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.
Today .........
Walter cowards behind a girl's (daughter ?) skirt while she screens his calls from shareholders. I'm sure he is so busy that he needed to hire a secretary. Another relative on the payroll Walter? Have you no shame at all? Since you won't talk in private I guess you perfer a public forum? Be a man and call me. You have my number.
You're begging for more from Turnaround and Bendover Partners? Con-man-ly the bankster will be glad to give you more.
Not much to add. In the dark like everyone else. It's hard to believe that Walter doesn't have ANY news of progress in all this time. It almost seems that Conolly and Walter want this to fail without making it too obvious. Perhaps to steal the technology from the shareholders after loan defaults.
FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
July 10, 2007
POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
ITEM 5.02 COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS.
On February 26, 2007, we executed an Employment Agreement with Joey Jung to retain Mr. Jung as an executive through November 30, 2008. Mr Jung has been Vice President and Chief Technology Officer since November 21, 2004. We agreed to pay Mr. Jung $120,000 (Canadian)(base Salary) from December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007 and $132,000 (Canadian)(base Salary) from December 1, 2007 through November 30, 2008 and to increase his pay by no less than 10% of Base Salary each year of employment. (the "Plan “). Pursuant to his previous Employment Agreement, and pursuant to the terms of his current Employment Agreement, Mr. Jung held stock options (‘the Option Agreements”) to acquire 2,000,000 shares of our common stock at a price of one half of one cent, (US $0.005) per share, subject to and pursuant to the terms the Company’s 2007 Stock Option, SAR, and Stock Bonus Plan (the "Plan“). As of July 10, 2007, we owed Mr. Jung his salary for the months of March, April, May and June of 2007. On July 10, 2007, we executed an Amendment to Mr. Jung’s Employment Agreement. We agreed to pay Mr. Jung his March and April 2007 salary on or before July 13, 2007; his May and June 2007 salary on or before August 15, 2007; his July and August 2007 salary on or before September 14, 2007; his September 2007 salary on or before October 15, 2007, an additional payment of $ 1,208.88 on October 15, 2007; and his October 2007 salary on or before October 31, 2007. Mr. Jung agreed that if he were paid his March and April 2007 salary on or before July 13, 2007, then he will surrender and waive all right to exercise any of the Option Agreements and that the Option Agreements will be canceled, void, and of no further force and effect. We agreed to then issue to Mr. Jung two Million (2,000,000) fully paid and non-assessable restricted shares of common stock of Power Technology, Inc. We have processed Mr. Jung’s payroll and tendered the funds for the salary payment due Mr. Jung on July 13, 2007.
Hello Chet! Good to hear from you. Are you still in the desert? PWTC has found a desert of its own. No manufacturing yet. We were taken over by a couple of dairy farmers out of Texas who have milked PWTC dry. Looks like you were the smart one to walk away years ago. Hope all is well with you.
Good Luck,
Don
Now can anyone guess who this pwtc character is? Hint: read the previous post.
Form 8-K for POWER TECHNOLOGY INC/CN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-Jun-2007
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
ITEM 1.01 ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT.
On February 23, 2007, we entered into a consulting agreement with Timothy J. Connolly to provide general business strategic consulting and management advisory services (the "Consulting Services Agreement"), which is described in Item 1.01 of our Form 8-K filed February 28, 2007, and which is filed as Exhibit 10.15 to our Form 10-KSB filing on June 11, 2007. 2006. Pursuant to the Consulting Services Agreement, we issued options for the right to purchase up to 5,000,000 shares of our common stock exercisable at $0.04 per share (the "Option Agreement"). On June 12, 2007, we amended the Option Agreement to provide for the right to purchase up to 5,000,000 shares of our common stock exercisable at $0.0065 per share.
POWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Date: June 18, 2007 By: /s/ Bernard J. Walter
Bernard J. Walter Chief Executive Officer and President
Form NT 10-Q -- Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1066978/000114420407031904/v078350_nt10q.txt
Toyota Delays Introduction of Lithium Battery in New Prius
Source: Wall Street Journal
[Jun 14, 2007]
The kind of lithium-ion battery technology that was under consideration for use in the Prius – one based on lithium cobalt oxide -- has shown a tendency to overheat and catch on fire -- a problem that has bedeviled computer makers using lithium-ion batteries made by Japan's Sony Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp., alarmed by growing concern over the safety of lithium-ion battery technology, has decided not to use that technology for the initial versions of the next-generation Prius gasoline-electric hybrid car, whose launch was scheduled for the autumn of next year, according to individuals familiar with Toyota's product plans.
The move, those individuals said, is aimed chiefly at dealing with potential problems with the application of lithium-ion batteries in the redesigned Prius – a new technology that packs more electricity in the same space and weight than the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in nearly all hybrid vehicles sold today.
Toyota had hoped the new battery technology would allow its engineers to halve the size of the current hybrid propulsion system using nickel-metal hydride batteries, thereby making the hybrid substantially cheaper and more fuel-efficient. The kind of lithium-ion battery technology that was under consideration for use in the Prius – one based on lithium cobalt oxide -- has shown a tendency to overheat and catch on fire -- a problem that has bedeviled computer makers using lithium-ion batteries made by Japan's Sony Corp. The delay also comes in response to the recent rise in product recalls and other quality gaffes in new Toyota vehicles, the individuals who spoke on condition of anonymity said.
They said the decision was made ultimately by Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe who in the recent past has voiced concern about Toyota's vehicle quality – what he has repeated called the auto maker's "lifeline." In the U.S., the number of recalls hit 2.38 million vehicles in 2005, before settling down to 601,894 vehicles last year, according to Toyota. The company plans to use a more advanced version of nickel-metal hydride batteries for the initial launch of the next-generation Prius, people familiar with the company's plans said.
Nickel-metal hydride batteries are a less sophisticated kind of technology than lithium-ion batteries but have been used in the Prius since 1997 and proven in real life driving for nearly a decade. Still, that doesn't mean the company has given up lithium-ion battery technology altogether. Toyota already has been testing a Prius equipped with a still-experimental lithium-ion battery pack on the company's proving ground in Toyota City. The car was being test-driven as recently as last week. The individuals said Toyota plans to launch the new battery technology as soon as it believes it is robust enough for mass production and real-life driving. That means, they said, the Japanese auto maker will likely equip a later derivative of the next-generation Prius with lithium-ion batteries. It wasn't clear when that Prius derivative, believed to be a station wagon, is coming out. A spokesman at Toyota's supplier of those lithium-ion batteries, Panasonic EV Energy Co. Ltd., declined to comment.
Toyota's move to postpone an application of lithium-ion batteries in hybrids will likely provide a big break for Toyota's rivals, such as General Motors Corp. which is trying to come out with hybrid vehicles using lithium-ion batteries as early as in 2009. People familiar with GM's product plans said GM had all but given up its hopes to beat Toyota to market with a gasoline-electric hybrid with a lithium-ion battery pack. GM, those people said, has been aiming at launching a Saturn Vue Green Line plug-in hybrid by the autumn of 2009. "This is a big break" for GM, one of those people said.
A Toyota spokesman in Tokyo said: "We always try to launch a product in a most timely fashion as possible."
The move is part of Toyota President Mr. Watanabe's effort to slow down the pace of product development in order to shore up vehicle quality and reliability following a string of recalls and other quality gaffes in recent years.
Last year, Mr. Watanabe told The Wall Street Journal that after a two-month review of its product-development processes, the company concluded engineers in some cases might have rushed out products without conducting enough quality checks, such as building prototypes. He said he intended to boost the number of those quality checks and would hire more engineers to do so.
Toyota scales back hybrid plans By JAMES R. HEALEY USA Today, June 11, 2007 http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-06-11-toyota-usat_N.htm
After taking a decade to sell its first 1 million gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles worldwide, Toyota Motor now says it plans to sell 1 million a year within a few years.
At the same time, the big automaker appears to be backing away from a pledge made a few years ago that hybrid powertrains would be available as options on nearly every U.S. vehicle by 2010.
"The right car, at the right place, at the right time, in accordance with energy trends," said Mira Sleilati, spokeswoman at Toyota Motor North America, the automaker's holding company. Her comment was via e-mail, in response to questions about Toyota's alternative-power vehicles.
"Hybrid technology is our core technology, and we will double our hybrid lineup. At the same time, we are accelerating the pace of our efforts to achieve annual sales of 1 million units in the early part of the 2010s," she said in the e-mail.
That would be less ambitious than promised in October 2003 at the Tarrytown, N.Y., briefing on the redesigned Prius hybrid.
Doubling the U.S. hybrid line would result in 12 hybrids, just one-third the 35 total models sold by Toyota's namesake brand, its Lexus luxury brand and its Scion youth brand - and not until after the 2010 date promised at the 2003 briefing.
How does that amount to "accelerating the pace" of hybrid launches? Sleilati wouldn't explain: "We, on behalf of TMC (Toyota Motor Corp., the Japanese parent company) are unable to provide any additional comment beyond this, particularly in regards to product planning or timing."
Regardless, Toyota would be the most ambitious hybrid marketer at a time that $3 gasoline has made fuel-saving hybrids popular in America. Sales of gasoline-electric hybrids should boom 226 percent to 854,000 in 2011 from 262,000 last year, according to a forecast by J.D. Power and Associates. "If gas prices stay high, the sky's the limit," says J.D. Power spokesman John Tews.
The United States, in fact, is the biggest hybrid market. It accounted for 163,000 of Toyota's 313,000 total hybrid sales last year, or 52 percent. And the United States accounted for about 57 percent of the first 1 million worldwide sales, which Toyota announced last week.
The automaker introduced its Prius gasoline-electric hybrid in Japan in 1997 and in the USA in 2000. It now also sells hybrid versions of the Camry sedan and Highlander SUV and of the Lexus LS and GS sedans and RX SUV. Honda, Ford Motor, General Motors and Nissan also offer hybrids, though sales lag behind Toyota substantially.
Fuel economy is the main selling point. Toyota's Camry hybrid is rated 34 miles per gallon in combined city-highway driving under 2008 federal rules versus 25 mpg for the highest-rated gasoline Camry.
Toyota also says it is mulling diesel-power passenger vehicles and expects to announce those plans, if any, next month. Rival Honda plans U.S. diesel cars in 2009.
They obviously have some business sense. eom
While we're waiting ...
Match the PWTC Character to Name Game
Close Otterman, he is the turkey. : ) I'd like to be the one to stuff him.
Go Bern
Where's Walter? ...
Bob, are you kidding? Walter is at the forefront of everything. Except of course the 10K filing.
Oh my, it's time for another weekend at Bernie's.
Everyone grab your swim wear! Party!!!!!
Go Bernie!!!!!!!!!!!!
Electric Cars As National Security 'Vehicles'
By Martin Eberhard
Published: 04-May-2007
PHOTO CAPTION: Tesla co-founders Marc Tarpenning (left) and Martin Eberhard with their 130 mph all-electric sports cars, some 400+ of which have now been pre-ordered with delivery starting later this years. Photo courtesy of Erin Lubin for San Francisco Chronicle.
Testimony of Martin Eberhard CEO and Co-founder of Tesla Motors Inc. before the Senate Finance Committee on May 1, 2007.
Good morning, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Thomas, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about electric vehicles and battery technologies.
The efforts of this Committee properly reflect our country’s renewed emphasis on addressing global climate change and dependence on oil from nations that do not always have our best interests in mind.
These concerns are my own top priorities and are the reason that I founded Tesla Motors. Four years ago, I had no bias towards electric cars or any other technology – I set out from an engineer’s perspective to understand which technologies could best help break America’s dependence on oil. After considerable research, I came to the conclusion that electric cars are by far the most efficient transportation technology – even when the electricity to power them is produced from coal; much more so with cleaner sources. Electric cars have the added advantage of being the only kind of car that breaks the tradeoff between performance and efficiency.
To put this in perspective, allow me a brief commercial to describe Tesla’s first model, the Tesla Roadster. The Roadster is a great looking two-seat convertible designed to beat a gasoline sports car like a Porsche or a Ferrari in a head-to-head showdown, yet with twice the energy efficiency of a Prius. It is a great sports car without compromises:
Breathtaking 0 to 60 acceleration in 4 seconds
135 mpg equivalent, per the conversion rate used by the EPA
More than 200 mile driving range
Fully DOT-compliant: crash tested, with airbags, crash structures, etc.
In short, the Tesla Roadster is the first electric car that people want to own because it is a great car. But at $92,000, one could reasonably ask whether such a car does any good for the world. Do we really need of another high-performance sports car? Will an expensive car make any difference to global carbon emissions or to our oil dependence? The answers, of course are no and not much. However, that misses the point. Almost any new technology has high cost before it can be optimized, and this is no less true for electric cars.
Tesla’s second model will be a roomy four door family car starting at $50,000, to be manufactured in our own plant in New Mexico beginning in 2009. Our third model will follow as quickly as we can, and will be more affordable still.
Tesla intends to become a major car company with a full line of highly efficient – but also highly desirable – electric cars. Our strategy is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then move down-market as quickly as possible to higher production levels and lower prices with each successive model. This strategy also allows us to change radically the public perception of electric cars, opening the market for a full spectrum of electric car models.
Tesla Motors is not looking for government handouts. Our business model is sensible, our cars are designed to be desirable and profitable, and I must answer to shareholders who expect a decent return on their investment. However, there are two ways that the tax system can help to catalyze consumer acceptance of zero emissions vehicles:
1. Restore and enhance the EV Income Tax Credit
Until 2006, taxpayers who purchased electric cars could claim up to a $4,000 tax credit through the Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit on IRS form 8834. In 2006, this deduction was reduced to $1,000, and now it is gone.
In the past, Senator Rockefeller and Representative Camp – and others – have proposed legislation that would have restored and even enhanced this tax credit. None of these measures passed; I suspect this is in part because since the 2003 rewrite of California’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate, no car companies offer electric cars for sale anyway.
Meanwhile, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created new tax credits for purchasers of hybrid cars – up to $3,400 for a car that still, in fact, burns gasoline and emits CO2. (This is the piece of legislation described by Bill Ford as the “buy Japanese” bill.) Please don’t misunderstand me: hybrids are fine – they usually do have higher gas mileage than their non-hybrid equivalents. But in the end, they are gasoline-powered cars. The only way to put energy into your Prius is through its gas tank.
However, a real electric car does a whole lot more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gasses than any hybrid ever can. We should be encouraging new car buyers to consider an electric car instead of a gasoline car – even instead of a hybrid.
For this reason I propose reconsidering some of what Senator Rockefeller proposed in his Alternative Fuel Promotion Act a few years back:
1. Reinstate the electric vehicle (EV) tax credit and increase this credit for advanced technology electric vehicles. Specifically, provide a tax credit of 10% of the EV purchase price, up to $4,000, with an additional $5,000 credit for any EV that has at least a 100-mile range. Do not sunset this credit sooner than 4 years.
2. Give a tax deduction (not a credit) for the cost of installation of charging stations.
3. Continue to provide states the authority to allow single occupant, electric fuel vehicles in high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, independently of allocations for hybrid access to these lanes.
2. Level the playing field with large SUVs
Under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, Congress raised the deduction ceiling for heavy-class vehicles (those over 3 tons) to $100,000, bumped the "bonus deduction" to 50 percent, and continued the accelerated five-year depreciation schedule. This, in effect, made virtually all three-ton, so-called business-use SUVs fully deductible in the first year. More than 50 vehicle models qualified for the tax break, and many were sold because of it.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 lowered this SUV loophole to $25,000 while retaining both the 50-percent bonus deduction and the five-year depreciation schedule. This deduction is still claimed as a Section 179 expense by many Americans who use their SUVs at least 50% for business uses. \
While I certainly sympathize with the need to help sell Hummers, I would like to propose a similar incentive program for true zero-emissions, zero-gasoline vehicles. Surely an accountant, a home inspector, or an attorney can use an electric car to visit his clients. And getting these business people out of gas guzzling 3-ton SUVs and into cars that burn no gasoline is good for America and good for the environment.
I therefore propose leveling the playing field for electric cars purchased for business use: amend the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to allow zero-emissions vehicles also to qualify for a $25,000 deduction, a bonus deduction of 50% of the car’s cost, and an accelerated depreciation schedule.
Moving from the tax system to the EPA, I would like to encourage you to allow car companies to buy and sell corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits. This kind of credit trading is widely supported, allowing more freedom in the marketplace while encouraging technological progress. CAFE credit trading would be a win-win-win, providing financing for new technology companies like Tesla Motors, solving regulatory problems for larger car companies like General Motors, all the while costing the American taxpayer nothing. The EPA already clearly specifies how to convert electric consumption to equivalent gasoline consumption. All we need is the ability to buy and sell the credits.
I would like to turn your attention now to energy storage, specifically batteries. I believe that large capacity energy storage will become one of the key issues in the coming decade, as we strive toward energy independence. Batteries are at the heart of every electric or hybrid car. They are also critical to making clean energy generation technologies such as wind and solar truly useful by capturing the energy when it is generated, and releasing it when it is needed.
First a couple definitions: the big box that powers our car; the little box that plugs into your laptop computer – these are called batteries. If you take either box apart, inside you would find a collection of individual cylindrical or rectangular energy storage devices – these are called cells.
Tesla Motors has pioneered a radical battery technology for cars, and that is the use of commodity cells – the kind used in laptops and cell phones – as the energy storage element in its batteries. We did this so that we could ride on the commodity coattails of the highly competitive consumer electronics market. This is how we broke the chicken-and-egg problem that even the largest car companies suffers when trying to produce an electric car.
The auto industry battery consortium, USABC, set about to invent automotive batteries made from specialty cells for cars; Tesla uses commodity cells to make its automotive batteries. This is why Tesla’s battery is cheaper, higher capacity, more reliable, and more available than anything produced by USABC. And we went into production for a fraction of the money already spent by the consortium. Note that Tesla Motors has been approached by quite a few of the car companies around the world about its battery technology, and has just signed a deal to provide batteries to one.
Here is the thing: practically all commodity cells today are made in Asia – mainly Japan, South Korea, and China. There is no significant production anywhere in the US. Even American battery companies – such as A123, Valance, and AltairNano – turn to Asia for mass production. As James Woolsey noted shortly after taking a test drive in a Tesla Roadster, this will become a national security problem as we become more dependent on stored electricity.
There is no good reason why commodity cell production could not to be here in the US. A modern lithium ion cell plant – such as those in Japan – is a highly automated affair with very low labor content. These plants resemble chip fabrication plants more than anything else. And, like chip fabrication, the year-to-year advances in capacity, quality, and price come not from great leaps of innovation, but rather from constant manufacturing improvement driven by fierce competition.
The trouble is that this manufacturing progress is like a moving walkway – if you ever step off, the walkway moves on without you, and it is difficult ever to catch up. Companies that decided in the ‘80s to become “fab-less semiconductor companies” – outsourcing their chip fabrication to Asia – will never again make chips. Companies – American companies like Intel – that stayed on the walkway continue to drive the technology and remain among the best and most competitive chip makers in the world.
Every American battery manufacturer stepped off the moving walkway years ago. We have no choice but to buy our cells from Asia, and the US will soon discover a new energy dependence if we don’t do something about it.
I do not have a specific recommendation for you here – I am simply pointing out an impending problem. I believe it is in all of our interest to encourage domestic production of competitive, commodity cells – cells that can be used by American electronics manufacturers like Dell Computer just as they can be used by American car companies. The key words here are competitive and commodity.
Tesla is not in the business of making cells, though I have thought about it a lot. If no one else steps up to the plate and if I can figure out how to finance such a venture, I might take a swing at it. Now if you are looking to invest about $500M, please let me know…
Note that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides incentives for practically every type of alternative automotive technology except electric cars. Why? Did somebody really kill the Electric Car? I am here to inform you that rumors of the Electric Car’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
To quote Rick Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, at the opening of the most recent LA Auto Show,
Why electricity?
First, electricity offers outstanding benefits… beginning with the opportunity to diversify fuel sources “upstream” of the vehicle. In other words, the electricity that is used to drive the vehicle can be made from the best local fuel sources – natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, and so on. So, before you even start your vehicle, you’re working toward energy diversity.
Second, electrically driven vehicles… are zero-emission vehicles. And when the electricity, itself, is made from a renewable source, the entire energy pathway is emissions free.
Third, electrically driven vehicles offer great performance… with extraordinary acceleration, instant torque, improved driving dynamics, and so on.
I could not agree with Mr. Wagoner more. Electric cars are far from dead, and need to be included – even highlighted – in every government program that promotes energy independence and minimizes global climate change. They are our best hope.
Once again, thank you very much for inviting me here today. I hope you will find my testimony to be helpful.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?archive=1&storyid=1245&first=12784&end=12783
Thanks Lubeman, I'll keep you informed of any progress.
Don
It may be time to organize a solicitation of proxies at a Special Meeting of Shareholders in order to replace the current directors and Mr. Walter. It has been nearly 3 years since Tim Connolly put Walter in as CEO of Power Tech netting disastrous results. Time and opportunity are quickly fading from Power Tech. Might I remind everyone that the Cornell notes are fast approaching.
Mr. Connolly, you have bled this Company quite enough, wouldn't you say? I know you have received at least 11 million unrestrictive shares which you've sold, received well over 100 thousand dollars in consulting fees, and received a bail out of a 230 thousand dollar imminent defaulting loan by Sentry at PWTC shareholders expense (not to mention the 18% annual interest rate tacked on and the 5% fee you likely received from consummation of the deal).
And Mr. Walter, your tenure speaks for itself. It's been riddled with blunders (Authorized shares debacle, Sentry, screwing up Toyota and Axion, not having the plates sent out a year ago mold framed), clueless cash burn rate, missed time lines (see below) and no marketing or gov. funding of the battery. We sit at a pitiful 3 cents/share and you can't even manage to get the 10K out on time. You've had 3 months since the authorized shares were corrected. You've told me on numerous occaisions that "more will be revealed". Anymore that's what I'm afraid of - what's in store for us next?
It's time for a change, forced or otherwise.
Power Technology Closes on $5.5 Million Capital Commitment
Tuesday August 31, 2004
HOUSTON, Aug. 31, 2004 (PRIMEZONE) -- Power Technology, Inc. (OTC BB:PWTC.OB - News) announced today that the Company has closed on a new $5.5 million round of equity and debt. The transaction closed on Friday, August 26, 2004, and the first round of funding was received by the company yesterday. Chairman and CEO Bernard J. Walter commented, "This round of capital funding will allow the company to begin the commercialization of its unique, patented technology for batteries. We intend immediately to begin pre-production engineering and development, and we expect to begin producing batteries for sale by 2005. This is a major milestone in the life of the company and I would like to personally thank our shareholders for their support.' Houston based Corporate Strategies Merchant Bankers http://www.corporate-strategies.net advised the Company on the $5,500,000 transaction.
About Power Technology, Inc. -- Power Technology, Inc. is a research and development company that is engaged in activities regarding alternative battery technology using patented, ultra light materials with up to 75% less weight and 90% less lead content than conventional batteries. The Company is in the early stages of commercializing its battery technology, and intends to introduce its batteries for sale in 2005.
We're cookin' now. Thanks BJ ...
PWTC
Ford workers pin hopes on battery-powered truck
by William Wilcoxen, Minnesota Public Radio
May 17, 2007
Ford Motor Company's Twin Cities assembly plant is slated to go dark next year. But some of the plant's workers hope battery power can keep Minnesota's auto industry moving forward. Members of the United Auto Workers are trying to save jobs by developing an electric vehicle. Union leaders plan to have an electric version of the Ford Ranger on display at the State Fair this summer.
St. Paul, Minn. — Inventor Bob Albertson of Alma, Wisconsin, has been researching and designing automotive components for decades and holds a number of patents. But Albertson says his track record was not enough to budge the skepticism he encountered when pitching his idea for an electric car to potential investors.
"I went out here two years ago to obtain funding," Albertson says. "I was telling people I could make a car that'd go 200-300 miles without a charge. Well, nobody believed me."
At the time 30 to 40 miles was all battery powered cars could muster. Today, though, electric cars that go 200 or more miles between battery charges are not only possible, there are already prototypes. A California company called Tesla Motors makes a high-speed, lithium battery-powered sports car. It's spendy--$92,000--but is drawing media attention from the likes of the New York Times and ABC News. A price tag in the six-figure range will keep Tesla's electric vehicles out of reach for most Americans. But inventor Bob Albertson maintains he can deliver battery power for the mass-market. Albertson says gas-powered vehicles already on the road can be reconfigured to run on electricity.
"We're looking at making kits available that you could retrofit, let's say a Ford Ranger, where they could take the present engine out of the car, the gas engine, and put in our kit," he says.
Albertson envisions dealerships around the region where auto workers could carry out these gas-to-electric conversions.
"We really feel this is something that will grab the eye of somebody."
- Gary Muenzhuber of United Auto Workers local 789Some of the strongest believers in his vision can be found in the union hall at United Auto Workers Local 789. The union office sits across the street from an 82-year-old plant that Ford plans to close next year. Nineteen-hundred people used to work there, building Ford's light truck, the Ranger. Next year, that number will fall to zero.
The UAW's Gary Muenzhuber says union leaders are excited about Albertson's plan to retrofit a Ranger with electric components and demonstrate its viability at the State Fair. The dream is to convince someone to save factory jobs by making electric Rangers from the wheels up.
"We really feel that this is something that will grab the eye of somebody. Maybe not Ford, we're just hoping we can do something to save this plant," Muenzhuber says.
But if the concept is a long shot, the plant's closing appears a sure thing. Ford lost $7 billion last year and has said it's firm in its decision to close the St. Paul plant, among others.
Albertson says even if they're not made at the existing plant in St. Paul, electric vehicles could offer a way to salvage auto manufacturing jobs somewhere in Minnesota.
But that hope will need to be reconciled with certain economic realities.
Leaders of UAW Local 789Albertson and the UAW lack financing.
And analyst Dave Cole, who chairs the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, says the industry does not seem interested.
Cole says the technical sensation of this year's International Auto Show in Detroit was a General Motors car. GM plans to produce a hybrid with a small gas engine that recharges a relatively low-cost battery pack and has a range of about 600 miles.
"Right now it looks to me like this series hybrid or plug-in hybrid with lithium batteries that are not huge but provide reasonable range -- that could be a real winner," Cole says.
Ford has already dabbled with an electric Ranger. The truck had a range of only about 65 miles and was cancelled after just a few years of production. As for efforts to preserve auto manufacturing jobs, Cole says the biggest obstacle is overcapacity, not only at Ford, but in the industry generally.
"If you look at the capacity to make cars and trucks in the world, there's capacity to make about 85 million and the sales rate is at about 65 million," Cole says. "So this overcapacity problem is a horrendous issue."
Despite the hurdles, UAW officials are moving ahead. They've been in contact with unions on the Iron Range and plan to drive the prototype Ranger from the fairgrounds to a Labor Day rally in Bovey.
I believe today was the last day to get the 10K in before we get the "E" at the end of our symbol.
I think BJ is cookin' sumptin special for us ...
It would almost seem that this company is being set up to default. Walter has been presented with opportunities to obtain government funding but is apparently too busy to pursue them personally or have others do so. ????????????????
There doesn't appear to be much effort at marketing.
There doesn't appear to be much effort in presenting progress reports.
There does seem to be great effort in giving Connolly PWTC shares. Is our patent next Mr. Walter?
I hope Walter proves me wrong. But looking at the track record .............
Some might conclude that the Sentry deal only happened in order to bail out Connolly from an inevitable loan default by Sentry. The cherry on top of that sweet deal was Connolly likely received a fee for arranging the short lived consumation.
"On February 10, 2006, upon the expiration of his previous consulting agreement, we entered into a new consulting contract with Mr. Timothy J. Connolly to provide general business strategic consulting and management advisory services for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006. Mr. Connolly agreed to provide three eight-hour workdays per month of general management strategic consulting services, including: advising on corporate structure; advising on marketing and press releases; developing strategic alliances; advising on and assistance with negotiating licensing agreements; advising on and assisting with obtaining patents; implementation of financial systems, structures and controls; retaining of appropriate executive, legal and accounting services; consulting on matters with our board of directors, including assisting the board of directors in developing policies and procedures and assisting the board of directors in mergers, acquisitions, and other business combinations. Mr. Connolly agreed to provide office space, a conference room, telecommunication equipment; secure high speed internet access, computer equipment, copying equipment, a receptionist and clerical assistance for our use during the term of the agreement at 109 North Post Oak Place, Suite 422, Houston, Texas 77024. We agreed to pay Mr. Connolly the sum of $50,000 cash, plus $6,000 per month, paid quarterly. These monthly payments will be made in cash for a period of 12 months or, at our option, the fees paid shall be paid in shares of our common stock at the lower of $.06 per share or 80% of the highest closing bid price per share the common stock as reported by Bloomberg, LP on the day prior to the date the payment is due. We also agreed to pay Mr. Connolly an advisory fee equal to 5% of the total transaction value of any acquisition, merger, or debt financing which is consummated during the term of this agreement."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1066978/000114420406021149/v043101_10ksb.htm
We don't have Sentry anymore. We're just left holding the bag.
"Following the execution of the Agreement, disagreements arose between us and SPT on one hand, and Mike Julian and Sentry LLC on the other hand, concerning certain matters relating to the transaction.
On May 10, 2007, the Company, SPT, Mike Julian and Sentry LLC executed a Mutual Release (the “Sentry Release”) concerning the disagreements. Pursuant to the Sentry Release, Mike Julian resigned as Vice President/Director of Operations of SPT and released all claims for further compensation under the Employment Agreement. Mike Julian and Sentry LLC released the Company and SPT from and with respect to any and all claims Julian or Sentry LLC has had or may have, arising out of or in any way connected with the CSI Note (as hereinafter defined), the Assignment, the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Employment Agreement, and the Stock Pledge Agreement. The Company and SPT released Mike Julian and Sentry LLC from and with respect to any and all claims the Company and SPT have had or may have, arising out of or in any way connected with the CSI Loan, the Assignment, the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Employment Agreement, and the Stock Pledge Agreement.
Cousin Connolly (CSI) and Robert Magyar (Sentry).
Form 8-K
ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTS
On April 11, 2006, our wholly owned subsidiary, Sentry Power Technology, Inc. (“SPT”) and we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Sentry Power, LLC (“Sentry LLC”). Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, SPT acquired the assets of Sentry LLC for a total purchase price of $1,195,000 which was paid at closing by issuing $960,000 worth of our restricted common stock (the “Power Shares”). Additionally, SPT assumed $235,000 in debt presently owed by Sentry LLC to CSI Business Finance, Inc. (“CSI”).
With regard to the debt, SPT assumed the debt to CSI and executed a new security agreement and we guaranteed the note. At closing, we executed a stock pledge agreement granting CSI a first lien on all capital stock or other interest of SPT which we hold. Our agreement to guarantee the debt was conditioned upon and subject to the terms and conditions of a Guaranty Stock Pledge Agreement (the “Stock Pledge Agreement”) which was entered into at closing between Sentry LLC and us which provides for Sentry LLC to pledge as collateral for the Stock Pledge Agreement an amount equal to $250,000 of the Power Shares. As part of the transaction, SPT entered into employment agreements with Robert Magyar to serve as SPT’s President and Michael Julian to serve as SPT’s Vice President/Director of Operations. Following the execution of the Agreement, disagreements arose between us and SPT on one hand, and Mike Julian and Sentry LLC on the other hand, concerning certain matters relating to the transaction.
On May 10, 2007, the Company, SPT, Mike Julian and Sentry LLC executed a Mutual Release (the “Sentry Release”) concerning the disagreements. Pursuant to the Sentry Release, Mike Julian resigned as Vice President/Director of Operations of SPT and released all claims for further compensation under the Employment Agreement. Mike Julian and Sentry LLC released the Company and SPT from and with respect to any and all claims Julian or Sentry LLC has had or may have, arising out of or in any way connected with the CSI Note (as hereinafter defined), the Assignment, the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Employment Agreement, and the Stock Pledge Agreement. The Company and SPT released Mike Julian and Sentry LLC from and with respect to any and all claims the Company and SPT have had or may have, arising out of or in any way connected with the CSI Loan, the Assignment, the Asset Purchase Agreement, the Employment Agreement, and the Stock Pledge Agreement.
As part of the transaction, Sentry LLC agreed to execute and executed a Stock Pledge Agreement between Sentry LLC and CSI (the “Sentry-CSI Stock Pledge”). Pursuant the Sentry-CSI Stock Pledge, Sentry LLC pledged and delivered to CSI its 6,075,949 shares of our common stock for the payment of our obligations under the that certain Secured Promissory Note dated April 7, 2006 (the “CSI Note”) issued in favor of CSI by Sentry LLC pursuant to which the Company, as successor-in-interest to Sentry LLC, has promised to pay the principal sum of $235,000.00 and the obligations of the Company under that certain that certain Secured Promissory Note dated January 31, 2007 issued in favor of CSI, pursuant to which the Company promised to pay the principal sum of $165,000 to CSI.
On May 10, 2007, the Company, SPT, and Robert Magyar executed a Mutual Release concerning any and all claims they had or may have against each other arising out of or in any way connected with the CSI Note and the Asset Purchase Agreement.
On May 10, 2007 the Company and SPT executed an Amendment to the May 1, 2006 Employment Agreement of Robert Magyar pursuant to which Robert Magyar released any and all claims he may have to Power Technology, Inc. Share Certificates #10137, #10138, and #10156 in the name of Sentry Power Systems LLC, evidencing ownership of 6,075,949 shares of common stock. We agreed to Issue to Robert Magyar 500,000 shares of our restricted common stock.
Yep, except of course anything good out of Power Tech. Go Walter! Go Hopwood! Go Ferrill!
Wow, what a week. Who's up for another weekend at Bernies?
My thoughts - First of all, BJW is not a patent lawyer. He was just assigned to look at the patent ownership dispute between
Snaper and Balak(the company). As for a lawsuit against Firefly, they have no product out yet so who really knows if there is any infringment.
I wouldn't read too much into the FASB133. That's simply an accounting valuation instrument (derivitives) regulation and BJW could be having complications in a number of valuation areas i.e. equipment, Sentry, etc. especially with the change in authorized shares from one quarter to the next. I don't know but again I don't think we can even come close to speculating on it.
The latest PR - It's obvious that BJW has had little success at getting things accomplished in a timely fashion, in minimizing cash burn and obtaining additional funding through government or other means. He's broke. Connally is holding the purse strings right now due to the notes he holds. He no doubt sees a need for the company to find a solution to the company's woes especially with the Cornell loans due later in the year.
I doubt that they have anything really going yet. I wouldn't expect anything postive from Sentry. I see that only as a liability. I think the PR was meant to buoy up the stock only on the prospects of some change from BJ's present course.
Form NT 10-K -- Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-K
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1066978/000114420407021913/0001144204-07-021913-index.htm
He'd better be finishing the 10K filing. It's due by tomorrow.
Yes it does. lol eom
But we're all invited to Texas for a ...
Info on the Zebra battery ...
http://www.mpoweruk.com/zebra.htm
Could egos get in the way? Most likely. Not to mention incompetence, fear, procrastination, and distraction could be factors as well.
I think their objectives are sound but their technology is flawed. They have been trying to do a work around on PT's technology whereas it would have been better to just license from PT. Seems that PT and Firefly should have got together some time ago. IMHO of course.
Poor Firefly. eom
OT - Da Bears. Cool. Congrats. I'm envious. : )
"I'll bet Sentry sells at least 10 to 12 of their systems NEXT year."
I bet that would probably be 10 to 12 more than they sold this year then. Something is rotten in Houston ...errr Austin ... or wherever the company office is today.
2007 Electric Car Progress Report
By EV World
Expert panel reports to California Air Resources Board on status of both battery and fuel cell vehicle technology.
April 22, 2007
Tantalizingly close, but not quite ready for prime time. That's the conclusion of the latest Independent Expert Panel report to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on the "Status and Prospects for Zero Emission Vehicle Technology."
For the last decade, California has relied on experts to advise it on the progress of electric car technology in all its manifestations, from battery-only EVs called "Full Performance Battery Electric Vehicles" or FPBEVs in the report to hydrogen-fueled vehicles, including those that burn it directly in an internal combustion engine (H2ICVs) and those that rely on fuel cells (FCEVs).
And with each report there has been progress; certainly not a pace that regulators and environmentalists would wish to see, but progress, nonetheless. And the 2007 report doesn't break that pattern. It sees slow, but steady progress in battery and fuel cell development, but hurdles remain, both technologically and economically.
That assessment is already being challenged by electric car advocates who see its conclusions still unduly supportive of hydrogen fuel cell technology, but having reviewed the 13-page executive summary, that appraisal seems unwarranted. In summarizing the findings of the panel, which included not only evaluations of three key "candidate" technologies: energy storage, hydrogen storage and fuel cells but also interviews with and questionnaires to battery and automobile manufacturers, they concluded that... at this time no fuel cell developer has achieved the necessary requirements for automotive fuel cell commercialization.
Further, on the question of hydrogen storage, they observe.
Storing sufficient hydrogen on a vehicle to power it for adequate distance, safely, and at reasonable cost, without an excessive weight penalty has been and remains a serious challenge for the automobile industry and its suppliers.
...Unlike other major technologies being pursued in support of ZEVs, hydrogen storage technologies have advanced relatively little in recent years.
So, be it battery energy density or hydrogen storage capacity and the resultant impact each has on vehicle performance and range, in particular, ZEV's continue to be perceived, at least by manufacturers and CARB's expert panel as having limited immediate utility and therefore commercial prospects when compared to fossil fuel alternatives.
But all the news isn't bad. When discussing nickel metal hydride high power batteries used in today's gasoline-electric hybrids, the panel sees this technology as being "mature" and that they see the cost coming down steadily as unit volume increases. Today, auto makers like Ford and Toyota and Honda pay between $2000 and $4000 for their NiMH battery packs, but CARB's panel -- on consultation with manufacturers -- see that dropping to between $1300 and $2500 in volumes of a million units or more.
But high power NiMH batteries are engineered specifically for the needs of today's gas-electric hybrids like the Prius, not FPBEVs or plug-in hybrids [PHEV], which would travel further on electric power, requiring more energy storage. For PHEVs you need a class of NiMH battery that offers both power and energy density. The panel reported that while such a battery would cost, in volume, between $800-$1200 and give the owner an electric only range of 10-20 miles, their research turned up no efforts among manufacturers to develop such a battery, even though the added cost would more than pay for itself in terms of fuels savings over the life of the vehicle.
The third class of NiMH battery, the one that has been used for years with surprising durable in vehicles like the Toyota RAV4 EV, is the high energy version. Here the executive summary states...
It is the conclusion of the Panel, however, that energy density is fundamentally limited and marginal for FPBEV applications, and costs remain as high as or higher than in 2000 and are unlikely to decline. High energy NiMH technology for possible FPBEV applications has not advanced in recent years.
Electric car advocates, many of whom have practical, day-to-day experience with this type of battery, argue that we don't have to wait on advances in fuel cells, hydrogen storage or lithium ion chemistry. The Panasonic batteries in their RAV4 EVs clearly demonstrate that we can make use of this battery today, but because, some allege, the patents are held by the unit of a major oil company, it is being deliberately kept off the market. A more likely explanation is that the demand for nickel for use in high-strength steel in China and elsewhere is putting the squeeze on nickel prices and not oil company greed.
The panel report is much more encouraged by the progress in lithium chemistry development, stating in the summary, "Li ion batteries are making impressive technical progress worldwide especially with regard to calendar life and cycle life and safety, the areas of special concern for automotive applications. Promising new materials and chemistries are expanding the capabilities and prospects of all Li ion technologies."
High power lithium ion batteries are "close to commercialization" for hybrid vehicle applications, the panel reports.
Importantly, for HEV applications Li Ion batteries have potentially lower cost than NiMH because they promise to deliver the required power with smaller capacities and lower specific cost.
According to EV World sources, the next generation of Prius, due out probably now in 2009, will use lithium ion instead of NiMH, packing more punch into a lighter, smaller package than is possible with its current battery.
But the report is less confident of Li ion technology being developed for PHEV applications, seeing the projected cost of $3500-4000 in mass production being above the cost of fuel savings (assuming, presumably, the absence of carbon taxes or peak oil, either of which could drive the price of gasoline, along with everything else, much higher).
And what about Li ion in FPBEVs? Again, the panel's projections aren't promising. They conclude...
...that battery cost remains high even in mass production, (probably near the levels projected in 2000), well in excess of expected lifetime fuel cost savings.
The Panel also looked at ZEBRA (sodium nickel chloride) battery and saw them as "likely to remain the lowest-cost advanced battery because of low materials costs and can be ordered now from its Swiss manufacturer in quantities of 1000s, with rapid expansion of production possible if demand develops."
However, the Panel has not seen any automobile manufacturer interest in the battery, probably due to a combination of limited power density and the implications of high temperature operation.
Th!nk Nordic is reported to be planning to use the ZEBRA battery when it resumes production of its "City" electric car this year. First hand reports to EV World indicate the battery will deliver 100km (62mi) of range per charge at highway speeds. And the battery has proven durability in excess of a decade.
After visiting battery and auto manufacturers and polling them on their views and future electric drive vehicle plans, the Panel reported that the focus is on reducing the cost and expanding production of well-understood and proven NiMH batteries for conventional hybrids, but there are no plans to develop them for FPBEVs. The manufacturers also consider PHEV's too immature in terms of their battery specifications to include them in their current planning efforts.
The same largely applies to lithium ion battery producers: the growing HEV market appears mature enough to warrant capital investment, while FPBEVs and PHEVs aren't seriously being considered. The exceptions to this generalization would appear to be Mitsubishi, Subaru and Nissan, all of whom have claimed over the last year to be developing Lithium ion batteries for FPBEVs. Also, Miles Motors and, presumably Bricklin, are working with Chinese Li ion manufacturers to supply batteries for their electric car programs.
And, of course, General Motor's debut of the Volt and its contracts with JCS and Cobasys/A123 would suggest that the Panel was premature in its conclusions or manufacturers weren't entirely forthcoming in what they revealed to the Panel. The report adds what is clearly a last minute addendum to their report by noting, "the prospects of PHEVs also were judged negatively by most major automobile manufacturers until recently. However, several manufacturers are now active in modeling, designing and evaluating various PHEV architectures and technologies..."
Hydrogen fuel cell systems are equally beset by technical hurdles, the Panel summarizes, with this important caveat...
The Panel remains cautiously optimistic regarding the prospects for fuel cell system commercialization. There are still large technical barriers to be solved but these might well be overcome over the next 5-10 years through massive efforts underway at the major fuel cell and automobile manufacturers.
Looking at all of the available energy sources and mobility applications, the Panel envisioned ZEVs developing through three distinct stages: demonstration (100s of vehicles annually), pre-commercialization (1000s annually) and mass commercialization (100,000s annually). The chart below is reproduced from the executive summary and illustrates their time line projections.
In perhaps the most upbeat assessment of the report, the Panel foresees that PHEVs with "modest" energy storage capacity -- presumably under 20 miles -- "will be derived from HEVs and will proliferate rapidly, stimulating further development and cost reduction of energy batteries (as opposed to the current focus on power batteries) and leading to commercially viable PHEVs and, in the longer term, FPBEVs.
(City electric cars or CEVs) "will become commercially viable in Japan and Europe in the not too distant future due to lower hurdles for BEVs to overcome." Further, it is the Panel's view that CEVs will find it slower going in North America, because of range and freeway driving limitations. Fuel cell vehicle commercialization faces even more daunting cost and infrastructure challenges, but concludes the executive summary:
As a long term ZEV outcome, the Panel can envision plug-in hybrid FCEVs, powered by sustainable electricity for shorter trips and sustainable hydrogen for longer trips.
Assuming the Panel's analysis is correct, convergence of battery and hydrogen fuel cell technology will be the ultimate outcome, just as both Ford and GM are now envisioning through their plug-in, hydrogen fuel cell Edge and Volt, respectively. Getting there won't be easy and timing will be critical as geology, geopolitics and Gaia also converge to compel us to take the next exit off the petroleum highway, the one marked "EV World".
Executive Summary
ZEV Technology Review April 20, 2007
Report of the ARB Independent Expert Panel - 2007