Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Natcore expert's next correct statement will be his first - look at how I mercilessly exposed his fraud posts in the past. At 1:24 Chuck says another 15% cost cut along with 4 or 5% power increase with that last breakthrough.
doctor there is no one who could have "pushed this thru a lot faster and a lot more professionally" EPA is a government arm, and if JJ or any other big company could just muscle an approval through, charm or bribe someone, it would be one of the most corrupt organizations in the world, ranking it with that in 3rd world countries.
As I said before, everyone uses experienced consultants for an application, so delays don't mean it was an unprofessional effort. No matter how frustrated this board is, it doesn't prove a single thing about the quality of the application itself.
Take my advice instead of trying to save face.
You have to provide some actual stat to back up what has just been a list of your fears because there is no lie detector test available on ihub.
Why spend a minute studying one that you suspect is lying or whatever shade of lying you are so focused on? Please don't bore us anymore with your dd that no one can answer - you either accept the credentials of mgmt or move on,
What you can't figure out is no investor can go into the board room of nxt and perform a lie detector test.
Why don't you fly to their plants and count the production volume?
If that doesn't work for you then sell, because only a fool would invest in a technology that claims to be near to sales, that was run by someone he thought was a liar. You do understand that don't you?
Ben wrote : Doesn't the long, long, history of EPA scrutiny, with data requests and test rounds for the better part of two years, kind of indicate that Pentony's information was just a tad off the mark?
No, there is no connection between the time it is taking and the theory that EPA is also doing efficacy.
Btw, I looked at an analyst wrote about another stock that has taken 5 years with FDA before they got approval. Here is what the analyst wrote, which gives size to the horrors of FDA and EPA government bureaucracy "With what should have been the most straightforward 510(k) review in history becoming the most protracted 510(k) review in our memory, ..."
Are you saying don't trust mzei mgmt because they make patently false statements? Someone here sorts it all out and determines what the truth is?
All anyone has to do is call Pentony to discover that the review of mzei product has nothing to do with efficacy because that is the FDA's job in a hospital. It is always best to go to the source rather than listen to the wrong ideas.
All you have to do to verify what I said is not patently false is to call Pentony and post what you find here.
Ellis if you reread my post, I am not and was not disagreeing with what you just posted - I was just saying that everyone who applies has advisors in the biz too. No one does it on their own, because the government bodies have a minefield of rules that no company has the time to learn - not that they could learn them anyway - so that is why they ALL use advisors in the biz.
starlifter no one sends a submission to EPA or FDA without experienced consultants because as people here and in many other small companies have discovered, there are many specialized government hoops to jump through and there isn't enough time or money for a tiny company to perform every test under the sun. There has to be some anticipation of what the EPA will accept and every applicant uses experienced consultants to help them decide what it will take.
So when Pentony says they have experienced lawyers on it, he is stating what every applicant has working on theirs too, although I would have assumed the people would be experienced scientist types instead of lawyers. Experience doesn't guarantee anything.
mzei is disinfection so I believe you are right. I used the last quote in my post only for illustrative purposes because it can be the same kind of grind with the EPA, and I coincidentally just read it today from the analyst who has no reason to write a false comment.
For that device the CEO made no predictions for 3.7 years until last Aug when he said he was targeting approval as a 2013 event, but it is now going to be in the next week - so even CEOs that are respected get it wrong because there is no way to get a forecast from these giant government orgs so all the CEOs can do is anticipate, not schedule.
Medizone: NO regulatory approval from the U.S. EPA - (Edwin G. Marshall: "Final regulatory approvals for the US market by both the FDA and EPA should be achieved not later than January 2013")
Predictions of EPA and FDA timelines are not always reliable because of their quirky, cumbersome processes, so mzei was guessing - wrong, but they wouldn't be the first company to do so.
Below is from an analyst report I read today about a different product but is an example of what those bureaucratic giants can do to roadblock a product approval with what MAY be unnecessary reviews. "“With what should have been the most straightforward 510(k) review in history becoming after 5 years the most protracted 510(k) review in our memory, but with the process nearing resolution, we believe ..."
What is your point? He isn't quitting and the BOD appointed him.
Here is my post that Ben replied to, edited.
EPA could care less about needs. Many posters here think you just stand in line at an EPA wicket and wait for an available employee to listen to your proposition and if it makes sense you have approval. Reality is it is a giant government bureaucracy.
As soon as he got in, Obama cancelled the EPA emergency approval process for new plant seed chemical treatments (which is the EPA's jurisdictional area among many other areas) that I was familiar with, so they stiffened in that area at least. My investment company was about to apply for a new chemical that was environmentally benign - the existing grandfathered chemicals are very toxic - until Obama came along. This company ran out of money trying to do all the testing the EPA requested, and put the chemical on the back burner. Obama likely stiffened the EPA elsewhere where he could too.
EPA is government and cares only about the environment, so all the posts about hurrying the EPA up and enlightening them about the value of your tech are like writing Obama for whatever you happen to want and expecting he has nothing else to do but comply.
btw, I talked to the CEO of a company in bacterial control who is not in mzei target space of disinfecting rooms, and brought up mzei's tech and the EPA. He said EPA and FDA signed a turf treaty years ago, so the 2 departments have specified turf to stick to and the other one stays off. The history, per him, was that previously at least once, the EPA approved something the FDA didn't like so this treaty ended that issue.
He said what I had posted before, "This EPA review is purely about environmental issues and has nothing to do with efficacy."
That is an hp-only dispersing device so not going to be the competitor you thought to a super toxic kill all system from mzei.
You can stick with patting your team members on the back, however I am not on anybody's team, so stupid marketing ideas won't pass my judgement.
I posted how stupid that idea was to let saner people who want to know about NXT read sense. If anyone doesn't care for reality it is not my concern.
Instead of again switching the subject you created, try reading your last 2 posts and consider their value to people interested in investment. Accept that you are the one focused on personal attacks - perhaps because you are miffed that I pointed out your marketing idea to give away the product was a zero, instead of your idea that nxt mgmt was a zero for not thinking of your idea - I don't hear any of your followers arguing against my last points below.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=107337654
NXT goal is twice the power at half the cost so if one company got all that tech free they would cut their price so far that no one else could afford to lease the tech from nxt.
Giving your product away free to one company would make them dominant, so the others either couldn't compete or would look for alternatives. You would end up supplying the dominant player free. That is a biz model they don't teach in school, except comedy class.
From the nr "This development sets the stage for a marriage between Natcore's..." Hope that is a clear enough connection for the dumbest reader like you - your personal attacks beg grading so enjoy.
I didn't really think you had the brains to take the hint and stop fantasizing, but leave me out of your attempt to switch that character defect of yours to someone else. Maybe go to your library of teen lit, which is likely Shakespeare to you, and try to stay busy.
It was me that posted they needed to eliminate all furnaces in order to make it a tied in package - they mentioned that marrying is the next step. I doubt they are paying the German lab enough money to take over the r&d so perhaps they just provide some kind of guidance to make sure the tech is going in the right direction - kind of hard to figure exactly what their part is but nxt doesn't have much money for external labor bills.
Like you say, finally something that warrants comment - hopefully the armchair CEOs stop dreaming up new ways to clog this board with marketing fantasy instead of reality - and complaints instead of selling.
I think the roadblock Cdn problem is lack of incentive (unless you consider the giant bureaucracy of the hospital system to be the major problem) unlike US where HAI is not covered by Medicare. See pg 10 of this document. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Libraries/Hospital_Funding_docs/CHSRF-Sutherland-HospitalFundingENG.sflb.ashx
That doesn't mean Cdn hospitals won't buy it after US take it up because there would be lots of data with US usage - Cdn likely just won't be a first mover. The marketing company mzei engaged must have initially thought they could get some sales, which might have leveraged into others in the same way big US market adoption will drive Cdn.
You wrote "Now I'm hearing the Canadian medical system is "complex" even though we have two doctors who spent their lives in the system on staff. Seems like they should be able to figure something out."
Unless you have experience in a system including knowing the players and their motives, it is easy to underestimate how difficult it is to get a specific thing done no matter how simple. I listed last week, the fact that in AB more and more bureaucrats kept showing up at each meeting demanding more and more reports all the while not spending a MOMENT discussing the product or how to economically use it. Instead of simply saying this isn't worth involving all of our manpower to study and debate when there is a simpler solution, so instead let's risk $10,000 for 10 tests to be used only on hopeless cases like last time and see if they can go 10 for 10 again (or even 1 for 10 should provide a handsome payback.) System doesn't work that way at least in Edmonton, the capital of AB (which sets the rules for which hospitals products will be reimbursed by AB bovernment) where they were attempting to get acceptance under a program dubiously called AB Initiatives Program.
The last 4 posters ideas run in circles that are counter to the below, which is all an investor needs to know. This board's posters seem to think their fantasies come to life after posting.
http://finance.yahoo.com/mbview/threadview/;_ylt=Al515W3D00c1pA9xo5ZGrgveAohG;_ylu=X3oDMTB2OHBjOG42BHBvcwMyMgRzZWMDTWVkaWFNc2dCb2FyZHNYSFJVbHQ-;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3?&bn=633d3e44-6530-3c51-928e-ad14a4c1ece9&tid=1410452829675-61858f30-7a1a-488e-b4cc-760097acc176&tls=la%2Cd%2C5%2C3
Giving your product away free to one company would make them dominant, so the others either couldn't compete or would look for alternatives. You would end up supplying the dominant player free. That is a biz model they don't teach in school, except comedy class.
I think my comments are getting taken too literally, because of the way I expressed myself.
I meant it is very hard to sell a product in any hospital because they are all cash strapped, so it has to show a lot of benefit and in some cases it has to be practically all economic benefit. Every product is different so there is no real rule but the example number 1 I described was a product that went 14 for 14 in resolving the problem cost effectively (total bill was like $12,000) and saved 3 of those patients LIVES to boot, yet the bureaucrats said that isn't good enough because it doesn't have data to do what their forms require it to do - they said it requires a cb study. That is in Alberta and mzei is in Ont, so different political rules apply btw.
Perhaps that example doesn't apply to the next product a salesman shows up with but you can get the idea it is a steep hill to climb with a novel product like mzei has if the worst silver bandage sells the best in hospitals because it is cheapest as example number 2. Cleaning up a hospital's HAI problems with one sweep should sell itself in a perfect world but the only perfect world for mzei's product seems to require the US Medicare system where HAI's costs aren't covered.
I didn't even know the product had an Ontario marketing agreement until your post, so I merely guessed when I talked to ir before that it wouldn't sell well in Canada and happened to be LUCKY right with only half the story - whatever I confirmed with ir didn't go into any details that are of interest to your question.
One other mixup in our conversations is defining a cb study - I am referring to a double blinded study where the product is proven to be cost effective with 95% certainty - That requires something like 74 people if the results are overwhelmingly favorable from what I know of one study that went well - I have no idea how you would do a cb study for something like mzei's product but you don't just take one cleaning like they did in Ont and show that room was rid of HAI's for a year afterwards (or whatever the process was) and explain that this would always happen so do the math - likely needs a bunch of successful test occurrences for 95% confidence before a hospital will consider buying it.
jackross correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't mzei have the most expensive opex and is time consuming and requires more labor, so that is what I mean by cb study being useful to sell it. Every health region has different parameters so generalizing is not prudent however it's safe to say the first thing that budget constrained hospitals look at is opex although other factors are obviously at play for different products if you have something concrete to argue your product is the best choice in Cda. For instance, the number one silver bandage sold worldwide ($4B market overall) is not the most efficacious or even close, but is the cheapest. I think it is Seasorb by Coloplast (in a study using FDA standards at .64 log scale microbe kill it has less than 100 fold reduction of Candida!) but could be Aquacel by Convatec.
I actually just quickly skimmed your post (and erroneously assumed the post was about someone else's product) for my response last night that has fortunately been deleted, and not being around here in 2013 didn't know they had a marketing deal in 2013 that has so far flopped.
For the other part of your question, it would take a lot of explaining from someone at mgmt about what went wrong, rather than the 2 of us debating if everyone in Cda is stupid as your post asks."Is everyone in Canada stupid ?"
never-say No idea, here is a guess:
Possibly because the doc is at a Cdn hospital so it made it easier to get work done there - device was invented in Ontario I believe so connections were there. Also you can get Health Canada approval for any device that works in 1 month, but the FDA can take years while they run every possible stupid useless scrutiny of things that don't matter (got this from a clinical researcher) so mzei were surprised they got FDA so quickly. I don't know anything about Environment Cda approval system but assume they have approved. Correct? Without Cdn approval it would be difficult to do testing, plus with approval in Cda they can sell there if it catches on in US which could make it catch on in Cda later.
I bet they never considered Cda as the first market but are powerless to get to the real market in the US. All the frustration with no sales on this board is not realistic considering no US approval.
You really have to simplify the business world if you think docs on MZEI's board with their credentials don't have extensive high level contacts in Cdn hospitals and are too dumb to market the product there but YOU know how to get the sales done in Canada but they are too dumb to pick low hanging fruit and do it themselves. Hospital systems in Canada are a maze of giant bureaucracies with the right contacts in one constrained by multiple show stopper bureaucrats in some other department - the different hospital systems are not applicable in another.
Here is a real life example I know of. Edmonton based tiny company had a product that could detect the correct antibiotic combo to use for a bilfilm infection - preseently there is no way for doc to know what drug or combo will work with biofilm infection because the Ed company has patented the only way of culturing and growing that biofilm. They had meetings in Ed with the government and at every meeting more and more bureaucrats showed up asking for more and more info. After 1 year the company gave up because the bureaucrats had so many forms to fill out that they were getting nowhere. Now for the kicker - Ed company had given the product free to docs in an Ed hospital who used it to successfully determine the correct script for 14 patients, 3 of whom were dying - all 14 were in hospital for a long time and docs had been stumped about which drug would work.Each test cost $1,000 but the fact each of the 14 had been eating up that much per day in hospital costs prior to the correct drugs being administered had no bearing on the bureaucrats analysis - no cb study meant no way to fill out their forms.
Discretional spending in Cdn hospitals for novel products that don't have a cb study? Where did you dream up that budget? - every healthcare system in every province is strained to the limits with people wondering where it will end due to aging, sicker people. Hospitals are not research centers for other companies products although perhaps somewhere under 20 levels of bureaucracy you can find a government funded research project going on but there is stiff competition for that. Hospitals provide their space to companies like mzei for research on their own products, for a fee.
Service contracts for emergencies? Zero chance without a cb study.
In case no one posted this CNN article on a competitor in the West African fight against ebola. This is cheaper, and ebola is easy for any device to kill so maybe it will get the nod?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/us/germ-zapping-robot-ebola/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Orange, California (CNN) -- Gigi the robot looks like a skinny, harmless cousin of R2-D2, but the machine is a cold-blooded killer for hire, a germ zapper that could become an important weapon in the fight against Ebola.
After being wheeled into patient rooms at St. Joseph Hospital, humans clear out, and Gigi begins popping and blasting ultraviolet light that's 25,000 times more powerful than sunlight in killing contagion.
More effective than using cleansing bleach by hand, the UV light touches and cleans all surfaces, including under the bed or between folds on curtains. After five or 10 minutes, the germs' DNA are so badly damaged that they can't replicate and they die.
Girly name aside, the robot is an efficient killer.
"We can clean and disinfect a room (by hand) to an 85% level, but when we use the ultraviolet light we can clean that room to 99.9%," said Dr. Ray Casciari, a pulmonary disease specialist at the hospital. "This is the future of hospitals because 85% is not enough."
Two robots at Dallas hospital
Priced at $104,000 each, the robot is one futuristic answer to help kill an Ebola virus that made U.S. history in September when it was diagnosed for the first time on American soil, according to its manufacturer, Xenex Disinfection Services of San Antonio, Texas.
In fact, that first U.S. Ebola patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, eventually died in the same Dallas, Texas, hospital where two Xenex robots are now in use, said Mark Stibich, the firm's co-founder and chief scientific officer. Duncan was a Liberian national visiting Dallas.
Nina Pham and Amber Vinson, nurses who cared for Duncan at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, have since been infected with Ebola and are now receiving treatment.
The robot wasn't used during the direct care of Duncan, but it was later used in cleanup of the patient's treatment area, which helped keep Ebola from spreading within the hospital and helped make it a safer workplace, Stibich said.
Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital officials couldn't be immediately reached for comment Thursday.
Interest in disinfection rises
A sterile hospital is no small matter for patients and health care professionals.
"They're here 24-7. Their exposure to all this is really very intense," Casciari said. "When we use the machine, the nurses feel a little bit better about the room and the doctors feel a little bit better about the room."
The Ebola cases in the United States and the virus' unprecedented outbreak in West Africa have brought new attention to disinfection and its technologies, including the robots, Xenex says. Such interest was evident in Thursday's congressional hearings into the U.S. government's domestic response to Ebola.
"We've definitely had an increase in interest in our technology. Ebola has generated a lot of interest in the threat of infectious disease -- and what can be done to stop the spread of deadly infections," said Xenex spokeswoman Melinda Hart.
Fighting hospital infections
Ultraviolet light has been used for decades for air and water disinfection, but the Xenex robot uses environmentally friendly xenon light instead of bulbs with mercury, which is toxic, Hart said.
A sterile hospital is no small matter for patients and health care professionals.
A sterile hospital is no small matter for patients and health care professionals.
Xenex says it's the only firm that uses xenon in its robots, which also allows for faster disinfection. A xenon robot can clean a room in a matter of minutes, whereas robots that uses mercury-vapor lamp need at least an hour to warm up and carry out their disinfection, Hart said.
The importance of disinfection in the wake of the Ebola cases has also brought attention to the general problem of hospital-associated infections, such as Clostridium difficile (C. diff.) and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Hart said.
One in 25 U.S. patients has at least one infection contracted during their hospital visit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. That totaled 722,000 infections in 2011.
Moreover, hundreds of Americans with such infections die every day, the CDC says.
"Although there has been some progress, today and every day, more than 200 Americans with health care-associated infections will die during their hospital stay," CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a statement last March.
Thirty of Xenex's customers using the robots have reported a decrease in those hospital-associated infections, according to research that the firm publishes on its website. A handful of those medical centers report reductions of C. diff., MRSA and other hospital-associated infections by a range of 20% to 53%, the firm said.
Some hospitals slow to adopt
So far, 250 hospitals in the United States use the Xenex robots, the firm says. The facilities often name their robots, as St. Joseph Hospital did.
When asked why more hospitals weren't using the technology, Hart said that "it was only a couple of years ago that hospitals began understanding the role of the environment in the spread of infections."
"Some hospitals are innovative and adopted the technology immediately, while others have been much slower to adopt," Hart said.
The company's technology was featured by CNN Money in 2012, when a CDC official said he saw little downside to the venture as long as the technology is cost effective.
"It already has an advantage in the marketplace because it doesn't require doctors or nurses to change their behavior or do more," said Ramanan Laxminarayan, director of the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy in Washington D.C.
So far, however, the firm hasn't sent any robots to West Africa, which is experiencing the deadliest outbreak of Ebola on record, Hart said.
The company is now in discussions with the U.S. Department of Defense and relief organization to determine how to deploy the robots and ensure training that the machines are used properly, Hart said.
The firm is also trying to sell its robots to airlines, especially in the wake of how nurse Vinson flew halfway across the country on a Frontier Airlines flight with 132 people the day before she went to a hospital with Ebola symptoms.
"We're talking to several major airlines right now about how we could go in and disinfect their planes -- to protect the airline employees as well as customers," Hart said.
Canadian hospitals aren't interested in it. I already knew that before I confirmed it with IR. Not because it doesn't kill but because there isn't a cost benefit study on the novel product and the incentives aren't there that exist in the US healthcare system where hospitals aren't reimbursed by Medicare for HAI costs. Canadian hospitals will ask for a cb study on any product which is effectively a delaying tactic to protect their budgets.
Most posters here think mgmt is too stupid to market it in Canada which is an incorrect interpretation of the problem.
An investor has to accept reality and forget about your ego bruises (if that is what you are complaining about) so reality won't bother you. This board is full of people saying nothing like grundoro or running around in circles repeating the same thing all the while looking for false comfort, but the only true comfort is the satisfaction that comes from making money. If you want to read prattle look on the stockhouse.com board and commiserate with illumination who posts his dreams all day.
JT/ You said nothing that we don't know or that doesn't apply to every stock investment. Posting your wishes doesn't make things happen because this company wasn't born the day you bought in, which is your clue that it is all about patience, not letting emotions cloud your vision and this board.
No one knows what they will need to raise because they are near to revenue, so give up hoping for an easy answer for this company. The deals in their lawyer's office might have upfront milestone payments. My guess would just be a crapshoot, so won't help. Inbox me at teq0907@gmail.com for alternatives with clearer pathways, otherwise stick with this one with massive blus sky potential - you might get a 30-50 bagger here if they meet their goals.
JT, they are going for royalties so capital will be minimal since they outsourced the manufacturing of the units. They said they might be in the chemical biz for their product, if they think there is any money in it.
That is all you need to know, considering the small $28M market cap in relation to the staggering size of the market and they will likely get 100% of the market once the companies start piling on to stay competitive. If nxt had a market cap of $250M then detailed calculations would be a must for dd, but such is not the case today.
I don't see the word exclusive in his email - as per plan.
I guess you want a gold medal for guessing the name of the potential partner? Bear in mind that anyone with manufacturing plants are a "great partner" as Scarpa puts it, because the rest will have to join.
Chuck's latest newsletter to those signed up:
In anticipation of our F1 filing being effective and Natcore being a fully reporting company on the OTCQB, I have been making presentations to U.S. brokerage firms and institutions. Our U.S. listing will make it easier for them to purchase Natcore shares than it has been in the past. The presentation I give discusses pro forma income indications for both black silicon and the back-side laser applications. I thought I would share these pro forma numbers with you so you would understand the scope and size and benefits of these applications to Natcore.
The black silicon application is currently being optimized both in China and Germany with a manufacturing company and independent lab respectively. We have already received good results and expect more shortly.
The laser application is now being developed at our Rochester facility and we feel we are very close to demonstrating an actual device.
Our logic in developing the black silicon pro forma starts with the 2013 worldwide solar production of 34.56 GW according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association report. We believe that Black silicon will reduce the cost to manufacture a solar cell by 20%. The cost of a cell is currently approximately $1.50. I assume a 20% market share. If this market share seems aggressive, remember a 20% market share might only be one or two Chinese clients. I assume a profit margin of 20%. Solar cells are amortized over a 20 year period. I am taking a cost reduction for one of those years as a profit margin. That represents $0.30 cents per cell gross profit, $768 M.
cid:image008.png@01CFD8DB.9AD1C570
The laser pro forma starts with the same worldwide solar production of 34.56 GW per year. We feel that the laser application will both increase power output and reduce cost. It eliminates the second vacuum furnace which will create a total low-temperature manufacturing process. Additionally it increases the area on the cell that can absorb light across all bandwidth. The increased surface area means more power and the elimination of the furnace means lower cost, similar to the black silicon cost reduction. Once again, I assume a 20% market share, 20% profit margin which we feel is the sum of the power output and cost reduction. We take that margin for one of the twenty amortized years for a profit per cell of $0.315 cents and a gross profit per year of $806M.
cid:image009.png@01CFD8DB.9AD1C570
Please note that these are pro forma (estimated) profit analysis that may not be achieved by the Company for a number of reasons, but we nonetheless wanted you to get a feeling of the size and scope of these two applications; these two are the closest to commercialization and revenue.
I hope you find this information interesting and useful in how you view Natcore. Please let us know if you have any comments or questions since we want to make sure our shareholders are informed and up to date.
Chuck's latest newsletter to those signed up:
In anticipation of our F1 filing being effective and Natcore being a fully reporting company on the OTCQB, I have been making presentations to U.S. brokerage firms and institutions. Our U.S. listing will make it easier for them to purchase Natcore shares than it has been in the past. The presentation I give discusses pro forma income indications for both black silicon and the back-side laser applications. I thought I would share these pro forma numbers with you so you would understand the scope and size and benefits of these applications to Natcore.
The black silicon application is currently being optimized both in China and Germany with a manufacturing company and independent lab respectively. We have already received good results and expect more shortly.
The laser application is now being developed at our Rochester facility and we feel we are very close to demonstrating an actual device.
Our logic in developing the black silicon pro forma starts with the 2013 worldwide solar production of 34.56 GW according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association report. We believe that Black silicon will reduce the cost to manufacture a solar cell by 20%. The cost of a cell is currently approximately $1.50. I assume a 20% market share. If this market share seems aggressive, remember a 20% market share might only be one or two Chinese clients. I assume a profit margin of 20%. Solar cells are amortized over a 20 year period. I am taking a cost reduction for one of those years as a profit margin. That represents $0.30 cents per cell gross profit, $768 M.
cid:image008.png@01CFD8DB.9AD1C570
The laser pro forma starts with the same worldwide solar production of 34.56 GW per year. We feel that the laser application will both increase power output and reduce cost. It eliminates the second vacuum furnace which will create a total low-temperature manufacturing process. Additionally it increases the area on the cell that can absorb light across all bandwidth. The increased surface area means more power and the elimination of the furnace means lower cost, similar to the black silicon cost reduction. Once again, I assume a 20% market share, 20% profit margin which we feel is the sum of the power output and cost reduction. We take that margin for one of the twenty amortized years for a profit per cell of $0.315 cents and a gross profit per year of $806M.
cid:image009.png@01CFD8DB.9AD1C570
Please note that these are pro forma (estimated) profit analysis that may not be achieved by the Company for a number of reasons, but we nonetheless wanted you to get a feeling of the size and scope of these two applications; these two are the closest to commercialization and revenue.
I hope you find this information interesting and useful in how you view Natcore. Please let us know if you have any comments or questions since we want to make sure our shareholders are informed and up to date.
Like I said before, you are 100% wrong. NXT wants 100% of the solar biz (see the razor, handle and license to shave slide on their powerpoint if they still have it but if gone I can tell you it boils down to worldwide silicon cell domination), not just what FS or some other Chinese company has to offer. They already turned down an exclusive deal and according to the email from Scarpa posted on this board recently they are working the legalities out on 3 deals - could be sovereign nations Chuckie mentioned in the Xmas interview and an update mentioned them as well or could include the C company they were dealing with and they sent the second batch of cells to who happens to be 5% of the world market alone - the Xmas interview with Chuckie says the near term goal is 25% of world production which he say a few C manufacturers deals can make.
Best to stick to the reality from the NXT spokesperson rather than your fantasy vision coming from no useful vantage point of how to make it big in the solar biz. I am getting bored rehashing what Chuckie has said all along was the plan, so if you wish to continue the FS dreams instead of accepting his plan I won't bother straightening you out any more.
NXT will give exclusivity to manufacturers who make nxt's machines (i.e. NXT's suppliers) for nxt to sell to cell manufacturers , but not to solar cell manufacturers (NXT's markets). I have been in this long enough to know their game plan which has never wavered.
Give it up with dreaming their ideal partner. There are no bonus points for wild blue guessing - fyi, but not to encourage you in guessing another dream company I believe First was a company someone else guessed here years ago but someone else said they don't even use silicon. Waste of time guessing who gets the first deal or trying to play master marketer when all we have for info is reading a few nr's.
"If they were smart they would sign an exclusive deal with FSLR as..."
Dead wrong. The key is to gain a toehold by getting one company using the tech and the rest will have to sign on to maintain competitiveness. It is all spelled out in the presentations, so no need to invent your own wheel.
China patents are a non-event because China manufacturers can't break the code to figure how the process works because the NXT device self destructs if tampered with. There are no laws in that country so patents don't really exist there.
You confuse Chinese manufacturing with end use markets which are not there, so all the geography exclusive rights you talk about is N/A.
There are many companies pursuing hard and soft surface anti-bacterial products. There is only room for a few winners, and cost is the key to enticing hospitals to use them. I can name 4 other small caps I have seen at investment shows with this ambition, and can likely find others with a quick google search. Another example of a competitive product would be fitting the buildings with brass hardware because it is being studied for antibacterial abilities.
It might be marketed by someone like Johnson and Johnson who has salesmen in every hospital on the planet, but there are smaller players who might take an interest. Might is a tough word to overcome, hence the need for cheap cost.
No I didn't read it and could care less - it is useless trivia keeping track of trading houses or individuals, unless you suspect that you are invested in a scam in which case run don't walk away from it. Sorry to ruin your fantasy day.