Premetto che
Tremaui puo' avere davvero ragione
sul fatto che questa azione é solo una scommessa
ed una scommessa.... molto pericolosa...
pero' per vostra informazione e per capirne un po' di piu'
vi comunico quanto ho trovato nelle mie ricerche
anche perché sui forum (yahoo, racing bull, investorshub)
sono in attesa questa settimana di una "news" imminente
che secondo chi scrive sui forum dovrebbe farla salirle di molto :
i nanotubi servono e serviranno soprattutto per :
- farmaci a rilascio lento
- nuovi materiali per la nasa
- nuovi materiali per la difesa ( azione USGA .OB )
- fuel cell per la futura auto ad idrogeno
- schermi per computer, telefonini e televisori
- nuovi materiali per lo sport (tennis, golf, alpinismo...)
riferimento con relativo articolo Cetek :
http://www.nanoelectronicsplanet.com/nanochannels/products/article/0,4028,10460_1481341,00.html
Cetek Technologies Inc. announced a licensing pact with Motorola Inc. to produce carbon nanotube triode (CNT) technology.
Cetek develops high-grade ceramic materials and said it has spent the last five years producing a ceramic substrate that is flat, smooth and of large surface area, and with specific mechanical and electrical characteristics. According to Cetek, Motorola’s simultaneous R&D has shown that optimum CNT performance required use of Cetek’s ceramic substrate.
The two companies have combined their proprietary technologies and processes to produce an inexpensive flat panel display product. Cetek said prototype displays have already been produced at Motorola’s Phoenix facility, and all the necessary R&D has already been successfully completed.
The Motorola/Cetek joint CNT technology is expected to provide superior viewing quality over the current active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) and be fully equivalent to CRT displays. Cetek said that the CNT technology would require one-tenth the power consumption of AMLCD panels and that manufacturing costs would be two-thirds less.
ti dico solo che all'avanguardia
per quanto riguarda l'inserimento di questi nanotubi negli schermi per computer, telefonini e televisori
ci sono solo due aziende :
Motorola e Samsung ( l'ho scoperto solo questo sabato pomeriggio leggendo un articolo in una rivista di computer )
eh si.... il CEO della Cetek é da due settimane in Corea (pare dalla Samsung) per questo venerdi' Cetek ha fatto + 45 %
se mai uscisse la notizia di questo accordo anche con la Samsung ,
tale accordo confermerebbe
la unicità e la validità del substrato per nanotubi Cetek nel settore schermi ....
tutte le altre aziende ,anche piccole, di televisori, telefonini e computer seguirebbero negli accordi
dove potrebbero andare le azioni.....
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?...ndex=&drilldown=off&symbol=CTKH&selected=CTKH
History repeats itself, CTKH was $375.00
We have potential here.
I am heavily invested in ctkh and for the one reason: money
Be careful on those values.
This stock had a reverse split, if you take that into affect, the all time high should have been around $3.75 - which would still be a nice pop from these levels.
With all due respect. I think you had you decimal in the wrong place. If this stock was $375 a share at one time then the number of shares was reduced and the market cap stayed the same, that would make the same market cap today with less shares be around $3750 a share. That is the way it works right? If the market cap stays the same and the number of shares goes down then the price per share goes up.
Good morning to you. I am commenting on the scenarios which you have presented. IMO, the most important thing going for Cetek is obviously the "Cetek Process". That said, I have one eye on Cetek and one on the rest of the ceramic industry. Until we see somewhere that someone else has developed a way to sinter smooth ceramic substrate the equal of Cetek's, then No way do I dump this stock unless the news is of a terrible nature, akin to going belly up and completely throwing in the towel. As long as Cetek alone knows this process and as long as they are at least kicking and scratching in the right direction, there is no other place to be if you are looking for a CNT Display investment. This is supported by two facts which can not be diputed. First, Motorola of it's own accord has stated that they have only been successful in a working CNT display when the substrate came from Cetek. Second, even though Motorola is in posession of displays built on Cetek substrates and Motorola has stated that their scientists are trying to develope a working CNT display, there is no anouncement to date that they, or anyone else, has succeeded.
I believe Cetek and Mr. Hilal are the key to a working CNT display and one of two things must take place. The industry must figure out this process on it's own, or they must come to terms with Cetek. So, I see it as a horse race among outfits like MOT, Samsung, etc. Do you believe your scientists can duplicate what an individual in a machine shop in NY has done before anyone else does. Or do you partner with that individual and get it to market first.
It is my personal opinion that once Motorola got their hands on some working monitors, they possibly figured "how hard can this be?" and set out to do it on their own. (Remember this is not a patented process, only a secret one).Now I may be completelt off base in this, but it seems possible.
So, as long as the only working CNT displays large enough to be of any worth are baced on the Cetek Process, I can only see two scenarios:
1.Cetek is still alive and chugging in the right direction and no one else can duplicate this process, giving CTKH huge upside potential. Sooner or later someone will reach an agreement with Cetek.
2.Someone duplicates the process and the game is up.
CNBC analyst recommends...
companies that manufacture nanotech equipment because
1) large investment in nanotech starts with purchasing equipment
however what is more important IMHO
2) companies that can manufacture nanotech equipment must in fact possess the best nanotech expertise to make nanostructures!!!
Cetek is such a company i.e. they have the machine shop facilities to make their own ovens & vacuum chambers (usually cylindrical in shape... i saw some photos which resembled them to me) to manufacture substrates and to do things like CVD (chemical vapor deposition) to grow Nano.
in questo articolo dove già nel 2002 :
Business and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2002
The alternate “big player” strategy is the LCD
technology: lighter weight, somewhat lower power, but not cheaper. It does not
represent a paradigm shift that would offer U.S. industry an opportunity to catch
up with Asian players in global markets, but instead merely an incremental
improvement. The so-called Spindt-tube version of the FED is also a classic
example of an incremental solution: the cost of fabricating the emitters is
unlikely to ever (or at least soon) permit signi. cant reductions in the cost of the
display. Motorola led the development of this technology. However, its perspective
on this development was the Spindt-tube emitter-tending to dismiss
data suggesting that CNT-FED were more reliable than CRT and LCD
displays-and therefore presented no signi. cant cost advantages over the
entrenched technologies.
While the big players own the established display markets, the “small player”
strategy has been to make those display technologie s irrelevant by offering a
different display technology that is cheaper and more reliable. The more
entrepreneurial companies have tried to promote a paradigm shift rather than to
beat the large industry players at the incremental improvement game. Challengers
with new, exciting solutions-such as carbon nanotube . eld emission
displays (CNT-FED), developed by Samsung (Korea), Sony (Japan) and Cetek
Technologies, Poughkeepsie, NY (U.S.)-work to bring alternative technologies
to the forefront and to overcome the entrenched positions of incumbents.23
Nanotube emitters represent what could be referred to as a “shifting the
paradigm” approach aimed not at protecting the U.S. market from import
competition, but at creating a forward-looking and globally competitive (i.e.,
cheaper and more reliable) FPD technology.24 Nanotubes can be grown in situ
on the back-plane with excellent yield provided the processing temperatures are
high enough (not possible with glass substrates), which results in a signi. cant
reduction of the total cost of the display. The CNT-FED offers an alternate FPD
technology that carries the promise of an internationally competitive solution.
However, the market does not necessarily obey logic. A plethora of parameters
from politics, public perception, . nancial clout, and market position may
overwhelm a technology that is superior by most measures. Vested industry
interests preserve their entrenched positions to capitalize on already-made
investments and to allow the amortization of capital. “Winning” is often for
nontechnical or only faintly technical reasons; it is de. ned and developed long
before there is any demand. The CNT-FED technology may be one of the great
technological innovations of 2002-2003. For companies that have developed this
technology, the challenge is to convince customers and analysts that CNT-FED
is a superior “paradigm shift” solution to the current FPD problem. U.S. industry
and parts of the government want to see U.S. manufacturers counter the East
Asian dominance in the FPD industry, but they may need to adopt a more radical
and liberal-strategic approach, as opposed to a gradual and defensive approach,
to successfully respond to the Asian excellence in this critical . eld. In light of
changing markets, technologies, and global competitive dynamics, the CNT-FED
technology could be the key factor in the effort to boost industrial leadership and
domestic welfare through an internationally oriented approach.
This article suggests that the current approaches to technology infrastructure
policy and trade should be sensitive to multinational corporations’ outwardoriented
attempts to foster institutiona l cooperation and to these corporations’
and public actors’ pursuit of liberal-oriented strategies. In addition, it suggests
that policymakers and industry leaders should pay close attention to alternate
technologie s that may carry new opportunitie s for industrial leadership. Though
large industrial conglomerates sometimes develop internationally competitive
solutions, the experience of the U.S. FDP industry indicates that large organizations
-often associated with risk-averse strategies and short-term decisionmaking
-may not be the source of innovative technology that is viable on
globally competitive markets. A more liberal-strategic perspective provides a
quali. cation to the realist literature, which assumes that the race for commercial
and technological leadership is characterized primarily by internationa l head-tohead
competition and its corollary assumption that global competition results in
weak international cooperation.
