The following are my responses to some of both comments about this post:
My original points:
1. Lack of NIJ certification
a. Per news releases from GPGI, certification should have happened last August at the latest (see below).
Flatcat’s view: Note the date on the "news releases" below. At that time JBIT and Bourque had not merged with GPGI. When I read those "releases" I questioned why GPGI, a company not apparently associated with JBIT, was making these "releases" about another company. It certainly got my interest into what was going on. After what I considered DD I concluded that someone at GPGI was making statements they ought not to have made. JBIT was not their company. If they had proprietary information about JBIT they should have kept their mouths shut. Their bad. But I am glad they did because otherwise I would have passed up this party. No "news release" from GPGI was any obligation on the part of JBIT.
Bobw response: Have you considered that part or all of those press releases may have been written by JBIT/Bourque? The information in the releases was required by the GPGI shareholders since they were going to be asked to vote on what later turned out to be a reverse merger. It also helped Bourque with additional potential investors.
My response: I beleive that NIJ cert is imminent - it seems that it has been resubmitted with tweaks to the cert. Maybe we'll see it in a few weeks. From what I know in the industry and research, this is not out of the norm.
My original points:
2. Unclear benefits versus competition
ii. No comparison by Bourque to non ceramic armor products which are NIJ certified and which may outperform Bourque’s product
* Products such as Defend-x and Line of Fire appear to be as good as if not better.
Flatcat’s view: I also look at the law enforcement interest in the BORK product. It appears to have better performance than what they have now. If the competition was really better then why doesn't law enforcement already have the better product? This appears a little weak but will give it some more time.
Bobw response: The videos of a demonstration of Bourque’s product does not appear to be very different from the videos of competitors including Defend-x and Line of Fire which show 60 plus rounds fired into a plate using different caliber rounds at various distances. The competitor plates per their specs appear to be thinner and weigh much less than the Bourque product. The competitors plates also appeared to have less damage than Bourque’s demo plate. I also question why the “law enforcement” witnesses to the Bourque demos were not aware of competitor products certified by NIJ (were they really competent law enforcement officers).
My response: I looked at some of the videos of Defend-X (DX) on YouTube - They were from July 2008. If there was something that was better than Bourque 3 years ago that continued to advance I dont think we would see Bork on the map right now to the level they are. None of their sites tell about the material that they are made from like the Kryron invented by John B's are constructed of. I looked at Line of Fire (LOF) video from Nov 2009 and they didn't fire near as many rounds at the plate as the 60 plus rounds in the Bourque videos. Also LOF is Canadian and BORK is made in the good old USA - who do you think the US Military is going to back first? The DX one with 63 shots was a larger than body armor size piece shot in various locations. The Bork plate was much smaller and fired at in a more condensed area. Bork may just rewrite the V-50 test based on review of the test results since they could not fail the Kryron and they very well may create a new NIJ standard (7?) by which others will be judged.
My original point"
3. Bourque apparently has no patents or expertise in nanotubes
Flatcat’s view: Already answered in other posts. He has three patents.
Bobw response: As far as I am aware the Bourque patents include using nanotubes and not manufacturing them. Thus he does not have a patent for manufacturing them. He would rely on buying them from a nonotube manufacturer.
My response: While they dont have nanotube patents, what invention made of components has every ingredient patented themselves? Probably not many. Example - The space shuttle in an incredible piece of engineering made of thousands of components, many of which probably have their own individual patent. I'm sure there are many patented inventions of great significance that are constructed of other materials that are also patented. Does that make the constructed item any less significant? I think not.I for one am waiting to hear more about "kryron 2" that John11 mentioned a few days ago and what that can mean.
AI
