What will work with the battery space is a combination of things. Like an accumulation of different improvements added together.
So a successful result giving a colossal overall improvement would mean adoption of our tech, in combination with say, specially formulated silicone using another tech, with a battery of a particular type using another tech.
Firstly it wasn't me that started the talk about Panasonic. Other posters brought that up and I've previously checked that out. For some reason they aren't currently on the list of Polaris collaborators. So I asked the question with "Panasonic?"
It was a question/suggestion. As signified by the question mark.
Again, you're missing the clear point that the regulatory barriers to adoption aren't the same with the battery space as they are with diagnostics.
The technology worked, it's just that it wasn't economic to adopt. GC imagined that companies would simply go through the hurdles with the regulators (to show efficacy and safety with the FDA) and adopt our technology because it is the best.
But the market thought differently. They don't need our technology as badly or as widely as he thought. A market does exist, with new technologies, but even then, the process of adoption is torturously slow and the volumes aren't what was once imagined. Ellume is not going to make us rich certainly not in the short to medium term.
The situation with batteries quite different. No FDA = no costly regulatory barriers. This is entirely within the commercial space. Safety and risk are internalised by the adopting company.
Therefore our Anteocoat will be cheap to adopt, and the benefits are demonstrable.
Why are you implying that Polaris is incapable of this btw? They've already done it at least to part of what manufacturers want, and on the way...from what I can see. Explain to us how they're failing.
Added with other improvements (which aren't necessarily a threat to our tech far from it), they all go into the mix to create a hugely more efficient battery. This is what I meant by cumulative.
It's not a single innovation that will make the difference, it's going to be a set of different ones, added together to make a super battery.
So to be a threat to our Anteocoat another tech would need to be doing precisely the same thing to the silicon, using a different method (since our method is covered by patent). I don't think the odds of that are high at all.
Either/or thinking doesn't apply here. Please step back and check your assumptions. Unlike the diagnostics space, industry is motivated to adopt improvements, all things being equal.
I understand you have some knowledge in this field BUT it's essential to keep these strategic points in mind to get some perspective.
This is NOT the diagnostics space. Nothing like it. It's possible to have knowledge of an technical aspect of a space (batteries, diagnostics) and lose perspective big time. In GC's case he had no strategy to deal with the risks to commercialisation including regulatory barriers to adoption. Nobody talked about it. I raised it with him and he seemed to think the companies would bear the cost. (wrong!)
By having the lab close to the real industrial action (and that's not in Australia btw), we've made a good strategic move. IMO.
I understand anyone being weary with the overhyping of our technology in here, but ...
That isn't what's happening now! Quite the reverse.
(20min delay)
