This is very exiting: his new technology will truly revolutionize many technological fields, and lead to huge savings for humanity (and make him one of the riches guys on earth in the process).

Unfortunately... extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And patents and publications in peer-reviews papers do not constitute extraordinary evidence.

Moreover, there is a bad bad smell form his claims and web site:

- Nuclear waste disposal, cheap superconducting wire, new incinerators... This technology solves too many problems, it seems too powerful. Does it cure cancer too? Hey, no, he does not claim that; but he does claim (from his web site) that this could reduce worldwide GHG emissions by 15%. That’s almost as good.

- From his web site: one plant for manufacturing radioactive resistant packaging would bring owners $265MM/year. One plant manufacturing 15,000km/year of his new electric wire will cost $49MM. Some other plant would cost $51MM.

WTF? It would take months or years of experienced people to make estimates like these, and they would be much less precise. My guess is that these numbers are totally random. Moreover, some of the quoted ROI are 500%. I would guess that historically, industrial projects with projected ROI that high did not work out as planed (to put it mildly)

- He speaks about "room temperature" superconductivity without giving any more details about what "room temperature" means.. Hum, he seems to be skipping some important details there.

I could go on.

I hate being harsh, but my guess is that this guy is either lying or delusional.

For the last 12 years here in New York, USA, I developed, tested, published in professional journals, presented on the US professional meetings, US patented and in-lab prototyped three separate cost-efficient thermo-chemical technologies and advanced ceramic products. All technologies and products relate to more efficient electricity generation or transmission and end-use; all of them will provide significant Environment protection or cleaning and are very profitable. Now I rather intent selling or licensing these innovations than getting investments. I will appreciate any help and advice. Thank you, Dr. Anatoly Rokhvarger, www.rokhv.com (sorry for unprofessional web site); [email protected]

I hate to be the bad guy, but:

Investors get excited, refer him to experts in the ceramics, who reply "no way."

How do you know they are not right?

Patents in and of themselves are not proof, as we all know.

Also, it is worth keeping in mind that "nano technologies" is the fad in Russian Federation at the moment. It is something that is used to milk government and private investors for grants, subsidies and any other form of loosely packed cash. At some point Putin let it slip publicly that "nano technologies" is where the future of Russia lies, and all hell broke loose.

Want to keep up with times? Make sure to wash your car in "Nano Carwash" (two dudes with buckets). How about some "Nano chocolate" if you are hungry? Or perhaps "Nano operating system" is your thing? Please have two.

I kid you not, it is this ridiculous. So anything coming out of Russia with "nano" in it should be treated twice as suspiciously.

(edit) Tangetal to what I said above. The About page on the site says

  American Ceramic Society recognized Dr. Rokhvarger among
  100 greatest innovators of the 20th century for development 
  of "Conveyer Technology of Ceramic Tile Using Rollers Hearth Kiln"

This "Conveyer" invention being one of top 100 greatest inventions of 20th century has from zero or one hits in Google depending on whether it is misspelled or not. While I don't think the above statement is an outright lie, but this looks a lot like an unsubstantiated cheek puffing, and it makes me wonder if the actual subject matter is of the same quality.

I would suggest looking into SBIR funding. Many of the large government agencies will provide Phase 1 funding for preliminary research and if proven, phase 2 funding for commercialization. DOE SBIR programs may be applicable. http://www.er.doe.gov/sbir/ Depending on where located, most states have organizations who can provide assistance in writing SBIR proposals. http://www.sbir.gov/state/

The only worry is that the same "experts" could review his application. It's worth a shot, to get a score and feedback, but it is a 12 to 18 month process. Investors have to be an additional source of financing.

Not to seem doubtful, but the website does not inspire a lot of confidence. It is terribly formatted and oddly has red text highlighting market sizes.

Also, the Business Development guy also designed the website with his separate company. But that company's website (jkmarketingspecialists.com) was designed by some company that is a green company directory?? I would definitely encourage an effort of legitimacy. No one can fund that website.

You mention that he has been published in peer-reviewed journals, could you put those links or articles on the website. I have never seen an academic extract mention money or be formatted like this:

~ $265 MM/year pre-tax net income and liberates US Government budget from > $15 billion/year expenses. The U.S. market for the RCC packages is about $10 billion/year.

The technology could be as awesome as you say but this lack of clarity could be why the experts say no way. It usually isn't a conspiracy or a vested interest conflict. A smart investor would be aware of these and would probably only refer you to someone whose honest opinion he could get.

Try thinking more broadly about applications for the technology.

Find a situation where there is a guy who is looking for a solution to his problem at least as hard as you're looking for a customer for the product. Don't try to convince a bunch of people who don't seem to want to be convinced, that is a really painful process that leaves you disillusioned and makes you wonder if you should quit. Find one of the few guys who is going to love you when he sees your stuff. And if your stuff works for him, he'll probably help you expand.

Bottom line: spend more time thinking about applications and finding people, and less time trying to convince them

You seem to be concerned about selling the tech to investors, but why not sell it to customers instead? Is it so expensive to make that investment is needed to make the product?

Making the product definitely requires investment. Manufacturing equipment, salaries for a couple of people who will do the actual work, etc. It doesn't need a huge sum, but it isn't bootstrappable.

All of the uses, what's the best market? Can he build something that someone in that market wants?

How can he show that their money won't fund a science experiment but will be applied to making them more money? Traction in a market seems key.

> He has publications

In peer-reviewed journals? Has someone independently duplicated his results (in effect is able to manufacture nuclear waste containers and cheap superconducting wire using his methods)?

Yes, in peer-reviews journals. As for independent duplication, I gather that it's been painful to convince anyone to even try.

That's tough... How much would it cost to a college lab to duplicate some of his results?

A lot of revolutionary technology is unbelievable until it happens. Maybe try to organize a private demo?