Yep.

AMSilk starts worldwide distribution... production now at a point where we can supply...

http://www.amsilk.com/en/news/article-view/article/amsilk-starts-worldwide-distribution-of-spidersilk.html

http://spidersilk.info/

I wish I were able to be more of an optimist on the time line...

I do think it should be easy enough to begin being more of an optimist about the share price in 2014... even only given a chance there will be a bit of evidence of progress occurring, that begins to show that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and a predictable enough path that you can perhaps begin to expect to get there if they are able to keep the effort on the rails.

I suspect I'm probably mostly right on the time line issues as far as the project development effort itself...

I'm much less certain on the time line in terms of the market.

How the market chooses to risk the investment might change ?

Oddly, I think the more patient approach proves greater certainty and not less... which sets up a longer term market competition between different factors in the risks... certainly between time value of money and the outside risks in conflict.

I think its a lot easier to judge the probable "physical" time line elements than it is changing market perception of risk versus value... over time... as that sort of change occurs.

I'd not think that a win in arbitration that provides moral authority to back the FEP position... will hurt market perception. The practical significance of that... is likely to be different than the potential impact of market perception in share prices.

Me being optimistic ?

There are two primary ways to improve materials...

First, improving the chemistry... which KBLB and AMSilk each do in basically the same way, only with different inherent limits given different processing constraints.

Second, improving the processing... which AMSilk can do, and KBLB can't.

Process improvement is by far the most relevant commercially... both in terms of thresholds in relevance, and in terms of commercial viability based on competitive advantage.

Any time I can see a comparable or better product being made for less $ and effort, while sustaining a faster pace in generational improvement... I'll pick that as the winner.

I think that's incorrect on a couple of different levels.

The first and by far the most critical error is that KBLB and AMSilk are on vastly different curves, as they have vastly different approaches with different limits. It's the nature and structure of the limits that matters most, in the long term. KBLB has fewer producibility limits up front (worms make silk)... and huge limits at the tail, tied to permanently longer lead times and major costs with vastly less benefit in potential. AMSilk has major producibility limits up front (which they appear to have succeeded in overcoming now in a first generation tech) and they have virtually none of the limits KBLB has as tail risks, with a wide open field enabling innovation in doing things with materials in a competition that KBLB can't ever hope to participate in.

Then, for anyone who's been following this for a while, it's pretty hard to be convincing while flogging the incorrect concept that KBLB isn't pretty well behind on the effort being made following their own curve. To remain relevant, KBLB needed to be where they are now... three or four years ago. I don't think the delay they've experienced over the last year should be ignored. It clearly highlights ongoing process risks some would prefer to ignore, even as they're realized... but, the bigger issue being highlighted, by far, is the element in the organizational risks versus the technical. KBLB clearly is challenged in the truthiness department... while more focused on promoting the stock than improving their competitive position. Red flags abound.

Looking beyond the technical aspects, KBLB is vastly less limited by the natural limits in the technology... than they are by the range of problems apparent in the management of the effort.

But, the primary issue in the competition itself is that the KBLB curve has very significant limits in potential that result from the vastly larger fixed limits inherent in the natural production systems versus the artificial... which mean KBLB's products will never be capable of exceeding the performance attained at that limit... which is a limit reached by KBLB at the point where the AMSilk curve is just beginning. AMSilk's entering argument... begins with solving the problems that are the source of KBLB's limits. And, AMSilk is there... now. AMSilk will be slower to develop, at first, given the first tier technical challenges in the artificial spinning process... but, then, AMSilk will accelerate... while KBLB remains mired in the slog you've seen them muddling through for the last three years plus.

Vastly different trajectories... vastly different potentials.

I agree with others who are noting that KBLB, with a better effort in management, and a more significant success than they've shown capable of managing thus far in adapting the effort to market requirements, might hope to eventually carve out a market niche in providing fiber for the garment industry... and that's about it. That focus basically limits their potential to being a niche player within the already established silk industry. But, the effort you see that is being made... applies additional limits. Being a niche provider or even top dog among existing silk producers... is not the goal that drives the scientific and big market interest in silk as an engineered technical fiber...

What Wall Street is looking for... is the curve that begins where KBLB's curve ends...

The limits inherent in the not yet ready for prime time KBLB management effort... has prevented KBLB from ever becoming more relevant than they are now.

That's probably why you see more evidence they're gearing up for promotion... than you can see evidence that they're gearing up for production...

"Kite string and cotton thread are comparable in tensile strength to spidersilk"

That's completely wrong. Not even close. Tensile strength is measured as a function of variation in material density. What you're probably talking about is "tenacity"... which we're not talking about for a reason, when making comparisons between the properties inherent in different materials.

It is interesting to note, still that ALL "natural" fibers will tend to have significant "natural" variation in them, and that includes silk produced by spiders and silk worms... which varies for all kinds of reasons.

While you're learning what tensile strength is... and something about testing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensile_strength

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D1294.htm

You might pay attention to the note, and its reference: "^c The strength of spider silk is highly variable. It depends on many factors including kind of silk (Every spider can produce several for sundry purposes.), species, age of silk, temperature, humidity, swiftness at which stress is applied during testing, length stress is applied, and way the silk is gathered (forced silking or natural spinning).[32] The value shown in the table, 1000 MPa, is roughly representative of the results from a few studies involving several different species of spider however specific results varied greatly.[33]"

One of the key competitive advantages that artificially manufactured fibers have... is that they can be produced in controlled environments that tend to reduce or eliminate the sources of variation... leading to much better control over the properties of things you make... compared to things made by worms and spiders.

An artificial spinning process you control... is always going to give better and more uniform results than a natural process that is subjected to all kinds of sources of natural variation...

AMSilk has the right focus...

KBLB... is trying to improve on the buggy whip...

I think it's expected, given they basically said they were taking this entire year off...

Don't know how long the arbitration will take... and don't expect it will be likely provide any real value, even with a hands down win (which is reasonable to expect), given the lack of any enforcement mechanism. Winning a judgment is one thing. Enforcing it is another. But, it will matter to have the issue decided on the merits, and the moral backing it provides will resolve a couple of issues that probably won't be able to be resolved as easily without it.

Not fast... is a reasonable enough guess.

I also think it will probably take a while for the PI to get their military capabilities up to par, to the level where you might expect them to be able to succeed in defending themselves... by themselves. I think they are focused on getting there... and will succeed given the time... but, it will take time.

Those are risk factors... where time is on their side, given they are aware of the situation, and doing enough of what they need to do. The timing... is still the key issue. I doubt it will be the investment at risk that will drive timing, rather than timing in those other things that will smooth the path well enough... in time.

This is going to require a lot of patience, still.

I think you'll need to see them in a position to be able to proceed with and follow through on their exploration efforts... before you can expect to see the stock moving.

It won't be this year, we know.

I don't think that will be next year, either...

I do think you'll see them in position to make a decision and act on it, well before Malampaya runs dry... and that's probably the timing you should be considering, since it seems that's the way the government is considering it.

From an investors perspective, the risk of doing nothing is much larger than the risk of China doing something that they probably shouldn't... including even that realizing the risk will be a thing that tends to provide its own solutions... which is not me suggesting they should move any more quickly than makes sense.

Nothing will happen prior to the arbitration being completed...

Once that's done... nothing will happen until they're ready for it to happen...

And, then, it will be the next year... since it takes that much time to arrange all the things that need arranging, and get it all lined up for the right time to get it done...

So, I'll call it... maybe planning for drilling in 2016...

There are already valid methods of testing fibers.

I provided you with a link to the source.

That AMSilk are reporting the tensile strength of their fibers... says they've been tested...

Meanwhile, the PNAS article doesn't make most of the claims being attributed to it here...

It's on line and easy enough to reference:
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/923.full?sid=92e9ad65-cd0a-4a8f-ad25-a2c2d2329f28

Highlights include:

"The mechanical properties of the composite silks from the transgenic animals were more variable than those of the parental fibers, and the composite fibers from two different spider 6-GFP lines had similar extensibilities, but different tensile strengths. This variation in the mechanical properties of composite silk fibers within an individual transgenic line and among different lines probably reflects heterogeneity in the fibers due to differences in chimeric silkworm/spider silk protein ratios and/or the localization of these proteins along the fiber."

Further, the claim that "Furthermore, these best-case measurements showed that the composite fiber from spider 6-GFP, line 4, was tougher than the native spider dragline silk fiber tested under identical conditions." appears it is NOT properly validated by their own presentation of the data: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/923/F4.small.gif


The abstract probably encapsulates the issues with the FOCUS in the first two lines: "The development of a spider silk-manufacturing process is of great interest. However, there are serious problems with natural manufacturing through spider farming, and standard recombinant protein production platforms have provided limited progress due to their inability to assemble spider silk proteins into fibers."

I will grant that KBLB's approach is probably superior to an approach focused on trying to start ranching spiders. I'd be surprised if anyone other than academics were ever going to consider that as being a valid point of comparison in methods.

The issue with the second part "standard recombinant protein production platforms have provided limited progress due to their inability to assemble spider silk proteins into fibers"... is what AMSilk has just proved wrong... by showing they can spin fibers from precursors.

AMSilk's recent announcement... blows the PNAS articles premises out of the water... as "inability to assemble spider silk proteins into fibers"... is now wrong.

The ABILITY to assemble spider silk proteins into fibers... has now been proven... and that changes everything.

LOL!!!

Amazon is out of stock... but it's only $441 on sale, while CRC has it, but it costs $442. Bottom line is that it was published in 1993, so its already pretty significantly out of date, but, the CRC intro probably says all that most people would care to know anyway, while pointing out that the CBMM's "secrets" aren't all THAT secret... if you've got $444 to spend on getting them:

Addresses all aspects of niobium from its properties and applications to refining and consolidation

Uses many diagrams, photographs, flowcharts, graphs, and tables to illustrate key concepts and data

Provides an extensive reference list

Includes a fascinating summary of the long journey niobium travels from its initial removal from the earth's crust to its finished form

Summary
The growth and development witnessed today in modern science, engineering, and technology owes a heavy debt to the rare, refractory, and reactive metals group, of which niobium is a member. Extractive Metallurgy of Niobium presents a vivid account of the metal through its comprehensive discussions of properties and applications, resources and resource processing, chemical processing and compound preparation, metal extraction, and refining and consolidation. Typical flow sheets adopted in some leading niobium-producing countries for the beneficiation of various niobium sources are presented, and various chemical processes for producing pure forms of niobium intermediates such as chloride, fluoride, and oxide are discussed. The book also explains how to liberate the metal from its intermediates and describes the physico-chemical principles involved. It is an excellent reference for chemical metallurgists, hydrometallurgists, extraction and process metallurgists, and minerals processors. It is also valuable to a wide variety of scientists, engineers, technologists, and students interested in the topic.

Table of Contents
Properties and Applications of Niobium: Introduction. Historical: Discovery, Early Developments, Recent Trends. Properties: Physical Properties, Chemical Properties, Metallurgical Properties. Applications: Niobium in Steels, Cast Irons, Niobium in Superalloys, Niobium in Zirconium Alloys, Niobium in Superconducting Alloys, Niobium in Chemical Process Industry, Niobium Compounds, Miscellaneous. Summary. Sources and Their Treatment Procedures: Introduction. Crustal Abundance. Minerals: General, Geochemistry, Niobium Mineralization. Sources and Reserves: General, Types of Sources, Reserves, Major Deposits. Ore Extraction: General, Mining, Comminution, Concentration. Major Production Practices: Pyrochlore, Niobium with Other Minerals. Summary. Chemical Processing: Introduction. Primary and Secondary Sources: General, Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Source Opening, Niobium and Tantalum Separation Processes, Primary Sources Processing, Secondary Sources Processing. Pollution Aspects in Chemical Processing. Compounds: General, Oxides, Chlorides and Fluorides, Carbides, Hydrides, Nitrides, Borides, Silicides. Summary. Reduction Processes: Introduction. Oxide Reduction Processes: General, Metallothermics, Carbothermics. Chloride Reduction Processes: General, Active Metal Reduction, Non Metal Reduction, Disproportionation and Decomposition. Fluoride Reduction Processes: General, Sodiothermic Process. Electrolytic Reduction Processes. Nitride Decomposition Process: General, Process Description. Miscellaneous Processes: Ferroniobium, Niobium Alloys, Niobium Carbide. Summary. Purification and Consolidation: Introduction: General, Impurities in Niobium. Purification Techniques: Classification of Purification Techniques, Pyrovacuum Treatment, Electrorefining, Iodide Refining, Zone Refining, Electrotransport, Chemical Gettering. Consolidation: Vacuum Sintering, Vacuum Arc Melting, Electron Beam Melting. Summary. Autobiography: Introduction. Chemistry. Mineralogy and Geology. Occurrences. Front End Processes. Back End Processes. Uses and Markets. Conclusion.

I provided that proof in the prior post... in spite of the obviousness of it.

"It is just a FACT that manufacturing processes, once reduced to practice, CAN be improved over time."

That leaves you claiming the opposite... and needing to prove it... while showing how KBLB are going to train their worms to control the things you can control with a manufacturing process.

I'd not bet too much... on proving manufacturing processes are less uniform than natural processes, or that they are less able to have improvements engineered into them than natural processes... or that KBLB will have much success getting silk worms to learn to improve or better regulate their process.

The process engineers and chemists... have the benefit of access to everything the spiders and worms can teach them... without having the limit of being bound to using only what they use.

The artificial processes WILL happen... they will succeed... and really ALL we're discussing, is the timing factor... in HOW LONG it will take, now that the harder parts have all been figured out.

There are people already working on engineering new fibers with properties superior to the natural fibers... using the METHODS and CONCEPTS spiders use, without necessarily requiring the same chemicals as inputs or the same process that spiders use.

The obstacles that exist to making them... aren't in the ability of the scientists to do the work in design of the chemistry... rather than in the integration of chemistry with an enabling production process.

Spinning fibers... isn't simple... even though its done every day with polymers made of things other than self assembling and repeating protein units.

Spinning fibers the way spiders do... is harder and more complex than just extruding a polymer melt... but it is the complexity of the PROCESS that occurs, and not the complexity of the CHEMISTRY that is a process limit.

Cotton has the tensile strength of cotton.

It's not close to silk.

Real bamboo fiber is much stronger and tougher than cotton (while most "bamboo" in the market is actually rayon).

Silk beats bamboo.

You can compare anything... as long as you can come up with a valid method of testing. Sometimes that's pretty hard, which is why there ARE testing standards for things common in commerce.

However, in spite of your claim it does, the tensile strength of cotton fiber just isn't mentioned on that page that I gave you the link to. I was aware of that when I gave you the link. Carbon fiber is different than cotton fiber, even though cotton fiber is largely made of carbon... so perhaps that's the source of confusion ?

The most impressive fiber I've seen... was one that was so tiny you couldn't even see it... but it was still strong enough that when you were holding it... you couldn't break it just by pulling your hands apart... without adding a "snapping" motion. It was flexible, too, to a point, but, it was pretty stiff and brittle.

You'll generally have a much harder time breaking a silk thread than a cotton thread... even if the cotton thread is much thicker.

Silk is stronger.

Artificially spun silk... will be stronger than naturally spun silk... mostly because it will be composed of fibers that are more uniformly made... and the process is both better able to be controlled, and capable of being improved... when you're just not going to have very much luck trying to teach the worms to do better than they do now...

"That is a lie straight from the CEO of amsilk."

No. "Amsilk has silk that CAN be improved over time to EXCEED the qualities of the natural product" is a FACT that you got straight from me.

The limits that apply in artificial spinning of silk... are inherent in the limits of reducing the spinning process to practice... not inherent as limits in the process chemistry, or in FIXED limits in the natural production systems.

It is just a FACT that manufacturing processes, once reduced to practice, CAN be improved over time.

And, that WILL happen... now that they have succeeded in making a functional process... and the new article says they're proceeding now to do that...

The quote from the other article is: "This SUGGESTS that any other foreign protein fused into modified H-chain protein will be produced consistently with its native structure and will bring its native characteristics to the silk fiber of the transgenic silkworm."

They did it once, and assume it will work again with anything else they try... and what the quote is addressing... are the properties of the specific PROTEIN and not the properties of the composite fiber as a whole. Once you've made a lego block... it's probably not going to change much. That doesn't mean everything you put it in... will do what you want... just because the lego didn't change.

Yours says "The quote clearly states that A spider protein fused into the silkworm at that point will produce consistent silk with native spider characteristics."

That's incorrect. It says it will reproduce the proteins properly and incorporate them into the fibers. It doesn't address the consistency (or not) of the resulting fibers... which DO have a very wide range of variation... naturally.

"PNAS article doesnt suggest it they prove it".

IF the article provided that proof (which it can't possibly begin to provide)... they'd have said "proof." Clearly a single instance with a success reported in incorporating one protein... cannot be accepted as a "proof" that all proteins there are will work in the same way. The article says what it does correctly.

It doesn't say what you are trying to make it say.

Horses and donkeys do breed to make mules... so, there is "an instance" where one success occurred... which doesn't mean rabbits and eagles would make... whatever that would be. One success is not "proof" of every case.

All that proves... is that some people will take what others see properly as suggestions... out of context... and accept them as proofs... if that serves their purpose.

Otherwise, the PNAS article DID NOT ADDRESS the range of fiber variation issues that the AMSilk review article DID ADDRESS, rather than address the narrow issue of consistency IN THE PROTEIN seen with the incorporation of one protein...

That's not a proof that variation in fibers doesn't exist and doesn't matter.

It IS a proof, instead, that KBLB isn't being honest... by failing in addressing honestly those issues that only others are pointing out, while claiming that article means they don't have to...

I'll go with the word of the CEO who's not lying about the science... over the word of the CEO who is.

Now all you need to do is find ANYONE in the market who cares about their "best case measurements" when doing acceptance testing.

"Technical fibers/textiles, imo, are out of reach for KBLB."

I agree.

You can't expect to make "technical" fibers from a natural process.

The whole point of "technical" fibers... is gaining the element of engineering precision sufficient to AVOID the variation that is unavoidable when you use natural production methods.

No matter what you do, you will NEVER get chickens to make eggs that are identical. Chickens will NEVER make eggs that are as uniformly made as those you can mass produce by molding them out of plastic. If the objective is to eat the eggs and enjoy them... the minor variation in the chicken produce won't matter, eggs are easily sorted by size at a level that's "good enough" to differentiate grades for the market, and I'd still go with the chickens. If the objective is use uniform physical properties in materials, to engineer the uniformity of the material into a uniformity of performance in something you want to make from the material... I'd go with the eggs from the manufacturing process.

When there is variation... and a lot of it... there's a lot of work to do in sorting, testing, and baselining... so that you can determine minimum performance standards. Those things are all incorporated already into risking the variables in the manufacturing process of an engineered fiber. You still have to test the fibers, but, you know what an engineered fiber will give you if properly made, and you don't have the same RANDOM risk in "natural" variation that you don't control.

Worm butts will never give you that... any more than chicken butts will be able to.

If you're going to build me a bullet proof vest out of kevlar... I'm fairly confident in the engineering of the material and its testing... so I know how its likely to perform... and can trust it will perform to spec.

If you're going to build me a bullet proof vest out of silk... I'm not going to have a similar degree of confidence in the quality and testing being done by the lowest bidder willing to provide the fiber... while random variation can easily enough make the vest I get be the one that falls outside the average.

A bit of variation in the silk fiber in my shirt... just proves its "natural" and it becomes a marketing benefit.

The same variation in the silk in that bullet proof vest... and it will fail and the user will die... if, say, there was a cold, cloudy day during the period the silk was being made, when the worms didn't get fed properly... and all the fibers made in that period have a weak "kink"...

The same variation that is acceptable and even undetectable in a shirt... will cause an America's Cup yachts' laminates to fail... and having a similar delamination and engineering failure occur in the fuselage of the 787 you're flying in... means that what's plenty good enough in garment quality material, just isn't good enough in engineering terms.

Yes. That's still the description of the PROBLEM that the Amsilk survey article addressed... which KBLB is ignoring.

That a protein is "produced consistently with its native structure" and "will bring its native characteristics to the silk fiber"... doesn't address the issue. It just means you can put spider silk proteins into the mix... which they did with one protein, and used that to SUGGEST it would work with all others.

That I can expect the spider protein (link of chain) to be formed into the proper shape by the gene, and that it will "bring its native characteristics to the silk fiber" doesn't alter the FACT that... it's still just an isolated island of a bit of spider silk protein, floating in a sea of silk worm silk (or rubber bands).

Get enough links of chain incorporated in your chain of rubber bands, and it will improve its performance versus just rubber bands... but it will never match a chain made of chain links.

There is an INHERENT lack of fiber uniformity that results when you take that approach to "including bits of this other stuff" in an existing matrix... which isn't exactly a new issue in composite fiber manufacture.

You are incorrect in the rest...

Amsilk says they are making fibers whose "tensile strength is comparable to that of natural spider silk"... and I have no reason to doubt that is true, given they've proven (unlike KBLB) that I CAN TRUST what they say...

KBLB is NOT making fibers comparable to natural spider silk.

KBLB claims to be making fibers even as you say "superior to silkworm silk"...

But, "superior to silk worm silk"... with natural limits that mean it can't ever be improved to "comparable to that of natural spider silk" just isn't as good as fibers whose "tensile strength is comparable to that of natural spider silk" that can be improved over time to EXCEED the qualities of the natural product.

Exactly what I predicted would happen given the different trajectories in the tech development efforts... HAS happened...

AMSilk is winning this competition... hands down...

Turned out that the zinc finger they got... was the middle one ?

The problem is clear enough... given the year of delay we've endured, from the prior generation that failed the last time they said they were "ramping up production", to the current one that they hope won't fail... while again saying they're "ramping up production"... just like last time.

Even assuming that they're able to "ramp up" this time without experiencing the same or similar failure as they had last year...

EVERY time they want to make any change... they have to do the same thing all over again... and until there is a whole new population created, that survives, and succeeds in munching down the worm chow on a large scale ? You're ALWAYS stuck in that endlessly repeating loop. Every new fiber will take years from proof of concept to implementation... for the same reason.

When Amsilk figures out a new chemistry... they turn on the machine and make the new fiber... and keep making the fiber until they turn the machine off. They'll produce it on demand... and with massively shorter lead times tied to SCALABLE fermentation organism life cycles, and not a silk worm's longer cycles.

And then... AMSilk won't have to operate a worm ranch... or undertake the labor to grow, harvest and process fiber one cocoon at a time... instead of producing as much as they want, in a single continuous strand, on demand.

When KBLB figures out something they want to do... a year later they're "ramping up" and hoping it will take... and then still have some long lag period before the new worms can produce fibers in numbers enough to matter... etc, etc.

KBLB is PERMANENTLY behind... already... and forever...

AMSilk can spin a fiber... and KBLB can't.

AMSilk can put new concepts into production rapidly... KBLB can't.

AMSilk can make SPIDER SILK from nothing but spider proteins... and KBLB makes worm silk with some variable amount of spider protein in it... depending on what the worms feel like.

AMSilk can make consistently uniform continuous fibers engineered to a uniform property, repeatedly... on demand... and KBLB can't.

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH:

"AMSilk, a spin-off of the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM), has produced the world's first artificial silk fiber that is entirely made of recombinant spider silk proteins. The fiber’s tensile strength is comparable to that of natural spider silk, which led to the name Biosteel. "

http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/textile-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=122235

"The thing that is glaringly absent from this Amsilk announcement is any mention of the physical properties of their goo-fiber."

It's right there in the first paragraph: "The fiber’s tensile strength is comparable to that of natural spider silk"...

The challenge in artificial production is NOT the chemistry of the variation in the proteins, but the physical aspect of duplication of the spinning process. AMSilk can engineer fibers that are designed to exceed spider silk properties... as long as they can produce the precursors, figure out the chemistry of assembly, and integrate that with the spinning process. That they've done that well enough already to be able to spin ANY fiber based on spider derived proteins... is BIG news. They've done the hard part.

The obstacles that KBLB has... in integrating the inter-specific proteins... are not obstacles for AMSilk.

AMSilk CAN spin an oriented fiber... which KBLB can't...

AMSilk will now begin effort focused on optimizing that thing... which KBLB can't do...

So, it's looking like I was correct... that AMSilk's only beginning their competition... and will proceed from a first result in a product having the properties KBLB seeks to duplicate... but hasn't yet.

I wouldn't say "it's over" yet...

But, you can see the fat lady warming up, over there...

"an outline for industrial revolution in the state over the next 25 years"

Seems about right.

Go KBLB.

The quote validates the PROBLEM...

"chimeric silkworm/spider silk proteins"... that produce "composite silk fibers"...

It says exactly what I did... that they have fibers formed from mixing silkworm and spider proteins... that produce a mixture... or a composite... only they're saying it with a positive spin that avoids addressing known problems.

The mixture is "stronger than the silkworm silk" as we know, and as you would expect from adding the spider silk proteins to the mix.

That doesn't begin to address the issue with a resulting lack of uniformity and variation in strength within a fiber... when uniformity and consistent strength are important factors you consider in the utility of any fiber, along with consistent repeat-ability in the production of fibers with some demonstrated uniformity between them.

There's nothing wrong with KBLB being happy with progress that has them "doing things that have never been done before"... which doesn't mean that accomplishing what they have... pushes them past any threshold that will matter to potential customers any time soon. Being pleased with reaching a milestone... isn't justification for misrepresenting the likely market impact of having it be reached.

It's the weakest link that matters... so having a tougher chain than the other guy... when the tougher links if spider protein are still being linked together with rubber bands... doesn't mean customers will focus on the toughness of the best links in the chain... rather than the impact resulting from having rubber bands connecting them as the limiting factor in application.

It will be the variation in the fibers that matters...

"Reality is that they are making silk now and they were making eggs then."

That is an exact duplication of the exact same misrepresentation from a year ago...

The PR they just put out... makes it perfectly clear.

The company now claims only to be making "more worms" not silk.

And, that's exactly where they were a year ago... only with a new generation of worms, after the prior generation got to this same point and then flopped.

"I do not remember anyone thinking they were making silk a year ago."

LOL!!! Look back at the posts from a year ago ? A year ago the thinking was that they were already profitable... because the "ramping up of production" meant massive volumes of silk being produced.

Being far more realistic, I recognized that as total BS...

I was right, of course...

They weren't producing silk... and they weren't profitable... inspite of all those who were then "thinking" that they must be.

AMSilk has had problems... and been honest about it.

KBLB has had problems... and have been dishonest about it... including STILL denying that there are any.

Exactly...

What they previously stated about "production"... was disproved.

Now, we're right back to where we were a year ago... with the new effort in misrepresenting "production" occurring.

It is totally dishonest for them to claim they're any farther ahead now... than they were a year ago.

They suffered a set back. It happens.

What they were doing wasn't working as expected.

Now, they're back roughly to where they were a year ago... and, this time, they're hoping things will go more smoothly...

But, despite your claim to the contrary, they don't have a product now... and CAN'T... at the stage where they're still just finding out if the current generation effort "works"...

The primary problem that reveals... is the lack of honesty.

So, claiming they WEREN'T saying, a year ago, that they were producing cocoons ? That's just wrong.

They've made changes from a year ago... and, each time they make changes like that, they're starting over again from scratch with a need to create a whole new population of GMO animals... which then have to be tested to determine viability, as well as the utility of what they might produce...

Yeah. And, they published the exact same story last year... making this the second printing ?

"The pilot program is only a month old and the pilot program is what is ahead of schedule."

That conflicts with the FACT in the SAME effort that they addressed last year... while claiming to be "ramping up production".

It is patently dishonest... to deny that they're now a year farther along... and are finally getting back to SAME POINT in the effort... where they were a year ago.

If there is no schedule... how can they be "ahead" of it ?

Just more of the same in KBLB's failure to consider how stupid it makes them look... to not ever bother with synchronizing what they say with the reality.

"You are comparing a task - the likes of which has never been done - to your imagination of how long such things should take."

As it happens, I have never imagined that they'd solve all of the problems they have... by this year. That they're still in full denial about the problems they do have... makes that a far more certain bet. I doubt they're on the cusp of resolving issues that they refuse to admit are problems.

A year ago... they said they were "ramping up production" ? Now, a year later... we're trying to reinvent that moment while pretending it hasn't happened before ?

People have been working on trying to figure out the problems which, when solved, will allow us to manufacture artificial silk... for a long time. I'm not the one who is claiming that there's been any major breakthroughs that enables commercial success, now ?

Those who ARE making those claims... bear the burden of proof. But, when you ask KBLB about proofs of simple things like... basic awareness of the market, or a plan that might enable establishing a based of production... what do you get ? Nothing but claims that others will gladly figure all that out for them, and do it for them... so KBLB doesn't need to know what they're doing ?

Thus far, KBLB has failed in providing any of that basic sort of proof that they're aware enough of their markets that they know what they're doing... and, worse, they've provided proofs that they're not being honest in addressing the nature of the challenges in the science, or in the competition.

FWIW... I'm the one pointing out... that they're not there yet... while not being deluded into thinking they are, and not being suckered in to "your imagination of how long such things should take."

LOL!!!

I've not claimed "birds can't fly". The issue is that KBLB are claiming they've suddenly discovered birds can fly, and claim they have somehow converted that awareness into a profit center. That's looking more and more like total hokum, of course.

Silk worms produce silk. Recombinant silk worms produce silk with a fraction of recombinant protein in it... which alters the properties of the fibers. The scientists have looked at it, and they've published scientific articles (referenced in the review I linked)... creating a literature which says that there are a couple of problems with the recombinant silk worm approach. Those problems that exist... are problems KBLB finds it useful to ignore... and worse... they're denying that problems exist while their competitors are only being honest about the reality.

But, the problems that exist are FACT.

KBLB ignoring what the science says the issues are... doesn't make them go away... and KBLB is made to look stupid, or worse, because they're in denial about what the problems are, instead of addressing them honestly. And, as has been my issue with KBLB since I became aware of it... the problems that exist aren't the problem... KBLB being dishonest about the existence of the problems... as their first knee jerk response... is the problem.

The articles pointed out a number of obvious problems...

First, inconsistencies in the random protein composition of fibers mixing variable fractions of worm silk and spider silk proteins, and assembly issues resulting from that random protein production, causing wide variation in fiber strength. Then, problems with assembly resulting from the lack of orientation during production, and the inability to orient fibers after they've been made.

The recombinant fibers being produced appear they are are not "spider silk"... rather than an inconsistent and amorphous mix of silk worm and spider silk proteins. That makes un-oriented and variable fibers that can be a bit stronger than "regular" silk worm silk in some portions, but not in others...

What that doesn't do... is make uniform and consistently strong fibers... rather than fibers that vary in strength. Think of the fiber as fishing string... that ranges between 2 pound test (silk worm silk) and 4 pound test (silk worm silk with some random spider protein in it)... when spider silk is 50 pound test, and what the competition is really focused on is on trying to duplicate what spiders do, to create a consistent 200 or 500 pound test line ?

The competition isn't limited to "duplicating" spider silk, rather than focused on learning what spiders do, and applying those lessons in figuring out how to make something much better. But, KBLB is stuck with limits that will prevent them from succeeding in duplicating the spiders efforts.

One issue... is that the mix of recombinant proteins in the fibers aren't consistent. Another... is that the fibers made are not able to be oriented, and thus are not capable of being made as strong as they should be.

To be strong like spider silk should be... the "building blocks" the fibers are made from need to be properly oriented... like lego blocks that are properly interconnected to provide strength... not like lego blocks that are randomly linked to others at odd angles, or just stacked on top of each other vertically. Strength in fibers, as strength in lego construction, comes from having all of the "parts" interlocking properly.

That happens for two reasons.

One is because the protein "parts" are designed to go together as they do in a way that has them "fit" properly. The other is because they are assembled properly.

The recombinant worms are making proteins in a mix that has them mixing tinker toys and lego blocks, not "fitting" things together properly... both because of variation in the amount of this versus that being produced, and because, even if the mix didn't vary too widely, the mix of this and that aren't optimized for fit.

Spider silk fibers are naturally adapted to have the spiders making protein "parts" in ratios that have them fit together properly, and then the spiders stretch the silk as they make it... which has the parts each being fitted properly into place. Spiders make the right components in the proper ratio, and then stretch their silks to get the components to fit, but silk worms don't do that.. and can't do that.

Similarly, you can put 6% beef protein in your tofu and try to market it by calling it "beef"... or "like" beef... while claiming it is just as good as natural beef... but... making the effort to say it, while ignoring the problems, still doesn't make that tofu into a steak.

Not my words. That's what the banks said in their filings.

I think the only reason the business in the U.S. is failing is because they're making it fail.

Good question.

For now, in limbo like everyone else...

On March 5th ? Who knows.

They've moved to take Canada out of the mix of the other assets.

How that works without a connection to the current parent, I don't know, but, I don't know how separate the businesses are now. Does Canada have the same dependence on corporate central as the rest, or is production separate ?

The bank has begun taking ownership of the Canadian operations away from CPIC.

The Canadian operations are the only thing they've previously identified as still having any value.

I don't think that's true... but, they obviously can make it be true enough given their control over management.

From a business perspective, it means CPIC will be losing the only portion of their business that is still viable and making money.

It remains to be seen how much debt will be eliminated with the "sale" or the "taking of collateral" they have planned. That will probably be a function of how much of the debt is proportionally allocated to the Canadian operations, and a function of what they determine is a proper price for the Canadian operations in valuing it as collateral. I think you'd have to be following the court filings in Canada to be on top of it... and it's not worth making that much of an effort to me.

"The program is designed to run in three stages, each launching in turn when the data from the previous stage indicates that the program is reaching its benchmarks. "

LOL!!!

"I dont think you can show me a single explaination on this board that didnt come from Kim. "

Fascinating.

It says the banks are proceeding with taking the Canadian operations away from CPIC based on a demand letter dated in February... while saying it's all legal like... and daring anyone to step up and say that its not.

They're hoping the method enables a "speak now or forever hold your peace" type moment that any judge will validate. They're publishing this to tell you that that's what they're doing while they're doing it... by telling you after the fact of having done it already, while delaying the effect of having done it. They've published that they already took that step by delivering the demand letter (which is a material event for CPIC... the effect of which is perhaps not properly noticed in the filing they made)... and then they also published that they're not enforcing it now during the period of the new forebearance...

They've provided an opportunity to object. If no one does anything, it probably proceeds and happens on or about 6 March. Basically, it's showing the banks acting as CPIC management while negotiating with themselves for you, acting for you as or in lieu of CPIC management, and taking CPIC apart one step at a time. Taking one step at a time, they're waiting to see what response they get from taking each new step they take, while going through the motions of trying to strip out any legal recourse anyone else might have to object to their takings as a practice of fraud, etc. As a matter of law, I think none of that really matters. If what they're doing is originally based in a planned fraud, then the steps they take trying to advance the effort to complete the larger fraud being practiced aren't valid, just because the individual steps might be legal, if seen outside the complete context. And that's still true, even if they do get a clueless court to rubber stamp the parts of their acts that are the minor component elements of completing a larger plan.

If there weren't risks like that already inherent in the scope of the mess this is and has become... they'd probably not have the need to go the lengths they have in generating the various layers of insulation while preparing it for the effort that will be made in unwinding it.

Only two things really relevant...

One is more theoretical... as if it can be shown that the basis of the overall effort being made in the "take down" of CPIC is fraudulent... then the effort made in trying to have the courts rubber stamp what they want to happen now doesn't actually have the intended effect. Instead, all that means is that a parallel practice of fraud on the courts eliminates the relevance of the statute of limitations. So, what the banks try to do is chop the effort up into more and smaller parts, and distribute them more widely between different jurisdictions... hoping no one will ever bother to reconstruct the "big picture" that's probably most accurate. A death by a thousand cuts... in which the courts have become the banks willing pawns, rather than law, or justice.

The other is more practical...

That is, that if no one does object, it doesn't really matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, fraudulent or not... it will proceed to happen, and it will be done as they want, and then we'll see what they choose to do with the rest of CPIC once they've removed "the value" from the rest of it that has no value.

I think they've drug this out about as far as they will, whatever the risks are.

CPIC's plight can be seen as broadly representative of the nature of the problems that do come associated with the concentration of capital and power in the banks that we have now. That CPIC is failing, and is failing in the WAY that it is... isn't just about a failed management having screwed up a perfectly viable business by running it into the ground after loading it up on debt, and still failing to address making any course corrections long after the need was made obvious. Instead, it's about a management who have coordinated a failure that results in the business ending up owned by the banks... before it will be allowed to be 'fixed'... while the management continues making choices that ensure it cannot survive, without being transferred to the banks ownership.

The old saw is that if you own the bank a little, they own you, and if you owe the bank a lot, you own the bank.

“If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.” Jean Paul Getty
http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/737161/jean-paul-getty/if-you-owe-the-bank-100-thats-your-problem-if-you

CPIC management arranged to owe the bank a lot... just shy of that $100 million threshold... but then CHOSE to surrender control to the banks... early on ? Should have been made clear then where this was going to end up. Should have become all the more clear as the bank continued growing their debt, faster. Whose interest was it, that was controlling the decisions that were made ?

My guess is... they don't care much about the cost of dragging it out. It's not their money that's at risk. They've already made the money on the deal. The "values" of things being considered in completion of the takedown aren't relevant in reality, and they'll still do what it takes to win, cover the cost, and not care what it costs... because its about "winning" and not about the value being at risk.

CPIC has had a fork stuck in it for a long time...

Now, they've started turning the fork... if slowly...

I quoted the CEO from the company's own website, and from SEC filings... discussing KBLB "ramping up production", and "accelerating production"... while he was working at making it abundantly clear that he was distinguishing between the effort made in "production" and that in ongoing R&D.

It was also made clear enough, at the time, that there was an effort being made in coordination of the messages... knowing they were being postured for consumption here.

Now, they're claiming to be "ahead of schedule" while trying to get back to where they said they were a year ago ?

It's not just dishonest, it's laughable in how dishonest it is.

They have not yet reached the point where they are "in production"

It doesn't matter how you slice the problem up...

They are not "ahead of schedule" when they're not yet back to where they SAID they were a year ago.

Silk worms can produce silk.

Not news.

That doesn't make KBLB a successful business.

And, it doesn't refute the literature pointing out the problems with their approach... which problems are not AMSilk's creation, but FACTS quoted in the articles, which are not AMSilk's publications, but peer reviewed articles they've quoted.

AMSilk was HONEST in referencing the scientific literature while conducting a survey of the field... that was equally as honest in addressing the issues they face in working on the approach they've taken, as it was in addressing problems that KBLB has found it convenient to not mention. It's only KBLB that dissembles about the FACTS... while denying there's any problems.

The references to the peer reviewed literature are included. Look them up. The effort in denial of the facts re the literature... is telling. If KBLB could refute the content... they would... but, since they can't ?

That leaves them instead opting to posture as "successfully refuting" arguments no one is bothering with making.

No one said you can't make recombinant worms... that also make silk.

KBLB is in denial about problems... just like they've always been.

And, KBLB hasn't ever admitted there WERE problems, much less proven they have overcome them, or devised a method for creating a product... that doesn't suffer from all of the weaknesses inherent in their approach.

The key issue there... is the dishonest approach.

Can you trust them ?

You can't trust them to be honest about the science.

You can't trust them to be honest about the problems.

You can't trust them to be honest... period.