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 : JMAR Technologies(JMAR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Falstaff who wrote (6521)	9/4/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: Bilberry	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9695

Falstaff, here are some of your answers to your questions: Fourth, LightKnife was a complete bust that could have been completely avoided with some decent patent research (that wasn't done). And it never got beyond a prototype used for testing, did it? The Lightknife was funded by Becton Dickinson. The entire project was in Becton's corner. JMAR benefited by increasing its R&D in this area and has indicated other medical uses that it is pursuing related to this in prior releases. Fifth, does Brightlight exist yet, in a form suitable for XRL or for its other touted applications? I believe that it is still being developed, right? Brightlight is an ongoing project. There are many uses of it right now. JMAR already has prototypes and from my understanding is in talks with many companies interested in applying it to their uses. JMAR expects a sale before year end. (Its in one of the press releases). Sixth, shouldn't you care a great deal whether JMAR has produced any products, because the only reason they are where they are is the revenues and profitability from PPL, now Precision Systems? Its a myth and falicy that JMAR has not produced any products. You are reading negative hype on these boards and believing it. Brightlight, and the Mirage system to name a few are some of JMAR's originally developed products. Mirage is one of the number one disk MR head inspection stations sold to IBM, the number one maker of MR heads. Seventh, remember the Cal ASIC story? Have you forgotten how that ended up? Now the LightKnife story: how is that ending up? Now more delays on BriteLight and XRL: how will that end up? Isn't credibility a key issue with this "evolving" story? Where have you been. Cal Asic is no longer a negative for JMAR. Anyone that attended the annual meeting can tell you that major contracts for JSI are expected in the very short term. As to the delays with XRL, this is not unusual for R&D projects. Read this note from Yahoo: messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Eighth, what technology does JMAR have that it did not acquire? Just a diode pumped, solid state laser, I think. Is this unique? No. Is it better than the competition? Probably not. Is it less expensive than the competition? Definitely not: one of the major drawbacks of DPSS is its cost. Is it important in some other way? Definitely, it can be a successful product, but do you remember the story? How long has BriteLight been in the story? Do you see any of that story becoming reality? Brightlight is already a reality (microlight 1000). Some of these questions can be better answered by others more technical than I. Anyone? *Ninth, what part of BriteLight did JMAR invent? Do you know what is proprietary about it? What is protected?* Again, someone more techical can answer this. But JMAR does have patent protection of its brightlight technology. I believe that Brightlight is a JMAR only product. Tenth, if the JMAR story is so hard to follow to date, why do you all have any confidence in the story for the future? And, if the story has been so "interesting" around Cal ASIC, LightKnife, and BriteLight, then what makes you think you understand what JMAR is really doing with XRL? What is so hard to follow? I like and am confident in JMAR because over the last 3 years they have definitely turned the company around from an R&D company losing money, to one making money with increasing sales. The balance sheet is in much better shape, and they continue to get scarce military research dollars for XRL. I also have one overriding concern about this company and its stock, and would appreciate some insight from the rest of you. Optical lithography will be pushed well below 0.13 um, perhaps as far as 0.07. This is occurring now, and will leverage existing fab's well into the future. The 300 mm fab lines being started are not XRL, nor are they likely to be. It seems to me that technical necessity and economic viability of XRL is 10 years away. Is this correct? If not, what am I missing? You are not correct. Next year JMAR is supposed to have a prototype XRL point source integrated with a stepper. From my understanding XRL should be cheaper and simpler than Optical in this range of size. Read this press release from JMAR. It explains everything: jmar.com This quote from a recent release sums up one of the reasons that I look forward to JMAR: Dr. Martinez explained, "As these and JMAR's other developing products begin to enter their respective markets, we expect them to gradually increase the size of our markets from the $110 million per year that we estimate is available to us today to several billion dollars per year within the next few years." --Bilberry

To: Falstaff who wrote (6521)	9/4/1998 11:36:00 PM
From: brent gephart	Respond to of 9695

I feel that other have answered most of your questions by now. A lot of your questions have also been asked and answered many, many times over the last two years of this thread. Especially when considering all of the extra reading that we have all done in the form of articles that have been posted to the thread about Jmar and other companies technology. The word "Illocution" is not a word nor the word that I used. I used the word "Illocutionary." Illocutionary - adj - [2in- + locution]: relating to or being the communicative effect of an utterance. Next time ill just stick with "semantic", ho humm. Brent