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: Allen Bucholski who wrote (2657)	11/18/1998 3:20:00 PM
From: Allen Bucholski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8393

I want to thank E Haiken on his post on the Spectrum IEEE magazine. Sorry about some spelling on last post. I in a panic into posting before I could finish spelling corrections. I didn't want to type it all out again. I am just one horrible speller. On TV Tuesday re-runs I heard some of the environment people of current U.S. government. How much the fossil fuel industry is helped by the government (I wish I now could remember the number but I think it was over 100 billion dollars a year. Only about 10% of the amount whatever it was is being used to help environment industry's. (It should be the other way around.) The poor performance on the U.S. Auto industry was discussed on environment EV progress. The Japanese car maker of prius is coming on with production sales. It is going after market share. The GM or American prototypes are to come out in 2001. In the International car market it was express it could be very costly for U.S. market share. I wish I would have that segment on video tape. So I could quote from it. Allen

To: Allen Bucholski who wrote (2657)	11/18/1998 6:13:00 PM
From: Frank Haims	Respond to of 8393

Allen I didn't get to hear the conference call, your post really picked up my spirits about the company. That information can't be gleaned from the published reports, and it makes a world of difference. Thanks Frank

To: Allen Bucholski who wrote (2657)	11/28/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Michael Latas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8393

Allen, it was stated that our 41 cents per share loss included a one-time matching two and a half million dollar investment ECD had to make with Canon in our solar plant. And if you took that into account our quarterly loss would have been exactly as predicted by James Meyer of Janny Montgomery. So, when you take that into account we continue to make progress in reducing our losses. Stempel did his best to emphasize that particular point. Our 10Q states that Sanyo's eight million dollars was to be paid within thirty days, so this money will arrive in our second quarter. This should enable us to show a profit for the current quarter, and with a little luck (depending how this money will be allocated), we could conceivably show a profit for the first half of the year. Now, certainly everybody realizes that will not be sufficient for ECD to show a profit for the year. We would need additional license fees, which is still possible. In my personal opinion, the comments Stan made in response to the question regarding our current status of our memory technology as it would relate to a future revenue stream and in relation to our continued investing could be significant. Stan stated our investment consisted of really nothing more than a "skunkworks" operation. As you will recall, Stan stated "the Flash market was currently at nine billion dollars and growing, profitable." And he continued; "No one could touch us as becoming the leader in Flash technology." Stan had a rather difficult time restraining himself from answering the question more fully. Stempel responded to a question regarding the status of our forthcoming 25MW plant by stating "we were actively pursuing financing." I personally believe there is more to it than that. As it would relate to cost of our solar panels the thickness of our stainless steel substrate is a big factor. Del Kroupa raised that exact question regarding the cost and thickness of our stainless steel during a solar plant tour. The answer he was given was that yes indeed this cost could be reduced if we could place a much larger order for a custom-rolled thinner substrate. Unfortunately, we had a way to go before we could reach that volume. Someone commented on our "one mil" thickness super-thin lightweight solar panels for satellites and telecommunications. And, if that is the case you can't get much thinner than that, from a functional or a cost standpoint. Secondly it was further stated that the Russians had been developing a process for increasing the throughput for vacuum deposition of the thin film that is coated on the stainless steel substrate by at least three-fold (?). This advanced speed throughput along with the super thin substrate stainless steel would be two very major cost savers. And, last but not least, higher volumes will contribute to lower costs. These issues may be delaying the new proposed 25 MW plant, because the production plant would be different from our present technology. Regards.