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: Michael Latas who wrote (4131)	10/26/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: Ray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8393

Michael: "In my opinion, they are fighting as hard as they can to keep as much of the lithium market, or cadmium, or whatever market-share they have gained for as long as possible. No different than the ni-cad mfg'rs which are still the king of the hill in rechargeable batteries, with their 62% market share. Explain that to me if you will, how they continue to stay in business, other than for the money and clout they wield after dominating the rechargeable battery market for over forty years. What do they really have going for them from a battery technology standpoint? As you and I know, their days are numbered. But, what does the public know? Unfortunately, we simply do not have the war chest at this time to counter all of the companies public relations propaganda. What we do have, however, is the vastly superior technology, that in my opinion, will prevail." Well, you have answered your own question -- the public is largely ignorant about battery technology, thus loathe to pay more for better tech when the claims might be largely hype. This is an age-old marketing problem, a difficult one. And, established battery makers/marketers can be expected to avoid the costs of educating the public and stick to existing profitable products -- much to our chagrin. Still, new batteries are gaining ground in some applications. I do not agree that our tech is "vastly" superior -- excellent, yes, and improving, but other technologies are also improving. I see a real race here, one that is hard to predict in the long run. Michael: "The last I heard we only had three out of our thirteen licensee's that were mfg'ng our 95wh/kg consumer batteries. I never could get a straight answer as to why only three. Perhaps Fred Whitridge, or Don Devlin have an answer to this question. The reason I bring this up is that our NiMH battery technology is never distinguished by energy density on the batteries like light bulbs are. So that whenever our NiMH batteries are being compared to lit-ion, or lithium-polymer battery performance as an example, which NiMH battery are they comparing to? The battery mfg'rs treat the NiMH batteries generically, as though there were only one specific battery like the li-ion, or, nicads. Nothing could be further from the truth." It certainly is irksome that some (most?) of our licensees do not produce the best versions -- and that NiMH batteries are nearly always described in generic way. I frequently see 60 wh/kg used to describe NiMH tech, a rather old number. However, I must observe that you and others also tend to do this type of denigration with respect to technologies competing with NiMH. Both Lith-Ion and LiPoly batteries vary quite substantially from one company to another. And the best LiPoly batteries, while not yet having much market presence, have claimed specs generally substantially better than ECD's claimed specs. (Fewer cycles, 500, and poorer low temp performance might be the only competitive weaknesses for present LiPoly tech -- and this is something of a guess). Further, as nearly as I can tell, latter-day LiPoly specs are not dishonest nor is there any longer a production problem for the better manufacturers of this type of cell. It is my fervent hope that NiMH batteries will remain superior, or at least competitive; but I think this will require the substantial improvements planned. I think ECD is probably aware of the developments in the other technologies and plans to introduce their improvements ASAP. Then, we might still have to worry about slow response of our licensees to further license and actually use this improved tech. Jeeez -- I wish ECD could establish a full scale, aggressive battery manufacturing subsidiary! (Though the marketing problems might well lead to VERY expensive failure). Meanwhile, there are other ECD technologies!