Welcome to the world of ElectriPlast!! This Blog is dedicated to open and honest discussion on Integral Technologies & their intellectual property (IP) known as ElectriPlast. Discussions on this Blog include: Historical Perspectives (Integral & its Products); Management Profiles; Patents; Production Issues; Tech Spin-offs; Product Speculations and Time Tables; The Game Plan; Media Relations; Corp Supporters; Shareholder Impressions; & the Latest News.

My Photo
Location: Bavaria, Germany

I am a retired US Government analyst, currently residing in Germany. I am also a shareholder in the company called Integral Technologies (OTCBB: ITKG), and have a desire to enlighten and share its great and still emerging story. I am well read, focused and appreciate challenging interactions which spark creativity and develop enlightenment. That is why I created the ElectriPlast Blog, and the reason I am here.

October 09, 2009

ElectriPlast: Is it Time to Appoint a Real Board of Directors?

It May






By Vince S.
ElectriPlast Blog Editor

“Be the change you want to see in the world” --

[Editor’s Note: Nearly three years after Integral Technologies first mentioned the possibility of hiring a Board of Directors, the ElectriPlast Blog is calling out the Boyz in Bellingham. But can a case be made for a group of independent decision makers to help guide our company?]


Several years ago, when Integral Technologies crooned about looming prospects for contracts and commercialization, there were fleeting references to a Board of Directors to facilitate the important decisions necessary to guide the company from a developmental stage to a revenue-generating entity. The dollar signs aren’t hitting our bottom line yet, but the time could be ripe to move the BOD concept into the realm of reality.

A real BOD would add a critical layer of governance to Integral and be consistent with SEC and Sarbanes Oxley rules by providing transparency and communication for the shareholders. Also, it would signal to the world that we have passed another milestone on the way to ElectriPlast becoming the success we always knew it would be. A real BOD? How about any BOD? Actually, the rules for incorporation require publicly traded companies to have a Board of Directors. While Integral meets that requirement, our BOD consists of just two people.

Although management has enlisted the aid of many advisors--Preston Gates Ellis, QuanStar, IRG, Jasper Rubber, etc.--most of the day-to-day decisions have been made by our two-person BOD, Bill Robinson and Bill Ince. Moreover, other than the aforementioned corporate advisors, only once during the 13 year history of this company has management reached outside of the Bellingham compound to ask for shareholder input, and that was to increase the number of authorized shares. So, is it premature to talk about implementing a real Board of Directors for Integral? I am not so sanguine as to think that the Boyz are on it already, but they should be.

Do we need a real Board of Directors?

Messers Robinson and Ince have made every critical decision as Integral morphed from the original antenna company, weathered a frivolous law suit, hired the person who would invent ElectriPlast, directed scores of patents through the Byzantine patent process, and connected with the manufacturer who has been a powerful partner in the development our intellectual property. To be sure, false starts, missteps, poor communication and rooky mistakes have marked the ElectriPlast trail which, in all likelihood, probably would have evolved faster had we had a board of critical thinkers to provide oversight during our journey.

Integral is not yet a revenue-generating company. Even so, the argument can be made that a consortium of directors, with expertise in areas relevant to our space, are necessary. ElectriPlast is a remarkable product that has the potential to generate many hundreds of millions in revenue. That being the case, a well functioning Board of Directors, with experience and expertise in the many areas affecting Integral’s area of operations, can serve as a top level advisor for the benefit of all shareholders, while becoming a strategic asset for Integral Technologies. Eventually, the need will exist for a Board of Directors. Why not now at this critical juncture?

Who and how should they be appointed?

As a microcap, Integral Technologies should start small, with bylaws and corporate governance policies that call for 8-10 directors, and expand the board as the company grows. Members of the Board of Directors would be nominated by the CEO and approved by the shareholders to cover traditional governance areas. As an example, the Integral BOD could include:

· William R. Robinson, CEO, Integral;
· Douglas R. Mathias, CEO, JARCO;
· Dian Griesel, CEO, IRG or her designee;
· A member from The QuanStar Group;
· A member from Wellington Management;
· And additional Directors from the automotive, manufacturing, legal, accounting, electrical engineering, and/or related sectors.

Furthermore, Mo Zeidan would be an excellent Director because of his expertise in the automotive sector, unless conflict-of-interest regulations prohibit such an appointment.

Initially, the BOD subcommittees could include the:

· Audit Committee;
· Compensation and Management Committee;
· Finance Committee; and the
· Nomination and Governance Committee.

The number of subcommittees could be expanded consistent with Integral’s growth and SEC governance and reporting responsibilities.

What can a BOD do for Integral Technologies?

Other than a sorely needed breath of fresh air, a knowledgeable, expert and experienced Board of Directors would, among many others:

· Provide confidence that critical decisions are not being made in a vacuum;
· Enhance the credibility of Integral Technologies and ElectriPlast in the worldwide marketplace;
· Ensure that Integral is on course with its policy directives and is fulfilling its mission statement;
· Help management realize growth strategies and revenue projections;
· Assist with the myriad of decisions related to the proper management of Integral;
· Focus on the strategic direction of the company; and
· Facilitate succession planning, should that become necessary.

As long as Integral continues with the two-person Board of Directors format, shareholders will continue to raise their eyebrows when SEC reporting, such as the most recent 10-K, reflects increased benefits, bonuses, and allowances for the Boyz. While most will acknowledge that Bill Robinson has occasionally used his own personal funds to finance Integral until other financing was available, the two-person system perpetuates the perception of a lack of transparency as well as a disregard for the shareholders.

With a full BOD, shareholders will have the assurance that the Directors voted in by the majority of the shareholders will only make decisions that are in the best interests of the company. At this stage in the company’s development, the ElectricPlast Blog supports a real and functioning Board of Directors for Integral Technologies similar to the model in the above paragraphs.

Finally, the National Association of Corporate Directors could serve as a resource in helping steer Integral through the process of finding the best people for the new Integral Technologies Board of Directors.

It’s time to get on it, Boyz!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you're missing the point, PK. Before we need governance, transparency or "another set of eyes", we need a product, a prototype or even some data. And the only plausible reason these have never been forthcoming in 13 years is: they do not exist. Can you imagine how much the stock price would jump if a working prototype was demonstrated? The "Boyz" would love to show something to pump the price and garner some more funds. But there's nothing here to "govern" or see.

No, after paying themselves lavish salaries and benefits while burning over $30M in 13 years, these fellows are not about to let anyone (like a BOD) have any authority to rein them in. This has been, and apparently continues to be, a very profitable venture for them. The foxes shall continue to run this henhouse until the money runs out.

October 13, 2009 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

coperedMr Anon, I agree totally. PK has once again has painted a perfect world picture for the shareholders.

The point he missed is that the shareholders have absolutely no voice in the actual decision making process governing this company. His only "vote" is to continue to wait and hope, or to sell and walk away.

The people with the vote, as you have pointed out, think the perfect picture they already have is just fine. Thank you very much.

October 14, 2009 4:50 AM  
Anonymous oscar said...

PK -
It would be wonderful if you could ask Jasper a simple question: Is there any 'there' there? Does 'electriplast' actually offer what it is claimed to offer? All of us (I think) hang on the promise of that - and have no way of knowing whether we have been taken on a long and expensive ride, or whether it is mere (?) bureaucratic ineptitude which has resulted in zero results. We obviously cannot believe anything coming from ITKG - but Jasper is (may be) another question.
A straight-forward answer to this question would be appreciated by all, I think.

October 14, 2009 6:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can hear it now....

Oh, thank`s for calling PK. Hope you used our 800 number, ha, ha.

We`ve been dying to violate our NDA with another companies shareholder. Yes, Electriplast works just fine. Does everything they claim it will do and that includes all the things Tom said also. Our presses have been up to 50,000 lbs per month capacity for almost a year now. The customers are calling almost every day. But the bureaucratic ineptitude at Integral has our hands tied.

Excuse me, think I`ll pour myself another glass of Kool-aid. Do they have Kool-Aid in Bavaria?

October 16, 2009 8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your obsession is unhealthy, Ray. Are you on some sort of jihad to save the entire world's penny stock investors, or just Integral's? Unhealthy and delusional.

October 16, 2009 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post,Vince,will help some diehard skeptics perhaps see some positivity.A BOD is very important to ITKG right now,on the verge of commercialization and it should be composed mainly of shareholders.It is the most important possession this company can have for a NYSE listing and leave the world of scam on the OTC behind.Keep up the good work and the best of fortune to us all.

October 16, 2009 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where on your stock certificates does it say that the company would expand it`s BOD beyond what they already have? Same goes for the NYSE listing that you feel is important. Mine have no such proclamations.

Please take responsibility for your actions. You bought a pig in a poke. And now that you`ve seen it in the clear light of day, you want to change it. You want an upgrade.....for free.

Your wishes and desires should have been made clear BEFORE you purchased. Caveat Emptor.

October 17, 2009 12:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I think this link is a new posting... sometimes hard to tell on web:

Conductive plastic for a better (lighter) battery
14-Oct-2009 13:53 GMT

Integral has developed a moldable conductive plastic it calls ElectriPlast, which consists of small single pellets compounded with metal fibers that may help streamline production of batteries and electronics.

“While you can’t change the basics of how batteries work, you can change the materials that are used to create them,” asserted Bill Robinson, the CEO of Integral Technologies Inc. And that is precisely what the Bellingham, WA-based company did; it has developed a moldable conductive plastic called ElectriPlast, a polymer blend that can be used to conduct electricity.

ElectriPlast consists of small single pellets compounded with metal fibers that, when poured into a molding machine and shaped, may help streamline production of batteries and electronics. According to Robinson, the uniqueness of ElectriPlast is in the way the materials blend when molded.

“Other like materials are a salt-and-peppered mix creating hot and cold spots within the molded product; ElectriPlast does not have this issue as all the materials are blended within a single pellet,” he explained. “The pellet is the key to this whole process, as the customer has only one thing to do once they receive our product: mold or extrude their widget.”

With ElectriPlast replacing lead or stainless steel, the company claims that batteries could be 20 to 30 lb (9 to 14 kg) lighter than traditional ones used today. Robinson believes the material will be used extensively in current vehicles and future hybrid models.

“The ElectriPlast material has been in development for the past five years but has now been perfected and can now be duplicated and customized for any customer anywhere,” he said. “We are capable of producing 50,000 lb per month and can expand the production facility within six weeks for additional production.”

The company’s manufacturing partner is Jasper, IN-based Jasper Rubber Products. Several second tier suppliers are analyzing the ElectriPlast materials, Robinson noted.

Beyond supplying a battery manufacturer with different blends for molded parts in a standard 12-V battery, the company has provided several large antenna makers with specific blends. One of these manufacturers has made a final prototype and is testing the antenna for commercialization, according to Integral.

Other potential uses include a molded part in a new military shielding application, as well as manufacturing electrical wire in a “revolutionary way” that is, according to Integral, receiving interest from wire manufacturers.

Nearly 120 patents have been filed around the product and its use.

When asked what the anticipated cost of the material would be compared to traditional lead or stainless steel, the CEO responded, “Cost is not a factor right now, as the weight savings on any auto part is what the manufacturer is wanting—lighter vehicles result in better mileage.”

Ryan Gehm
Rate Article Average Rating

4.82 (11 votes)

October 20, 2009 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wikipedia claims that lead-acid batteries, invented in 1859 by French physicist Gaston Planté, are the oldest type of rechargeable battery.

Wikipedia also claims that, 150 years later, Planté's method of producing the plates has remained largely unchanged and is still used in stationary applications.

It`s been 6 years since Integral began hawking Electriplast`s virtues to the world. Yet no one in the scientific community has acknowledged what Robinson and Co. have called their "disruptive" technology. Now he is claiming significant improvements in a 150 year old technology and we read about it in a trade publication.

"Several second tier suppliers", "several large antenna makers", "a molded part in a new military shielding application( weren`t those supposed to begin delivery last year?)", "receiving interest from wire manufacturers" Yet 6 years into it the marketplace has not recognized a single application.

He didn`t get around to mentioning the 3 year old licensing agreements with Heatron, Jasper Rubber, ADAC Automotive, Esprit Solutions, and Knowles Electric. All of which have produced nothing.

And while he brags about 120 patents having been filed, I haven`t been able to find a single one of them that has anything to do with a Lead-Acid storage battery.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

October 21, 2009 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unhealthy and delusional, Ray. Maybe you need a hobby?

October 21, 2009 8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I have found fact-based discussions of any investment to be pretty healthy and "anti-delusional".

I suppose anything is possible, but when someone makes claims that they are supplanting a science and technology as established as the lead-acid battery, I like to see some facts. Especially before I give them my hard-earned cash. They don't have to tell me the secret "how", but I have to see the "what" - some data, a prototype or something to give me a little assurance that they are on to something and that their science is correct.

Investing in startups can be rewarding but it must never be forgotten that the odds are very long. There are far more failures than successes. I am just not lucky enough to take "blind leaps of faith" so, for my money, I encourage the posters to keep the fact-based discussions going.

Any word on the data that was promised by ITKG a few months ago? That will help us determine if this is disruptive technology or merely another offering in the field of pre-compounded conductive polymers.

October 23, 2009 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My research shows most of the current interest in "green" automotive batteries surrounds lithium-ion applications. Sorry Bill, they may have already "got the lead out".

There was, however, a behemoth 1,000 lb. lead-acid battery that GM produced for it`s EV1. 800 units were produced between 1996 and 2002. All were lease only and all have been recalled and reposessed.

Maybe that`s the one Bill is trying to improve. Hmmm, 30 lbs. would be about a 3% weight savings. Not very impressive. The lithium-ion technology has already reduced the the weight by 50-60%.

October 23, 2009 11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FWIW. There may still exist a demand for large capacity lead-acid batteries in stationary aplications. They are substantially cheaper but most won`t benefit substantially from any weight savings. To compete for those applications, Electriplast will have to show itself to be cheaper or more efficient.

In his trade magazine piece he claimed cost was not a factor at this point. And we only have his word about performance. Yes, where is that test data that was promised a few months ago?

October 23, 2009 11:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I first read the call for a BOD I thought that would be a good idea. Oversight of management and now Mo - great idea. How do we get there? I admit I'm not well versed in corporate law. Can we bring it to a vote or does management need to put this into action based on nothing other than their goodwill? If we as shareholders are unable to (at the very least) put this to a vote, the risk of owning shares in this company has far exceeded what I thought the true level of risk was.

November 05, 2009 5:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PK - you've been awfully quiet for a while...

November 06, 2009 8:56 PM  
Blogger PK... said...

I'm still here, still reading.

While the concept of a BOD is still a desired thing--some might even say it's too hopeful--all concerned must remember one salient fact. It was Bill Robinson, the CEO of Integral, who first proposed this as a way forward way back when.

The only thing we are doing with this last article is living up to the initial premise of the Blog--it hasn't changed. Part of that premise is to remind Mr. Robinson, and all others reading, that there is a historical perspective at play here...

As for upcoming Blog articles -- That will happen shortly. The original intention was to wait for the company to come up with newsworthy issues and investigate further -- I tend to think we have some other leads that can tell a story on their own while we wait for Mo and friends to take ElectriPlast to market.

And what, you might be asking, are Bill Robinson and Bill Ince doing except suckling from the teat of this cash-cow?

Well Bill Robinson has actually worked in the past, and has done much to keep Integral together (so-to-speak) up to now—but times are changing’, (and that was me getting a Blog article ahead of myself).

As for Bill Ince, I (probably like most of you) tend to wonder at his true role most of the time.

DEAD WEIGHT is a grand description to run with, but then I don't know the guy very well... Here's a thought, for those who have had more than a casual interaction with the dark-puppet-master, and appreciate transparancy, why don't you tell us more on the rest of his story ((Email me at: electriplast@hotmail.com)). After the last quarterly SEC statement, it would be nice to see what exactly he does to the point that he thinks he's worth the continued association...

November 08, 2009 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so what's all the energy in the stock today??

November 10, 2009 10:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Energy" in the stock? The only things that move ITKG a few cents are vague inane statements by the principals of the company and someone trading a few shares. And the statements are getting more bizarre as time goes on. First it was antennas, then wire on aircraft and now batteries. Batteries? C'mon people! Someone at ITKG should take a high school science class.

The business model here is management dupes more investors to keep the salaries and perks covered and then plays the ripples in the stock price with the options. Even the promises are getting thinner. First we were promised "contracts", then "products" and now we are told "data" is coming out. Of course, none of these has materialized.

November 11, 2009 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been a lot of people dissing the fact that batteries can be made from conductive plastic. Here is the real truth. Please read this: http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/macdiarmid.html

Here is part #1

Until 1987, the billions of batteries that had been marketed in myriad sizes and shapes all had one thing in common. To make electricity, they depended exclusively upon chemical reactions involving metal components of the battery. But today a revolutionary new type of battery is available commercially. It stores electricity in plastic.

Plastic batteries are the most radical innovation in commercial batteries since the dry cell was introduced in 1890. Plastic batteries offer higher capacity, higher voltage, and longer shelf-life than many competitive designs. Companies are testing new shapes and configurations, including flat batteries, that can be bent like cardboard. Researchers expect that the new technology will free electronic designers from many of the constraints imposed by metal batteries such as limited recharging cycles, high weight, and high cost.

The development of plastic batteries began with an accident. In the early 1970s, a graduate student in Japan was trying to repeat the synthesis of polyacetylene, a dark powder made by linking together the molecules of ordinary acetylene welding gas. After the chemical reaction took place, instead of a black powder, the student found a film coating the inside of his glass reaction vessel that looked much like aluminum foil. He later realized that he had inadvertently added much more than the recommended amount of catalyst to cause the acetylene molecules to link together.

News about the foil-like film reached Alan MacDiarmid of the University of Pennsylvania. He was interested in non-metallic electrical conductors. Since polyacetylene in its new guise looked so much like a metal, MacDiarmid speculated that it might be able to conduct electricity like a metal as well. MacDiarmid invited the student's instructor to join his team in the United States, and this collaboration soon led to further findings. The University of Pennsylvania investigators confirmed that polyacetylene exhibited surprisingly high electrical conductivity.

Scientists recognize that various materials can conduct electricity in different ways. In metals, electricity is simply the manifestation of the movement of free electrons that are not tightly bound to any single atom. In semiconductors, like those that make up transistors and other electronic devices, electricity is the drift of excess electrons to form a negative current or, alternatively, the drift of missing electrons or positive "holes" in the opposite direction to form a positive current. Typically, the excess electrons or the holes are donated by impurity or dopant atoms.

MacDiarmid's team reasoned that the ability of polyacetylene to conduct electricity was probably promoted by trace impurities contributed by the catalysts involved in the Japanese student's process. In their laboratory, MacDiarmid's team confirmed that it was possible to chemically dope polyacetylene to create either mobile excess electrons or holes. That these electrons and holes could move explained how polyacetylene was able to conduct electricity.

November 12, 2009 1:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is part #2

When polyacetylene was exposed to traces of iodine or bromine vapor, the thin polymer film exhibited still higher electrical conductivity. The researchers discovered that by purposefully adding selected impurities to polyacetylene, its electrical conductivity could be made to range widely-behaving as an insulator, like glass, to a conductor, like metal. The discovery that plastics can behave like metallic conductors and semiconductors was a chemistry first.

The key breakthrough leading to practical application as batteries occurred in 1979 when one of Professor MacDiarmid's graduate students was investigating alternative ways for doping polyacetylene. He placed two strips of polyacetylene in a solution containing the doping ions and passed an electric current from strip to strip. As expected, the positive ions migrated to one strip and the negative ions to the other. But when the current source was removed, the charge remained stored in the polyacetylene polymer. This stored charge could then be discharged if an electrical load was connected between the two strips, just as in a conventional battery.

Chemically, the plastic battery is different from conventional metal-based rechargeable batteries in which material from one plate migrates to another plate and back in a reversible chemical reaction. In a conducting plastic battery, only the stored ions of the solution move-the plates are not consumed and reconstituted. Since conventional battery life is limited by the number of times the plates can be reconstituted, this difference portends a longer recharge-cycle lifetime for the plastic batteries.

One potential application for polymer batteries is in battery-powered automobiles. Two key measures of a battery's suitability for automotive application are the power density, which determines acceleration and hill-climbing ability, and the energy density, which determines the number of miles that can be driven between charges. Polyacetylene's power density is 12 times that of ordinary lead acid batteries. Its energy density is also higher-about 50 watts-hours per kilogram versus 35 for lead acid batteries. Although plastic batteries are competing against other advanced development batteries with similar capability for this application, they have the unique potential to be made of low-cost, environmentally-benign materials. Supporters feel that a polymer battery can be part of the battery-powered car of the future.

Polyacetylene, however, is not an ideal battery material. It degrades in air, is chemically stable only in liquid solutions, and is brittle and not amenable to injection molding methods used for forming plastic parts in production. The University of Pennsylvania team, along with industrial associates licensed to use their technology, searched for conducting polymers of greater structural strength, thermoplasticity, flexibility, and lower costs. Allied Corporation synthesized a new material, polyparaphenylene, a black powder capable of being formed into plates by hot pressing, that could be doped to conduct electricity. Several other potentially suitable plastics were discovered thereafter.

One such material was polyaniline. In 1984 and 1985, the University of Pennsylvania group received patents on the use of this material for rechargeable batteries. It is inexpensive, and, unlike polyacetylene, it is stable in both air and water. Polyaniline is the material used in the plastic batteries that first became commercially available in 1987.

In just 8 years, plastic batteries went from laboratory discovery to commercial availability, a remarkably fast evolution. With advances continuing at a rapid pace, there are great opportunities for increasingly important applications of this new technology.

Alan MacDiarmid shares the 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Alan J. Heeger of the University of California at Santa Barbara, and Hideki Shirakawa, University of Tsukuba, Japan," for the discovery and development of conductive polymers."

November 12, 2009 1:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home