Old news... you must be getting desperate to bring up that old quote... 2Q 2013????? But I will also remind you that that deal included 10 Million warrants, only 1.4 million of which have been exercised and that brought in $3.7 Million. There will be no dilution, because it is not in the interests of the warrant holders. They will cash in another million or so to give a fresh cash infusion., but it won't be in January. The UILT forgot that the previous burn rate included capital expenditures to pay for all of the new equipment they bought as well as for improvements to the IBAD and SDP process. I'm expecting them to not need any money until Feb or March, and of course those warrants are already factored into the share price, particularly because give a cash infusion into STI.
Ah here is a classic oldy where the "fool" demonstrates his ignorance of electricity and wires. I will extract the relevant part that I want to highlight. But please do go back and read the post [youthinklikeafool • Aug 26, 2012 9:43 AM ]
First he quotes a statement I made "“First of all, STI has a cable project customer who wants 500Amp wire...he doesn't want 5 strands of 100 Amp wire to obtain that capacity....he wants 1! “
Yep and I stand by that statement. But what does the "fool" do. He makes this absolutely ridiculous and false claim:
:Ummm....that is just a dumb statement. You can't build a 2000A cable from (4) 500A wires. And why do you think it is added cost to use lower Ic wire? "
Really???? That is really the most ignorant and inane statement I've ever read from him. I also think he needs to read what JQ has said about this: 2Q 2014 CC.
"In the span of less than six months, we have increased the wire performance from our RCE pilot machine from 350 amps per centimeter to 500 amps per centimeter at 77 degrees Kelvin, meeting our plan.
This is important for two reasons: First, industry intelligence indicate that customers desire to use higher amp wire to reduce the amount of wire used per device which ultimately reduces the cost of their end product. "
The plain and simple truth is that multiple strands of lower current capacity provide a higher current capacity conductor. Remember current capacity (as I recently explained to the UILT when he made his most stupid statement about wide wire) is determined by the Current density (Jc) and the cross sectional area of the conductor. When there are multiple conductors whose current density is equal, you must add the cross sectional area of each wire. This principle is true regardless of the material and is the rule for multi-stranded wire and cable.
Gee whiz two in a row. Long posts that say nothing. Lots of empty claims. Where's the "beef"? as the little old lady would say!
Notice in neither post did he refer to what specific aspects of my posts he was referring.. not once.. tough to nail him on specifics isn't it. And he still hasn't offered any proof of his claims, nor has he answered a simple question... instead his total tactic is diversion.
So listen up "fool". My position on who does what for the cable demo is very clearly stated and backed up by statements from JQ. You claim I contradicted myself .... Prove it or move on!
You still have failed to answer my question about the TAPESTAR Mr. self-proclaimed Tapestar expert...what's the matter? Can't find the answer on their website? That's because it's not there!
At this point folks, if he provides an answer it is because he wrote them an e-mail and asked them to explain!
But I will beat him to the punch. Here it is.
The Tapestar units have a series of Hall effect sensors spaced at 1mm intervals spanning the width of the device. The smaller version has 7 sensors and the larger one, one of which was just acquired by STI, has 21.
The "V chart represents the magnetic field profile at every location along the tape which reflects the uniformity across the width and is created by using the measurements e.g. in the smaller7 sensor unit by measuring the difference between Sensors 1 and 7, sensor 2 vs sensor 6 and sensor 3 vs sensor 5. Sensor is the bottom point of the V. The upper (blue) plot is a the reference plot and the black (lower) is the measured value. A matching V (does not have to overlay) shape shows a symmetrical field penetration profile (good thing) and one in which the measured profile is irregular in shape shows assymetrical performance.
Now watch him come back and claim that he knew this all along! LOL! LOL! LOL! But I'll bet I can PROVE him wrong! Unlike his empty claims, mine are real and I can prove it!
(search his posts! none!
how predictable... He's just another of my little dummy puppets spouting another totally empty claim. He uses a lot a words to say NOTHING! Let's see some proof! I can provide proof for my statements. He can't!
Remember this is the guy who claimed James Clerk Maxwell and James Faraday were wrong... he said that a time varying voltage field could not create a time varying magnetic field. WRONG!!!! Each can create the other and it is this real world physical property that allows radio/television signals to propagate through the airways and the universe! This principal is a fundamental science fact that is taught to all engineering students regardless of discipline.. and he claims he was a mechanical engineer! I can show other examples of his statement that no self-respecting engineer would ever have made. LOL! LOL! LOL!
Yep the "fool" is a bombastic pompous pontificating putz! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Now to his last claim. This is really funny. Yes I did state my belief that it was a reel to reel process.
I said the RCE-CDR process was reel to reel for a couple of reasons. There were viewgraphs made by STI that said that it was! In addition, the patent for the RCE-CDR process describes a reel to reel process. But somewhere between those first charts and the prototype, STI decided to go to a drum. (which the UILT can't comprend how it functions). The "fool" made loud claims that "there is no evidence that it is reel to reel". That's when I pointed out those earlier presentations... he was still in denial and tried to change the course of the discussion (like usual). I continued my research and finally found the answer in more recent chart... which incidently the "fool" had referenced but for a different reason (more on this in a moment).. The "fool" totally missed the fact that the same chart indicated that the prototype RCE-CDR process was drum based...
. then the "fool" stepped on his dork (this is the point he referenced on the chart) and made a statement that it couldn't be reel to reel because the chart said it was a "batch process". Yes! So what? Reel to reel is also a batch process. Any process which does not operate continuously is a batch process. Canning and bottling are examples of continuous processes. And process that has a "load" start, run, stop, unload cycle is a batch process (Now watch him deny this fact) .
I asked him to explain why he thought a drum based process was a batch process and reel to reel was not...he ran away like he usually does when he realizes he put his foot in his mouth yet again. Another example of a question evaded!
And you know what, I pointed out that the chart in the presentation said it was a drum based process and admitted my mistake... like I always do in those rare instances that it happens. The fool never discovered that term on the chart... I did! I'm sure he was furious that I found it and he didn't.LOL!
1) HTS cables cannot be spliced. HTS wire can be spliced, but HTS cables are joined/jointed in a junction. The "fool" got this wrong 3-4 years ago and perpetuates his error. This same terminology is also applied to high power conventional cables. (And of course I can prove it!)
2) I never said they couldn't be spliced, but he lies and claims that I did. He has never offered any proof. Only claims.
3) Yep you can build an HTS cable out of a single strand of HTS wire. It depends on the characteristics of the wire and how it is wrapped. The problem is the "fool" is totally focused on methods used for particular types of cables. That's all he knows about. Just showing his ignorance.
4) The material on the outside of the Cryostat IS THERMAL INSULATION. Ask him to prove otherwise! He can't. Then take a look at the Triaxial cable design of NKT cables as described in their data sheet. On page 3 there is a labeled picture of a cable. The inner corrugated tube is a former which also serves as the return path for the liquid nitrogran coolant. To the right side you can see the larger corrugated outer sheath of the cryostat which has a covering. The sheath is identified with the label "WM" which, in the legend is defined as "Corrugated "wellmantel" semiflexible THERMAL INSULATION.
5) I don't recall ever saying any such thing. But if you look at the cable again there is only one outer "wall" and everything inside is being cooled. You cannot count the coolant return in the center because that is within the cable and all coolant is within the cryostat. Looks like a single wall to me! Now I wonder how the "fool" will rant about this one!
6) I never said that the cable demo wire shipped in January 2013. (he lies as usual). I speculated that it might have. You know what's really funny, it that the "fool" will never state anything , and those few times where he actually made a statement of his own (rather than copying words from a chart in a presentation etc.) he was proven wrong!
This post is typical "fool" tactics. He try's to change the entire thrust of the discussion and evades answering the question.
I'm not avoiding anything. Your question is completely answered in my prior posts. All you need to do is read them. As I indicated in my previous post you state I made contradictions. I don't believe I've made any, so why don't you identify the posts and the statements which you believe are contradictory. In my view this is just another smokescreen of yours. claiming I've done something which I have not!
Of course I'm claiming you didn't anser the questions. If you did, then copy your answer and cite the post. That would be the easy way to prove me wrong. But the truth is you didn't and thus you can't!
His statement about the tapestar equipment is totally false. He thinks he knows how it works but he misinterprets statements on their website. When I called him on it, he simply stopped posting for weeks (as I said he runs away and hides). Months ago, he claimed that the Tapestar didn't have multiple probes/sensors spread across the measurement width. He was very vocal about it. The statement was in a "continued" post. When I rubbed his nose in the truth, he "removed" the post. But his problem was I copied it before he did! I'm doing that now because he has a history of removing incriminating posts (those which show his ignorance and lies).
He claims my statements are "unclear", he claims "I twist and distort", yet he has never given on example... he only makes empty claims.
The "fool"'s comment about Ic and "minimal" current is total digression to avoid answering the question about the V chart, the answer to which he does not know. And the only one who has ever used the term "minimal current" is the "fool". It is a non-term since the word "minimal" is a relative, non-quantifiable term. Only a DUNCE like the "fool" would try to it with Ic. And Dunce (as well as liar and fraud) is what he is!
LOL! LOL! LOL!
I can assure you my head is not a twisted mess and is quite orderly. You on the otherhand are all over the place.
As I told you before, the answer is in my previous posts. My position, based on JQ's statements is VERY CLEAR. If YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ THOSE POSTS THAT IS YOUR problem, not mine! Moreover, YOU NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I ASK, so why should I help you at all??? For instance I'm waiting for you, Mr. HTS wire and cable expert to explain the purpose of the "v" chart from the RCE 100M systems charts in the Sept 2013 EUCAS presentation by STI. You claim expertise on the TAPESTAR so please tell us what that chart is supposed to tell us? I've already asked you several times to do this and you simply ignore my requests without any acknowledgement.
BTW You CLAIMED to have worked in the HTS industry, and you've CLAIMED to be a mechanical engineer. and you've CLAIMED many other things as well that have proven to be 100% wrong. Your knowledge of rudimentary engineering science has been proven to be pathetic and lacking any substance whatsoever. You have shown the ability to copy information but not how to interpret it ands much of the information you cites is 5-10 years old and in some instance is no longer relevant.
You claim I've made contradictory statements, then cite the statements and the posts which you got them from and explain in your own words the "apparent contradiction". I think we will see it is your ignorant twisted mind that is contradictory (or ignorant ... or stupid)! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Your numbers (as usual with anything you state) are all screwed up. First is everything is 90' days and now it is 30-90 days. It was never 90 days for qualification testing. It's whatever it takes the customer to get the product and incorporate it into what prototype it is building. They must then test and evaluate the prototype performance. Since it is advanced R&D and these customers may not have much, if any, experience with HTS wire in their kind of product, the tests will show problems with their specifications and they will have to repeat with new wire built to a revised specification. That's when the "evaluation" occurs. The HTS wire customer must figure out what went wrong and what needs to be done to correct it. Rarely, if ever, does that kind of R&D (using a new material) get done right the first time and multiple iterations to refine the specifications can occur. Apparent this is too complex a topic for either you or the "fool" to comprehend.
It's still less than a month since they received the deposition chamber component and there was quite a bit of assembly work that needed to be done to install all of the various components that attached to that chamber after the chamber was installed on the base evaporation chamber. Then each component will have to be tested and checked after installation. Then they must begin the complicated process of verifying that each bit of the machine is working the way it is supposed to work. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't just finishing the installation and checkout of individual components. I expect it will be several more weeks before they will fire up the entire machine for an initial test run. I think we will get a PR around that time (just before the next CC).
BTW, that "finishing layer" is not part of the RCE-CDR process! JQ has made that very clear! I guess you are too stupid to realize that! It's clearly stated in the CC.
Incomplete statements are ....INCOMPLETE... they don't tell the whole story. Why don't you quote the whole story like I did... perhaps it doesn't fit your lying agenda eh?
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Poor little UILT... he has no imagination...he's stuck in a rut!
I don't need to clarify anything "fool", especially to you! My position is clear. It's too bad you are too ignorant and too stupid to understand it! You forget your position "fool". You are a proven liar and a fraud!
The "fool" always turns a blind eye to his own statements. He said "The Clown resorts to NAME-CALLING and beating his chest like a baboon."
Certainly our resident bombastic pompous buffoon is the "pot calling the kettle black" !!!
In his post to me he starts it with this "endearing" (sarcasm intended) epithet "tell us Robozo". I guess he doesn't consider that name calling!
I guess the part where I stated (accurately) that he emerged from hiding "after he has been terribly shamed for his IGNORANCE and his lies." is the "beating his chest part.
And there was of course no deflection (like his post to which I am responding) or distortion. I simply told the "fool" to read my posts or CC transcripts for his answers. After all why should I respond to his questions when he is incapable of responding to mine!
This is an age old tactic of the fool: When I prove something wrong he goes off on a new tangent, and like the UILT he is never able to admit his errors. In fact he will drag them up repeatedly (like the UILT). It's the old baffle them with bulldung routine! LOL! LOL! LOL! But the thing about bulldung is that one can dig into the pile and spread it around revealing what's hidden underneath!
The "fool" (again like the UILT) is very angry at me for exposing their lies and bulldung!
Ahh the self-proclaimed HTS wire and cable expert emerges from hiding after he has been terribly shamed for his IGNORANCE and his lies.
I'll start answering your questions directly when you start replying to mine! You, like the UILT, never answer questions (mainly because you can't or they illustrate your ignorance or how incorrrecty you are!)
If you want the answer to those questions read my earlier posts. You should also read what STI has to say about the topic.
No rant's just quotes which show that you are a liar!
And quess who is doing the "evaluation"..it is the cable demo customer... and why? Because they are trying to figure out exactly what they need for THEIR PRODUCT. STI can't "evaluate"
what is needed for their customers cable!Q All they can do is provide what the customer is asking for! And those quotes show that STI is clearly NOT responsible for the finishing layer. Somebody else is... and I think I know who.... STI's latest partner!
No orders, but new customer after new customer for these wire samples ... and customers state that STI is providing wire that NOBODY ELSE can provide AND THEY KEEP COMING BACK FOR MORE AND MORE!
BTW UILT, if you are soooo confident that STI is going to fail, then why haven't you accepted my wager? Is it that you want a higher wager? OK how about $50K? ... or $100K? Or perhaps with your horrific losses on STI you can only afford $1... That would be OK too... I'd be laughing all the way to the bank in any event! You accept and I'll define the conditions. Come on pussy! Put up or shut up!
cont'd from prev:
Then there is this:
Okay. The next question is on those 24 strips you delivered to that cable manufacturer, are you doing that still or are you holding not off on that because of these others that you needed to one time last year, you’re going to deliver those 24 strips?
No that’s definitely on our -- that's definitely one of the consumers of wire off of our machine. And I think we’ve talked about it in the past. I think we were really close to having that at one point in time. And then this goes back to the kind of the finishing layer issue. And so you have it and then the finishing layer isn’t quite what you need and so then you don’t have it, because it is not like you just tweak the wire that you already had; you start over. Right?"
So, now you need to get those 24 strips off the machine again and they need to be consistent and then you go get the next finishing layer. And so that’s the challenge. It’s not like you look at it first time and say that wasn't quite right, let’s do another finishing layer, let’s just redo the finishing layer, well you can’t.
I mean we’ve got one shot at just putting layers on the stuff. If it’s the way you want it, then great. And if it’s not, then you start over. I mean that’s the nature of the beast.. Frankly that’s why this is a difficult business, that’s why it’s I think it's challenging for some that don't have a repeatable process. At the same time, my belief is that once you figure out exactly what that process is, what that recipe is, and exactly what it needs to be, our manufacturing process ALLOWS US TO DO THE PART THAT WE CONTROL, WE CAN DIAL IT IN AND DO IT CONSISTENTLY. . And WE'RE WORKING WITH PEOPLE on these finishing layers. And I think once we know exactly what that finishing layer is going to be, THEY'VE SHOWN THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE IT AND BE CONSISTENT AS WELL!"
So much for the UILT's brainless lies, fabrications and twisted views!
Before I delve into the new fabrication of the UILT, I would like to make a simple observation. Note how the UILT is not able to acknowledge any mistake he makes in his statements (lies) about
STI. He's simply not man enough to do it... but hey, after all he is my little dummy puppet!
Now with his new post crybaby UILT is still offering narrow and highly selective quotes; Let's look at some others from the same transcript on the SAME SUBJECT:
JQ: "The production capacity of our pilot RCE machine has limited the volume of wire we have been able to produce for customer projects. This restraint ALONG WITH THE ONGOING FINISHING LAYER EVALUATIONS has impeded our customer’s ability to build the demonstration projects needed to achieve full qualification of our Conductus wire." Note the term "evaluations". Then there is this.
"Jon Hickman - Ladenburg
So is there any particular hurdle that are still trying to knock down thing like then we have talked about how some customers want plating or something, do you care to elaborate on any of that?
Well I think the biggest thing we have really been struggling with is as we continue to tweak the recipe for them primarily on finishing layers, that requires us to produce more wire to do that and we really we just can’t get enough wire out of that pilot machine. I think that has been a restraint on our side and will probably continue to be a restrain as I mentioned in my prepared remarks. We have more demand right now already in house for the third quarter that we know we are going to get off that machine. So any work on qualification where something needs to be redone or hey let’s do it one more way well that’s just at least one more thing that needs to go through that machine right now and that’s the problem. So we continue to try to prioritize and sequence those orders in a way that that get gives us what we want to go in fastest manner but that has been one of our largest impediments to-date.
to be cont'd