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.

Technology Stocks : Energy Conversion Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wily who wrote (3955)	8/22/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: Tom Hoff	Respond to of 8393

ECD's hydrogen storage system can also be used as hydrogen storage for an IC engine. Maybe Ford is looking at ECD's system for this application. Ford Tests Hydrogen-Powered Engine DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) - Ford Motor Co. is working on a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine that it says could be a cleaner-burning alternative to the gasoline engine until automakers perfect a fuel-cell powertrain. It's a modified version of Ford's 2-liter Zetec four-cylinder gasoline engine that promises 25 percent to 30 percent better fuel efficiency, Bill Bates, Ford's manager of alternative power sources, said Monday. The company plans to begin road-testing later this year. Bates said the hydrogen-powered engine could be an alternative until engineers refine the fuel-cell powertrain. Fuel cells produce electricity from an electrochemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen; the only emission is water. Ford says its hydrogen engine would produce no hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. Emissions of nitrogen oxide would meet proposed federal clean-air standards. Automakers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on fuel-cell research as government pressure for zero-emission vehicles increases. Few experts expect them to become commercially viable within the next decade barring major technological breakthroughs. Ford's hydrogen engine can run on either compressed hydrogen gas or liquid hydrogen, and the extra cost of the thick, heavy hydrogen storage tank should be offset by elimination of the catalytic converter and other exhaust treatment systems used on a gasoline engine, Bates said. The announcement came as the world's second-biggest automaker showed off its $1.5 million hydrogen filling station at its North American research complex in Dearborn. The hydrogen engine is one of several alternative power sources that Ford is researching. It already has a fuel-cell-powered car, the P2000, which uses hydrogen gas. Ford plans to begin producing an updated version in small numbers by 2004. General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG also are working on fuel-cell cars with the goal of reaching limited-volume production by 2004. Ford officials stressed that fuel cells still have many technological and cost hurdles to overcome before they are a practical alternative to gasoline engines.

To: wily who wrote (3955)	8/23/1999 5:20:00 PM
From: Ray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8393

If the super-iron cathodes prove to work well for MH batteries, how could this be anything but good for ECD? I expect it to be important and, probably, to increase royalty percentages. FWIW, here is my "take" on your question -- all of it assuming that the super-iron cathodes are patentable (near certainty) and work as expected by Licht, et al. It is, IMO, unlikely that anyone would or could put up enough money to buy exclusive rights to this new technology -- even for exclusivity limited to the MH battery type. However, if ECD did have exclusive rights, this would permit an increased royalty, not a lessened percentage. ECD would certainly be able to acquire non-exclusive rights to the SI-tech because ECD is so prominent in the MH battery arena and is most likely to be able to best adapt SI-tech to MH batteries. Whatever reasonable costs ECD incurred from the SI-tech purchase, I think they could easily pass these on to their licensees (well, maybe after the usual drawn-out fight). In fact, IMO, the SI-tech would help get ECD's royalties up to a higher level than what would only cover the additional costs. My belief is that ECD's royalties are presently low because of a weak posture when these were negotiated. Aside from simply being a small company, the weakness was due to (1) NiMH batteries not then being of such major importance and (2) ECD's batteries then had a much smaller advantage over other NiMH batteries. From (1), I think it likely that SI-tech, even if not owned by ECD, would increase the importance of MH batteries in general and thus increase the value of ECD's owned technology. (This conclusion assumes that some other re-chargeable battery type does not benefit more from SI-tech than the MH type). Since, presumably, all MH battery makers could benefit about the same from SI-tech, this adoption by the industry would not directly effect the competitive positions of the various MH-battery manufacturers. So, weakness (2) is not directly improved by adding SI-tech, though adding it avoids increasing that weakness. What will help a lot to cure (2) is when (if?) ECD successfully incorporates their new magnesium hydride materials, thus substantially lowering the weight of Ovonic batteries. Without the magnesium hydride and, hopefully, the SI-tech improvements, I am not really comfortable with the expectation that ECD's batteries will become and stay dominant . This is because, unlike some others here, I now think LiPoly batteries will be strong contenders -- even for automotive use. One reason for my concern is that Delphi (GM spin-off) continues to indicate their commitment to LiPoly batteries for auto use, including the upcoming 42 volt systems. The specs for these batteries look very good, substantially better than present Ovonic batteries, though they are apparently not yet well proven for automotive use. And, the long-standing manufacturing problems for LiPoly batteries are claimed to be solved. (I am long VLNC as well as ENER). Ray