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.
March 27, 2002 test result:
On March 27, 2002, testing was conducted to supplement the results documented in test report FSSS10002-0 " Fixed Security Screening System FSSS Validation Testing: Phase 1 of 4". The testing methodology was modified to evaluate the performance of the system when attempts were made to deceive the system. Targets known to haven given false indications of the presence of explosives by existing screening system currently deployed in airport security applications were used for the tests.
75 integrations were performed using false targets and 50 integrations were performed using explosive targets. The explosive targets were successfully identified 50 times out of the 50 opportunities. Of the 75 integrations taken using the false targets no explosive indications were received.
March 25, 2002 test result:
On March 25, 2002, testing was conducted to supplement the results documented in test report FSSS10002-0 " Fixed Security Screening System FSSS Validation Testing: Phase 1 of 4". The testing methodology was modified to evaluate the performance of the system when attempts were made to conceal the explosive targets by disguising the explosive target in such a manner that it would have a low probability of being detected by a cursory physical inspection or by a standard imaging system.
One hundred integrations were performed. The target was successfully identified 100 times out of the 100 opportunities.
March 21, 2002 tests results:
On March 21, 2002 additional testing was conducted to supplement the data documented in test report FSSS10002-0 " Fixed Security Screening System FSSS Validation Testing: Phase 1 of 4". The testing methodology was modified to evaluate the system performance when attempts were made to conceal the explosive targets by adding items to the suitcase.
One hundred integrations were performed using two different explosive types providing 200 opportunities to identify an explosive target. The targets were successfully identified 200 times out of the 200 opportunities. There were six (6) re-shoot signals received when the C4 target was used and eight (8) re-shoot signals received when the TNT target was used. Each re-shoot signal was followed by an explosive signal for a 100% accuracy rate.
Twenty additional integrations were taken on the suitcase in areas void of an explosive target i.e. outside the range of the single detector-single source configuration but placing other items such as the ammonia cleaner within the field of view of the detector. No explosives indications were received confirming that no "false positives" would be obtained under the conditions this test was performed.
This is from October 2001 testing:
"This report provides the results of the Phase One testing. Five luggage types and two explosives types were utilized in this phase of the testing. Each luggage type was examined by obtaining 500 data sets. Each data set contains two spectra and analyzes for both C4 and TNT, which equates to 2000 opportunities to identify the presence of an explosive substance for each luggage type and 10,000 opportunities for the five luggage types. As discussed in the Validation Results section, an accuracy rate of 100 % was achieved. The accuracy rate achieved for the statistically significant sample size provides sufficient information to warrant continuation of the testing plan through Phase Two."
This is from September 2001 testing:
"While the system configuration tested was not optimized for this application, based upon the results obtained during the course of the testing, it was concluded that the EM-1 technology has potential for deployment in a fixed installation security application such as building and airport security. The test data obtained demonstrated that although the test results confirmed the ability of the system to detect the explosive targets in a piece of luggage, improvements could be realized by optimizing the configuration for the specific application. The 100% success in identifying the explosive targets during both Phase 1 and greater than 98% during Phase 2 using a less than optimal configuration confirmed the potential of the technology for use in this application. Additional testing is warranted."
Yes trout back, there are so many great opportunities out there in the explosive detection field. There is not only the need, but there are billions available to develop and produce reliable explosive detection devices. Over a year ago we have learned that CDEX has used a "third party verification" of it's technology, and yet, we are still in the development of a final prototype to be eventually tested either later this year of the beginning of the next one. While there are other companies that actually are testing devices in the field, even as they are not totally developed and fail proof, where is CDEX? Where is EM-1 that was so successful over 2 and a half years ago in Taiwan? where is the FS3 that was 100% accurate in detecting explosives in baggages? The competition in the field is fierce, but no other company has claimed 100% accuracy as CDEX did. Why then we are not on the market yet?
caddor35, I believe you are right. Based on the Exemption included in the Settlement and the Final Judgment, the provision for the distribution was done based on the fact that CDEX is not registered. If CDEX files for registration, its securities will no longer be unregistered, but in process of registration, and the Exemption will be placed on hold until the registration is either approved or denied. If approved, the Exemption does not apply anymore, and the Final Judgment must be amended. If not approved, then the distribution of the unregistered securities can take place.
Argument in support of distribution before registration:
77. At present, CDEX stock is unregistered. Under the circumstances of this settlement, Loch Harris’s shares of CDEX fall within an exemption to the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. The relevant exemption is contained in
§ 3(a)(10) of that Act, which reads as follows:
(a) Exempted securities. ... [T]he provisions of this title [15 U.S.C. §§ 77a et seq.] shall not apply to any of the following classes of securities:
(10) ... [A]ny security which is issued in exchange for one or more bona fide outstanding securities, claims or property interests, or partly in such exchange and partly for cash, where the terms and conditions of such issuance and exchange are approved, after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions at which all persons to whom it is
proposed to issue securities in such exchange shall have the right to appear, by any court ....
The Court clearly states that, under the circumstances of the Settlement, the distribution must fall within the Exemption, that is, the distribution must be performed before the registration. If CDEX submits the registration before the distribution is complete, the Exemption does not apply anymore, and it is placed on hold, until the distribution is done. If the registration is submitted before the distribution, the distribution must be delayed until the registration is approved, and the aforementioned paragraph must be changed to reflect the new situation. Any opinions?
I cannot see any reason why MP would want get Loch shareholders as CDEX shareholders other than serving him, by the sheer number of shareholders he needs for listing on a higher exchange. Other than that, Loch shareholders are not much more that a nuisance and a ballast to any future plans. No new money will be pouring in as a result of the exchange, to the contrary, any money that would be available will be drained by shareholders that want to close the Loch/CDEX chapter and move on, after so many years. In the end, all this faith in MP will not be more than a hope to be among the first ones to bail out. Eventually, as the price falls, some might reinvest their profit in CDEX and hope for a new run. It gets down to basic investment strategy: buy low, sell high.
Art, of course the proof is there that I was bringing up to the Judge issues that were carefully omitted by both parties to fit their wicked negotiations. Any sane person would quickly realize that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated and signed for the benefit of the parties in the detriment of the shareholders. Definitely, any sane person.
I did? When and where?
Art, yes, it is correct, you got that impression, but it definitely is a wrong impression (what else is new?) And because it is simply an impression I wouldn't even bother asking you to prove your statement.
Raiderman, I understand that you know more about the whole case than the rest of us, so what has occured to date that was ordered by the Court?
Wina, the Court never addressed the defendants regarding the exchange/distribution. All reference and orders were given to Loch Harris, Nominal Defendant. The Final Judgment specifically establishes 3 parties in the ruling: plaintiffs, defendants, and nominal defendant, each represented by corresponding counsel. If stating facts presented in the Final Judgment you call planting seeds, then you are right. Please, take some time and read the Final Judgment again.
Raiderman, to the best of my knowledge, there is no direct referrence of the speciffic Transfer Agent of Loch Harris in the Final Kudgment, and there is clear and speciffic instructions given to Loch to perform the exchange. The transfer agent is not obliged to do anything the Court orders to Loch Harris. If Loch Harris instructs and provides the funds for, to perform the exchange, than it will be done. Further more, the order is given to Loch Harris (nominal defendant in the case) not to the members of the BOD of Loch Harris (main defendants in the case). So we get back to whether Loch Harris will actually be able and willing to comply with the Court Order. The responsibility of the exchange falls on Loch Harris, not on the defendants or on the transfer agent.
The only benefit CDEX would get from bringing Loch shareholders aboard is the sheer number of shareholders that will help CDEX with one of the requirements (number of shareholders) to apply for listing on a higher exchange. Other than that, Loch shareholders will be not much more than a nuisance to MP. So, even if 3/4 of the current Loch shareholders bail out, it will not affect CDEX, since based on the latest tally, there will still be left around 500 shareholders.
If and when CDEX starts trading and it's price gets to a certain level, based on pre planned announcements of contracts and revenues, there will be a major defection of old Loch shareholders that will attempt to recover millions of dollars worth of very long term investment. Than will precipitate the price down, and not only will make CDEX little palatable for new investors, but may give it a hard time to recover. You see, MP may attempt to lunch CDEX on the market with certain high expectations, and starting up with a heavy ballast of residual shareholders tired of waiting to recover their investment or perhaps make some profit, will not help him and his plans.
Raiderman, perhaps there might be a "mini run", as you call it, but I doubt it very much. It is very dificult to know exactly when each broker will submit the Claim Form. It is hard to know how long it takes from the broker's decision to mail in the certs to the passing of the information to the clerk that answers the phone when you call. On the other hand, the performance of Loch price and volume in the last couple of months does not show any buying interest. If anyone would want to increase his/her position it would have been done by now. But of course, we must never underestimate the Canadian brokers.
The question is; Is there a contingency plan in the casuality that after August 15, the Boys come up with some kind of excuse to delay the actual distribution, or the silence and inaction continues? You, as one of the lead plaintiffs, must know more than we do. Have you discussed with the coulsel the possibility of additional actions if things do not progress according to the Court Order?
Rio, it is always wise to contact each broker and find out when they intend to send in the Claim From. Some may do it earlier, some may wait until the last day before the dead line. Stating openly that "you still get CDEX shares if you buy Loch up until August 15th" is a little risky. You don't know the date each particular broker will submit the Claim Form (some may have already done so) and those shareholders will find out that recent purchases of Loch may not qualify for the exchange. Stating the contrary contradicts the Judges recommendation regarding trading Loch stock after June 27.
At the same time, each shareholder should call their brokers and find out if they will hold unregistered shares of a private company. Usually, brokers hold registered shares in publicly trading companies. If they will hold out unregistered shares of a private company, they should be asked to state that in writing, so that shareholders can have an official document from the broker stating that.
Caution is advised.
Good advice Rio. I for once will refrain from answering GQ's posts, he is clogging the board. Perhaps you can do something about it.
Wina, I reposted what GQ wrote. Don't blame me for his words.
JH, did you ask yourself whay did MP made promises that he was not going to keep? He can do it and it's OK, right? Double standards here? LOL.
JH, my "return" posts were simply informative, not directed to anyone in particular. I was engaged first. But I can see where you are going with repeating that post over and over. Have at it. It works worse against you than me.
Promises:
Posted by: baddog
In reply to: riorancho who wrote msg# 1566
Date:7/11/2003 2:14:02 AM
Post #of 1798
As far as I'm concerned,
MP, has not lived up to his word about informing us in a timley manner about what CDEX is up to. We still wallow in the dark as far as CDEX is concerned. No one really knows what's going on with CDEX. We were made a lot of promises by MP but few have been kept. What does it take to get some information from this man? Does anyone know? If so please let us know. MP we are waiting. Regards Baddog.
JH, if you wish, we can continue this line of discussion somewhere else.
JH, why you always have to turn what I say and "put it another way"? To the best of my knowledge, the maximum number of shareholders that have ever posted on the message boards may be around 500. How many of them did say they agreed with the Settlement? Perhaps a dozen, maybe two. How about the rest of 1500 shareholders that neither you nor I have any idea of what their position was, or is? How come you speak in the name of perhaps more than 1900 shareholders, without ever contacting any of them? Is your opinion that, because they did not openly and/or officially object, they agreed with the Settlement? I have counted 16 letters of support sent to the Judge. Hardly a majority. The Judge didn't even hesitate to quote one of the letters. Was he fair and quoted any of mine? Evidence is evidence, regardless of where it comes from. I was a shareholder just as those others who sent letters were. Why listen to one side and ignore the other?
MONEY TALKS...JUSTICE WALKS.
JH,
I wish you could quote even one single post of mine where I stated that everyone was wrong and I was right. All my statements were based on provable, public information, I did not make up anything in any of my letters to the Judge. If you remember, when it all started back in late October, I exposed Kambers maneuver to pocket about 9 million shares of CDEX. Everyone jumped on me and if possible, I would have been linched. And all I said was do your own DD, find out the truth, don't believe me. There were many sources to find out the truth, mine was only one of them. I received IMs and E-mails from several longs (too bad today they see me as the enemy) that have found out the truth about the issue. But they never posted their finding. Why? Latter, everyone knew I said the truth, but the truth was too disturbing, too dangerous, too revealing. From that moment on, I took it on myself to expose all issues that were taking form as I was digging deeper and deeper. I took of the blinds that I willingly put on to reject anything that would endanger my investment and what I saw is what I posted on the boards and wrote in my letters to the Judge. I never claimed to know everything, I never claimed to be right. I invited everyone to find out things by themselves. I was accused to be the mouthpiece of the Boys, then of MP, then of the MMs, then the bashers. I was accused of being a basher only because some unpopular posters were in agreement with me.
There was only one reason I failed to prove my case: money. Otherwise, we would all have had our shares long time ago in our accounts, and likely CDEX would have been registered and trading. And Loch would have continued to be around, under a new management and likely being used by CDEX as a subcontractor. Loch would have preserved its assets and the new management would have negotiated with creditors for new terms. We had many possibilities to take the destiny of our investment in our hands. But there were underground interests that were not working for the benefit of shareholders, and any attempt to get organized and united was successfully deflated.
But, all is water under the bridge now. What happened, happened, we are here now and what was done cannot be undone. Perhaps. The Boys have won, we still have to see what will we get out of all this. But history must not be ignored, lest we commit the same mistakes again and again.
All I have to say at this time, as an advise, don't sit on your hands. Get organized, get united, get ready for what may come. If all works out good, you have lost nothing. If problems arise, you will be able to have a say in the destiny of your investment. I took the first step in January 2001, but was promptly neutralized by dark interests. Don't make the same mistake again. Put all your heads together and reject anyone that might (and will) attempt to undermine your efforts. Time is not on your side, but as they say: "better late than never".
Raiderman, thank you for the good thought out and civil post. I agree totally with your points based on your perspective of things. And one of the reasons I refused to object the Settlement in the last minute and even give up my right to appeal was precisely the fact that, after getting used to live without the money I invested in Loch (and it is much more than the current value) I opted to go with the flow and allow people that have no interest in Loch shareholders benefit, to decide the outcome. As I stated many times, I hope and pray that things will work out and that CDEX actually has a marketable product and hopefully will register and start trading with all the new shareholders aboard.
But I have and will continue to believe that we had much better chances to a more secure and better outcome if we would have taken control of the situation early last year. There is no doubt in my mind that your intervention and participation was absolutely necessary in view of the spectacular defeat of the Derivative Action. I have learned to respect Mari and Robert lately for having the grace of not showing up on the boards any longer, at least not under their old aliases.
Nobody will ever convince me that we could not have had a successfull shareholders meeting and oust the Boys somewhere in the mid last year. The control of Loch would have passed provisionally to a court appointed board that would have performed the distribution. The demand was specifically requested in the petitions of the Derivative Action. Of course, the initial litigation lost the advantage and got beatten down by the Boys. I would have never negotiated with them, not after them showing that they were absolutely not to be trusted. Again, once the summary judgement would have been filed, with a Preliminary Injunction, the Boys would have been placed in a passive position that would have made it impossible for them to file for BK.
But all is history now. The Boys got their sweet deal, the attorneys got their chunk of shares for a job half done, and the shareholders are being left in the same position as before: waiting and hoping.
I respect you for comming out and face the crowd with a well explained position and to a certain point absolutely justified.
The Settlement Agreement may be the best chance for the shareholder as long as all parties involved are respectable and credible. But that is not the case here. Too many issues are still left in the hands of the Boys who know well that their saga is not over yet, and that serving time is a menacing dark cloud that is hanging over them. What would YOU do in their position? What means do they still have to try to balance the outcome to their favor? Do you really think that they will obediently comply with the rule of a Texan Judge, being Loch a Nevada Corporation?
I have learned early in my life that, when a rat is cornered and has no escape, it will jump on you as a desperate attempt to attack. It know that it has no choices anymore.
My prediction: there will be serious problems with the exchange; the Boys will attempt indirectly to interfere with the registration of CDEX securities; since they have nothing more to lose, they will eventually resucitate the Asset Purchase Agreement and cause substantial legal delays that will push a final judgment against them by the SEC, FBI, the Texas Court or any other authority indefinitely. Again, they have nothing to lose anymore and will fight to the end to stay out of jail. How many years do you think a well paid team of attorneys will take to delay any unfavorable outcome?
But enough with my opinions. I know many if not all will continue to label me as a basher. I am not. As you said, there are 3 types of posters: hypsters, bashers and realists. I consider myself a realist.
May the Lord be gracious to all shareholders and cause a favorable and quick outcome for their sake.
INET6, I am impressed, honestly impressed. Your post shows some resentment against me but you have done a very good job in being civil and refrained from using insults, calling names or making subtle insinuations. Thank you.
Now, I felt very much betrayed by the Derivative Action when after such a good beginning, it slowly died down. It is and will always be my belief that if the case would have been submitted to summary judgment without any negotiations, the Judge would have ordered a shareholders meeting and the the Boys would have been history. A court appointed provisional BOD would have performed the distribution, and if afterwards needed, the company could have been dissolved. I keep hearing the bull, that Loch would have declared BK, but that is what it is: bull. Once the Boys would have been ousted they would have had no say in anything.
I don't see any benefit for us in the course of action that has taken place. And I am still very skeptical about any beneficial outcome. I hope and pray every day that I would be wrong, because, contrary of what everybody say, I have no ill desire for any shareholder, to the contrary.
But, it is all history now, and I am with all of you in the same boat, even if I took some precautions of my own and am slowly recovering my long term investment in Loch.
Once again, I thank you for your answer and your tone.
JH, I bought Loch just as you did, based on all the possibilities of the technology. Here I am, three and a half years later and not only the technology never made it but I lost the value of my investment. Loch was the second stock I purchased when I first started investing (the first one was EDIG, and made quite some money in it). It took me many months and even years to learn the basics of investing. You are right, I made the mistake that so many other here have made, but at least I am learning my lesson.
No Dave, I did not turned on you, you did turn on me when I started to question the legal actions and those who participated in them. I have exposed a series of irregularities that no one has ever been able to deny or rebute. And since my message could not be denied and/or ignored you and others have opted to attack me and come up with all kinds of lies in hope to "kill the messenger".
I still consider you my friend, I don't base my friendship on whether you agree with me or not. And when all is done and becomes past history, our friendship may have a chance to be revived. I hope.
eddie, you are right, if someone posts negatives constantly he/she is a basher. But if someone posts positives constantly, without anything to support his.her position, is a hypster. Now, Raiderman divided poster as bashers, hypsters and realists. He says most posters here are realists. I am still trying to find one.
You don't buy a house or a car based only on how they look, you want to know as much as possible about them, get in, look for all the positives and the negatives before deciding to buy. CDEX has many positives showing on its web site, but have you done any effort to look deeper into what it does and how it does? Those who have come up with questionable actions of MP have been criticized and hated (remember the DICUT deal). No one here has ever shown any interest in finding out the truth about it. It is a clear red flag that is being ignored. No one question MP's coup to avoid a fair and righteous action to place the shares in a trust. No one ever questioned MP failed attempt to register last year. No one ever questioned MP's maneuver of reverse splitting without any reasonable reason. No one ever questioned MP's failure to mention the registration in his lasts CEO letter. No one ever questioned MP's comments in the last CEO letter regarding the Settlement Agreement even as he has been trying to separate CDEX from Loch. No one ever questioned the circumstances under which MP became involved with Loch and the Boys. No one ever questioned MP's posting history of hyping Loch for almost a year as p4316 on RB.
I have nothing against CDEX or MP, as a matter of fact, I am just as interested in CDEX being successful as anyone else. But I will not blind myself with unrealistic hopes and unsustainable hype.
Art, I agree that a basher free board is a constructive board. But then a hypster free board is as well a positive board. Bashers mislead the same way as hypsters mislead.
People become better when they learn form past experiences. The more experiences you acumulate in life, the wiser you become (or at least you should). Ignoring the past is building on shaky ground. Many (including myself) have been very much disturbed by some comments and statements 3 years ago by some so called "bashers" when we were warned about what Loch was doing and where they were taking the company. We were all so excited about the tests of ELF and the enormous potential of the technology. And look where we ended up.
What is diferent now that it was then? Promises, tests, validations, revolutionary technology. We fought the bashers as enemies of our investment. We came out with all kind of excuses to justify the incompetence to the management, even as we started to see the danger. Delisting, SEC investigation, auditors resignation, failure to fulfill promises, they all got us to the point to take legal action against the Boys.
He who tells me what I am doing wrong is my friend, he who tells me that there is nothing to worry about is my enemy.
Lonnie A. Wilson, Ph.D., Research Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA Evaluates Loch's ELF Landmine Detection System
AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 3, 2000--Due to many misunderstandings in the interested scientific community, Loch Harris, Inc. (OTCBB:LOCH - news) invited Dr. Lonnie A. Wilson, Professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School, to investigate the scientific basis for the operation and functions of the ELF landmine detection system. Dr. Wilson witnessed a demonstration of the unit, evaluated its operation and interviewed the ChemTech scientific team. His resulting paper follows:
May 2, 2000
The ELF Sensor
White Paper Summary
Prepared by
Lonnie A. Wilson, Ph.D.
Introduction
Wide bandwidth (active and passive) sensors are dramatically extending performance capabilities of Surveillance, Remote Sensing and Targeting Systems far beyond previous narrow bandwidth sensor systems. For example, wide bandwidth Radar Sensors routinely perform target detection, target imaging, and target identification functions with high performance results and long ranges in the microwave spectrum. Also, wide bandwidth Electronic Warfare Systems easily perform fine-grained emitter identification functions across all frequency bands of interest at extended ranges.
Wide bandwidth is one key parameter for advanced sensor techniques that provides new operational performance capabilities. The entire sensor system must be wide bandwidth, which includes transmitter or source, signal-target interactions, receiver, detector and processor. Wide bandwidth provides significant additional target information, which cannot be extracted using narrow bandwidth techniques. Promising wide bandwidth sensor techniques are being considered for Counter Terrorism, Security Screening, and Facility Protection applications. ELF is a promising new sensor, which needs to be explored and evaluated for these applications.
The active ELF Sensor utilizes wide bandwidth techniques to perform land mine detection and mine material classification. A practical solution, to the world land mine problem, demands (requires) an automatic sensor system that accurately detects, classifies and locates mines, in near real time and practical ranges. The ELF system uses a tailored broad bandwidth X-ray technique to solve this important problem. ELF's wide bandwidth makes it distinct from classical X-ray systems that use narrow bandwidth implementations. The ELF sensor is currently in the research and development phase and ready for controlled field tests, evaluations and demonstrations.
R&D Laboratory Tests
The prototype ELF sensor completed initial R&D laboratory testing using land mines materials packaged in background soil at ChemTech in Tucson, AZ and Croatia. LOCH previously reported that ELF demonstrated 100% correct detection and 100% correct successful classification of landmine materials in several laboratory tests and demonstrations.
In addition, Vladivoj Valkovic, Vice President Scientific Council of Croatian Demining Center, presented at the ``4th. International Symposium on Technology and the Mine Problem'' in Monterey, CA., March 13, 2000. He stated ELF's performance was 100% successful (detection and classification) for three sets of laboratory tests and 100% successful on one simple field demonstration, at two meters range. Mr. Valkovic - CROMAC report has independently verified ELF laboratory tests results, which were reported earlier by ChemTech.
These successful laboratory tests, at two meters range, sparked considerable interest in the wide bandwidth ELF sensor for potential Counter Terrorism, Security Screening, Facility Protection and other applications.
I witnessed an ELF demonstration at the ChemTech facility in Tucson, AZ during April 2000. ELF tests were 100% accurate (detection and classification) with no false alarms. Wide bandwidth ELF signatures, for each mine material, were visually unique and different, (observed on PC display) and exhibited good signal-to-noise ratio for sensor range of two meters.
Technical Discussion
The ELF System contains ChemTech trade secrets. These trade secrets will not be divulged or detailed here, but key scientific concepts will be summarized in layman's terms. The ELF sensor appears to be a revolutionary breakthrough for land mine detection, classification and location, just like wide bandwidth Radar was a revolutionary breakthrough for Surveillance and Targeting applications. The ELF sensor technology is summarized below.
1. Fluorescing wavelength (energy)
X-ray fluorescing is traditionally dimensioned in keV (energy) units, but equivalently dimensioned in wavelength or frequency units. Wavelength comparisons are used here. Wavelength variations for conventional X-ray fluorescence are rather small. They have conventional fluorescence scatter data on 103 compounds, and the average delta wavelength is 1.281 percent. Clearly, conventional X-ray fluorescence is narrow bandwidth phenomena. ChemTech's uses a very broad bandwidth X-ray source with selected center wavelength in the long wavelength X-ray region. The center wavelength is nominally centered within a wavelength window that exhibits low atmospheric absorption rates. They discovered this low absorption window in the X-ray region, which the ELF system utilizes. The newly discovered X-ray window and ELF details are proprietary and treated as ChemTech trade secrets. ChemTech believes conventional X-ray researchers have not discovered this low atmospheric absorption window. Absorption is reduced more than an order of magnitude in this window.
Their X-ray fluorescence (experimental) results give average delta wavelength of 500 to 1000 percent. Precise delta wavelength numbers are difficult to ascertain because their X-ray source is very broad bandwidth. The broad bandwidth source results in unique excitation signatures with large delta wavelength, which could not be observed in conventional narrow bandwidth X-ray systems. Other researchers assume the veracity of ``classical'' information available, which indicates air absorbs nearly all the energy at essentially point blank range for all wavelengths in the X-ray region. In summary, absorption rates are much lower than published ``classical data'' for this newly discovered X-ray window. ELF system uses a broad bandwidth X-ray source, the low atmospheric absorption window, and broad bandwidth detector and processor, which result in their unique signatures. Classical researchers never attempt to observe these signatures. ELF system design is based on this broad bandwidth X-ray fluorescing, which is critical to the ELF system successful detection and identification performance at extended ranges. Source wavelength is adjusted to provide maximum cross section for molecular absorption.
2. Detector
A standard, yet highly specialized, germanium crystal is modified to maximize detector sensitivity over the spectrum (low absorption X-ray window - low energy or long wavelength X-ray). Detector sensitivity and dynamic range are sufficient to extract broad bandwidth signatures. ELF laboratory tests and demonstrations reveal 100% detection and 100% identification performance at 2 meters range. Classical X-ray systems cannot duplicate this performance.
3. X-ray source
The X-ray source is optimized for long X-ray wavelengths that correspond to the low absorption window determined in the earlier experimentation. The combined X-ray source and associated optics, which includes micro focus technology, are unique and proprietary to ChemTech.
4. Detection and Identification Algorithms and Software Hardware and software developments have made extraordinary progress or improvements, since the original concept development eight years ago. Detection & identification algorithms and associated software implementations have migrated significantly from the original neural net based design.
They have optimized signal detection and processing algorithms and ID decision-making algorithms. These optimizations include high performance processing to:
a. Achieve near maximum Signal-to-Noise Ratios (SNR),
b. Maximize probability of detection,
c. Minimize probability of false alarms,
d. Reduce background signatures,
e. Significantly reduce stray signatures,
f. Maximize system performance for all wavelengths and down to minimum detector sensitivities,
g. Maximize probability of correct ID,
h. Minimize probability of incorrect ID, and
i. Improved detection time and ID time,
j. Increase detection and ID range. A 6-dB SNR improvement will double operating range.
k. Automate all processing functions and control-using PC based system.
High quality collection hardware and digitization units provide digital data in the proper format to the PC. The PC performs control functions, digital signal processing and optimization functions, executes decision-making algorithms and presents or displays signature information and detection and ID results, in near real time. A high performance PC easily accomplishes all functions using high speed CPU, high speed RAM and large virtual memory. In addition, they have integrated acquisition and compare modules with source and data collection subsystems to provide characterization data, power input and timing control functions and other operator safety features. The proprietary ELF system design uses ChemTech trade secrets. Additionally, the complete software package is ChemTech proprietary, except for the multichannel analyzer interface drivers. Detection, signal processing and identification algorithms and associated software are not currently documented.
Lonnie A. Wilson, Ph.D., Curriculum vitae:
Lonnie A. Wilson, Ph.D., is a Research Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department with joint appointments in Information Warfare and Space Systems Academic Groups at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Professor Wilson has taught Electronic Warfare Systems, Radar Systems, Communication Systems and Digital Signal Processing courses. He has MS degree in Engineering (June 1969) and Ph.D. degree in Engineering (June 1973) from UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
Dr. Wilson has successfully developed Surveillance and Targeting Sensor Systems, Remote Sensors and Missile Guidance and Control Systems for more than 30 years with the US Navy (Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA, Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, DC and Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA) and SigPro Systems, Inc. He developed wide bandwidth Radar Systems with automatic target detection and classification capabilities, wide bandwidth Electronic Warfare Systems with specific emitter identification capabilities, Forward Looking Infrared Sensors and Laser Sensor Systems for Airborne Navy applications. He worked in the commercial sector for more than 10 years developing Surveillance and Targeting Sensor Systems.
Dr. Wilson's current research interests include high performance Radar, Virtual Digital Receivers and Electronic Warfare Systems for precision target identifications, and IR, X-ray and UV Sensors and associated DSP Identification techniques for Counter Terrorism, Personnel Protection, Security Screening, Facility Protection and other applications.
16 days - no filing.
Contrary to the general belief, public companies are required by SEC regulations to post disclaimers at the end of their Press Releases or any public announcements. Private companies don't have to comply with this requirement, they do it to cover their "assets" - t.
Please, check listing requirements for Nasdaq and Amex.
Any news on the registration?
Out of respect for a handful of good people on this board, I will cease to post here. As long as you keep me out of your discussion, I will stay out. It is up to you whether I will return or not.
May God bless you all and help you realize all your dreams.
Rio, what price did YOU pay?
preen2222, what price have YOU paid for my freedom?