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.
trade, Burchill lists Cabot in his patent 7,144,522 in reference to the silica aerogel particles which are added into the resin carrier base as part of the manufacturing process for the Nansulate coating.
Since Cabot actually has competing products now (especially the aerogel particle coating additive product), I wonder if that explains any of the raw ingredient / manufacturing delays INTK has experienced? We speculated on cost issues or cashflow issues, but what if their supplier delays shipments so as not to help a competitor succeed? I don't know if that'd happen or not, but it is a curious thought.
Sorry stogie and others, this stuff seems relevant to me. It doesn't fit with rose colored glasses, but all sides of the equation are important.
trade, Good point, some don't like provable facts. em
Stogie, How'd you make out with your analysis of the April/May/June 2009 PRs versus what you found in the 2008 & 2008 2nd Quarter filings on otcmarkets.com?
What's your conclusion?
Re-post for latecomers: COMPETING PATENT?
See the post I replied to, patent by the US Govt / NASA re: Aerogel Polymer invention.
onewho, Everyone wants the same thing, for nansulate to grow and do more sales, etc. But you may be missing the point... we're talking about large corporations as customers. When spending a few million bucks, do you figure they'd go with a NYSE traded firm which has a credible management team in place, or an unsolicited unaudited pinksheet with ring-around-the-rosy of lawyers going on, projects that disappear too often, and in very bad financial shape?
But, maybe like you said they will get some scraps and it'll still amount to large sales by our standards.
Aspen & Cabot land Petrobras? See below...
Application for Aspen, for Petrobras.
http://www.aerogel.com/markets/c_distilltower.html
This one is old, late 2007. Maybe this is why INTK has been making excuses about Petrobras for so long as they try to regain the interest or get commitments on projects/sales?
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=2888.php
Spring 2009 delivery to Petrobras:
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=73671
And here's Cabot landing a Petrobras pipeline project:
http://investor.cabot-corp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=94559&p=irol-newsArticle&highlight=&ID=1236091
Where is INTK's project? We were told numerous times of plans, etc, etc, seems there was more going on with competitors. Hmmmm, why didn't the new oil field discoveries make the competitor projects get cancelled such as with the excuse given by INTK?
Cabot is on the NYSE exchange (a legit exchange, unlike the unsolicited unaudited pinks) and I'm sure we don't want to get into the management teams or their past experiences or competencies.
onewho, That's what I'm saying, the longer the clowncrew management takes to achieve success, and/or the more bridges they burn, the better the odds are that competition will TAKE marketshare and sectors aggressively due to being perceived as LESS RISKY. The big boys will BUY from credible management, credible firms, and products with less risk of bankruptcy, etc, etc.
Why don't you guys get that point? Why do you think some of us have been urging INTK to get their act together more quickly and focus data & sales instead of wasting time on shotgun crap-walling?
onewho, I don't know if nanogel particles use both aerogel & xerogel, but it very well may since INTK mentions Cabot in their patent. So why would Cabot not use xerogel to make the stuff cheaper for their own product, same reason INTK uses xerogel? Aerogel performs better, by the way, but is more expensive because the particle quality standards are higher.
I'm sure Cabot's stuff is more expensive, I agree. But what matters more, cost or credibility? That may be a more important distinction. As we already know, people & companies will follow the trail of credibility and they will spend the $$ rather than "taking a chance" on a rinky dink. Unfortunately. That's why IMO INTK should have had more well-recognized firms test & validate the stuff and publish the findings.
Yes, they've PR'd things about doing R&D with other companies or govt agencies, etc. But, never to be heard of again so far. Meanwhile, now NASA & Cabot seem to have products which can snatch market sectors that INTK was hoping for.
It's not the competing products that I find so concerning. It's the fact that IMO there's basically no comparison between INTK and those 2 competitors as far as credibility and/or ability to market and distribute, and management teams, etc. So who would you trust and spend a bunch of $$ on? A company who might present bankruptcy concerns, or a larger more well established and more credible firm? Scary.
Here's another uh-oh competitor:
I don't know for sure, but I think at one time Cabot is the manufacturer who INTK got its dried xerogel particles from. Maybe they still do, not sure.
http://www.cabot-corp.com/Aerogel
Aerogel for Coatings Brochure:
http://www.cabot-corp.com/wcm/download/en-us/ae/Coatings%20brochure%202010.pdf
Cabot now makes aerogel particle additives for coatings (paints, etc). And they also make a loose fill PARTICLE. Ring any bells with anyone? INTK filed a patent on a similar (but maybe more durable) version of this, but Cabot beat them to market with an actual product. Go figure! These much more well established companies with experienced credible management teams are a real threat to Nansulate IMO. And NASA, no more needs to be said on that one. The recognized firms with the credibility may get most of the sales. Though, Nansulate is patented so maybe we have to hope one of them likes the liquid/coating aspect and wants to buy them out? But with Cabot making a nanogel coating additive now, I don't know. I know Nansulate's resin is specialized, but making the resin may NOT be the hard part - seems like that can be duplicated in various ways without infringing on the patent - but not exactly sure. The particulate additive is the special aspect to Nansulate, but now Cabot makes it so that others can add nanogel particles as well to various coatings whereas before I thought the only additive coating competition was ceramic spheres (and we know those aren't as good as nansulate or aerogel/xerogel).
http://www.cabot-corp.com/Aerogel/Building-Insulation
Nanogel particles, or granules, are especially useful in loose-fill cavity wall applications. Nanogel granules may also be added to plasters and other coating systems to provide thermal insulation.
Nanogel Thermal Wrap™ blanket is especially useful in applications where a thin product is required that can be easily cut, rolled, and/or shaped on the jobsite. Thermal Wrap is perfect for insulating facades, roofs, and interior walls. Because it delivers high insulation performance even when compressed, it is especially useful as a thermal break in places that otherwise conduct a lot of heat such as over studs and around windows.
http://www.cabot-corp.com/Aerogel/Daylighting
http://www.cabot-corp.com/Aerogel/Oil-and-Gas-Insulation
IMO, hopes for one of these guys to buy out INTK would be a plus. Because they will kick INTK's butt in a marketing or distribution war if that's the ground we stand on.
KQ, I think that's true if both companies are on equal footing and have similar degrees of market leverage, marketing, credibility, and ability to partner or distribute. I don't see that as the case here.
Reading that patent with a thinking cap on, I do see some advantages for Nansulate... but not nearly as many as I'd hope. I see a lot of overlap, more than we'd ever want to see.
About one opening up opptys for the other... maybe, good point. But, if there are 2 choices and one has a questionable track record and can hardly rub two sticks together on the balance sheet, and one is a large credible established firm.... which one would you risk your money on? Hmmmmm, interesting stuff to think on.
onewho, It does seem different, but if you read the whole patent it also sounds similar in some ways. They list a lot of variations and uses.
To over-simplify it: Nansulate is a latex (latex is like plastic) based polymer resin with performance additives.
This new product is a plastic polymer with performance additives, and they make a point to say it's more flexible than just regular plastic.
The new stuff can be clear, so I assume industrial uses such as pipelines are feasible. Just like Nansulate. And I also assume that a coating of plastic polymer insulates better than 3 or 6 coats of just regular latex polymer paint... then, both products add xerogel for extra insulating ability. So, which one performs better? And the new one says treating windows and many other materials is possible. So I'm not sure how dissimilar it really is, and may have a leg up on Nansulate in many cases. I do think the liquid paintable nature of Nansulate makes it better for some applications though. Such as creating a more easily applied "total thermal envelope".
I also assume the new one is more expensive, too. But since it's a NASA (read: CREDIBLE) product, the cost may not matter. It could be applied to all sorts of building materials, and much more.
And who do you think would win the WAR of marketing and distribution? No-brainer. Add up all the factors and I'm worried on Nansulate's behalf, and I think for good reason. NASA could license, or partner, as you said and get a massive amount of product to market way faster than INI can. They also have a heck of a lot more leverage and credibility. The more time passes, here come the competitors and INI hasn't snatched the open market share yet.
Guys, I made a couple comments about Nansulate near the bottom of my post. Those comments are NOT part of the US Govt patent - just my words as a comparison to this product.
trade, Agreed, they referenced Nansulate which is flattering but sounds like they "might" have created their own version of it and patented it.
I don't know, but read the patent and you'll see they reference many forms it can take. They did mention windows, so to me that means it it can be similar to a coating... but, it does not sound like it's "liquid". Maybe it can't be painted on.
I'm more concerned about the source. Who would win a marketing or distribution war? The US Govt, or rinky dink Industrial Nanotech? That's the part that I find threatening.
FYI, this is a NEW patent. I'm not sure I feel too warm & fuzzy about it, but maybe it's less of a competitor than it sounds like it could be. I really don't know.
onewho, Oh, sorry, you replied to my reference of the 3 2009 revenue/sales PRs. I thought you were talking about those.
As far as dilution, I agree it's one indication. But, dilution wasn't always high in the past either when we were told about big looming projects. So I'm not sure how strongly to lean on that factor.
onewho, Incorrect. The PRs stated that sales/revenues were up from same quarter prior year (2008 vs 2009 2Q). Look at the filings, after reading those 3 PRs, and see if it was true or not.
Like I said, I hope all of this current stuff is consummated and things go great. But that doesn't mean going blind, either. You're a fair-minded poster, IMO.
No, stogie, please look up the April/May/June revenue PRs as suggested, and compare it to the Q filing versus the prior year Q filing as referenced in the PRs. Do yourself a solid and look that up on otcmarkets.com. 2Q 2008, 2Q 2009... versus what was said in the PRs. Then you may understand better some of the views people have.
This product sounds eerily similar to Nansulate, if you look at the specs. Though, it's not a "liquid" coating. So, maybe Nansulate has the coating aspect cornered on its own.
But, read that US Govt/NASA patent... their product sounds very very flexible, can be clear, opaque, and takes many many forms. I hope for INTK's sake they don't market & sell the stuff publicly and only use it for government.
stogie, Let's get something straight... look right now, go look it up, at the 3 PRs in summer of 2009. April, May, and June, to be exact. READ what the PRs state... something about increased revenues from prior year. Then, LOOK at that quarter's financial filing as compared to the prior year same quarter (on otcmarkets.com) and you will SEE that the 2009 Q revenues did NOT increase from same quarter prior year.
Now, you tell me... is it true this time? Maybe it is! How do you know? You don't, do you? How do I know? I don't.
Competing Product / Patent?
Go here to the below site, and enter "burchill jr" into the Quick Search field on the left of the screen:
http://patft.uspto.gov/
Patent # 7,790,787
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Washington, DC)
I've pasted in some samples from the patent. This looks like it was developed by the US government. It can be in rolls, can be opaque, can be clear, can be molded, etc.
Is that why the US Govt hasn't purchased large quantities of Nansulate despite lots of testing? We could say imitation is the best form of flattery, or we could say uh ohhh. Or maybe they are still reviewing Nansulate and are interested? Hard to say. This may or may not be a competing product. Maybe it's ONLY for NASA use, who knows.
They did reference the Nansulate patent as a reference in their version of the product. One thing we might feel sure of, the govt if they intend to produce and use their invention... they will surely partner with a viable firm which does NOT have issues with Production nor problems paying for anything or handling accounts.
=======================
Some Excerpts:
Aerogel/polymer composite materials
Abstract
The invention provides new composite materials containing aerogels blended with thermoplastic polymer materials at a weight ratio of aerogel to thermoplastic polymer of less than 20:100. The composite materials have improved thermal insulation ability. The composite materials also have better flexibility and less brittleness at low temperatures than the parent thermoplastic polymer materials.
The composite materials may be opaque, transparent, or translucent.
In one specific embodiment, the composite material is opaque.
In another specific embodiment, the composite material is transparent or translucent.
Incorporation of aerogel with the thermoplastic polymer material in a composite material creates a composite material with surprisingly improved thermal conductivity compared to the thermoplastic polymer material. Preferably, the composite material has a thermal conductivity at least 25% lower than (less than 75% of) the thermal conductivity of the thermoplastic polymer material. In particular embodiments, the composite material has a thermal conductivity at least 15%, at least 20%, at least 25%, at least 30%, at least 35%, at least 40%, at least 45%, or at least 50% lower than the thermoplastic polymer material.
The composite material may be in any suitable form, including fibers, sheets, blocks, tubes, or rolls.
In one embodiment, the composite material is in the form of sheets, blocks, tubes, or rolls.
In one embodiment, the composite material is not fibrous. In another embodiment, the composite material is not a curable film.
In a particular embodiment, the polymer material comprises nylon.
In another particular embodiment, the polymer material comprises a polyolefin.
In particular embodiments, the polymer is not perhalogenated or is not polytetrafluoroethylene.
The aerogel of the composite materials in one embodiment is an inorganic aerogel.
In one embodiment, the aerogel is or includes silica aerogel.
In one embodiment, the aerogel is or includes a metal oxide aerogel. FYI, Nansulate calls itself "Hydro NM Oxide" (hydro nanometal oxide, I believe)
In one embodiment, the aerogel is or includes a carbon aerogel or a polymeric aerogel.
In one embodiment, the aerogel is a xerogel. Nansulate also uses xerogel.
stogie, You must not have read very clearly. Everyone has acknowledged that if this is all legit... then it's very good. And also that this PPS move is a positive.
Let's not be so concerned about "bashing" that we can't see clearly. Not everything is a conspiracy. The history with this company supports some of the opinions very well, but you may not have followed it for that long.
I hope it goes way up, and that everything is legit. Maybe you should load up like you've never done before?
Oh. haha! I didn't sell at bid, but I will gladly do so any time to lock in a profit. All that talk about "smack the ask" and whatnot, is mostly just pinksheet/penny stock BS. No offense to you personally, but it is nonsense. Plan the trade, then trade the plan... end of story :) Took me some pinksheet lessons in the past before I saw the true value in that view, but I got there.
Of course, it's appropriate to comment about positives but not negatives. The usual.
recognizer, Limit order. lol I have no idea what your question means.
I guess I missed that one! Thx! em
Thanks re: esph comments, lowtrade. One question... by "a total comeback" do you mean a total retrace, or a total revisit to previous resistance points which means a large runup for most bottom bouncers? I'll keep an eye on this, but not sure how long a leash I want to give it since the % gains are already fitting my trading plan.
The thing is, the market cap at 350M OS * .034/share = $11.9M. That sounds very high for a company which has shown this degree of reliability and consistency. So, unless much bigger things are already happening, I'm not sure how much higher the public will buy this thing. Then again, fundamentals hardly matter in the world of penny stock momentum and promotion or hype buying.
low, ESPH I exited 1/2 my position at .73x, up 9% (or roughly halfway to target of .84) and leaving the 2nd half of my position in. Will guard the remaining position with a breakeven stop order.
Your opinion, do you prefer trade management such as this, or would you exit 100% with a 9% gain and then just stay out or maybe look for a retrace for another entry?
onewho, Depends on the view of the person running the company, no? Would that person really let someone tell him how to handle things better? Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. That's why IMO a buyout could be the best thing overall if they can attract some initial attention worthy of a favorable buyout offer. I'd hate to see past mistakes repeated and undo progress.
I guess all this talk is pointless until they become something other than an unsolicited pinksheet guessing game.
wizard, I feel the same as you. A buyout & real experienced management team and widely recognized distribution channel of some sort would be cool.
Sounds more like a casino visit! lol Which, ironically, IMO is what all pinksheets should be treated like. This one seemed different, but even if it is... it's still had the same terrible result for shareholders so far just like the rest of the pinks have (even if they're all scams and this one has more going for it than they do). I say "so far", because we don't know the future and I know people hope continually.
If you think it's fun, then load up! lol :)
The only ones having fun with this stock over the years, I'd say, are those who were wise enough to know that pinksheets are usually best when traded instead of held. I did have some fun with the product itself, though.
You call fairbanks a mixup, I call it a falsehood. Note how long it took for the PR to be retracted by the company, despite the fairbanks attorney disavowing the claim quite a while in advance of the retraction. That's all I need to know re: my view of the ethics of the company. And then to issue another PR immediately over top of that one, to cover it up, just confirmed my view for me. Not speaking for you or anyone else, just my view.
I know it's difficult to change the ways of large companies and there are lots of reasons why even a great product may be adopted slowly. But I'm done giving intk the benefit of the doubt - too many questionable projects have disappeared. Giving the benefit of doubt or believing everything at face value has ruined a stock holding in this company. Maybe they'll reverse split someday and those left with shares, or new holders, will benefit if the sales keep increasing. Or maybe from here it'll improve w/out a RS. Problem is, I'd say most aren't even back near their cost average even after this runup. Anyone new probably thinks this stock is great; anyone old may have a different view.
Excuses don't make good investments.
Could be. But one thing we can be sure of, US or non US... all most companies care about is profit. So, if a product will save energy and increase profitability in a proven manner so they don't think they're taking too much of a risk, then they'd care & they'd buy it. It's all about wall street & share price with most companies in the US, so anything that saves on expenses is something they care about.
onewho, Whatever conclusions you feel are valid; that's up to you.
onewho, Good question, why wouldn't there be? Do you think Nansulate failed all the other test efforts with huge companies we've been told about? Why didn't they all buy, or some or most of them buy?
You just asked the question of the day, or of the year, or of the 5 years. lol
one, The main point is whether more sales will follow or not IMO. It'd be good if this PR is followed up by another one where Coats gives more data or plans to purchase. Better yet, a PO or preferably a large new order(s) already paid for & shipped.
wiz, Maybe that's because they likely ARE desperate to continue any traction they've gained recently. After years of either making mistakes, bad markets, duping shareholders, or failed projects, as well as a few successes here and there. Who knows what they're up to, but IMO most pinksheets have to pump in order to fund their operations and keep the share selling by consultants/financiers possible.
Today's PR seems almost meaningless to me, as there was no "so what" given. Maybe their only point is that Coats acknowleges the application they did and now we're supposed to think that Coats will buy Nansulate globally? If they wanted us to think that, then they should have said so clearly. As usual, we just have to infer the meaning of this PR, which to date has always ended up a mistake as far as the stock's performance goes. It's hot lately, though, like last fall.