When you evaluate the four basic elements of the AS process, there are two that you can do something about in reference to time, and two you likely can’t.
Room Set Up – likely can’t be improved upon very much. It takes a particular amount of time to set up and seal the room.
Dwell Time – the amount of time the trioxidane is in contact with the bacteria, virus, etc. has already been optimized by our doctors. If the guts of the science aren’t being altered, but simply the start to end cycle time, I don’t see that regulatory issues arise.
Charging Time – this is where the doctors have likely made the most improvement. The room needs to be at a specific range of temperature and relative humidity. Altering components in the AS unit to progress to the optimal ambient condition faster could be a Gen 2 improvement. Similarly, the doctors could incorporate faster ozone generators so as to improve the charging time.
Deconstruct time – the time it takes to break the ozone mixture down to the pre-charging ambient condition. Here too, the scrubbers may have been improved upon.
The idea that a Gen 2 machine may be able to act within a larger space would seem to be a low level priority given the idea previously stated that the current generation unit can be utilized in sequence and thereby expand the treated volume of area.
Thus far, whatever improvements have been made, have not been the tilting factor leading to sales. If and as matters progress, improved overall cycle times may or may not be a benefit relative to the competition. Based upon trial-dependent efficacy of HIA reduction rates and resultant protocols, such improvements may be more psychological than material. If, for example, the trials determine that using AS once a quarter for X minutes (a time that is Y minutes longer than the competition) to achieve log 6 kills compared to using the competition’s faster cycling machine at a higher utilization frequency and lower efficacy, then spending dollars and more time improving AS cycle times is likely not beneficial relative to getting trials started. Without having the trial data, one really can’t say that cycle times as such relate to work-flow disruption, etc. are material or not. What is the combination of cycle time, efficacy and cost that results in sales?
Vince, I’ve stated my opinion that the latest funding deal came at a dear price considering the associated distribution agreement. While we can’t change the facts, management’s prior performance painted this company into a corner where a deal such as that became “attractive” from its perspective. While I don’t want to see ANY more such deals, I don’t think the distribution deals done to date will hamper the interest of a suitor. The suitor will negotiate with existing “distributors” the buyout of the distribution rights management has literally given away and will reduce the economics of the buyout price for MZEI shares accordingly. Those people thinking the recent deal was a good one because the first tranch was done at $0.10 and therefore view it as being not as dilutive, need to think again. I expect the Chileans will make more selling their distribution rights than their stock.
GO, I don’t at all disagree with the idea that this management could and should be more communicative. Apart from the impact on PPL pricing, which is now a non-issue for a time, I don’t perceive management particularly caring about the share price or what shareholders think. The legacy of no shareholder’s meetings, unprofessional PR representation, the lack of informed business plans, etc. evidences this view. I agree with Vince that MZEI will be relegated to the penny land (investor base) as MZEI lacks the various resources, robustness of plan and history of execution, that would incent much broader participation by larger investors (larger in terms of capital capacity necessary to sustain an upward share price). Further, without the trial data, it’s difficult to say what MZEI is really worth or what the approach to the business plan should be. We all have opinions of such, being generally higher, but the ultimate value will be determined by a suitor(s), not by Mr. & Mrs. penny investor. Without decent communication, all we do on this board is cheer, carp and speculate with various degrees of insight. Vince is also right in his assessment that the large investors (including the BOD members) are hung, pending some suitor deal.
I still believe that suitor interest will materialize a year to 18 months following EPA approval and the start of trials.
