Replies to post #11938 on Industrial Nanotech Inc (INTK)

[boogaloo]

Vedat, You have a good attitude and that is a positive. But you should be asking the CEO and the other inventor scientist for the names of labs. Not asking investors. If pinksheet shareholders are the only ones to see the value in such an activity then that is not a good sign. That should be the area of expertise of the company, the inventor, and the distributors. If it's not, after 6 years, then to coin a phrase "houston, we have a problem!"

If the CEO doesn't see the importance of such a thing, and won't help accomplish it then I see that as an even bigger problem and would suggest a buyout would be the best thing as some other posters have suggested.

[p2arch]

Underwriters Laboratory "UL" has the most credibility.

[boogaloo]

Here's another one, aside from UL:

http://www.rapid-response-consulting.com/about/client-list.aspx

And this expert on their staff has impressive credentials:
http://www.rapid-response-consulting.com/expert/lvs.aspx

Here's an excerpt from one of this expert's engagements:

"Senior Staff Engineer, ATK Launch Systems Division, Brigham City, UT

Served as a member of the Insulation Design and Structural Analysis Group. Was technical lead for grain and Propellant /Liner/Insulation analysis. Developed nonlinear viscoelastic anisotropic material model (in MathCad) for PBI fiber reinforced NBR insulation for use in the prediction of strain rate dependent fracture initiation and strain rate dependent structural analysis including rate dependent damage."

If you dig around, I'm sure you can find other well recognized companies, not rinky dink ones, who can put Nansulate to the test and publish some more credible findings (as far as public perception goes). I'd say if the firm isn't well-recognized worldwide or in the US then don't bother spending any $ on it. It'll just be ignored like so many other info tidbits.

Why the CEO would't be on top of this YEARS AGO, is beyond me - maybe there is a good reason in that Nansulate "works" but doesn't test well head to head against other insulations via the official recognized test methods. They mislead us about getting an EPX R value as well - results must not have been good so they didn't publish it. And in such case, then at least have a CREDIBLE well known firm test the thermal transfer capabilities and publish the results.

Doesn't matter if the insulation industry has a category for Nansulate or not, that excuse is old... just get the damn stuff tested by credible firms and the published results will speak for themselves if it works as well as claimed. Then sales and improved credibility should follow. For both customers and investors. A distributor could show a portfolio to a new prospective customer: "Here, look at these official results from a well recognized firm and decide for yourself!" And if the firm really IS credible and well recognized around the world, then people would have a very hard time disagreeing with the data provided and they would then want to use Nansulate also.