Another article of interest. It was written in 1994; however, what's most interesting is the article's prediction that lithium polymer batteries won't be economically viable for several years......well, it's 1997, and it's been several years!
<<Lithium is a volatile and potentially explosive chemical that nevertheless may become the power
source of choice for rechargeable batteries. Several American and Japanese companies are
currently working to commercialize the chemical.
Nickel-cadmium batteries, currently the most common used in portables (18 in our sample used
them), may gradually be phased out because of memory-drain problems. Recharging a
nickel-cadmium battery that's not fully discharged can keep the battery from ever being fully
charged again. NiMH (nickel-metal-hydride), which doesn't suffer from this problem and can last
longer, has become an alternative for some vendors; we tested 17 notebooks that used this battery
chemistry.
Recently, Toshiba introduced the Port_g_ T3400 series of subnotebooks, which are the first
portables to use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. The Port_g_ was introduced too late to be
tested for this report, but Toshiba claims that a lithium-ion battery will provide 75 percent longer
life for the same weight as a nickel-cadmium battery and 50 percent more life than a standard
NiMH battery of equal weight. Lithium-ion batteries do not suffer from memory drain.
Lithium-polymer batteries, being developed by Valence Technology, may become another
lithium-based power source. Still in its early development, the lithium-polymer battery looks like a
sheet of plastic about the size of a playing card. Valence Technology claims that it weighs 75
percent less and will run four times longer on a single charge than a nickel-cadmium battery of
similar weight. Lithium-polymer batteries can be molded into any shape. The batteries support
high-energy densities, do not have memory-drain problems, and use environmentally safe
materials. However, lithium-polymer batteries have a limited life cycle of 175 hours and are not
expected to be economically viable for several years. >>
A take on the "no news" issue. It's quite obvious that management will not be issuing news releases just for the sake of issuing news releases, for several reasons:
1) In this highly competitive envirnonment, you don't want to tip your hand to the competition.
2) In light of the 1994 melt down, management isn't about to expose itself to more securities litigation for hyping a stock.
This is a risky company. If you believe in the industry, if you think that VLNC will have an edge and or lead over its competitors and if you have some money laying around, then invest. If you can't stand the severe ups and downs and lack of news on a short term basis, then look somewhere else.
This technology will happen. Will it be Valence that captures the lion's share of the market? I certainly hope so. I'm betting my house on it! Ha. Just kidding about the house:-)
(Gordon, this isn't directed at you. You just happened to be the last post that I could reply to.) |
