ElectriPlast

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
Name:
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.

November 12, 2009

ElectriPlast: Reader's Research Dispells Falsehoods...



Fact

vs.

Fallacy





By: An Anonymous
ElectriPlast Blog
(EB) Reader





[EB Publisher's Note: Over time, I have worked to encourage the reader interaction on the EB Blog through our Comments feature. We have had some interesting discussions. It offers some (myself included) a chance to vent, a chance to highlight speculation, rumor and yes--in some instances an opportunity to spead false rant as valid truths.

While it may be frustrating for some to see that I let this engagement take place, the reality is--it's a public forum, and while it might at times take on a political Town Hall atmosphere, ladened with he-said/she-said heated discussions, or worse, with fallacies and falsehoods bantied about as though they were fact--when shown in the light of day (or reality), these utterances readily are seen for what they truly are.

Today, one of your fellow EB Readers decided to shine some light on recently shared fallacy, using a most uncommon tool "Researched FACT".

As a friend of mine often says when he sees it happen "Good Jaaab".

Rage-on Readers, I believe (and the general atmosphere from many sources agree) that the ship which sailed so, so long ago, is about to come in -- may we all profit hugely from its return and the long awaited bouty. PK sends...]


The following Reader's Comments were made to the EB article: "ElectriPlast: Is it Time to Appoint a Real Board of Directors" date/time-stamped: 12 November 2009, (01:24am & 01:26am)


Reader's Comments Challenge Fallacy

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.


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


51 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bravo, PK and Bravo to the reader who chose to shine the spotlight of truth on the misinformation "campaign" that some continue to mount. They are misinformed at best and malicious liars at worst.

I think some of the reader angst may be due to your very words that head the blog: "This Blog is dedicated to open and honest discussion on Integral Technologies and their intellectual property (IP) known as ElectriPlast." There is nothing open OR honest about those who spread lies and wrench the truth from any open conversation others try to have with them. I can say with a high degree of certainty the same thing will happen with this outstanding piece.

Good job!

November 12, 2009 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for the excellent, albeit 20 year old, summary article on Nobel Laureate MacDiarmid's groundbreaking working with conductive polymers and doped conductive polymer batteries. More recent exciting work in this decade is being done by Prof Palmore at Brown Univ to create batteries from thin film faradaic reactions on the surface of conductive polymers, similar to those Dr MacDiarmid developed. (Adv Materials, 2006, 18, 1764-68)

Interesting as these articles may be, they are unrelated to the technology claimed by Integral in their patent applications. While the professors have developed truly conductive materials such as polyaniline and polypyrrole that have been doped to enable energy storage via a re-dox reaction, Integral has merely dispersed conductive materials (e.g. stainless steel) in insulating materials (plastics).

Why not replace polypyrrole with Electriplast? Because a heterogeneous blend that consists of mostly an insulator on the molecular level cannot be doped effectively.

Or maybe it can. Maybe a salesman-turned-engineer working out of a garage has discovered something two Nobel Laureates and 40 years of university research have overlooked.

November 12, 2009 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And perhaps Mr. Jobs and Mr Wozniak, working out of a garage, could never come up with the first personal computer. How could they possibly with all of the IBM, Hewlett-Packard, & MIT brains and assorted Nobel Laureates of 30 years ago?? Could never happen....

November 12, 2009 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a great post. We now have a much better idea of what areas the "delayed test results" and "soon to be released test results" should in fact touch on - agreed?

November 12, 2009 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about all this tech talk, but bottomline IMHO is that we have yet to see a stitch of data or a ounce of material. Much less a revenue-producing contract...

E-plast might make a great battery, wire or what-have-you - - - if it existed.

November 12, 2009 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the comment section of the EP blog article, 'Is it time to appoint a BOD?' we find this: "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."

It looks like remedial school is in store for that particular anonymous poster. So sad.

November 12, 2009 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which is exactly why I posted the article that led to this Blog. Too many people are blurting out un-truths and absolute false information. As the second poster above tries to make their point that the article I posted is "excellent" however "it is 20 years old". And so what? What if it were 200 years old? This is probably the very same poster who has been on multiple stock boards saying in effect that plastic can in no way be used in battery construction. Batteries can only be made out of lead, blah, blah, blah.

The real truth is in fact that many types of batteries can and are currently being made out of various plastic formulations & technologies. Research and development has indeed been on-going for the last 20 years from various sources all over the world. And ITKG & Electriplast will be a big part of battery production in the years ahead. Now does anyone else require more research papers to read?? If so, please search Google under "conductive plastic battery".

November 13, 2009 12:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Close but no cigar.

For the Google search I would recomend starting with conductive polymer(57,500 hits) not conductive plastic(4 hits). I found that inserting the words automotive battery reduced the hits to Zero.

Similar results were found with Polyaniline and same with polyparaphenylene.

Integral still does not have a patent application that I could find that included any of these terms.

conclusion: The cigar remains in my pocket. While a lot of research has been done, I can find nothing to indicate that the application of this technology for automotive battries is any closer today than it was 20 years ago.

The marketplace remains the dividing line between talk and profit.

If anyone is more successfull than I was, please share.

November 13, 2009 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent!! You have done a fabulous research job and I would like you to take that cigar out of your pocket so that I may light it. You have won. There will be no Electriplast used in car battery production. None. Ever.

Hopefully PK will make note of this in a future Blog.

Thank you for bring this up to everyone's attention.

November 13, 2009 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not so fast. The cigar stays in my pocket until you actually prove this technology is applicable to automotive batteries commercially.

Show me an automotive battery in production, by anyone, that replaces the lead-acid technology with this one and the cigar is yours.

This is you opportunity to prove that I am the one that is misinformed. As to the malicious liar charges....that poster, I suspect, has had one too many cups of coffee this morning or one too many drinks last night. Or possibly both. The guy needs a chill pill.

November 13, 2009 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This patent discussion raises some pertinent facts:
- ITKG has no composition of matter patents. In other words, anyone is free to copy and make the Electriplast formulation.
- ITKG has a slew of application patents. This is good. But they have not filed a patent for using EP in a battery.
- The inventor named on all of ITKG's patents is Tom Aisenbrey. He is now gone. Its unclear who will continue to invent for them.
- Jasper Rubber have no patents to their name. This normally indicates no R&D activity. ITKG contracted them to scale-up EP; but there have no results whatsoever. Scale-up shouldn't take this long. We have to assume that there are serious problems with the product.
- ITKG has retained Mo Zeidan to establish "joint developments" on their behalf (see the latest 10-K). Apparently, management sees the need to get back to the lab. This is not good news - it signals a major strategic re-direct that could take years and $millions more.

While EP "could" be used for almost anything from batteries to Barbie Dolls, its going to take more R&D. And from the activities documented in the 10-K, management knows it. With the departure of their only inventor, they're going to have to scramble.

November 13, 2009 8:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I`m not sure what your term, no composition of matter patents, means.

While most of the applied for and issued patents have to do with applications for ElectriPlast, at least 4 are for the process of manufacture and composition of, the capsule itself.

Issued= #7,223,469

Pending= #20070207316, #20060131547, and #20040238798.

Do any of these affect your conclusions?

November 13, 2009 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He conveniently forgot that set of facts - even though he has talked about them ad nauseum on every board he could spew his vile hate across. You've made a valiant effort by going to the trouble of posting the USTPO's corresponding numbers, but I doubt that will in any way affect his conclusions. His mind is made up -- regardless of the facts. So typical. So sad.

November 13, 2009 10:26 PM  
Blogger PK... said...

Actually....


There are patents which discuss the ElectriPlast formula in battery models and if I am not mistaken mock prototypes were created to prove out the potential.

I believe I spoke on this topic in the past -- February 2006 – heck; my research mirrored much of what was derived recently...

Now, truth be told, what we are describing is the contents of a black, unopened box. Not many are privy to Integral's foray on this front.

While there have been--and continue to be contacts with a few Battery concerns—sources, concerned with compromising ongoing coordination, remain uncomfortable in detailing in-depth information on these exchanges beyond the fact that there is significant interest.

While some may choose to either urge caution (which I too might endorse), others have been active at aggressively chipping away at the possibilities present with negative statements of dismay and incredulity. Alright, let’s talk that point.

There remains a number of unanswered questions associated to this question—but, there is also enough information on the subject matter to at least drive the conversation toward a level of common ground understanding.

Despite what some argue, creation of a plastic battery is possible. Lead is not the only material out there used to make batteries regardless of the claims to the contrary. Further the potential benefits of a plastic battery could become a staggering boon for the company that exploits that untapped & emerging market.

Now the bickering over details can continue until the day Integral announces a related contract and deploys its first ElectriPlast-based battery to market. If that’s what you choose to do with your days, great—more power and the like. The question I might pursue instead of discounting the possibilities would be to ask – “where are we right this moment on the scale to get an ElectriPlast-based battery to market?”


PK sends...

November 13, 2009 10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From Part #1:

" But today a revolutionary new type of battery is available commercially. It stores electricity in plastic."

Available commercially? A plastic automotive battery? Are we still in the fact part of this article? Or have we slipped that misinformation "campaign" that some continue to mount?

If not, please tell me where they are available. I`d be glad to run my own third party tests.

November 14, 2009 3:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No where in that paragraph are they referring to an automotive battery. Please re-read the paragraph.

As you know, there are dozens and dozens of types of batteries. All shapes, all sizes, different voltages, comprised of different formulations and principles.

Please do not be like a politician and mis-state facts and leave out important informatiom.

I have already told you that you are absolutely correct in that EP cannot be used in an automobile 12 volt battery. It will never ever happen so let's get off it and move on to a different battery subject.

If you do decide to further quote from the enclosed articles, please read them correctly and do not infer something that is not there.

November 14, 2009 3:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No where in that paragraph are they referring to an automotive battery."

You are absolutely right.

Silly me. I assumed part 2 was a continuation of part 1. Because in part 2 it very clearly states that: "One potential application for polymer batteries is in battery-powered automobiles."

I assumed the whole reason for this offering was to support the comments Bill Robinson had made a while back that caused a bit of a stir.

That you at some point had disavowed the automotive claims is news to me. I missed that completely.

Do you have information supporting Integrals interest in other battery applications? A press release or perhaps a patent application? Maybe a web page reference?

The publishers note that preceded your article claimed:

"with fallacies and falsehoods bantied about as though they were fact" and...

"Today, one of your fellow EB Readers decided to shine some light on recently shared fallacy, using a most uncommon tool "Researched FACT"."

The only "recently shared fallacy" seems to be that Bill Robinson and all the rest of us are talking about automotive batteries, and you seem to be talking about everything BUT automotive batteries.....even though your submission specifically mentions them.

Am I confused or have I been deliberately misled?

November 14, 2009 8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few thoughts for those here that are so convinced that others of us are liars intent only on spreading misinformation.

If the whole intent of publishing this article was to dispell falsehoods, misinformation, and outright lies, how could it not be about automotive batteries?

It`s easy to see the link between Integral`s Electriplast and automotive batteries. Bill`s July 14th press release was pretty specific.

"•We are providing a battery manufacturer different ElectriPlast blends for molded parts in a standard 12 volt battery. The purpose is to lighten the battery providing for a longer battery life to meet the demands of “green” vehicles."

And his hiring of Mo a few weeks later seemed to support that same line of opportunity. His Detroit automotive connections were key to his selection. The specifics of his contract are available on Integral`s own web site in the latest SEC filing.

If Mo`s marching orders were to sell flashlight or some other kind of handheld batteries, why would he limit himself to Detroit automotive buyers?

So, here is where I believe the misinformation begins...

I can find no direct link between Electriplast and any other main battery group. No press releases. No patent applications, No web page references. No SEC descriptions.

As near as I can tell, this blog is the only place where discussion of Electriplast`s non-automotive battery applications exist.

So how does that somehow get twisted around to myself and a few others mounting a campaign of lies and misinformation against Integral and Electriplast? Where is this light of truth that is supposed to be shining on us really coming from? And what truths is it really exposing?

November 14, 2009 8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello:

For the 3rd time, "Please get off the 12 volt battery thing". We concede, you are correct. There will be absolutely no Electriplast used in the manufacture and design of "Automobile 12 volt batteries". Not Now and certainly Not In The Future. Mr. Robinson must surely have made a mistake in stating anything in regard to EP being used in 12 volt automobile battery production. He surely must have been referring to another type of battery. So rest assured that EP will never be used as a component in regards to 12 volt automobile battery production so can you please get off it and move on to a different battery subject?

Again, for the 5th time, just so everyone reading this blog is crystal clear: There will be no use of Electriplast in the production of automobile 12 volt batteries. You are correct in that it is not going to happen. Never. Ever.

Now let's move on...

November 14, 2009 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay, now that we all agree on the automotive batteries, let`s move on to how it became an issue in the first place.

Beginning with Pk`s "About Me":

"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.

Develop enlightenment, spark creativity. Good stuff

Then drop down to this latest offering and we get....

ElectriPlast: Reader's Research Dispells Falsehoods...

Followed by: Fact vs. Fallacy

What falsehoods was he refering to?
What fallacy is he diposing of?

When you drop down to the publishers notes you find more innuendo...

"an opportunity to spead false rant as valid truths"

"with fallacies and falsehoods bantied about as though they were fact"

But then all is brought into perspective by....

"Today, one of your fellow EB Readers decided to shine some light on recently shared fallacy, using a most uncommon tool "Researched FACT".

"Good Jaaab" Pk.

Even if we admit it`s his Blog and allow him to bend some of his own rules, the article that followed seems completely disconnected with his opening remarks.

So why is it that then, those of us who are still trying to figure out which fallacies and what falsehoods we are being blamed for are then accused of mounting a "misinformation campaign"? That we are "misinformed at best and malicious liars at worst"?

What part of sparking creativity and challenging interactions is that? especially as it relates to this article.......that is NOT about 12v automobile batteries.

Okay, I`ve had my rant for the day and I got through it without calling anyone a name or making unjust accusations about anybody.

Y`all have a great weekend. See you on the other side.

Thin

November 14, 2009 10:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You haven't cracked the code on this blog, Thin.

If you bring up any information that casts any doubt or negativity on Integral or Electriplast - then you're being malicious, lying and spreading false rumors.

On the other hand, if you make supportive comments of ITKG and EP and what "could" happen, then you are certainly not spreading falsehood. You may even be "dispelling falsehood". In addition, you need not be concerned about backing any facts up. Feel free to cite un-named "sources" that are "concerned with revealing details". You can say that "there are patents that discuss" but you don't need to give a reference. Heck, you can even say there are plastic batteries out there without giving any specifics.

This blog is not about trying to understand this company, its activities and attempting to see through the snowstorm they are putting up.

November 15, 2009 12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally don't know why PK lets you guys rant, rave and distort the simple facts beyond recognition the way you do. You've got 4 or 5 boards you do that on already. Isn't that enough?

You'd make great politicians. Like most of them, I know I can believe the opposite of what you say.

Follow the money.....it's always about the money. Where does YOUR money trail lead? Just askin'.

November 15, 2009 1:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You will not get answers and you will not get hard facts because nobody here works for ITKG. It is that plain and simple. We all receive the exact same press releases and we all read the exact same company articles.

Everything in this blog is all about what could be happening. What might be happening or not happening. What is possible. What's not possible (as you have stated "12 volt automobile batteries". What we have heard (gossip). What should happen, according to blog readers' opinions. What should not happen, etc. etc.

You see this is an Independent Blog. NOT an ITKG Company Blog.

The "facts", from the people that hold stock, come from the exact same place as the "facts" from the people who do not own stock,,, ITKG. Their pr releases, business wire releases, and investor relations.

I believe that if people have a major "beef", such as, "It is impossible to create a 12 volt battery for cars out of Electriplast" then you need to contact the company directly and or hire an attorney to let the company know that they are releasing false and mis-leading information. I believe that it is against the law for a company to directly release false and mis-leading information. This would most likely fall out of the "Safe Harbor" because the company is stating a fact that a company or companies are working with EP for development of automobile 12 volt batteries. If both Mr Robinson and Mr Mathius stated the use of EP being involved in 12 volt batteries and it is, as you stated, totally impossible, then you should immediately hire a class action attorney and I am quite sure that you would have dozens and dozens of shareholders, including me, along with you on your suit.

Dude, again, this is some private shareholder's Blog. We all talk about what I stated above. This is not the NY Times with dozens of reporters and detectives hunting facts from scientists, engineers, law enforcement, politicians, etc. We are all, shareholders and non shareholders receiving the same information. If there are indeed blatant and hardcore lies and mis-truths being released by ITKG then Go Get Them. Get your attorney and go make some money.

November 15, 2009 1:30 AM  
Blogger PK... said...

`

Gone for a day and all sorts of comments pour in…

The last poster had it right virtually on all counts.

The second to last poster noted that they "personally don't know why PK lets you guys rant, rave and distort the simple facts beyond recognition the way you do".

Well, trust it is definitely not about "value added". There is an agenda at play…well actually there’s always one in play, and everyone has one. While some entities have a desire to cast dispersions on ElectriPlast; the company itself over personality generated issues; or they are here acting out of the basest of all motivations--to manipulate the stock to suite their or their group’s manipulative whims. For whatever reason, these folks still have a right to speak -- and it is our (the EB team’s) self appointed task and responsibility to recognize this as a possibility while we continue to provide information and insight. This is done to allow all reading a medium to conduct due diligence based on information available, and yes, that information at times consists of rumor and speculation based on logic and sometimes its derived from confidential sources.

To this last point, at the very least I (we) acknowledge this fact publically -- and in doing so, this allows those reading the option to properly categorize their due diligence resources.

Now the big thing recently highlighted are specifics which centered on a "12 volt battery". Intentional or not, this was commented on in a recent publication, which quoted Integral company officers on their aspirations to apply ElectriPlast toward the benefit of auto industry.

Finally, I guess I touched a sensitive spot by pointing out one of fallacies shared on the board, and using my publishing authority to pick and highlight a valid counter to earlier comments shared.

I was pretty much called a hypocrite in my actions—ouch!

Hypocritical would have been the EB team deleting comments we found offensive or irrelevant. That’s not how we define this neighborhood. But, in saying that, whenever needed--we (I, the EB team, as well as any of reader interested in the content of this Blog) heartily reserve the right to speak truth to prevaricators.

PK sends...

November 15, 2009 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, I for one appreciate your stance regarding open dicussion as long as it remains civil.

That said, you continue to dance around your accusations of fallicies and falsehoods. I believe some clarification is in order.

Could your charges be toward Integral`s claims for an Electriplast version of the lead-acid automotive battery and not toward the posters that found fault with those cliams?

If so, I will gladly pull the blanket up over my head and go back to sleep.

If not, I can only continue to ask....what fallicies, specifically? What falsehoods, specifically? And who are you claiming is making them?


Thin

November 15, 2009 10:05 PM  
Blogger PK... said...

`

No.

There are some here who have made faulty claims, most recently that batteries could only be made one way, and that ElectriPlast would “never” fit the equation. It is difficult to identify the individual writer when everyone uses ‘Anonymous’ as their pen-name, but suffice it to say, this—as other issues discussed—is not a black/white issue. ElectriPlast reportedly crosses those borders, as do other battery prototypes & technologies presently under development.

As for the discourse, it (at least with me) will remain civil, but when close-minded opinions arise, and are pushed as the only option available, then they need to be challenged. We do that here with information, and will continue in our efforts to do so.

PK sends...

November 16, 2009 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too funny. So this is the snake oil you are selling. The shining light of truth. The truth that will dispell the falsehoods and fallacies perpetrated by misinformed or delibertly malicious liars.

"ElectriPlast reportedly crosses those borders"

Reportedly??? That`s your shining light of truth?

When, where, and by who?

Was there a "forward looking statements" clause at the bottom of the page? You know, the one that ends with "By making these forward-looking statements, the Company can give no assurances that the transaction described in this press release will be successfully completed, and undertakes no obligation to update these statements for revisions or changes after the date of this release."

The only truth I`ve found there is that they are incredibily consistent in upholding the terms of that statement.

Please, tell us you have more than that.

Thin

November 16, 2009 10:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread does reveal what we have been reduced to: arguing over speculation and hypotheticals. Since Integral has revealed so little, its about all we have left.

We do have the 10-Ks and 10-Qs wherein the company is required to show their hand - a little. But these documents get more grim as the months go on. They cite license after license that has yet to yield any revenue. The company is now running at a deficit and their independent auditor has remarked "As discussed in note 2
to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has no revenues and limited capital, which together raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern." (Sept 2009, 10-K, Sec 9B.)

Many of us went into this investing in a new and promising technology. Now, it looks like we are gambling on a dream. So sad.

November 18, 2009 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Firstly, you were not "investing" in a promising new technology. You were "gambling" in the hopes that this new technology was both different enough and useful enough that other companies would want to use it. You were dreaming & hoping that every corporation that currently uses metal, to conduct electricity & heat, in their products, would surely jump at the chance to be using a cheaper more convenient electrified plastic. You would then make a lot of money. That was your dream.

All dreams are a gamble. That is why they are called dreams. The 200 million lottery is a dream and a gamble. It's not an investment.

A stock investment is something like Google or Apple or Microsoft. Companies with little to no debt, Billions in cash, products or services that are selling, and money coming in the door hand over fist. Those are investments.

ITKG has always, always, always, been a very, very highly speculative dream. Nothing more. If it does indeed "Go" then your dreams will come true, Big Time. If it does not "Go" then your dreams of winning the lottery disappear.

I too am a shareholder in ITKG and have dreams with this company. My dreaming money went in to purchasing shares of ITKG. My investment money went into Google, Apple, Exxon, Rimm, & Berkshire Hathaway.

November 18, 2009 7:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spoken like a true Investor Relations guy trying to cover his ass....

November 19, 2009 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The private placement is still open with the company. It started at 35 cents. I expect they will drop to 25 or 30 cents to try and get more money. More downward pressure

I have talked to enough people to have some faith. There has been support even though a great deal of selling has taken place. That support is starting to evaporate. With regrets, I am likely start selling in January... to get out what I can... Hoping for a turn before then but it is hard to argue against those who point to the constant failings.

I wish everyone well and hope we all make some money... here or elsewhere...

December 09, 2009 7:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like more people will be flying the coop... Not heard much from PK.. I thought he was going to posting with a little more regularity. PK, any thoughts?

December 09, 2009 7:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed. It has gotten ominously quiet. Considering the cash flow problems outlined in the SEC filings, there's not much left to pay the consultants, lawyers and management's salaries. Once they leave, I guess its lights out.

December 10, 2009 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

O' it is lights out. It's over. I just pulled my money out yesterday at 30 cents. You have all been warned!!

December 10, 2009 4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the Pres & CEO publically stated that he was going to save 20-30 lbs per battery by replacing lead with Electriplast, I knew it was over. He is either a liar or a complete fool.

The handwriting is on the wall The fat lady is singing.

I started selling a couple k each week. Will be out completely in another month. Tried to average down but got in to late to be very successful. Will have to eat the loss. Could have been a lot worse.

Good luck to all.

December 11, 2009 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this run up in price for the release of a website? Surely investors aren't expecting PO's...

I know IR has made that promise all year guys, but don't expect the remaining part of 2009 to be any different.

December 16, 2009 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New press release out

December 17, 2009 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The press release reveals nothing new. Same old song - just a different key:

- Everybody loves the product (have we heard this before?)
- New licenses being inked (why didn't the old licenses listed in the 10-K bear fruit?)
- The data is on the way (a few months ago they were "compiling" the data; now they are back to testing again. Whats' the truth?)
- EP will "get the lead out" of batteries and function as a "shield". (Since when do batteries require a "shield"?)
- We're back in antennas. (Interestingly, ITKG abandoned their US patent on antennas. So what is this?)
- 2010 will be the year for EP. (I thought 2006 was the year for EP...)

Robinson's thrown the entire kitchen sink of unsubstantiated promises out there. He has done us a great favor: he's pumped - so we can dump.

Best get out while we can. It won't get better than this.

December 18, 2009 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm...Nothing new...

•Blending ElectriPlast™ pellets for use in a new hearing aid. After testing other competitors’ products, the purchaser has informed Integral that ElectriPlast™ is the only substance that allows them to advance their new product development. Integral has been advised that they will be incorporating ElectriPlast™ into their manufacturing in 2010.

•Final molding for a two-part piece for a Southern California military contractor.

•Designing several consumer electronic parts to enhance existing products. These new product designs will be produced in very large volumes in Q2 of 2010.

•Waiting for approval for shielding a vital part for hybrid cars by one of the major Detroit car companies.

•Designing new systems in 2010 for the automotive industry for North America and European companies for 2012 implementation.

Yep...get out while you can...

December 19, 2009 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi PK,

Are you expecting to post anything new over the next few weeks? Just wondering your thoughts...

December 22, 2009 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to admit, the last six years have been very difficult as a shareholder. Without being in on the internal conversations at ITKG there was always that possibility that I was investing in a "pump and dump" scam with no real product. While that possibility may still exist, the latest release by the company says otherwise. The way I see it, management has placed themselves, their jobs, and reputation on the line and on a short time clock the way the PR was worded. To those who only see the negative, ask yourself if you really feel that management in trying to continue their "scam" would put themselves on this clock? With what we know about scam artists they don't want to leave the business and they do not purposely paint themselves into a corner (the smart ones anyway) that places the cashflow at risk. The clock is ticking...

December 29, 2009 9:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#41 - and all - I am in that same boat - and from the lack of response to the press release, I would guess most of us are. Either that or the pent-up frustration vented in this space over the last two months has left us all a bit exhausted. I am now just waiting - the investment/dream is either no more worthless than it has been recently, or about to flower. Here is a wish for the latter, and for a good new year to all.

December 30, 2009 1:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some loyal investors see the recent announcements as somehow "different" from all the previous unfulfilled announcements and promises. I do not. In fact, some seem to be recycled (e.g. the Knowles hearing aid application was first revealed a few years back). And haven't we heard of government contracts just over the horizon before? Same old, same old.

The recent PRs may be a little more specific but they are not one bit more substantiated. Integral management surely is not concerned with missing another self-imposed deadline - they never have been in the past. Its just more talk, which is why the stock price is now decaying like a capacitive discharge after the glorious spike. In fact, these announcements indicate a bleak future. Out of all those wonderful NDAs - not one sale. Out of all those licenses signed (including Jasper Rubber) - not one sale. All the concrete information we have says that the product is not saleable. Its either too expensive, can't be made or just isn't anything new.

Integral management is now desperate. The money has about run out and that means they can no longer write themselves juicy paychecks. I noticed that they are starting to abandon patents (porbably due to lack of cash).

The end can't be far off...unless they can find a few more suckers to keep this scam going.

January 01, 2010 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yada...Yada...Yada

January 02, 2010 7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think PK has left the building

January 04, 2010 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He may not have left the building but I think he must have nothing much he believes in to post. He will post assumptions at times (ones I think he believes) but the quiet times here make me think there is not much happening out in ITKG land.

January 04, 2010 7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey PK...

Are you still lurking or are you gone. I though you mentioned that you would be doing several near term posts a while ago.

Has this thread died? Does anyone have other threads to suggest for this stock?

January 06, 2010 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My thoughts exactly. Where is PK??

January 06, 2010 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect PK's gone because he's got nothing new to write about. The only thing we've gotten recently is a cute video of some boxes labeled "Electriplast" and Mathias saying "it works". Beyond that, we were treated to Robinson tossing out more promises and deadlines that he's already broken.

There are ITKG threads on Yahoo and Raging Bull. But no information there either; just a few imbeciles hurling insults at one another.

I guess that's what its all come down to: no product, no data, no facts. Just a bunch of embittered investors.

Can't win 'em all, I guess.

January 07, 2010 7:38 PM  
Blogger PK... said...

Happy New Year's wishes to all...

I'm Still Here -- I just stepped out, with the family, for a bit of a Holiday break.

PK sends...

January 07, 2010 7:47 PM  
Blogger PK... said...

To poster #49 --

We all have expectations, and it would be foolhardy to lean further that we have on this EB Blog without some tangible proof that there is a branch still below us.

There is effort in play here, there is an attempt at disclosure, and there is a crafted plan in place to not only lead to niche saturation, but continued "customer" satisfaction and resultant purchases.

I am not saying anyone should sell the house and put all the money down on this investment -- what I am saying is that there is a spark of genuine momentum in play--and developed with care--even those ever too ready to discount, could watch the groundswell and be truly impressed...

I'm just sayin'...

PK sends...

January 07, 2010 7:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home