now reached a two-year high, attracting buying interest that could move into double digits.

4. Peiris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PIRS)

Source: Investopedia

Pieris Pharmaceuticals Inc., a, clinical-stage biotechnology company committed to providing solutions for oncology, respiratory disease and other therapeutic areas, moved from June’s 7th spot to July’s 4th spot. The stock launched on the OTC market in 2014, trading between $2.00 and $4.25 before falling to $1.26 in January 2016. It ground sideways through November, then tested the first-quarter low ahead of a January 2017 breakaway gap that has drawn steady buying interest. The rally gathered momentum in early May after announcing a partnership with AstraZeneca PLC and is currently testing the 2015 high, the all-time high.

The company’s product includes immuno-oncology multi-specifics tailored for the tumor microenvironment, an inhaled Anticalin protein to treat uncontrolled asthma as well as a half-life-optimized Anticalin protein to treat anemia. Anticalin proteins, proprietary to Pieris, are a class of therapeutics validated in the clinic and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. Anticalin is a registered trademark of Pieris.

5. 22nd Century Group, Inc. (XXII)

Source: Investopedia

22nd Century Group, Inc. (XXII), a plant biotechnology company that is a provider of tobacco harm reduction and development of proprietary hemp/cannabis strains, broke out above multi-year resistance near $1.50 in 2013, rallying to a record high a few months later at $6.36. The stock then began a persistent decline through August 2015 before finding support at 56 cents, followed by a bounce to $1.75.

The stock has traded within those boundaries for 22-months, bouncing at support three times and reversing at resistance in equal measure. The price returned to that level a fourth time, improving odds for a breakout that could double the price in the year’s second half.

22nd Century Group is a plant biotechnology company focused on genetic engineering and plant breeding that allows the increase or decrease of the level of nicotine in tobacco plants and the level of cannabinoids in cannabis plants. The company’s main goal in tobacco is to reduce the harm caused by smoking. The main goal in cannabis is to develop proprietary hemp/cannabis strains for new medicines and agricultural crops.

The stock last month joined the Russell Microcap Index, when FTSE Russell reconstituted its U.S. and global equity indexes. Membership in the Russell Microcap Index means automatic inclusion in the appropriate growth and value style indexes. FTSE Russell determines membership for its Russell indexes primarily by objective, market-capitalization rankings and style attributes.

6. Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. (CVRS)

Source: Investopedia

Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. (CVRS), a developer of precision vascular robotics, returned to the national market in 2015 following a trading halt, topping out around $4.50 and starting a decline that continued to reach new lows in January 2017 when it bottomed at around 40 cents. Since that time, the price activity has been constructive, with high volume rally bursts moving the stock into 2016 resistance at $1.75. The bullish behavior has created a cup and handle basing pattern that points to an uptrend into the 2015 high following a breakout.

Revenue for the first quarter of 2017 was $0.8 million compared to $1.1 million for the same period in the prior year. The decrease is due mainly to the deferral of system revenue associated with a future obligation to upgrade multiple customer units from the company’s CorPath 200 System to the CorPath GRX System.

The company installed three new CorPath Systems in the first quarter of 2017, increasing its total installed base to 48 CorPath Systems.

Gross loss was $1.1 million for the 2017 first quarter, compared to a gross profit of $0.03 million for the 2016 first quarter. The cost of revenues for the first 2017 quarter continued to include the effect of under-utilization of production facilities and the cost of CorPath GRX System upgrades that installed pursuant to pre-existing contractual arrangements.

The company continues to expect the full year 2017 revenue to be in the range of $13.

7. RADA Electronic Industries, Ltd. (RADA)

Source: Investopedia

RADA Electronic Industries, Ltd. (RADA), a defense electronics system of advanced electronic systems for airborne and land applications, fell into a multi-decade decline after it joined the Nasdaq in the 1990s. The stock ground out a series of lower highs and lows through January 2016’s all-time 54-cent low.

The stock spent 16 months moving sideways in a narrow basing pattern before turning higher in May 2017 and rallying back to 2016 resistance at $1.78. The bullish activity completed a cup and handle breakout pattern that could point to a fast rally into the August 2015 gap between $3.70 and $2.50.

Revenues totaled $4.7 million in the 2017 first quarter, up 91% compared to revenues of $2.5 million in the first quarter of 2016.

Gross profit totaled $1.7 million in the first 2017 quarter of 2017, a gross margin of 35.7%, compared to gross profit of $6,000 (gross margin of 0.2%) in the 2016 first quarter.

Operating income was $0.4 million in the first 2017 quarter compared to an operating loss of $1 million in the 2016 first quarter.

Net income attributable to RADA’s shareholders in the 2017 first quarter was $0.4 million, $0.02 per share, versus a net loss of $1.8 million, or $0.23 per share, in the 2016 first quarter.

8. ChromaDex, Corp. (CDXC)

Source: Investopedia

ChromaDex, Corp. (CDXC), a provider of proprietary health, wellness and nutritional ingredients, that creates science-based solutions to dietary supplement, food and beverage, skin care, sports nutrition and pharmaceutical products, went public in April 2016 at $4.70. The stock rallied to an all-time high at $6.18 in May, then fell one month later to $2.46 in a single session, eventually posting a lower December low. It tested that support level in April 2017, then turned sharply higher, now testing 2017 resistance at $3.80. A breakout could point to a significant upside, taking the stock back to last year’s high.

For the first quarter of 2017, ChromaDex reported net sales of $4.4 million, a decrease of 39% compared to the same period of 2016, due mainly to decreased sales in its ingredients business segment, as a result of dropping its largest customer for fiscal year 2016. The ingredients segment created net sales of $2.1 million for Q1 2017, a decline of 55%, compared to the same 2016 period.

The net loss attributable to common stock holders for Q1 2017 was $1.9 million or ($0.05) per share versus a net income of $0.3 million or $0.01 per share for Q1 2016.

In May, the company announced the closing of the $16.4 million second tranche of the strategic investment of up to $25 million led by Hong Kong business leader Li Ka-shing.

Li Ka-shing has invested in many innovative companies in the last decade, including Facebook, Spotify, DeepMind, Siri, Impossible Foods and Modern Meadow. The new investment will support future ChromaDex developments in the global marketplace.

The $16.4 million second tranche follows an initial $3.5 million tranche that closed on April 27, 2017.

9. Safe Bulkers, Inc. (SB)

Source: Investopedia

Safe Bulkers, Inc. (SB), a player in the hot and cold dry bulk shipping sector, topped out at $11.48 in March 2014, then entered a downtrend reaching an all-time low at 30 cents in January 2016. A recovery wave in November stalled at $2.38, followed by sideways action that has completed a small-scale cup and handle breakout pattern. A buying spike over $2.60 can be expected to set the upside into action, supporting a rally that could surpass $5.00.

The company declared a cash dividend of $0.50 per share on its 8.00% Series B, Series C and Series D Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Shares for the period from April 30, 2017 to July 29, 2017.

This is the 16th consecutive cash dividend declared on the company’s Series B Preferred Shares, the 13th cash dividend declared on its Series C Preferred Shares and the 12th cash dividend declared on its Series D Preferred Shares since their respective commencement of trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

10. Ballard Power Systems, Inc. (BLDP)

Source: Investopedia

Ballard Power Systems, Inc. (BLDP) is a provider of clean energy products that reduce customer costs and risks, and helps customers solve challenges in their fuel cell programs. The stock reached an all-time high at $144.95 in 2000 before falling into a downtrend lasting more than 12 years, sending the stock to an all-time low at 56 cents. A 2013 upward trend continued through 2014, hitting an 8-year high at $8.38, followed by a correction that’s now returned to 2015 resistance at $3.10. A breakout could catch fire, pushing the stock to a test of its 2014 high.

Total revenue was $22.7 million in the quarter, an increase of 39% from growth in both power products and technology solutions.

Gross margin was 42% in the quarter, an improvement of 22 points due to a shift in product mix toward higher margin technology solutions and heavy duty motive for the China market, including the establishment of a production line in Yunfu, China for the manufacture and assembly of FCvelocity-9SSL fuel cell stacks.

Cash operating costs were $10 million in the quarter, a 6% increase due to higher research and product development expenditures as well as a stronger Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, since a significant amount of cost is denominated in Canadian dollars.

Low-priced biotech stocks have risen following a long slumber, with steady buying interest likely to continue. This group should offer a variety of profitable penny stock plays during the quiet summer trading season, while low-priced stocks in other sectors move into narrow trading ranges.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

3.9 stars on average, based on 8 rated postsLester Coleman is a veteran business journalist based in the United States. He has covered the payments industry for several years and is available for writing assignments.

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading


Last Week’s Top Cannabis Stock Winners And May’s Stocks To Watch



Medicinal and recreational cannabis continues to spur investment in marijuana-based pharmaceuticals.

Several publicly traded cannabis stocks gained more than 5% this past week, some of which have market capitalizations exceeding $50 million, according to Investopedia. The Solactive North American Medical Marijuana Index, which tracks the medical marijuana sector, gained 1.5% for the week.

Cannabis stocks also trade on other exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and over the counter.

Following are last week’s five top performers, followed by a list of four cannabis stocks to watch for the month of May.

Insys Therapeutics Inc., Nasdaq: INSY

Insys Therapeutics, a Chandler, Arizona-based specialty pharmaceutical company, was one of the week’s top performers, gaining more than 11%. The stock was boosted by Wednesday’s announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the Syndros product label. Syndros, the company’s lead product, is a liquid, oral dronabinol (synthetic THC) solution for treating nausea that is chemotherapy induced, and for treating anorexia related to AIDS. The approval means the company can now market the product commercially.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc. also markets Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray for cancer pain in opioid-tolerant cancer patients in the U.S.

The company is also developing Cannabidiol Oral Solution, a synthetic cannabidiol for catastrophic epilepsy syndromes in children. It is also developing other products, such as dronabinol line extensions and sublingual spray products.

Insys has posted flat revenues for the last three years, but its operating income fell at the end of 2016 as the company invested more in research. Gross profit has improved over the last three years.

Insys did not post the biggest gain in the past week, but it is the only one of this week’s top five winners that is also listed on Investopedia’s cannabis stocks to watch for March.

Marapharm Ventures Inc., OTC: MRPHF

Marapharm Ventures Inc., a Kelowna, Canada-based medical marijuana company, gained more than 40% this week after the company announced on Tuesday it will apply for a recreational marijuana license in Nevada. The following day, the company received approval for building permits for modular structures. On Thursday, the company announced that Nevada gave final approval to grow and sell cannabis.

Formerly known as Capital Auction Market Inc., the company serves the medical and recreational marijuana industry in Canada and the U.S.

Marapharm applied to Health Canada for a production and sales license three years ago and has passed the necessary security clearances, according to the Daily Marijuana Observer. The application is currently in the screening process. Health Canada advised the company in September it seeks to amend its application to allow for new regulations.

Marapharm’s common shares are traded in Canada under the MDM symbol and in the U.S. and on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the symbol MRPHF on the OTC. In Europe, it trades under the symbol 2M0 on the FSE.

MMJ Phytotech Ltd., ASX: MMJ

MMJ Phytotech Ltd., trading on the Australian Stock Exchange, gained more than 5% for the week, closing at $0.365 AUD Friday. Australia is developing its own medical marijuana program after legalizing it in November of 2016. MMJ is one of several ASX listed cannabis companies.

Shares of Australian companies involved in the production and research of medicinal marijuana have soared more than 130 percent on average in Sydney this year, exceeding the growth rate of peers in the U.S. and Canada by six times, according to Bloomberg. The surge was also sparked by the country easing restrictions on cannabis imports to treat illnesses from cancer to epilepsy.

MMJ Phytotech has focused on becoming a direct supplier to the growing Canadian recreational and medical and markets, which are estimated to have a combined value of C$8 to C$9 billion by 2024.

MMJ holds one of 41 licenses issued by Health Canada.

The company controls operations across the complete medicinal cannabis value chain through three business units.

Tetra Bio-Pharma Inc., OTC: TBPMF

Tetra Bio-Pharma saw shares jump more than 20% for the week. One factor was an agreement signed Wednesday with Panag Pharma to develop and commercialize a pair of cannabinoid based formulations for treating pain and inflammation.

The filing of a patent in ocular disease combined with the patents from Panag in the ocular space indicates strong revenue potential, according to the company.

Tetra Bio-Pharma will have exclusive access to sell the topical and ocular drug in North America with the right of first negotiation outside the U.S. and Canada. The company will also have the right of first negotiation for future cannabinoid-based products.

Tetra Bio-Pharma will work with Panag to ensure a successful development leading to marketing authorization. Panag will continue to focus on the development of new products for unmet medical needs while Tetra will take the lead in commercializing the products.

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nasdaq: ZYNE

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc., another player in the cannabinoid space, finished the week with about a 5% gain.

The company develops and markets synthetic cannabinoid therapeutics for transdermal delivery. The products address the symptoms of patients with fibromyalgia, epilepsy, peripheral neuropathic pain, osteoarthritis and Fragile X syndrome.

Zynerba is developing ZYN001 and ZYN002, the first being a THC pro-drug patch that provides transdermal THC delivery for fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathic pain, the second being a synthetic CBD gel that provides transdermal, non-psychoactive CBD delivery for osteoarthritis, epilepsy and Fragile X syndrome.

Top four cannabis stocks to watch in May.

1. AbbVie Inc. (ABBV)

AbbVIe is a pharmaceutical company that already has a cannabis-based drug on the market. The FDA approved Marinol, a drug that helps alleviate vomiting or nausea for chemotherapy patients. It also helps AIDS patients who have lost their desire to eat.

ABBV has increased revenues for the past four years. Its operating income has also steadily increased.

AbbVie concentrates almost exclusively on U.S. markets, which represents some degree of risk. Most pharmaceuticals market globally. Should the domestic market falter, ABBV could see a drop in value.

2. Scott’s Miracle-Gro Company, SMG

Known for its lawn and garden products, Scotts Miracle-Gro is developing products for cannabis growers, including pesticides for use on marijuana plants. The products can be used to grow medicinal marijuana.

The stock has experienced a sideways pattern since December 2016. Should the stock find support at its 200-day moving average, recovery is possible.

Revenues surged in the quarter ended April 1, 2017, as did the company’s income. But given the drop in price recently, this could be a stock to watch rather than buy for the time being.

3. Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CRBP

Corbus Pharmaceuticals stock has been up and down over the past year. The company’s marijuana-based drugs are in clinical trials. Resunab, designed to treat sclerosis, has shown promising trials.

The stock tends to dip right before trial results are announced, then rally when results are positive. The company is currently testing Resunab for treating cystic fibrosis. The pessimism/optimism pattern will continue as this drug is tested yet again.

The company has posted negative operating income, with revenues close to zero. It relies on the success of a single drug.

4. Insys Therapeutics Inc. Nasdaq, INSY

Insys Therapeutics is the only one of the cannabis stocks to watch that was listed among last week’s top gainers.

As investors sober up about the marijuana craze, the reality of using it in medicines will set in. Like other sources for drugs, cannabis offers positive prospects and some failures.

The drop in share price for some cannabis stocks indicates the companies have to deliver soon on the promise of medical cannabis.

Investors are advised not to act based on enthusiasm for marijuana, and to pay attention to drug trial results.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

3.9 stars on average, based on 8 rated postsLester Coleman is a veteran business journalist based in the United States. He has covered the payments industry for several years and is available for writing assignments.

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

A part of CCN is Neutral and Unbiased and its team members have pledged to reject any form of advertisement or sponsorships from 3rd parties. We will always be neutral and we strive towards a fully unbiased view on all topics. Whenever an author has a conflicting interest, that should be clearly stated in the post itself with a disclaimer. If you suspect that one of our team members are biased, please notify me immediately at jonas.borchgrevink(at)