Credo that is much more than I expected from you. Thanks!!!! But I will 'what if' some more, even though you won't respond.
If what you say is true, then that LB tactic you mention, was most likely not under the say so of LB, but someone else. LB is far too greedy and egotistical, and would want a successful PWTC marketing the lead battery through OEMs or whatever. It would make him look like a great CEO on top of that. I don’t see how his pocket book or ego could resist that type of success. Since the amount of money and ego gratification he can make by treating PWTC as a penny ante stock with constant hyping and dumping shares at the top of the hype, is peanuts and nothing compared to a successful manufacturing of PWTC's battery. It just doesn’t make sense that LB would be that short sighted and small minded.
However when I saw that Bush Sr's former undersecretary of energy, Phd Hugh Pomrehn, was part of PWTC's directorship, right from the inception of PWTC’s company, that was both good and bad news. Good because it meant PWTC really had something. Bad news because the successful marketing of the lead battery would greatly undermine oil energy profits, dominance and manipulation. Plus undermining what seems to be the exporting of US's auto manufacturing to cheaper third world countries. Though I guess a successful marketing of PWTC's lead battery into US automakers’ EVs, hybrids and plugin hybrids, wouldn't stop that.
But stalling PWTC's introduction of their cheap, lighter, smaller and stronger lead battery into the market place is also of a kind we learned recently with the EPA not allowing america, as the first inventor of the hybrid car in the mid 1970s, not to introduce hybrids into the market place. With all the savings in gas and dependency on middle east oil, and geopolitical considerations, that would have meant. Not to mention most likely having much better hybrids by now. And then plugin hybrids as even a greater improvement, as the technology got better and better over the decades. And then cheaper, smaller and stronger batteries like PWTC’s being introduced, to even make plugin hybrids better. Perhaps allowing for pure EV cars too.
It would also seem that the following is important too, as someone on the board intimated to me but didn’t think it was the right time to mention it. Though I hope he doesn’t mind me mentioning it now. Sorry if you do. Since I don’t know if it can be proven especially if the technology differences has been made significant enough as it seems it has. But Firefly Energy has a similar cheap, smaller and stronger lead battery advancement, to PWTC’s one. The intimation was that Dr. Ulf Lindqwister who came to work for PWTC in May of 2000, later went to work for Caterpillar Inc, in mid 2003. Caterpillar Inc. is the developer of Firefly’s new lead battery and spin off company. But it would seem that transfer of technology can’t be proven, because, regarding the question of the significant difference between the two batteries it does seem to be there. Otherwise how did Firefly's patent get approved. Firefly has a successful patent of their new lighter, smaller and stronger lead battery, despite PWTC’s preexisting one. Though unique similarities are there too.
It seems like it would be hard to challenge Firefly either way. One, as to Ulf Lindqwister bringing PWTC’s technology to Caterpillar Inc. Or two, that Firefly’s lead battery and patent is too close of a match to PWTC’s. The latter could especially be Lindqwister’s defense. Still the similarity is there nevertheless.
But if PWTC’s lead battery introduction is being stalled or perhaps even shifted to a big company like Caterpillar Inc, through its spin off Firefly Energy Co, that would explain a lot and why PWTC has been, is, and most likely will be an abject failure.
But there is always hope I guess. Any thoughts anyone?????
