Industrial Nanotech Inc (INTK)

[boogaloo]

The surface could be a pipe, or a standard home wall (wood beam, drywall, standard stuff). Compare it to just 3 coats of high quality latex paint on the same surface so that nobody can argue that it's just regular paint (or if it does the same heat transfer slowdown as regular paint, then that should also be found out). And with a pipe, compare it to the currently most popular insulation system and then the adhesion & corrosion prevention can also be highlighted.

The surface nor the surface temp difference isn't as important as the head to head comparisons, via a credible firm's professional testing. Then the energy savings & energy flow reduction can be published. IMO, that's what it takes to convince a dogmatic old-timer industry (insulation industry). It's astounding that the simple $ hasn't been paid yet to get at least 1 well-known firm to test & publish results. If the stuff insulates as well as claimed then no double-talk about the world not being ready for nansulate, nor complaints about invalid test setup, will be needed anymore.

The test approach & method needs to be documented in scientific manner so that it can be followed exactly step by step without room to bend the setup to make the product look bad. Cover the necessary bases regarding test method, relevant comparisons, and document the thermal transfer inhibition abilities (all 3 types of heat transfer). If a WELL KNOW CREDIBLE firm does this testing then the arguments will begin to dissolve because the official publication of results can be thrown in the faces of any naysayer and used to gain credibility AND SALES from prospective customers.

Better yet, would be a customer (industrial or homebuilder) to allow an official/credible/well-known energy consultancy or test firm to document and report on test results on a real world application case study. Instead of people nobody has ever heard of. But, even official WELL KNOWN lab testing would be great (not the lab owned by the product's inventor, and not some no-name obscure lab, for goodness sake!)

Sidenote: Remember that Alaskan energy company which tested Nansulate head to head against regular paint & some other insulating paint applied to sealed insulated walled boxes... and then said Nansulate doesn't work any better than regular paint?? And remember that the company claimed the test setup was invalid? Well then, there's the starting point. IF the stuff works way better than regular paint at insulating, then do THAT test again with a VALID test approach & sampling interval this time... and report the results. By a more well known firm than that Alaskan cold weather firm. Fight fire with fire. Have a big name firm do the test, do it right, and report the results. There's no reason to sit back and eat a crap sandwich like that if that test in Alaska was sabotaged or was invalid. Prove them wrong, get the CEO to step up to the plate and defend his turf. At the same time it'd help the sales efforts greatly if the results are impressive. That test was neither expensive nor fancy, but it sure was damning. And it was met with silence instead of a valid test to rebuff it. The passive approach isn't working so well so far, right?