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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3433)	3/11/1999 1:43:00 AM
From: zonadona	Respond to of 8117

Thank you David Johnson for taking the time to keep us informed. It is sincerely appreciated. And thanks to everyone who has posted these past few days -- it has been stimulating and worthwhile. I agree, there are some very fine folks contributing to this dialogue. I'm sorry that I can't contribute any new information about the development of the FAST1 or the gyrations of the stock price; but I can join in heartily with the consensus that this saga will have a happy ending for all concerned -- PYNG personnel, shareholders, and trauma victims worldwide. Thanks everyone !

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3433)	3/11/1999 2:26:00 AM
From: Barry Moss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Hi David, Your contribution here is greatly appreciated. I have no doubt that the FAST1 is a great product. But as a shareholder, my biggest concern is time to market, partly because the affects my share value and also partly because I've seen products in other industries lose out to an inferior competitor because they were late to market. Most of the companies I invest in are established technology firms where I can gauge their performance based on quarterly and annual returns vs. the projections of management and their guidance to analysts. Pyng is a little different since its main product isn't producing significant revenue. So the only way I can gauge performance is vs. execution to schedule. Based on Pyng's press releases and Micheal Jacobs postings here, I've made some overly optimistic estimates regarding that schedule. (Based on recent postings, it looks like some other people did the same). So now I'd like to have a realistic, perhaps even conservative schedule estimate for the completion of field trials, time to make modifications (after the number of trials already completed you must have a pretty good idea about what features if any need to be revised), and finally time to ramp to volume production (assuming orders follow the field trials). Obviously there are some schedule details that you can't or may not wish to predict (when the US military reports will be released, when the first orders will come in, etc.) but I believe the data I have requested lies in the realm of data under Pyng's control or for which a simple linear interpolation can provide a reasonable estimate. Armed with this information, we can make intelligent decisions about our current and potential future investments in Pyng, we can also then gauge the companies performance to some objective data, something which has been very difficult to do so far. Warmest regards, Barry Moss

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3433)	3/11/1999 9:18:00 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Respond to of 8117

Thank you. Dr. Johnson I had always wondered what your take on things was. I especially appreciate your explanation about how the quoted access time of the BIG can not directly be compared to the access time of the FAST 1. And I would like to add that in my opinion it appears the the BIG will require more extensive training because its depth control is so crude i.e. controlled by extending and retracting the barrel based on the peripheral site chosen (wrist, humerous, tibia, or ankle). Since depth control is built into the FAST 1 and it is only used in one site the EMT has does not have to adjust the depth therefore less extensive training is required. To echo Barry's comments I think that some conservative time frames for completion of testing, time to complete final design and initiate mass production are all that is needed to relieve the frustration. Obviously the timeframe has changed over the past year as progress was made, which is to be expected with a completely new device. We all know that Mr. Jacobs and everyone at Pyng have many balls in the air and work your tails off to insure that the FAST 1 is as good as it can be and properly tested to facilitate its acceptance by the conservative medical community. Again thanks for your post and I look forward to your future input.