InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 6
Posts 661
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/13/2000

Re: hasher post# 7546

Friday, 01/07/2005 11:43:59 PM

Friday, January 07, 2005 11:43:59 PM

Post# of 23718
Hasher, thank you. Sounds like somebody out there has a viable chemistry. I wish them well, but if they ever want the weight and surface-to-electrolyte advantages of reticulation, they'll need access to PWTC's patent which is a patent on structure, not chemistry. (Patent application specifically claimed applicability to alternate chemistries.)

Whether PWTC's battery is revolutionary or just evolutionary will be a judgment call or just semantics. Having to compete sounds good to me because it would mean having produced a battery to enter into the competition.

The risk I see is not that PWTC's battery would lose a competition but that it will never be able to compete because it never gets built and marketed. And the reason for that would be that new CEO follows LB's practice of making wild claims and announcing partnerships that never really happen.

Caradoc

PS: Quote from "Gems in the Dust": "Hey, this structure is applicable to any battery chemistry."
http://www.manufacturingcenter.com/dfx/archives/0401/0401yr.asp