Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

VALENCE TECH INC Message Board

  • ttmn ttmn Dec 29, 1999 2:33 PM Flag

    VLNC is the next QCOM for battery.

    Anyone, please repost the link to the above article from Wallstreetcity.
    Thanks.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I thought I'd give our friend (I'm in a
      cheritable mood) MGV the honor of appearing as the last wax
      museum exhibit for 1999. There will be lots more in the
      new year, of course.

      Here are some choice
      comments from the post below:

      "My position has been
      both clear and consistent throughout. It is: VLNC
      fails because is doesn't execute."

      "If VLNC
      fails - which, to repeat, is my position - it will be
      of it's own weight."

      I'm afraid all his VLNC
      predictions during the past year will be proven wrong. I'm
      even betting big bucks on
      it.

      http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=11658496

      Happy New Year to one and all!

      3rd

    • Plan on taking advantage of this low stock price to purchase additional shares on the next trading session. It is a bargain at these prices.
      Going up from here. Happy New Year.

      Cebu

    • The structure varies from a fraction of 1% to 2% plus something like $2M to boot. I don't think everybody is paying, though...

      Best wishes to you--and other boarders! Roger!

      M_e

    • More details on poly now?--an unintended and
      misleading impression...

      Talking? reading?--more than
      that, all the time...

      Re the patent question:
      it's an interesting situation.

      First of all,
      the B patent appears to be broader in its claims,
      since the G patent claims only two specific
      crystallographic structures (olivine and NASICON) and only 4 metal
      cations (Mn, Co, Ni and Fe). However, it was filed
      earlier as a provisional filing in April '96.

      The
      B patent covers a broader range of metal cations
      and structures, but it was filed later: Sept.
      96.

      I would guess that the examiner was convinced by
      the filing parties there was a difference between
      them, but stranger things have been happenning recently
      at the USPTO (for example, the (in)famous 6,007,588
      'windowing' Y2K patent).

      I'd like to see the
      prosecution file...

      M_e

    • Stay warm, be cool, party hearty!

      I'll be
      interested in your report from the 'bowels of the beast'
      tonight... no doubt you'll have some stories to tell, eh?
      Heh! (ahem)

      Just funnin' ya!

      Best wishes
      for a happy, healthy, and even *more* prosperous new
      year to you, too.

      Regards, SkyHi111

      PS
      the '111' is now not an unrealistic price target for
      a 1-2 year time frame, 'methinks' !

    • Well, I took advantage of this mornings dip,
      which to my mind is that final year-end "adjustment",
      to get me a traders block at ~$18 1/2. So I'm set
      for next year.

      As I hope everyone else
      is.

      So I mirror M(sub)E's thoughts. Time to get ready
      for tonight. And I'm gonna be right down in the belly
      of it all, in NYC(call me crazy). It should prove
      interesting. I'd like to take this time to wish for everyone a
      safe evening, surrounded by those you love, and who in
      turn love you.

      HAPPY HOLIDAY'S
      EVERYONE!

      Highlow

    • Another question comes to mind: some time ago
      we'd been hearing various numbers as to the royalties
      paid by the lithium-ion manufacturers to the Harwell
      group for the right to use the lithium-cobalt
      materials.

      From what you know, what was the royalty percentage
      paid, and what was the pricing structure? (Was it a
      percentage of the final sales price, for
      instance?)

      Thanks in advance for your time.

      Wishing you a
      happy, healthy, and prosperous new year.

      Regards,
      SkyHi111

    • Mkt_entropy, thanks for your recent detailed
      posts regarding the battery chemistry.

      You seem
      to be posting more details about the polymer
      technology than before, have you been talking to some of the
      researchers, reading some papers? (As I recall, your personal
      interest was more with the liquid electrolyte
      technology.)

      Here's a question: can you perceive any difference in
      the Barker and Goodenough patents on 'lithium
      containing phosphate cathodes'? I noted that the same patent
      examiner granted them, Barker's being issued some months
      prior to Goodenough's. As I recall, the chemical
      compounds differed only in the order listed for the
      molecules. Have you any suspicions if that is significant?

    • A good graphite shows less than 6-8% irreversible
      passivation loss, so how much could you gain by using the
      "third electrode"--nuthin', like dkctx says, and how
      much trouble would you be asking for for the few-%
      gain?... They don't know what they're talking about. This
      patent you have in mind is not worth the paper it's
      printed on. Full of crazy numbers.

      When the truth
      comnes out (as soon as somebody competent tales apart
      their Superpolymer (ha! ha!) battery), we will learn
      that what they have done is glued standard electrodes
      to a standard separator--like Sony, but in a flat,
      prismatic, large-area form. That's what all their previous
      patents are about; that's what DasGupta was showing a few
      years back. Note my words. There are no other tricks
      out there.

      OK, time to dress up. Champagne's
      cold--let's celebrate!

      M_e

    • The 312 volts of lead acid on the ev1, nominally
      55 ah, or 16 kwh, generate 100 kw (!) for about 300
      kg of weight.
      NiMh generate about 50-90 kw for
      the same weight, I'm told.
      No one knows what the
      LiPoly generate, because they don't exist yet.
      LiIon
      is plenty powerful, as shown by the Nissan Altera.
      But its "specific energy", or capacity, is not as
      high as one would expect from Li, as shown by its puny
      range. That's why the only thing that matters for large
      applications is generally kwh, because that tells you how far
      it can go.

      The exception is zinc, whose 2v
      cells have a very low discharge rate--that's why they
      are working on hybrid battery/battery
      vehicles.

      I don't know nuttin about no linguini
      curves.
      Where's da battery??!

    • View More Messages