SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Futurist who wrote (2447)10/13/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: Michael Stavy  Respond to of 8393
 
Interesting research projects.

The NiMH battery is really a closed hydrogen system that uses the same hydrogen atoms over and over again. The system described will use produce hydrogen from the water and then release the hydrogen into the atmosphere to generate electricity.

My questions are as an investor. What are the profit margins on these cost sharing projects?

If we assume that there are no profit margins, but patents and trade secrets will be generated for ECD, has ECD created a cash reserve fund as part of the cost sharing so that ECD can protect a future income stream that will come from royalties and direct manufacturing. Otherwise ECD will be in the same situation in the future that it is in now.

If it is not reasonable to expect an income stream from this project, is it reasonable for the stockholders to finance this project with a cost sharing proposal (even thought it is a wonderful technological project and it hurts my environmental sensibilities to bring this up). I am a shareholder of ECD and not a donor to a non-for-profit research foundation. Lenders (and leasing companies) to ECD are creditors of ECD and also are not donors to a non-for-profit research foundation.

Donations to a non-for-profit research foundation, would I believe, be deductible to the donator. Capital losses are also deductible to the ECD Investor but most investors who have invested in ECD have done so for the technology and its possible positive effect on global warming and not to get a tax loss.

Michael