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 : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tickertype who wrote (1303)	11/8/1997 8:24:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 27311

I went back and looked again at the Red Chip article. I think I may have missed the significance of a very important sentence in the report. It says: "We believe battery performance is at a level where VLNC should have no problem meeting customer specifications." It goes on to say that the remaining large risk is whether VLNC can achieve commercial production at good yields. So, VLNC was able to convince the Red Chip analyst that the product meets customer specifications. Which, given the PC week article, appears to differentiate VLNC from ULBI.

To: Tickertype who wrote (1303)	11/8/1997 9:41:00 PM
From: jean1057	Respond to of 27311

I think by now vlnc is a matured company which has learned about the last mistakes in 92/93 and therefore, as they have experienced all the difficulties of production ..they have only been putting in their research in making this thing work properly for the last few years..let's face it they have been working to perfect the product for the last 4 years as they already announced in 93? tha t they were going to massproduce it....3 - 4 year additional research ..I think if they announce a breakthrough for massproduction..they won't have this embarassing fallouts anymore....very confident on vlnc ...

To: Tickertype who wrote (1303)	11/9/1997 3:05:00 PM
From: webpilot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

To all, Everyone knows how magazine articles are. No dates are indicated regarding these so called "new" problems. The article addresses a problem with a preproduction computer. That could have happened months ago. Why would a spokesperson with ULBI deny a problem with it's lithium polymer battery? That would be a very serious omission to say the least. It is common knowledge that there was a previous problem with their production line. That is why it was operating in the semi-automatic mode. I understand that the problem was solved at the manufacturer's location and that the missing links are now being assembled at ULBI. HP is still advertising 1st quarter availibility of the computer at their web site. Could this article be old "new news"? It is difficult for me to accept this article at face value without knowing many more details.

To: Tickertype who wrote (1303)	11/9/1997 5:34:00 PM
From: mooter775	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

My undertstanding is that the VLNC cells from its line 1 began showing deterioration around 20 days into testing and continued to deteriorate until 40-50 days, when the company became convinced that the line 1 production process needed modification. I think that the deterioration came from around the edges of the cells and was caused by imperfections in the cutting process. There was no shorting out and burning through the battery membrane, I believe. VLNC has since attempted to correct this by,among other things, heating the plastic laminate prior to cutting. (Parenthetically, the smaller degree of cutting required in laptop batteries, since they are bigger than the cellphone batteries, may alleviate the problems) Anyway, my understanding is that line 2 never experienced these cutting/lamination/deterioratiions problems that line 1 experienced, and have indeed already the 40-50 day "deterioration period" experienced by line 1. But it was these problems that caused me to post cautionary notices about 8 weeks ago (and lighten up my position in VLNC, which I have since reversed and am fully invested). As for ULBI, they have been supplying HP and Mitsubishi with 8"x10" laptop batteries (which VLNC cannot do yet, admittedly due to their inherent volatility in the 8"x10" format, accoring to a member of senior management) on either a semi-automatic or "by hand/lab based process" according to whom you talk. Regardless I have always felt, as has VLNC management, that the key is producing qualified batteries on a fully-automated basis, not supplying 'high-name' customers with small amounts of product. I shorted ULBI stock, and lost nearly $ 50 k when I covered as ULBI ran up to $ 20 based on the HP deal. But I remain convinced that ULBI is nowhere near real production capability,(since they are indeed relying upon the same line 1 vendor that VLNC used) and that VLNC is very close to a real breakthrough. I continue to think based upon information that I've received, that the ocmpany will announce OEM contracts by 12/31 and the stock will perform very very well over the coming months.