Replies to post #183685 on Lightwave Logic Inc (LWLG)

[KCCO7913]

I’m sorry you’re an idiot that doesn’t understand what they’re invested in.

Having such a high cost basis probably also affects your mood.

I post facts. Sure some speculation about pricing, etc. lately. But reasonable assumptions used.

I revealed my “dot connecting” and sources already…except for the one guy.

And for the Broadcom topic this morning…going back to my first sentence in this post….they make the thingys that LWLG-enabled pluggable transceivers plug into.

[KCCO7913]

Oh and…there are no reliability or scalability “issues”.

The reliability data shown is perfect, but the end user wants more. And extremely likely more data across multiple foundry runs. Makes the most sense to me.

Scalability is no issue and having the company acknowledge they’ve succeeded with 200mm wafers means that it is no issue.

[x993231]

Shame on you, you are short and make up lies to try and scare others.

Fact, there are no reliability or stability issues, that statement is 100% totally made up. Period

I could not live my life that way, certainly you are capable of doing something honest with your life.

For Shame, For Shame

X

Here is some of KCC's work

Modulators for 200G per lane are 100% needed. Ask anyone in the industry…

There’s only 4 options: InP, TFLN, BTO, and EOP. I’m not including silicon because they can’t do 200G with PAM4.

InP based transceivers are hitting the market first with initial deployments this year. Compared to EOP, InP is more expensive, higher loss, suffer from chirp, consume more power, and are not scalable past ~100Ghz.

There have been TFLN prototypes but no indication of deployments. Also a January white paper from a TFLN leader provided insight into some issues they’re having. Compared to EOP, TFLN is like InP but even more complicated to manufacture. Bandwidth can go a bit higher and a bit less power consumption.

BTO is the least mature and I’ve seen no evidence of any work with BTO modulators for pluggable transceivers. The only advantage of BTO is the higher EO activity. However, in time it is projected that the r33 for EOP will surpass that of BTO. In-device r33 is already getting close.

None of the above categories are proprietary materials where one company dominates like LWLG does with EOP.

None of the above categories except EOP utilize standard tooling inside existing silicon foundries.

Looking into the future…ONLY EOP or BTO can provide the path to the 400G per lane that is already being discussed for the roadmap in a few years. EOP will naturally win this battle simply due to the cost advantages. Even the head of Silicon Photonics at Nvidia recently said BTO is “super expensive”.

[Whip_It_Good]

Where did LWLG say this, "Never mind the facts and objective reality straight from LWLG itself, which includes their own admission that they're having reliability and scalability issues that still need to be ironed out."????