is...(lightning strikes only once unless you remain standing where you shouldn’t be.)
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.
What newcomers TP?
Name two or (let's make it simple)..... one.
You haven't done it yet.
L_R
It appears you don't understand the diamonoid patent and its applications.
Remember the ALD patent. They were using it months in advance before the patent was approved.
Now tell us the significance of the the diamonoid patent please and what it will be able to do.
Or are you just going to ignore this and run like before?
L_R
This is a big deal.
Thank you for this post.
L_R
I don't know of another company that can provide solutions for decades to come.
Unlike other polymers coming out this is an "active" polymer that is capable of switching at incredible speeds and with low voltage.
It is clear from the presentation this fall that each iteration of the polymer sees improvements in performance.
We are not done with its performance ability nor with the technological advantages.
The data is robust and the reliability and stability for multiple years so can hold up for many years.
I would be very surprised if Lebby does not capture the Lion shares of the market they are targeting.
We will look back at these prices and wonder why we did not buy up more shares than we did.
L_R
Apples to oranges? No no no he has gone bananas.
L_R
Where to find the standard >1000K devices:
Try as you may the only place one can find a standard of “> 1000” fabricated devices is at foundries and specifically in the PVT stage of production trials. Here are 4 links where it is clear that” > 1000 units” is an expectation of trial runs in the PVT stage.
PVT (PRODUCTION VALIDATION TEST) PVT is the last build the units you are building are supposedly intended to be sold to customers, if they pass all of your test stations. PVT typically transitions directly into Ramp and Mass Production, or a Pilot build with no time gap. PURPOSE: to verify mass production yields at mass production speeds Validate and qualify additional tools needed to support quantities for early ramp No parallel experimental units allowed (I have never seen this actually happen, but it is a goal that should be driven to for as long as possible) TYPICAL QUANTITIES: 1K to 20K
185600010.jpg
https://docplayer.net/185600010-A-guide-to-engineering-builds-evt-dvt-pvt.html
PVT (Production Validation Test)
PVT is the “last build” -- the units you are building are supposedly intended to be sold to customers, if they pass all of your test stations. PVT typically transitions directly into Ramp and Mass Production, or a Pilot build with no time gap.
Purpose:
To verify mass production yields at mass production speeds
Validate and qualify additional tools needed to support quantities for early ramp
No parallel experimental units allowed (I have never seen this actually happen, but it is a goal that should be driven to for as long as possible)
Typical Quantities: 1K to 20K
(This may be identical to the previous article but a different link)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-difference-between-evt-dvt-pvt-engineering-validation-jenny-he/
PVT (Production Validation Test)
PVT is the “last build” — the units you are building are supposedly intended to be sold to customers, if they pass all of your test stations. PVT typically transitions directly into Ramp and Mass Production, or a Pilot build with no time gap.
Purpose: to verify mass production yields at mass production speeds
Validate and qualify additional tools needed to support quantities for early ramp
No parallel experimental units allowed (I have never seen this happen, but it is a goal that should be driven to for as long as possible)
Typical Quantities: 1K to 20K
https://instrumental.com/build-better-handbook/evt-dvt-pvt#:~:text=PVT%20(Production%20Validation%20Test),all%20of%20your%20test%20stations.
WHAT IS A PVT?
Also called an MVT (Manufacturing Validation Testing), PVT (Product Validation Testing) centers around testing manufacturing capabilities at full speed and assuring quality at higher and higher volumes. In the product validation testing stage, engineers design and build quality control systems designed based on common manufacturing errors spotted in these early runs.
A product validation test often measures the quality of finished products made at full production speed. Normally this means making 1,000 or more units of a product and measuring for functional and cosmetic imperfections, as well as irregularities within the manufacturing process, like operator training level, line speed
improving-production-yield-thumb.jpg
https://www.infosys.com/iki/perspectives/improving-production-yield.html
There has been an attempt to place this standard of “extremely high yields in > 1000 poles units” in the lab in Denver. There are a number of things wrong with this vain attempt. Here they are:
1) in the context of the slide presentations a year ago the titles of the slides in order were:
A) P 22 Foundry Fabrication with PDK
B) P 23 Foundry Fabrication (vertical grating coupler)
C) P 24 Polymer Slot -Foundry Processing
D). P 25 Poling for Foundries
Clearly each slide is showing what is happening at the foundries.
To wrestle the phrase “extremely high yields > 1000 poles devices” and place it in another context such as the lab in Denver does injustice to all we know to be true about interpreting in context.
2) yields of 1000 or more are well known in the context of a foundry. Yields are well defined as the number of operational die on a wafer to the total number of die on the wafer and slide 24 mentions
PILOT wafers (SEM images)
Now what about the part “ > 1000”?
Go ahead and Google semiconductor manufacturing and yields and 1000 units. You will only find that yields are only related in the semiconductor industry in association with foundries.
Here is what I get when typing in yields semiconductor foundries and 1000. First or second hit……
As someone who has worked in testing full 200mm memory wafers at a "stable" node the target "good" yield was typically 90% at wafer level. For a company to make a profit and retain customers I would expect >98% to be considered a good yield for wafer testing with over 200die per wafer.
Yields:
According to Bloomberg research, manufacturing yield rates below 90% are a cause of concern.5 According to benchmarking authority American Productivity & Quality Center (APQC), the top performers (above 75th percentile) in the broader manufacturing sector maintain a 97% success rate for products that pass all quality specifications the first time around.6 In comparison, bottom performers (below 25th percentile) deliver only an 89% success rate, while the median rate is around 94%. This might appear to be a minor difference, but for large-scale, high-precision manufacturing, it can mark the difference between sustainable business growth and outright bankruptcy.
TP:
I think Lebby knew what he was doing when he posted “extremely high yields on > 1000 poled devices” and it was apparent that investors may have not caught its meaning but the clients he was reaching out to knew exactly what this meant.
You only need to know that yield is calculated by counting the number of dies (the wafer is diced or cut into dies) on a wafer that are have operational devices on board out of a total number of devices on the wafer.
Low yields is below 89% operational devices. Average yield is 94% operational devices and high yield is 97%. What then is extremely high yields?
L_R
TP:
You still haven’t read the links I see.
Criticize the messenger instead of the message.
The phrase is meaningless without the “>” sign. It’s a threshold.
I can’t help you if you continue to obfuscate its meaning which the industry interprets for us.
Your attempts to provide your own meaning falls upon deaf ears.
Go learn what meaning the industry has assigned to the phrase. I am not going to play into your wanton ignorance. You embarrass yourself
And btw you have not named one poster yet who is a newbie. Not one.
I think you newbie audience is a figment of your imagination at this point in time.
L_R
TP:
You have a difficult time with the phrase "extremely high yields on > than 1000 poled devices".
Now you have dropped out part of the phrase (and it is critical for understanding) and you do so because you don't understand what it means.
Here's what you wrote:
"extremely high yields on poled devices".
This is not at all the same as "extremely high yields on > 1000 poled devices".
The ">" is meant to signify that a threshold has been reached by the foundry without which the phrase becomes meaningless.
Something significant was meant by this phrase otherwise is would not have been worth posting on slide 25 of their presentation a year ago.
Now for the explanation:
Reaching this threshold means they have achieved industry standards where profitability can be reached by the foundry.
1) Low yields means the foundry does not make any money because of waste due to bad die on the wafer. Dicing the wafer creates die (each die contains the same circuits).
2) High yields means they can break even or make some money but it is not worth proceeding unless they reach higher levels of yield. (fewer bad die).
3) Extremely high yields means that the foundry sees the entire production process as being very profitable. This being the case they will proceed to mass production when the time is right. Otherwise it becomes senseless to proceed with mass production unless the yields are extremely high. (no bad die or a few around the perimeter. must be 98% to 99% yield or higher to fit into the extremely high yield category.)
Nobody can help you with your confusion on this matter.
I don't believe for one minute that the links I provided have been read or absorbed by you.
So I will no longer play into your ignorance on this subject.
I would hope you are not wantonly ignorant but since you have a hard time understanding industry and tech lingo I can understand your inability to comprehend this phrase above.
You wish it to mean something else but anything you say on this matter has become complete nonsense so far.
L_R
You cannot get around the meaning of that phrase (extremely high yields in > 1000 POLED devices) no matter how much you twist and squirm.
The contortions that must occur are far more unbelievable that just accepting what the phrase means.
L_R
We got this!
L_R
The real changes have been done and the modulator devices coming from foundries have been tested and live trials are occurring now as we post here today on this message board.
No less than 3 foundries are ready to produce when the call comes in. (likely more).
Now we are just waiting to hear about the transceivers and the news on this is much closer.
Just like operational modulators became a reality so will the transceivers.
L_R
Some of us don’t know anything.
Others may know more.
And that is the way it is
L_R
This is correct. That question was asked at the ASM as I remember and Lebby’s answer suggests that is also the case.
I can’t remember who asked that question. I think it came from someone I know. 😉
Way beyond arrogant if it is not true and Lebby does not come across as openly arrogant. I believe what is displayed is in fact true.
JMO
L_R
Xena:
Slide 15 stood out for me as well. I am on that slide now:
Prospects: > 12 prospects identified based upon value proposition discussions
Lead: > 5 leads engaged including trial runs of technology.
Selection: > 2 in key "push" and "pull" categories which is defined by silicon platform providers and fabs and foundries.
Observations:
1) We have new information above. >5 leads which include trial runs of technology. Now somebody is really interested.
2) Selection > 2 means at least 3 foundries and possible 4 foundries (maybe more we just don't know) are engaged in the "push" to have this technology adopted by the industry and they are also being pulled by these data centers to make sure this technology is available asap.
3) Prospects > 12 what? the industry is really interested.
"I can discuss what might be true even though I may not Know it is true"
L_R
I have seen somewhere that 1000 hours of ALT testing can be translated into 8 years with some parameters that in the test..
2-5K ...... you are looking at no less than 16 years and up to 64 years in some cases.
Just what I discovered.
L_R
The ECOC presentation makes it clear that there is no competitive product that currently can compare with the performance of Perk applied to a device. The spider “graphs” make that very clear showing the comparative performance.
Furthermore, each iteration of Perk seems to improve in performance which suggests to me that the performance can only get better over time and I believe this is clearly known by those who attended the ECOC presentation.
Why do we continue to say Perk will become ubiquitous? Because it is additive. Whatever works well works better with Perk applied. We have said this many times.
Best to you,
L_R
Unlike you I provided the links to what this language means.
Unlike you I never made up anything. Those thoughts from the papers provided are not mine.
The links clearly indicate what the phrase means and it comes from semi-conductor industry papers....... no better source . Take your argument up with those papers.
So I am clearly NOT on my own if the source of the information is from the semi-conductor industry. There is no better source, not better reference, not better authority to back up what I say.
You on the other hand make up stories providing a fictional construction off the top of your head and can prove nothing by any link or reference. Then you have the gull to suggest .... "Prove me wrong."
You might as well say "there are aliens on the Pluto." PROVE ME WRONG.
And this is your whole line of argument.
Proof positive that you are totally disingenuous.
Run TP Run.
L_R
You provide no explanation for the phrase :
“Extremely high yields for > 1000 POLED devices”
Run TP Run
L_R
Gladly do that.
L_R
Hey KCCO do I owe you another $5.00. By the time I show up at the ASM inflation will have eaten it away.
L_R
Then again…I think back to the “extremely high yields on >1,000 poled devices” comment.
$2 a share and 3 major contracts……... In your wildest dreams!
L_R
I assume you wish to see a couple of signed agreements?
L_R
Thanks for bringing it to this board.... Carlin.
L_R
Please Proto. Don't ask him to come back.
I have lost a $5.00 bet to KCCO last time I said he would be out for a week.
He was back in a couple of days.
L_R
Here be the matter:
every single photonic integrated circuit requires modulation. The applications are limitless.
Run TP Run
L_R
I don’t assume much Ted.
What do you think I believe about EO modulators in transceivers and the time line for hitting the markets?
I don’t remember sharing anything in this regard. Please tell me what I believe or would you be so bold as to contrive something and attribute it to me?
Baha
L_R
Yes and of course there is more than transceivers to upgrade.
I singled this (transceivers) out among the many upgrades (in the data centres) that need to be done before Nividia's GPU upgrades.
L_R
TP:
The answer is: you don’t know. Unfortunately those are the questions that matter.
Carlin:
I believe you are correct.
Best,
L_R
Yes. I thought the same.
L_R