InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 2
Posts 135
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/02/2008

Re: None

Wednesday, 07/15/2009 11:27:39 AM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 11:27:39 AM

Post# of 133
This whole business about sending off to an independent lab, however belated the news release is, is simply bogus.

The measure of how effective their process is cannot be measured by standard scientific material composition tests. They have to subject the material to a comparative test of what the material composition was prior to it being subjected to their "alledged" pre-treatment and what characteristics were retained by the material after the testing. This is true for the free occuring sugars first and then for all of the rest of the compositional molecular strucutres of the materials.

After all of this then the material has to be subjected to a fermentation vs time vs mass basis which will then give you the ability to make a definitive determination of the continuous flow fermentation volume that can be done. The CFFV can only be calculated from another set of variables that are strictly related to the strain of microbe being used as the fermentation medium and the enzyme loading that is required for conversion of the higher order cellulose and hemicellulose to be broken down.

Of course Mr. Shearer nor Ms. Delany do not have any knowledge or technical experience for establishing controlled procedures, let alone know how the process even works, nor how to design and build a continuous flow fermenter. Assuming even on the surface that they are trying to actually develop a legitimate operation, there is also a problem with one very critical issue - they still haven't beat the molecular bulk density equation to the degree that they are not going to have some serious economic problems based on transportation and handling of the material. So even if they have magically stumbled upon a pre-treatment process that does what they claim to do, they do not have a practical application until that issue is solved!

Furthermore, if they have managed to replicate ATNE's technology, then it would appear that they have a big problem as violating the signed NDAs they previously have with them: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_May_12/ai_n25406262/

The question can be simply answered by asking Microlab this question:
"Does the samples contain esterified lignin?". If the answer is "no", then the samples provided to them are stolen directly from ATNE as their process separates out the lignin from the process. If the answer is "yes", then GAEC is not doing anything new and simply taking existing process technology (i.e. Vortex Ventures equipment) - either way, the answer will implicate GAEC as a complete hoax.