InvestorsHub Logo

Diveintoapool

03/15/13 4:46 PM

#55064 RE: downsideup #55063

I see what you are saying, but AMSilk can only improve on the process if they figure out how to mimic the way silk is spun from the animal itself. Even AMSilk stated:

Researchers with AMSilk wrote in a technical paper this summer that creating spider silk threads was a significant challenge because crucial parameters of how spiders produce silk are not fully understood or could not be replicated technically. But they also stated that the availability of a ready supply of spider silk protein will speed development.



So yes, they have a lot of this spider protein, but the intricacies of forming spider silk using spinnerets may be years away. Even if they do figure it out, it will have to be done at the molecular level, which will not be cheap.

KBLB does not need to improve on a process that is over 5000 years old. It is already commercially viable for an inferior material.

For now, KBLB has the only viable option to spin the fiber into textiles. IMO. I do look forward to what AMSilk is able to do with their product.

es1

03/15/13 6:29 PM

#55072 RE: downsideup #55063

The quote proves itself wrong.

Second, improving the processing... which AMSilk can do, and KBLB can't.




KBLB took a normal silkworm and improved the silk it spun. Now we are to believe that it can never be done again?

And things can always be improved except a KBLB silk worm that has already proven to be improvable and yet it is a "fact" that Amsilk can do something nobody has ever done?

Amsilk has silk that CAN be improved over time to EXCEED the qualities of the natural product" is a FACT that you got straight from me.


Can you supply any example of ANY man made fiber that is spun better than its natural counterpart is spun?

We are supposed to believe this because ..

It is just a FACT that manufacturing processes, once reduced to practice, CAN be improved over time.



Tell that to this guy...


in 1935 Elmer D. Rogers added a tube on the lower bar, which is still used today...

first mike

03/16/13 3:08 AM

#55094 RE: downsideup #55063

See my last post.

Mike L.