RE:RE:Continuous process Yes Aucon you are right, SP and I have very different goals.
I have no idea what his are
From an investors point of you which I assume all people here are it doesn't matter if you have the technology if you can't capitalize on it.
Splitting hairs on the definition of 'having the technology' is pointless, the stocks at $.12 that's not what any of us got in here for.
SP said the other day this is a $10 stock.
I'm not saying it couldn't be all I'm saying is it isn't.
From an investor's point of view it doesn't matter if they have the technology if they can't turn it into profits.
Therefore us inventors (bible thumpers not withstanding) will agree they have the technology when they can make a profit turning a R&D company into one that generates revenues and value for its shareholders
Lots of example of great tech that people couldn't capitalize on
SP
Edison didn't invent the light bulb, he improved on a patented invention and brought it to market, he was brilliant at capitalizing other peoples ideas.
It's painful to cast aspersions on the reputation of one of America's heroes, but Edison, who patented his bulb in 1879, merely improved on a design that British inventor Joseph Swan had patented 10 years earlier.
Edison didn't 'Invent' electricity, nobody did, it was discovered.
Electricity exists in nature.
Since electricity is a natural force that exists in our world, it didn't have to be invented. It did, however, have to be discovered and understood. Most people give credit to Benjamin Franklin for discovering electricity.
-----------------
maybe just stick to your fire and brimstone analogies.
'In the beginning Ed created a green continuous silicothermic process for making Magnesium (with the assistance of Archangel John Sever....) so let it be written , so let it be done.
Amen.