Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brad who wrote (4024)	6/19/1999 10:48:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Brad, You may have a point, that the burn rate will increase when production starts and inventory is accumulated. The burn rate that I am using already include capitialized R&D expense which will decrease when production begins. But even if the burn rate doubles Pyng has 1 year worth of cash which hopefully will be twice as much as they need. Mr. Jacobs plainly said in the Vancover Investor Forum video on ViaVid that commercial sales would begin "by December". And with a gross margin which I expect to be around 40% orders greater than 10,000 a quarter should produce positive cashflow depending on the overhead that is added (this is my opinion only not based on any imperical evidence). And to address your concern that the Walter Reed study medics did not unanimously chose the FAST 1 for all applications, LOR and I have personally spoken with the person incharge of the study. He said that the FAST 1 would have been his personal choice and he was as surprised as we were that some medics chose the other devices. The Jamshidi needle is the device that I am least worried about. The JN (which was tyed for 1st place) is designed for bone marrow aspiration in a hospital environment and protrudes from the body over an inch after it is inserted. In my opinion there is no way the army will standardize on it. The BIG was the device that I thought would provide the most competition before the study began but it came in third. And after talking to the WR study leader the SurFast was the device I feared, it was the only one he mentioned to me as being selected by a group of medics (Navy Seals for its light and compact design though it came in dead last overall). The three other devices share the same problems they protrude after insertion so they could easily be dislodged and present the hazard of someone else being injured on the protruding needle. None of the other devices have landmarking and depth control features so they would require more skill to insert and would not be suitable for low light chaotic combat conditions. The study leader also said that the FAST 1 would be his choice for non-combat emergency use which is important because it would be the type of emergency situation that paramedics would be faced with. Although I think the military will chose the FAST 1 for use in the majority of instances. In my opinion Pyng's sucess is much less dependent on complete military acceptance than it is on wide spread civilian acceptance. Thanks for you comments. I enjoy the hearing others present their opinion of Pyng's negatives. If I can rebut them in my mind I feel better about my investment and if not then I at least know where I should temper my expectations. I have great expectations, maybe too great. I especially appreciate your comments since you do not have a vested interest and are more likely to be objective. Plus you have shown yourself to be one of the few left that wants to talk about Pyng.