Notice how the phrase “based on” appears to be used in two different ways. How ironic is this? I did notice that the industry does use the term “based on” to apparently refer to the structure of the wafer. But look, especially at the first usage here, where he is referring to the test being based on a DESIGN of the 200mm modulators that “leverages” - ie makes use of the wafer modulators, as opposed to the wafer modulators themselves.
That is why I question whether they tested the actual wafer modulators or modulators they made in house “based on” the wafer modulators. The other reason I questioned this is because the latest communication does not say they’re working with foundries yet to implement 4x200 It says they were planning and that wasn’t very long ago. I believe that was an intentional correction to what they had said less than one month previously. That makes far more sense than accepting both as true.
In the presentation, Dr. Lebby discussed the company's latest world-class results based on a novel packaged heterogeneous polymer EO modulator design leveraging silicon photonics devices from a 200mm production foundry process and Lightwave Logic's proprietary high temperature, high performance EO Polymer material. Each modulator was operated at 100GBaud PAM4 and achieved all drive voltages below 2V, and as low as 1V which is excellent for low power operation. Dr. Lebby discussed the test set-up for the high-speed results, and how electro-optic polymer-based modulators based on 200mm silicon foundry wafers are ideal for 4 channel 200Gbps per lane 800Gbps pluggable optical transceivers for datacenter applications. Dr. Lebby also shared updated lifetime and reliability data for both the electro-optic polymer materials and electro-optic polymer devices.
BTW, I’m not trying to be deceptive at all. I’m neither denying nor affirming questions about who I am. They are completely irrelevant to the investor’s job of figuring out what is true about this company.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
