Gary:
You seem to have a naive view of the nature of technological developments: that is: the process by which scientific breakthroughs are translated into specific, practical applications. SPD is a TRULY
REVOLUTIONARY breakthrough; it involves principles of physics as well as chemistry and materials science as well as other disciplines. The application of the breakthrough to specific products: windows, eyeglasses, rearview mirrors, etc. IS NOT, REPEAT IS NOT A CLEAR-CUT
LINEAR PROCESS, rather it is best seen as a ZIG ZAG process two steps forward, one backward; one problem overcome but than another one, totally unexpected develops which has to be solved. If you read the history of scientific breakthroughs and their application to specific products you will see that my conceptualization of the process is correct.
There are a multiplicity of potential problems that are apt to develop as a company is attempting to incorporate a new and revolutionary technology into a specific product. Huge RD budgets and many Phd researchers help but many times progress in solving certain problems
take TIME, deep thinking; sometimes serendipity is responsible for the "answer" to a particular problem.
You seem to be sincere and receptive to responses to your questions.
I URGE you to study the history of the development and application
of scientific breakthroughs. Doing so will be enlightening for you.
Another thing: the SPD technology is a TOTALLY NEW, REOVLUTIONARY, UNTESTED, UNAPPLIED technology... most U.S. corporations are "chicken"
they want someone else to try something new before they do. That is probalby one of the reasons why so many of the REFR licensees are of foreign countries. Despite all the "talk" of the American entreprenaial spirit, the truth is that most U. S. companies do not want to be the first one to use a new, untested technology. They want to play it safe.
Your previous posted question as to why, if the SPD technology is so good, REFR does not make the film and products using the film itself
is absurd: do you realize how much captial investment would be needed in order for REFR to do such a thing and it would be very difficult for REFR to convince venture capitalists to fund such an untested and new technology. The route that REFR went is the wise and brilliant one:if the application of the technology is a success then they will simply collect $$$$$$$$$$ from the licensees and work with them in refining the process and extending it.
Of course problems will be encountered in applying the technology to specific products but indications are that those problems can and have been solved and I would be astonished if more would not develop. The company and its licensees are WISE in taking their time and trying to anticipate and deal with problems rather than rushing to get a product out ASAP and then having the whole world experience the problem.
Please, please, keep in mind that both basic science and the application of scientific breakthroughs progresses both INCREMENTALLY AND NON-LINEARLY...if interested I can send you references to validate my points.
Having said all of this, I admit that there is a possibility that
some completely unanticpated problem in applying the technology to
a product may ensue and that it could not be adequately dealt with.
Indications, however, are that such is not likely to be the case.
My own feeling is that REFR and its SPD technology is going to be either
a BASES LOADED GRAND SLAM HOME RUN or a strikeout. As of now I believe that the probability is greater that the former rather than the latter will happen. |
