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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (7962)	6/20/2001 9:32:33 PM
From: N. Dixon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Kevin, Nice try. The facts dispute you. SPD technology has NOT been "on the market" for at least 35 years. Your statement seems to imply that SPD technology is no different today than 35 years ago. Is that what you believe? Because that is part of your problem. You and the individuals attacking this company either haven't bothered to find out or you just don't understand what it takes to develop a technology like SPD. I won't bore you with the various breakthroughs and how it has evolved to the technology being commercialized today but look at Edwin Land's other technologies and you might get an idea of the complexity. Did you see my link from DOE? windows.lbl.gov They are working on electrochromic technology. Are you aware that they are still trying to get it to work as well as SPD does. Read some of the field reports regarding temp range, durability etc. The bottom line will be products on the market and their acceptance. We have confirmation now from the company when to expect those revenues and profits. I made a wager. Is Bill not willing to jump on this? Isn't he confident he would win? Why not? Why hasn't he responded? Doesn't he want the TRUTH to get out. I think he knows he'll lose. He can't handle the truth. ND

To: Kevin Podsiadlik who wrote (7962)	6/20/2001 11:11:37 PM
From: BinkY2K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Kevin, repeating lies is silly. Asensio distorts and you repeat. How old is the airplane? Gravity? Fire? What the hell is your point? SPD is based on a discovery made years ago that has not been made into a product until now. Then original discovery is a minor component of the SPD film. Lots of research went into it and many new patents. I have documented it elsewhere and people should go to the Yahoo REFR board and other places to read it. The argument is bogus. The technology is complex and reporters (who rarely understand science) get it right. Asensio was a guest on a radio show last week with two fools on Radio Wall Street. Before he came on, they were making merry that REFR made transparent GAS. Asensio came on and corrected them that they made GLASS. They make neither. They make ideas do research and patent it. Hankuk and other licensees will use the patents to make emulsion and then film and sell it. REFR chooses to collect royalties at the highest point in the chain, final products, where they get 5 to 10 percent of a higher price. The film can be used to make "smart" glass or plastic but an eskimo can attach the film to an ice window for all we care. Know why the radio bumblers (who have their own legal troubles and likely are working with Asensio) said GAS? They read it that way in a reputable newspaper written recently. The press makes lots of errors. GAS, GLASS, did someone hear it wrong? Even if they print a retraction, someone like Asensio can selectively quote the original with a mistake. Now, in this case, the replay is available and Asensio can not use the version with GAS since we know he understands it was an error. Another error is not so simple. REFR has had all kinds of mentions of their work with the automotive industry. Asensio brings out an article (which I and others challenged when it came out) where a reporter quotes a new licensee as saying he told REFR about possible automotive applications that they had not thought of. Really? Look at the record and you conclude someone made a mistake. Asensio twists it to suggest that somehow this means REFR lies. I checked with the source and the company denies having said that. I have personally offered lots of ideas to people at the company and some are met with "that is interesting" but I do not walk away saying it means they never thought of it. Let me set a new metric for you to consider. The technology is not 60 years old or 35 years old. The technology at those times was a lab oddity that nobody knew what to do with. Even in the eighties when the company went public, the technology was rudimentary. Until just years ago, they were using emulsion put between glass plates. The major innovation recently was making a polymer mixture that can be cured in the film into cross-linking into what amounts to one huge molecule that has tiny fluid filled droplets trapped in it (sort of like a sponge or swiss cheese) with a crystal floating in it. Trapped in place but able to rotate if an electric field is applied and thus block more or less light. How old is this technology? Brand new. It took time to perfect it in many ways and test it enough to meet guidelines and be able to do it in bulk. I consider HDTV to be a logical extension of regular analog TV which is an extension of radio which is an extension of the telegraph. Wow! What old technology that competed with the Pony Express. Face it. Most people do not have the background to evaluate the science and technology and Asensio does not and clearly does not care to. If he did, he would find someone like me to evaluate it. Journalists are not only sloppy here. I am a scientist and have also taught. My colleagues are aghast at the quality of science textbooks used in schools that have mistakes on every page. It is very stupid to short a stock where you do not understand the technology and the market. If you like repeating lies without thinking, consider yourself corrected. You are typing on ancient technology. All you are using is a typewriter with minor changes.