Seeking Alpha

Axion Power Host's  Instablog

Axion Power Host
Send Message
Trying to learn stuff
Back To Axion Power Host's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (378)
Track new comments
  • Rawhide!
    20 Mar 2013, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • #2
    20 Mar 2013, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • #3
    "The happy man"-Carlos
    20 Mar 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • Miss Congeniality ;-(
    20 Mar 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • tryin' to steer the herd to fresh range over here on good ol' 219...


    Say, pardners, what do we think one of them there continuous roll sheet processing lines plumb costs?
    20 Mar 2013, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • closest i ever expect to get to the top, and i hope comments are worthy!. All!!
    20 Mar 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • A couple years ago, Bob Lutz gave an interview where he said that the labor content in a flooded lead-acid battery from Exide was on the order of six minutes.


    Back in the pizza kitchen days where all work on the carbon sheeting was done by hand using beefed-up pastry equipment, Axion's labor content on the sheeting alone was probably closer to six hours. That number may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the original process had to pass the carbon sheeting material through the rollers 30 or 40 times to get the required structural and electrical integrity. So the amount of hand work was enormous.


    The press release says the new sheeting line will produce 300% more sheeting with two employees than the prior process produced with ten employees. When you compare apples to apples, Axion is saying 2 employees and a machine can now do the work that used to require 40 employees.


    In any production process, the most labor-intensive step is always the pacing factor. When you can cut 95% of the labor out of your most labor intensive step, it's a very good thing.
    20 Mar 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Fantastic news. I have been able to read but not able to respond the last 45 minutes because of my browser acting up with Seeking Alpha.


    It is a major breakthrough in cost, mass production, and quality control!!


    Since the process has been running for a month or longer, I am hopeful that it has also allowed progress with both customers and potential investors. The fact that TG is putting this out just a few days before the CC is also very encouraging.


    The ask price just went up to .2895
    20 Mar 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • John, if it was six hours labor in the pizza kitchen days, can you tell us how much labor it was in 2012 or the last info you were aware of? That will be the key to our calculations. Thanks.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • I haven't set foot in New Castle since 2007 so there's no way for me to guess at how things were going by 2012. Since they've been working on the sheeting process for a couple years I'd have to assume that there have been incremental gains prior to full implementation, but I really don't know for sure.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • John or anyone,
    Didn't we get foreshadowing news on this back in the last CC or a PR release since then? I have to go back and check, but I swear we talked about the fact that they were working on implementing an automated system previously.
    In any case, it is very good news to now know they have completed the process.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • I think Tom has mentioned work on a new sheeting process several times, but avoided discussions of what the process could mean because it wasn't done yet. Today's release isn't critical to historical production volumes, but it's a major enabler for the volumes Axion wants to ramp to in the future.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • Glad I poked my head out of the trenches and bought 20k more shares before any news.
    20 Mar 2013, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Jveal: "my browser acting up with Seeking Alpha"


    It was system-wide. I reported and sent three snapshots a few hours ago to and it looks like the fixed it. Makes sense since it was a reincarnation of the exact same problem seen 3/8 A.M., reported and fixed later that day.


    20 Mar 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • I had questioned for quite some time IF they had that part automated yet....TG kept dodging the question,
    I am sure this has held back progress, but at least one other piece of the puzzle is finally in place.
    20 Mar 2013, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • I hope it's not the only carrot we get before new capital raise, and yes Dave, I would think this has been a huge detriment to orders.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • LT,
    It sounds like the manufacturing pieces are all in place. Now its sales.
    Hopefully this creates enough profit margin in the PbC negative electrode to allow an external plant to be built where ever it is needed.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • Is it even possible that some customers had this manufacturing improvement as a specific final requirement before proceeding with orders?
    And as jveal mentions re the timing before the CC, maybe someone could even sign something before then.


    Well, can always hope.


    Roll-on orders...
    20 Mar 2013, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • Very possible this process was needed to make a high volume price point.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • All right, it's been about 2.5 hours since I posted it - euphoria time is over. Get back to worrying about the next wall of worry item and let the sellers start driving price down some more.


    EDIT: And NITE steps right up dropping PERT's ask from $0.30 to $0.288, right on time.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • How fitting that this great news arrived on the first day of spring! It is easy to believe that scaleability with associated economies has been a huge issue with Axion's potential customer base. I agree with Carlos that the company is worth significantly more today than it was a week ago.


    Having expected a flurry of news in the first quarter (along with most Axionistas, I suspect), I've been disappointed by "all those dogs that did not bark." It occurs to me, however, that today's announcement could be the critical key that now unlocks the door for those expected announcements.


    Most investors tend to ignore that cautionary legalese at the start of every conference call about future-looking statements and the risk of relying on them. I'm glad TG shares with us his promising expectations for the future even though it often leads us to bullish expectations that have proved premature.


    With Axion obviously much more valuable than it was a year ago, I'll be disappointed if TG is not able to leverage that progress, along with the increasingly valuable IP, into a strategic financing deal such as ZBB was recenly able to negotiate.


    Still believe we hold a tiger by the tail. Still haven't sold a share of AXPW after buying well beyond what a prudent man of my age should do.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • I was contemplating the management skills of the Axion team. As shareholders we would love sales. Yet TG kept his team focused on making LABs until the PbC manufacturing process was complete. He kept them focused on their ultimate goal. "We are Axion. We make negative Electrodes out of Carbon ".
    So many have been shouting " Hey, sell a bunch of PbCs"


    One step at a time. Keep putting one foot in front of the other. We have major players that like our product. Show them we can produce. Show them that no other product can do the job for the same money.
    This is a good sign that Axion can be a player amongst the Giants. Time will tell, but, I like the direction the management team has taken.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • like mgt. ? If you had known 2 years ago/ 1 year ago they could not produce in masse, would you have kept buying more?
    20 Mar 2013, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • LT,
    I respect management. Where did you read we couldn't produce as many electrodes as we needed. You are talking a manpower issue. Not a production issue. Stop assuming that a large order was simply there for the taking and somehow Axion missed it. That is just a worlds worst view. I am ecstatic about the news.
    But I buy for the future. Not the present. I bought more on the NS news. I like the ePower news for future sales. I like that we can more easily scale future electrode factories. I like the Axion story.


    I don't criticize management when I don't have the knowledge base they have.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • LT ... TG stated on multiple occasions that Axion could produce a little over 300 PbCs per day without mention of any concern over carbon sheeting supply. At 300 per day that is 6,000 per month and 72,000 per year. That is a lot of batteries, more than enough to meet one heck of a lot more demand than Axion has experienced to date.
    20 Mar 2013, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • The concern was never whether Axion could make enough sheets to satisfy demand. The whole question boiled down to "how many bodies would it take to make the sheets?" While work on the automated process was ongoing, it took a lot of bodies. As of today, it takes 95% fewer bodies.
    20 Mar 2013, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • LT, yes and I did.
    20 Mar 2013, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Wow,
    On big news Axion stock sells a whopping total of 30,000 shares by 10:30 A.M.


    using sarcasm font.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Hello to all Axionistas!


    I have been too busy to read all the concentrators since tax season started in January, as my business is tax prep and accounting.
    I'm glad I checked in last week though.
    Bought 5,000 at .295 last Friday and locked up another 5,000 this am at .29 to move the price up instead of down.
    Great news this am about the mfg. process.
    I'm sure the CC will have a lot of incredibly positive news... can't wait!


    Very long AXPW.


    20 Mar 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist,
    I doubt we get much of a bump from the news. Most of us Axionistas are already so overweight with stock we can't buy much more, and other fence sitters are still waiting to see what the price of the next capital stock sale will be.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • >LabTech ... I view this news as a good reason to buy. Not in large quantity, but good reason.
    20 Mar 2013, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • One further thought. We read dozens of stories about developments in the world of batteries and automotive that ignore realities associated with stop-start as known by us Axionistas. We ought to get involved in contacting the writers of those stories to set them straight.


    And I'm sure there's a scurrilous class-action lawyer out there who would love to go after the deep pockets of major auto makers who are defrauding their customers with AGM batteries that can't do the job. :)
    20 Mar 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • I´ve always kind of thought the best thing we could do is all by BMW's with stop/start, run the hell out of the stop/start system and then raise hell with BMW about the inadequacy of the system..
    20 Mar 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Just to show that it isn't only Axion.


    ZBB completes very attractive financing. Great pipeline of orders. Partnerships with large companies throughout the world. Stock is at $.30. Just languishing.


    KNDI has announced its expansion of factories and partnerships throughout China. Everything looking very positive. Stock languishes at $3.70


    What does Axion and these two companies have in common?


    All have increasing sales of new technology. Sales are up but the product has not been accepted on a commercialized scale by the end user, just yet.


    Patience is warranted but not so easy to come by. At least for me.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • I think it's because big money doesn't take these kinds of risk. Far too much effort for due diligence and too little volume for them to exit in case something goes wrong. Plus they like to trade in and out to justify their earnings. On the other hand it's too small for index funds. It's kind of a no man's land until it becomes a screaming no brainer. Until then it's up to us.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • (repeat of what I posted on the last concentrator)
    Piling on their ability to reach scale, I found the words "meaningful production quantities" to be important. To me this implies that the 250k unit capacity we have been talking about might have been way high. At $400 a unit, 25,000 units is $10m. As we all know, that would be a meaningful production volume for Axion. Granted, I'm sure the reference related to what the customers would consider to be meaningful but I'm starting to think that the 25,000 number might have been much closer to what Axion's actual capacity has been than the much larger numbers we've been discussing.


    As tripleblack pointed out, this could also be the reason the sales we've seen appear to have been priced in the $450/unit range which we all know is too high (remember that AGM is priced at $150ish or twice lead acid). If this new advance causes a significant price reduction, we might start to see more sales activity.


    A point that might be important that has been danced around a little in the other comments. Why announce this just a few days before the conference call?


    My guess is that this milestone is a pre-condition to the financing agreement, whether the financing is to come from a financial investor or strategic investor. To me, this increases significantly the odds that there will be a financing event announced Monday.


    Maybe I've been beaten too many times by this stock, but I would caution all not to get too optimistic since this merely brings us to the point that I, and I presume many others, thought was baked into the cake already. I've been following Axion very closely for several years and honestly I didn't know that the company had a manufacturing bottleneck in the carbon sheeting that was this serious.


    JP, can you tell us anything about what the manufacturing productivity was on the carbon sheets back when you were involved? Given 60 sheets per battery, how many batteries were of carbon sheeting could one worker make in one hour of work? From this info we might be able to get a rough idea of how much this advance will impact costs and pricing.
    20 Mar 2013, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • If you figure the design capacity on the Gen2 electrode fabrication line is 150 battery equivalents per shift, then 100% capacity would be electrode assemblies for 37,500 PbCs per year for each electrode line. The 250,000 a year number is a rough estimate of the capacity of the AGM battery manufacturing line.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • JP,
    My math says 37,500 units is 150 per day - 5 days a week - 50 weeks per year. I will assume max capacity higher since more than one shift can run. Certainly more days a week also. But for now I will be happy at producing 37,500 for the year 2013. A mere $13,000,000, plus or minus, in PbC sales. No need to start extra shifts until needed. No need to expand lines till needed.


    Capacity and production will always be continuing issues. How do we make it better,quicker, and for less? But for now, the process is fine.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • "Say What? DoE Cuts Off $16.6 Billion In Advanced Tech Loans Amidst Obama Proposal Of $2 Billion More"


    US Government Accountability Office Says ATVM Loan Program has Functionally Ended
    David Frantz, chief of Energy Department loan programs office, responded to the Accountability Office’s report released last week, “the draft report acknowledges that DOE is not likely to use the remaining Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program authority under the current eligibility requirements.”


    The EV media thinks the program was a resounding success despite minor glitches.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • I believe this is just a seque between the DOE program and the new methodology of specific earmarks for large corporations. I suspect that in the end, the numbers will balance or even show growth YOY, its just that the politicians are unhappy with the management skills at the DOE...
    20 Mar 2013, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • "... politicians are unhappy with the management skills at the DOE".


    Yeah, politicians manage so much better ... without a budget passed in about four years, protecting the wealth of citizens, establishing a favorable business climate that would benefit citizens, raiding various trust funds and letting our infra-structure crumble, ...


    I can see how they would be critical of their subordinates - got to point the finger somewhere (else).


    20 Mar 2013, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • The problem with finger pointing is you always have three more pointing back at you.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • I also think it is important this:


    ...Additionally, the new process has resulted in a modest gain in carbon sheet 'energy capacity' due in part to better homogeneity throughout the manufactured sheet.


    20 Mar 2013, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Thanks, Carlos.
    Regarding more energy capacity, can anyone comment on that further? I thought the energy capacity was in the lead.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • The electrochemical energy storage capacity is in the lead. The carbon electrode assemblies have a large amount of capacitive storage potential. In the joint DOE grant application Axion filed with GM there was a single reference to a 12-volt PbC having 13,000 Farads of capacitance. That's a huge number when you consider that the Maxwell-Continental system has 2,400 Farads of capacitance.


    Since capacitive storage is the fastest of all, even a modest increase in overall energy is very positive.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • JP,
    Your saying that the PbC will be able to accept more charge and dispense it faster with the new carbon sheeting process? It has a larger area on which to accept the energy? Better cycling than before?
    Maybe now its the PbC+
    20 Mar 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • It depends on how one defines "modest."


    If you look at Maxwell's BoostCap products, the 3,000 farad cells only store 3.04 Wh of energy. –


    Since a 30HT PbC is rated at 500 wh for a one-hour discharge, it would take a lot of additional capacitance to even represent a modest increase in total stored energy. At this point I have more questions than answers, but I'm thrilled to learn that a big chunk of the manufacturing costs have been eliminated through automation.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • Given that the PbC's ability to self-balance charge (king in a string) my guess is that the improved homogeneity, while important in many ways, probably has a lesser impact on actual performance than would a similar improvement in say a LI battery.


    So, if we assume a 95% reduction in labor cost for making the carbon sheets and a $30/hour loaded cost for labor, that would mean if the baseline is the pizza kitchen scenario then labor cost has been reduced $162 from $180. If we assume the baseline was 20 minutes then the new number would be one minute, which would represent a reduction of $9.50 to $.50. If we want to take a wag and assume it was 1 hour reduced to 3 minutes then the savings is $28.50 to $1.50.


    Maybe this wag estimate would result in Axion being able to lower the price by say $50. That's significant but it would be optimistic to hope that would open the floodgates on sales.


    If last month we were in the pizza kitchen days, then yes, the potential impact on pricing would be so great that Axion could go from near zero to an overwhelming volume of sales. However, if that were to prove to be the case then we have been seriously misled. HTL actually made my point when he incorrectly stated that the carbon sheeting process is part of the electrode production line rather than an input.*


    Maybe I'll be accused of being a pumper, but I don't believe the six hour number was still the case. For my calculations, I think the 20 and 60 minute numbers being reduced to 3 and 1, will be correct.


    It's been awhile since we discussed the electrode line but I will try to find those numbers (maybe others can jump in as well). With that info and our carbon input costs from a few months ago, we might be able to build a cost equation that looks like this:


    carbon input + carbon sheeting + electrode line = Axion's input cost.


    The rest of the equation is the same as AGM with the big caveat that Axion's plant is low volume and low tech compared to JCI and Exide. We'd also want to compare Axion's input cost to the additional lead needed to make a standard AGM battery.


    These estimates should help us move another step down the road in determining Axion's cost structure. BTW, Mr. Market is starting to respond positively but we are still under $.30.


    * Comparing the cost of the carbon sheeting input vs. the electrode line step will be hard since it seems that the carbon sheeting was labor intensive and a semi-variable cost while the electrode line cost is largely fixed meaning that cost will be based largely on your estimate of throughput (actual or assumed capacity). If my memory serves me correctly, and we use a capacity number for the electrode line we'll find that the carbon sheeting process, even with one hour of labor is more expensive than the electrode line step.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • Very exciting news. So much so I had to buy more to stick in my kids' IRA accounts. They'll thank me some day.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • 12:34: What I'm sure is a single trade totaling 58K at $0.28. Sellers aren't done here.


    B/A now $0.2751x~2.8K/$0.29x2.5K (real qty unknown)


    20 Mar 2013, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • I've heard of "sell on the news," generally applied to a stock that has had a big run in anticipation of good news. But where in the world does today's volume of selling come from in the face of great news for a deeply depressed stock?
    20 Mar 2013, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Alpha: IMO, it's a continuation of folks that already have been selling heavily for the last two weeks. They get a little better price than they might have anticipated.


    Briefly, a few minutes ago, we had buy:sell very balanced. Now it's looking just like it has the last two weeks: 12:47:58 PM it's 1:2.50, a little improved from recent. But we now enter the late-day weakness period.


    EDIT: CORRECTION b:s 1:1.55 one I thought was sell was a buy - the ask got taken so quickly I couldn't see it.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • If you look at the volume graph you'll see that volume has been in the toilet since the end of January when the 10-day average fell through the 200-day average. That generally indicates timidity on the buy-side, which is understandable since we all know that Axion needs more financing and everybody worries about a possible discount.


    While the big uglies pushed the price around when they were in the game, their selling pressure was an addition to the normal day to day selling that has to exist in every market. When buying volume drops too far, there isn't enough demand to cover normal sell-side activity and the price softens.


    The bottom line is there's really no way to tell where the selling is coming from, but 110,000 shares on the sell-side is well within historic norms for day-to-day activity.
    20 Mar 2013, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Alpha---the usual suspects: those trying to flip into the new deal (my guess as of a month or so ago was that 5-10 million shares were still held by the 2/3/2012 purchasers), Special Sits (who might be in the first group), those who are tired of waiting for the most important news: sales, partnerships, etc., and normal selling.
    20 Mar 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • UBSS has been a big seller recently. Looks a lot like somebody's bailing, and they're not done, given their 38k ending ask and their behavior.


    Really liked that high spread today. Helps get that look-back price as high as possible, while simultaneously providing a cheap in.
    20 Mar 2013, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • A few ideas...


    I remember quality control being a big issue with regards to BMW. If the automation allows for higher quality and more constistancy in production, maybe this could be what they have been waiting for...


    Just curious about one thing... How come TG didn't tell us about this before? What kind of news does he "have to" give us?


    As for buying today, when financing is needed in the VERY NEAR FUTURE, well, that's why I didn't buy the news.


    This automation news is one of the most important developments we've had in a long time. Let's just hope that the impact will be as important as the news itself!
    20 Mar 2013, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tm has spoken of ongoing work to streamline and automate the carbon sheeting process, but until the work was finished there wasn't much he could say beyond "we're working on it." While I've always known that automating the process would be a great labor saver, I didn't think they'd be able to eliminate 95% of the labor. This is big.
    20 Mar 2013, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • Advances like the new sheeting process are the biggest reason for learning curve efficiencies that typically reduce the cost of "value added manufacturing activities" by 20% for every doubling of cumulative production volumes.


    They're never predictable in terms of timing or magnitude, but they're quite predictable in terms of aggregate impact over the long term.


    A while back I did a back of the napkin bill of materials comparison between the PbC battery and an AGM battery. While the carbon is quite expensive on a per pound basis, it's cheaper than lead on a volumetric basis. That brought me to the conclusion that the entire cost-spread between AGM and PbC is attributable to "value added manufacturing activities." If Axion continues to find ways to reduce its manufacturing costs, the PbC should eventually reach cost parity with AGM. It's not something management is likely to promise, but it does suggest that the path forward will get far smoother as the learning curve efficiencies begin to take form.
    20 Mar 2013, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Does a drastic change such as automated carbon sheeting require any review for ISO compliance? Or does the February 2011 ISO 9001 certification still stand?



    I am also curious to know if this carbon sheeting automation was the result of stable, on-going R&D or if TG/AP has devoted additional man-hours recently to especially strive for this development (perhaps to assuage a prospective purchaser's worries).
    20 Mar 2013, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Improving the carbon sheeting process has been a goal for as long as I can remember. I first heard about an important advance a couple years ago, although the discovery was a long way from a commercial process. Since then Tom has made several references to ongoing work on a better sheeting process. Today's announcement confirmed that the work was successfully completed – or more accurately that the first generation sheet fabrication work was successfully completed.


    This is the way all manufacturing progresses for new devices. First you learn how to make something. Then you learn how to manufacture it. Then you find ways to make the components better and cheaper. Then you find other ways to reduce your costs even further.


    The market generally thinks in terms of "economies of scale" but the real reason is "learning curve efficiencies." I couldn't begin to predict when the next big learning curve efficiency will come along, but I'm certain that optimizing the sheeting process is nowhere near the end of the road.
    20 Mar 2013, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • """If Axion continues to find ways to reduce its manufacturing costs, the PbC should eventually reach cost parity with AGM."""


    John, I seem to remember you once speculated $250 was about the lowest price we could expect. Would it be accurate surmise you're now much more optimistic about potential price reductions? The news today on the potential labor savings has been fantastic, but if the price of the PbC could reach parity with the AGM, it seems that would be a HUGE game changer.
    20 Mar 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • I'm not sure that we ever want the PbC to reach price parity with AGM because that would mean Axion was willing to settle for margin parity with JCI and Exide. I'd vastly prefer a more expensive product with higher margins ;-)


    The more we learn about the PbC the more I'm convinced that it doesn't need price parity to be successful. It just needs to be a little closer in price so that the value proposition is stunning.
    20 Mar 2013, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Wayne, just because the cost may get near to AGM parity is no reason that the PRICE should be near parity. Basic marketing is determining your value to your customers, then figuring the maximum gross margin possible, (unit gross margin times units sold less marketing costs)


    Perhaps the price should be near AGM, or perhaps not. I do not have nearly enough info to make a guess. With strong segmentation, there may be niche markets that will pay over $1,000.
    20 Mar 2013, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Price parity with AGM leaves little room for Axion to profit from their IP and the fabricating of the electrodes.


    It seems to me that regardless of who puts the battery together Axion should be bringing in the better part of $100 or more for a superior product.
    20 Mar 2013, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • """One further thought. We read dozens of stories about developments in the world of batteries and automotive that ignore realities associated with stop-start as known by us Axionistas. We ought to get involved in contacting the writers of those stories to set them straight.


    And I'm sure there's a scurrilous class-action lawyer out there who would love to go after the deep pockets of major auto makers who are defrauding their customers with AGM batteries that can't do the job. :)"""


    Alphameister, this has been very much on my mind recently. It seems if these writers could/would start getting the word it out, it could fairly quickly come to the attention of the OEMs. Which might get them to start thinking seriously about the fines their industry recently had to pay because vehicles didn’t meet advertised mpg numbers.


    I’ve thought about what else could be done. Like contacting the Consumer Protection Agency, although I’m not sure they go beyond financial transactions at this point. How about a 60-Minutes expose? They love to report on malfeasance that affects millions of consumers. How about starting up an online petition? Whatever your political leanings, it seems MoveOn has a pretty effective petition signing program, and they’re always looking out for consumer protection issues.


    The list of things we could all do collectively seems pretty broad. I can’t help but think a concerted effort on our parts could change the mindset of the OEMs much sooner than we might have thought possible. Why not do them a favor and “help them out”, and get them to change much sooner than they had anticipated? — BTW, I guess the definition of scurrilous would be in the eyes of the beholder, right? :)
    20 Mar 2013, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • Totally agree! The OEMs have been whistling past the graveyard, grateful that the residents neither see, nor hear, nor speak of the evil being perpetrated on them. And the DOE, if serious about its charter, should be working overtime to push for scaleability of the only technology that currently works for S/S.


    As for my use of the word "scurrilous" to describe a lawyer who specializes in class-action lawsuits, my impression is that the term is appropriate pretty generally for lawyers who couldn't give a damn about victims (who often see pennies while the lawyers walk away with millions). But I'm willing to ride the coattails of the devil if the unanticipated consequences make me a rich Axion shareholder! :)
    20 Mar 2013, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Gotta like a man who has his priorities straight ;-)
    20 Mar 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Alphameister and WayneinOregon,
    I'm a bit confused as to how the OEM's are so deserving of a law suit or expose. At this point S.S. really isn't much more than an accessory on the vehicles being sold. Manufacturers are not attributing reduced emissions or improved mileage to this S.S. feature. Until S.S. is part of the advertised mileage and the AGM's continue to start the car once the battery falls below a certain capacity the S.S. feature stops performing but the battery continues to start the car.


    The above begs the question, just why are car makers employing S.S. when they can't really tout its environmental benefits and includes added expenses in manufacturing.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • 42
    A LA lasts long enough to get the car through EPA testing and MPG rating. In a couple of months the battery no longer will fulfill the function but the customer has already bought.
    Based on misleading(?) information. While you may get the rated mpg for a couple of months you will need a new battery every few months to keep that MPG.


    There is already a class action lawsuit against Ford.
    Ford Hit with Class-Action Lawsuit Over C-MAX, Fusion Hybrid Fuel Economy Claims
    21 Mar 2013, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • In this case Ford is alleged to have overemphasized the EPA rating in their marketing, but the EPA created the standards and certified the resultant MPG claims. Perhaps some blame can be attributed to EPA or Ford or both.
    However, S.S. has NO testing standards and is NOT currently part of the Sticker MPG claims. The Ford fiasco cited is a sampling of the considerations that play to EPA's caution in creating a S.S. testing standard. They (EPA) will get there eventually if the OEM's seriously believe this strategy will help them meet fleet CAFE requirements. OEM's will likely insist on a battery that will perform regularly and long term before getting serious about lobbying EPA for certification of a testing standard for S.S. vehicles.
    I, too, hope this conundrum will be resolved sooner rather than later. Once a resolution is established we will see what claimed benefits of S.S. are real and which are Hopium.
    Theorizing about the benefits or costs for S.S. are speculative at best when no implementation standard or testing protocol exists. So, again I say, it is premature to imagine a law suit will accomplish much.
    21 Mar 2013, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • From what we know, this management is pretty tight with cash. They had a choice of spending limited resources on:
    1. Do nothing and reduce burn rate
    2. Marketing and sales
    3. Engineering support for new customers
    4. Improving production efficiency on a system running well below its capacity.


    The implication is that they are going to need all of the cost savings they can get for production volumes where that makes a difference.
    20 Mar 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Given the tremendous cost savings inherent in the new manufacturing process, I think back to the press release with ePower (which I don't have handy) and would like to resurrect the discussion that maybe ePower DID get a lower price based on this what we now know to be a cost savings (but didn't know about at that time). I need to go back and look at the press release again.


    BTW - I've been out of the loop for nearly a week, so this thought may have been covered.
    20 Mar 2013, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • Is it just me or did someone try to knock this down to the bid one minute prior to close? Luckily someone else bought at ask.
    20 Mar 2013, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Gamesmanship rules eternal in the OTC markets and while I can't watch the minute-to-minute ticker it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see somebody painting the tape one way or the other.
    20 Mar 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Ranma: It was a real order - 10K @ $0.2752 in two trades w/i 2 seconds of each other. The back and forth has been going on the whole afternoon, once the typical late-day weakness showed up.


    And the last order, 1K, was a bit larger than our typical savior-sized one had been. It might have been a (partial?) fill of a real order too.


    With today's news, the buyers stepped up and saved us, IMO, from the sellers having the ability to decimate price.


    Evidence: buy:sell 1:1.34, the best we've seen since 3/11 and 3/4 before that. VWAP improved from $0.2780 to $0.2835 - not a huge gain but I was looking for more downside sans the PR.


    20 Mar 2013, 04:18 PM Reply Like
  • The daily AXPW charts for the past two days have been fascinating. The volume has been heavily to the downside, yet the market absorbed it all and ended with a nice gain for AXPW (thanks largely to holders who refused to narrow the spread by dropping their asked price).
    20 Mar 2013, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • 03/20/2013: EOD stuff partially copied from instablog (up in the A.M>?).
    # Trds: 77, MinTrSz: 150, MaxTrSz: 37400, Vol 399349, AvTrSz: 5186
    Min. Pr: 0.2700, Max Pr: 0.3000, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.2835
    # Buys, Shares: 47 170849, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.2888
    # Sells, Shares: 30 228500, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.2796
    # Unkn, Shares: 0 0, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.0000
    Buy:Sell 1:1.34 (42.8% “buys”), DlyShts 21150 (05.30%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 9.26%


    Well, the PR today about the full automation, from carbon sheets to electrodes, saved us, IMO, from continued price damage. Buyers stepped up a little bit, allowing the sellers to be a little less aggressive in battling to be at the head of the sell line. But I have no doubt that the sellers were still anxious to “Get out of Dodge” today. This is evidenced by both a buy:sell that's still weighted to the sell side even with what should be seen as positive news, and the continued increase in volume without a substantial VWAP gain – we got only 1.98% improvement. If “Get out of Dodge” wasn't the M.O., either volume should have dropped as sellers decided to await potential better prices, or greater VWAP gain should have been seen as buyers became more aggressive, or both. Conversely, a greater volume with stronger VWAP appreciation could also have discounted that seller M.O. Look at where the weight lies below.


    $0.2700-$0.2700: 001300 shares, 00.33% of volume, VWAP $0.2700
    $0.2752-$0.2799: 100750 shares, 25.23% of volume, VWAP $0.2773
    $0.2800-$0.2830: 138500 shares, 34.68% of volume, VWAP $0.2801
    $0.2850-$0.2895: 057799 shares, 14.47% of volume, VWAP $0.2861
    $0.2900-$0.2940: 071935 shares, 18.01% of volume, VWAP $0.2913
    $0.2950-$0.2989: 024000 shares, 06.01% of volume, VWAP $0.2974
    $0.3000-$0.3000: 005065 shares, 01.27% of volume, VWAP $0.3000


    All this is leading to my assessment that we likely had a one-day wonder here. I say this in light of what happened with the ePower PR, which had a very short beneficial effect, and the over two-week running inability to have a buy:sell that leans towards bullish: only one day of buys >= 50% since 3/4's 85.9%. The fact that today's PR apparently didn't affect selling sentiment, except to let them get out with a little more skin intact, suggests that we must have buyers again step up to prevent any price slide for the next two days ... or more.


    Maybe I'm overly pessimistic now though. Maybe the traditional TA stuff will change my mind ...


    Well, we had a close of +6.87% - certainly nothing to sneeze at – from yesterday's close, a ha'-penny off the low. Today's low matched yesterday's and gave us a fourth day of “pushing” my 13-period lower Bollinger, suggesting another two days or so of weakness, if past behavior is a valid indication. Our volume was up only 11.68% over yesterdays, which was relatively high volume on a decidedly negative day – I would have hoped that today's volume would've CRUSHED yesterday's. What this means to me is that bottom-feeding is still predominately the buyers' M.O. I don't blame them – if folks know that some want to dump, a buyer naturally wants the best possible price. So I expect tomorrow will still have folks dumping and bottom-feeding going on. So I'm not expecting strong bullishness. I'll hazard that folks still worry about the usual things – capital raise, a less-than-stellar report, ...


    Regardless of the higher volume, close and VWAP not one oscillator I follow was able to transition into bullish territory yet. All did show improvement, as we could expect.


    Our high stopped at a known prior resistance, $0.30 and immediately retreated, not what I would expect from strong bullish sentiment.


    I'm thinking that potential buyers are out of powder, as has been suggested, and/or newer folks considering entry still want to see sustained price movement, sales, a great report, ...


    On my experimental charts, average trade size stayed at the mid-point of what I believe to be retail, just like yesterday. The buy:sell is improving steadily now – four days in a row up, in percentages: 0.125, 0.254, 0.267 and 0.428. None of my prices – low, VWAP and high – could make it back to calculated trend.


    My original inflection point calculations have started to show early indications of trying to stop the down trend they have been reflecting. Four of the six periods show small improvement, and the 5-day change has 5 showing improvement. My newer version, which I hope proves more reliable and prescient, has six of six periods showing improvement along with all six of the 5-day change values.


    Details of “Dly Sht % of 'sells'” and inflection points omitted here.


    20 Mar 2013, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist: OT, but along the lines of imbibing the following plopped into my email box today:




    At a wine merchant's warehouse the regular taster died, and the director started looking for a new one to hire.


    A retired Navy Master Chief Petty Officer, well-oiled and with a rumpled look, came to apply for the position. The director wondered how to send him away. They gave him a glass of wine to taste. The old Chief tried it and said, "It's a Muscat three years old, grown on a north slope, matured in steel containers. Low grade but acceptable."


    "That's correct," said the boss. "Another glass, please."


    "It's a cabernet, eight years old, south-western slope, oak barrels, matured at eight degrees. Requires three more years for finest results."


    "Absolutely correct. A third glass."


    ''It's a pinot blanc champagne, high grade and exclusive,'' calmly said the drunk.


    The director was astonished and winked at his secretary to suggest something. She left the room and came back in with a glass of urine.


    The old Navy Chief tried it.


    "It's a blonde, 26 years old, three months pregnant, and if I don't get the job, I'll name the father."
    20 Mar 2013, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • Maya,
    Its an oldie but a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:33 AM Reply Like
  • SS finding its way into the heavy equipment market. A place where Axion might find a faster friend. People that know their equipment /technology better and certainly understand LAB's weaknesses. And much smaller build rates.


    Sennebogen Updates 830, 835, 840 Material Handlers

    20 Mar 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Hi iindelco:


    I have long been writing that in heavy equipment like excavators, dumpers, dozer, etc & etc. AXION POWER PbC has much to work.


    In the CERREJON (Colombian coal mine) a big dumper consume 1.100 gln/day of Diesel, halfway loaded up with coal and half down empty to the mine.


    Have a good night-Carlos
    20 Mar 2013, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks, Carlos! Maybe there's potential here, maybe not, but I hope Vani is listening.
    20 Mar 2013, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Carlos,
    I expect you meant 1,100 gln/ day of diesel. The question would be at least twofold.
    1) How much idling time for that rock hauler, if any.
    2) How big a battery would be needed to help power that monster uphill? Would the batteries be to big and would they help enough?


    To me those type of applications are not the right fit for a PbC. We need applications where the battery cycles a lot, in partial state of charge, or where the self equalization of a string makes a big difference.
    I see a garbage truck, due to its s/s situation. I see the hybrid truck.
    Buss's are using ultra-capacitors. There is a reason for this.
    I 'm not sure what the reason is, but I bet someone does.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • Morning Futurist!


    Thats correct 1.100 gln/day: Cerrejon Coal mine - 793C Cat dumper.



    Have a good day-Carlos
    21 Mar 2013, 07:59 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist,
    Regarding super-capacitors and buses, the combination has not caught on in the US--and the US has been an early pioneer in hybridization of transit buses. There have been at least two companies using super-caps but they are not winning sales. Crosspoint Kinetics has not given up but what I can find indicates that their early generation product (used to be known as Variable Torque Motors) has not been reliable over time.


    Super-cap hybrids have a larger market share in China and in Europe from what I can tell, but I've not seen evidence that they are an established technology.


    I believe MXWL has sold a significant amount of supercaps for buses in China but I have little or no understanding of how well they are functioning.
    21 Mar 2013, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    A China factoid.


    "That may leave EVs as a niche product in China for the time being, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which estimates 80 percent of China’s EVs now are public buses."

    21 Mar 2013, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • froggey, very interesting article. Wish there was a mention of buses or heavy vehicles. Whole different market.
    21 Mar 2013, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane,
    Maxwell talks about these buses in China and also automotive (PSA) in their conference calls.
    IIRC, they said that the continental systems which PSA puts into diesel autos are functioning perfectly, and they have gotten nothing but positive feedback from owners and makers.
    They had some problems with the supercaps on buses in China, but these problems were mostly related to the mounting system, which caused too much vibration. They (maxwell) said that this was an easy fix, and that the caps themselves were working well.


    Hope this helps, but you shouldn't rely on my memory. I would listen to the cc previous to the one that just happened, and maybe the one previous to that one. I didn't listen to the most recent one.
    21 Mar 2013, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks Milhouse,


    China is the biggest projected market by far for electric and hybrid buses. What I would really like to know more about is the cost of ownership of supercap hybrids compared to other hybrids--and pure EV buses.


    What little I've seen indicates that supercap hybrids have slightly less fuel economy performance compared to say a bus equipped with A123 batteries. However, there is every reason to believe they are cheaper up front--as in Crosspoint Kinetics (using ZBB and MXWL).
    21 Mar 2013, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • The cost of ownership and operation is something which may be difficult to track down, but if you find anything interesting, please keep us posted.


    As far as China being the biggest projected market, you are absolutely correct. I heard a statistic recently (may have been the cc) that there are more buses inside China than outside China.


    I haven't verified that info...
    21 Mar 2013, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist, your questions got me curious, so I tried to do a bit of cipherin'...


    Depending on how many trips a day the hauler makes, could be some pretty decent cycling. Let's say it starts it's day at the top of the mine at some middling SOC, but after descending to the bottom, is at ~85%.... then loads up and climbs to the top, using some PbC power to help... drawing deep say down to ~35%... unloads at the top and descends again, using the weight of the empty truck to re-generate charge on the way down in lieu of engine braking. rinse and repeat all day. If you size the battery right, ie don't make it too big... you'd get pretty arduous cycling duty, centered on a partial SOC. The key number would be the amount of energy capture-able on the empty descent... that's going to be some number of KWh the battery trades back and forth all day... pick the most advantageous (keeping in mind that charge-discharge internal resistance graph in the axion white paper) SOC range and limits, and size the battery accordingly.


    Some relevant but very rough numbers that we know about the PbC


    ~70lbs ==> ~35Kg
    ~500 Watt-Hours total


    okay, so a watt-hr = 3600 watt-seconds
    A watt is a joule per second
    and a joule is a newton-meter
    a newton is a kilogram meter per second squared (kg-m/sec2)
    so a watt-hour is 3600 joules
    and 500 Wh = 1.8 million joules
    That's what's supposedly in each PbC battery energy-wise.


    Okay, so using that energy, how far could one PbC lift itself?


    well, the increase in potential energy in lifting a mass m to height h is (m) x (g) x (h) where g is the acceleration due to gravity.. 9.81 metres per second squared..


    so 1,800,000 joules = (35kg) x (9.81 m/sec2) x h


    so solving for h and using all the contained energy, h= 1,800,000 (kg-m2/sec2) divided by (35kg x 9.81 m/sec2)


    thus, h = 5,242 meters


    Okay, so 1 PbC contains roughly enough energy to lift ITSELF ~5000 meters.


    So how far can a PbC say, lift a metric ton, 1000 kilograms, plus itself?


    1,800,000 Kg-m2/sec2 divided by (1035 Kg x 9.81 m/sec2) =


    = 177 meters.


    So, a single PbC contains roughly enough total energy to lift itself and one metric ton of load 177 meters high, or about 500 feet.


    Now that's using all the energy in the battery, ie down to 0% SOC, which we wouldn't want to do... so let's say more realistically that each PbC can roughly lift a metric ton 100 meters high..




    (just seems like a good rule of thumb to remember & keep handy)


    But perhaps the more important way to think it about it is to flip it around like this:




    Anyway, so on the lift this would equate to roughly discharging 60% of the energy, or from 100% SOC down to 40% SOC... or 90% down to 30% etc. Conversely on the way back down the PbC would charge from 30% up to 90%.


    Which is a rough, but reasonable, deep cycle for the PbC.
    How many full trips a day? 5, 10, 20? If we say 10, then at 300 days a year that would be 3000 deep cycles a year, 15,000 deep cycles in a 5yr life. That seems like fairly arduous duty for any battery.


    How much does the mover weigh?



    well, looks like 113,510 Kg empty
    and 376,490 Kg loaded
    with a rated payload of 223,167 Kg (discrepancy probably due to fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids, driver, de-rating, etc)


    Anyway, so we're in the neighborhood of 120 metric tons of empty truck, 360 metric tons loaded..


    How deep is the mine? I don't know, but a kilometer deep seems pretty healthy work... so let's go with that.


    Okay, so imagining our earth mover application. The role of the PbC here is NOT to be an energy *source*, but merely a temporary energy accumulator and releaser. Starting at the bottom, with 90% SOC, fully loaded at 360,000 Kg, the truck ascends 1 Kilometer.. then at the top, it unloads, and descends again, now at 120,000 Kg.. That's the energy we want to focus on... capturing the 120 metric ton, 1000 meter descent. That's all the energy we're gonna be able to put into the PbC bank, and that's all the energy we're going to be able to get back out of it on the uphill climb. So we said 1 PbC, 1 metric ton, 100 meters. Now for this, we have 120 metric tons, and 1000 meters... so multiplying, looks like we need 1200 PbC's onboard to be able to capture all that energy. Thatsa lot of batteries.


    1200 PbC's at 35Kg each is 42 metric tons of batteries. (to say nothing of the bulk) So it would reduce the useful load of each trip by like 20%. But those same batteries would lift themselves plus the empty weight of the truck back to the top, and do this ten times a day, thus saving diesel (which only has to lift the coal payloads) So, would the fuel savings be worth it?


    Stay tuned for more exciting exploration and sketchy answers...
    (in other words, gotta go for now, and didn't have time to fully, finish... hope to later... all critiques and corrections very much welcome... just hoped to start a useful discussion..)
    21 Mar 2013, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • 48, your numbers look interesting, but I haven't played with them yet.


    I think you may be optimistic since friction is not counted. I would be surprised if more than 50% of the potential energy can be returned to moving the equipment. Tires, transmission friction, skidding / poor traction, round trip battery efficiencies, thermal losses (motors getting hot, inverter inefficiencies) etc.


    My guesstimate of 50% loss is somewhat arbitrary, and may still be optimistic. I think I read that a Prius (way different scale) only captures 30% of the braking energy. (Don't have a link. Hard data appreciated).


    Your 60% SOC range seems appropriate, eg, 20%-80% SOC. The top and bottom have much slower recharge rates. One might be able to overnight top-off to 100% for the first run of the day, depending on how many shifts are running. Won't make much difference. (Thought: If the trucks start at the top, they probably do not need the extra juice.)


    I don't think a kilometer of vertical fall is realistic. is one of the deepest open pit mines, 0.97 km deep. Another source says it is the deepest open pit at 1.2km

  describes the world biggest open pit mine as 180 meters deep. My 10 minute Google search did not find any mines deeper than 1km, (x/c possibly the Bingham).


    I suspect the engine would still be idling on the way down. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable coasting a 100+ ton go-cart down a dirt road.


    Keep up the good numbers exploration!
    21 Mar 2013, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • 48 Rick
    Toyota published 54% maximum and Tesla claimed 65% round trip efficiency on the Roadster.
    Maximum I've heard used real world was 30% and the UK used 15% in a govt. study a couple of years ago.
    I would expect they could approach the optimum in a set up such as this.
    21 Mar 2013, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • >Rick Krementz ... 1 kilometer may not be a reasonable straight down depth so pick a depth & width that you think interesting. I would think that most mines would try not to exceed a 4% grade. Figuring out efficiency could get complicated. Mileage & deceleration into a number of turns may vary by location.
    21 Mar 2013, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • I was just thinking how much energy/power was needed to provide comfort and quality life support for the operator that takes that beast down into a mine (round trip). Then you have work lighting and the starting of the engine.


    86, Nice! ready for the next round...
    21 Mar 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • DRich - The potential energy available to be returned to the battery is only from vertical distance, not horizontal. Getting to bottom of a 1km mine at 4% grade is a 25 km drive (Someone check my math, please). Much more energy is capturable in a steep slope. Take the extreme - a one mile drop from Denver to New Orleans - takes a lot of fuel to accomplish, and no energy recovery (in toto).
    21 Mar 2013, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • >Rick Krementz ... That makes it sound like regenerative braking is a complete waste of engineering time & material for city driving autos where elevation may not vary more than a few feet ... if that.
    21 Mar 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • DRich - Elevation is one way of calculating energy, so I was following 48's lead.


    If the vehicle is moving at 25 mph on a flat (ICE engine, electric motor, or coasting downhill to a flat), then stopped by regenerative braking, the energy recovered is the same.


    The most efficient driving is never using brakes (no recovery). Most people are not patient enough to always coast to a stop, and of course impossible if stopping on a steep downhill. Regenerative braking is recovering some of the energy wasted by accelerating too fast for optimum energy usage.


    I think regenerative braking is a bit overhyped as an energy recovery system, since there are inherently so many opportunities for friction and energy loss. Does not make it worthless; careful engineering for a realistic application can be very effective.
    21 Mar 2013, 09:25 PM Reply Like
  • >Rick Krementz ... You'll get no argument from me that regen is over advertised as to miraculous benefit. This thread was started by Carlos observing an open pit coal mine and wondering about opportunistic energy recovery. I leap to thinking about hybrid heavy equipment similar to a locomotive operating in an environment like this



    I don't know how much energy recovery can be achieved using regen & unused horsepower from the diesel making the descent or what fuel savings and/or payback might be. I just can't believe it would be as simple as mass to elevation with no account of acceleration & deceleration. This could be another situation, like pumped hydro, where the economics outweigh to physics.
    21 Mar 2013, 09:46 PM Reply Like
  • 48 & froggy -


    If 1 km is not a realist vertical, the battery bank can be much smaller (more economic). If 200 meter vertical is a reasonable vertical, that implies a battery bank 1/5 of your projection. So, instead of 1200 PbC, we can use 240. If my 50% guesstimate of round trip energy loss is right, and the loss is equally divided between charging and discharging, the truck needs 360 batteries to be effective. 360 x $300 =$108,000 per truck for batteries. (Whoa! A whole lot of speculative assumptions in this number!) If 100 ultra trucks per year are sold, that's $10m of batteries. Nice, not huge, and probably optimistic..


    Note to naysayers: Axion has to provide economic solutions. A 1200 battery solution, ie, close ot $500k, is a much more difficult sell to penny sharp mining companies.
    21 Mar 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • Rick,
    Isn't the question: How much do we save?
    Not how much does it cost.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Thanks all, and I know I left out friction/efficiency losses---was just trying to get a sense of the ideal case to get a feel for at least the upper bound of the possibilities. I should have searched a few mines to get at a better elevation delta number, but good to know that most mines are shallower... which seems to me means that less total energy and thus a smaller "bucket" ie fewer batteries would be needed... which makes the added weight and initial cost lower too, and makes for shorter, more frequent trips up and down throughout a full day, resulting in more trips total, and thus more cycles, but probably comparable mileage overall.


    One thing is clear as far as any fuel savings go though..... you are lifting a certain mass of coal out of the ground to some higher height... that increase in potential energy is going to be expended and entrapped with the coal no matter what you do. The only energy possibly available to recover and gain savings from is from the mass of the truck+batteries going down that same height repeatedly. Without batteries you have to expend a certain amount of diesel just to get the truck up to the top each time... and on the way down, without some kind of recovery that energy is's going to the wheel brakes and engine braking... wasted completely. But with some kind of decently efficient recovery, some goodly portion of that energy should be available to help with the next trip up to the top... how much is that worth? That's the big question. Carlos said something like 1100 gallons of diesel a day... if the application saves ~10%, 100 gallons of that, (total swag) it's only like 400 bucks a day... times 300 days a year... well that's potentially $120K a year and after 5 years.. $600K potential savings. But that's for 1200 batteries which are going to cost ~$480K (not counting the rest of the regen gear) So it doesn't seem to be that great of a value proposition, even at low friction and high efficiency. Now if the depth of the mine is more shallow, say 250 meters... my (totally rough) calculation says 300 batteries could do the job... which at $400 each is again $120K... but of course they would cycle a lot more with a shallower mine, so maybe they're only good for 3 years under that service... or $360K potential total savings, which starts to look like it might actually pencil out in black...


    Anyway, a lot of supposition and hand-waving, but one thing it teaches me is how sensitive the whole proposition is to weight and cost, cycling depth&frequency duty, and most importantly, total cycle life...


    Some of the considerations here would also seem to carry over to the NSC OTR loco, inasmuch as we're talking recovery on the backside of hills, and potentially a lot better efficiency with RR, being steel wheel on steel rail. Likewise some of the ideas apply to the ePower app...(though level braking is probably more the opportunity there) --- 52 PbC's there should be able to help out pretty well with hills of say a couple of hundred meters or less...
    21 Mar 2013, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • DR and Rick, you were writing yours while I was writing mine... agree with your observations and conclusions though..
    21 Mar 2013, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • 48, thank you for contributing some rational, numerical discussion - not the all-too-typical hopium-induced touchy-feely methane-digester bovine feedstock so commonly emitted by EVangelistas and Tesladors.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:17 AM Reply Like
  • The car can report to the dealer that you have a problem. However it doesn't tell you. It tells the dealer.
    The dealer calls you.


    Nissan LEAF Self Diagnoses Battery Cell Failure via Carwings


    " Carwings is a subscription service that monitors vehicle performance and allows Leaf owners to check their car’s charging status and range from a smartphone or a computer. In this case, the system noticed that one of the battery cells in Greenlee’s Leaf was malfunctioning. Greenlee might never have known otherwise, as there was no warning light on the dash to indicate a problem.


    The EV driver brought his two-year-old Leaf in for service and was told he’d have his car back in four days. Two weeks later, the cell was replaced for free under Nissan’s 8-year battery warranty."


    Two Weeks?
    Also they apparently replaced an individual cell.
    MRTTF reciently talked about this in a comment to tech01x who said:
    "There are balance issues to replacing individual cells, so I'm not sure of the ROI of replacing individual cells at the end of life. If the labor doesn't cost very much, then combining more functional older cells together to make low cost battery packs might be an interesting approach. "


    MRTTF responded with


    "I don’t think that it will be likely that individual cells will be replaced. In all likelihood, the whole pack will need to be replaced. The life cycle of a battery is a complex equation that has a number of variables that need to be accounted for. Charge-discharge of the battery is part of the whole use model. "


    It is possible these being newer batteries will not have the problems MRTTF is worried about in Tech's comment or perhaps I've misunderstood something.
    I hope MRTTF puts in a comment.
    20 Mar 2013, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • Another article on the Net-Zero Walgreens opening later this year:


    One company participating no one mentioned is Wing Power Energy "Wing Power Energy is the developer of the world’s most efficient vertical micro-wind turbine"



    I know Rick K. has experience and strong opinions on Wind Turbines and requirements for energy efficiency; wondering what he might offer on this one.


    This Oct. 2012 Youtube video describes a Verizon 4G-LTE systems using a combination off-grid Wind and Solar cell tower power (plus batteries) offering that Wing is involved with:



    Boston Biz paper column on them:


    Related, more emphasis on the LTE stuff:
    20 Mar 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • WTB, I appreciate your links!
    21 Mar 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Lead Premiums Said to Drop in Europe on Slowing Batteries Demand

    21 Mar 2013, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Looks like ZBB will complete a utility demo this summer with Itron. Not sure about what the economics will be on a PV/storage system.


    21 Mar 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • "a leading developer of intelligent, renewable energy power platforms and hybrid vehicle control systems,"


    Guess I have been asleep at the ZBB switch. Had no idea the firm was in the "hybrid vehicle control system" business.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv - that's the Cummins Crosspoint stuff we've posted a number of times. A direct result of their Tier Electronics acquisition a year or so ago, which also got them a lot of "face time" with Military contacts.


    "ZBB Energy acquired Tier Electronics, LLC in January 2011 to expand its portfolio of intelligent power management platforms. In addition to power electronics platforms, Tier Electronics participates in the energy efficiency markets through their hybrid vehicle control systems, and power quality markets with their line of regulation solutions. Together, these platforms solve a wide range of electrical system challenges in global markets for utility, governmental, commercial, industrial and residential end customers."


    Key person was (pic [no crew cut on that guy!], and quote here:


    "Jeff Reichard is Chief Technology Officer, President of Tier Electronics and Director. Mr. Reichard joined the company and was appointed to the Board of Directors on January 24, 2011.


    Mr. Reichard founded Tier Electronics, LLC in June of 2003 and serves as the President. Tier Electronics specializes in power converters and conversion systems for alternative energy and power quality applications and operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of ZBB Energy Corporation. From June 2000 to June 2002, Mr. Reichard served as Vice President of R&D at American Superconductor (AMSC), a leader in renewable energy, providing proven, megawatt-scale wind turbine designs and electrical control systems. Mr. Reichard founded Integrated Electronics in March 1996, and rapidly grew the company by developing products at the leading edge of innovation, and offered significant price and performance advantages. Acquired by American Superconductor in 2000, Integrated Electronics developed the converter that became the standard for AMSC's power quality products.


    Mr. Reichard holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin."
    21 Mar 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • Latest ZBB PR w.r.t Cummins:


    Feb 05, 2013


    ZBB Energy Ships Controller Technology to Crosspoint Kinetics for 2nd Generation Hybrid Vehicle Systems


    Initial Controllers Delivered; Retrofit Hybrid Technology Provides Class 4-6 Vehicles Substantially Improved Fuel Mileage and Performance

    21 Mar 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • I like the way ZBB works....they may never amount to anything, but they are constantly in the news with something.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Thanks, wtb.
    21 Mar 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Here is the Sept 8 PR


    Sep 08, 2010
    California Public Utilities Commission Funds ZBB Energy and SunPower Demonstration Project of Renewable Energy With a ZESS 500



    Note the replacement of SunPower emphasis with Itron emphasis. I'm not sure how that happened, and my initial Google forays have not been useful so far.


    SunPower is still kicking ...


    Grabbed from a Yahoo ZBB posting date Oct 10, 2012 :
    (text from this PDF:
    which is one of many PDFs linked in


    Dan Borneo, Sandia National Laboratories Sept 28


    Pearl Harbor – Ft Hickam: Joint Base SPIDERS Microgrid Demonstration Project
    Project Scope – As part of the SPIDERS program, Fort Hickam is receiving a ZBB, 400KWh Electrical Energy Storage system to include in their (SPIDERS) microgrid.
    Goal – Analyze system and the various components to develop optimization strategies.
    Current Status – Delivery of system scheduled for September/October 2012. Installation to be completed mid to late October. Commissioning estimate to start November timeframe.
    Path Forward – Installation, Startup/Commissioning, operation, system evaluation and analysis.




    Project Scope – The Project will install energy storage systems on existing PV systems at two separate locations in California.
    Thermal energy storage: Ice Energy at Kohl’s Department Store in Redding, coordinated with Redding Electric Utility.
    Electric energy storage: ZBB flow-battery at to-be-announced Silicon Valley hi-tech manufacturing company.
    Goals- Identify and measure potential synergistic economic benefits of combined PV and ES installations in commercial applications (customer’s side of the meter).
    Provide technical consulting, data collection, analysis and issue report of findings in collaboration with DNV-KEMA.
    Project Status –Ice Energy: Installation under way; ZBB: Design and permitting under review.
    Path Forward –Engage Ice Energy and ZBB (with DNV-KEMA) for baseline and operational testing.
    Project Status – Ice Energy: Installation under way; ZBB: Design and permitting under review.
    Path Forward – Engage Ice Energy and ZBB (with DNV-KEMA) for baseline and operational testing


    Presentation Schedule Milestones FY13


    SunPower; California
    Q1 – Evaluation of ICE Energy system ; Q2 – commissioning of ZBB system


    Fort Hickam; Hawaii


    Q1 – Commissioning of system and commence testing and evaluation


    No FUD here, ( just the facts Jack
    21 Mar 2013, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Zacks weighed in with an update on Itron:
    22 Mar 2013, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • Miss ya? I hardly knew ya.


    PHEV powertrain company ALTe in new commercial vehicle JV in China with Henan Benma; target 10K units/year


    "The ALTe system can be retrofit into existing fleet vehicles as well as used in glider applications of new vehicles. Designed to replace a base V-8 internal combustion engine powertrain, the system’s patented technology improves fuel economy from 80% to 200%."

    21 Mar 2013, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • I'm a bit confused as to how the OEM's are so deserving of a law suit or expose. At this point S.S. really isn't much more than an accessory on the vehicles being sold. Manufacturers are not attributing reduced emissions or improved mileage to this S.S. feature. Until S.S. is part of the advertised mileage and the AGM's continue to start the car once the battery falls below a certain capacity the S.S. feature stops performing but the battery continues to start the car. ......... The above begs the question, just why are car makers employing S.S. when they can't really tout its environmental benefits and includes added expenses in manufacturing."""


    >42itus1 --- My understanding is that going forward, S.S. will become an integral part of OEMs meeting ever increasing stringent MPG requirements. And I can only assume the estimated MPG will be posted on the window stickers of new vehicles being sold. What I find disconcerting (for perhaps tens of millions of consumers) is that OEMs are apparently quite aware the AGM deteriorates rapidly, and within approximately 6 months, will not adequately support SS. So the mpg will be lower than the stated mpg on the sticker, by as much as 5%-15%. I think this sets OEMs up for potential civil suits against them if it can be shown they knew this was the likely scenario.


    OEMs apparently intend to insist they’re using “the best available technology” with their choice of the AGM. But the REAL reason seems to be they don’t want to pony up for the extra cost of a PbC that would perform dramatically better, and ensure fuel savings for years into the future, instead of only about 6 months. Apparently, the PbC does not yet meet some unofficial criteria for “best available technology”, so OEMs are choosing to ignore it for now, even though they’re aware of its potential. It all comes down to cost for them, instead of looking out for their customers.


    To me, not telling your customers the battery inside their brand new vehicle will not support the advertised fuel savings is not being very ethical. My own understanding is that Ford has already made this decision. That’s why I think some kind of expose, I think especially be various well-respected writers in the business, could go a long way toward helping prevent OEMs from shooting themselves in the foot. In this day and age, the word could spread fairly quickly, and get the OEMs to rethink things.


    Axion’s announcement yesterday of completing their new “Continuous Roll Carbon Sheeting Production Process", and reducing PbC manufacturing labor costs by as much as 90% could make this all a moot point. If these savings are able to bring the price of a PbC much closer to that of the AGM, it “seems” like it would become a no-brainer for OEMs to choose the PbC over the AGM. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. But I would have to think that the likelihood of that happening is much greater since yesterday’s announcement.
    21 Mar 2013, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Until the the government establishes testing standards recognizing deployment of S.S. as an aspect which affects emissions and/or fuel economy (the sticker in the window), there is no actual claim from the OEM's to challenge. When the AGM battery declines to a point of not initiating S.S., that battery still starts the car the first time each day. AGM batteries do not necessarily die completely when the BMS (battery management system) determines it no longer has the 'stuff' for deploying the S.S. it stops doing so. Since the S.S. is not NOW part of sticker claims for fuel economy/emissions there is no foul.
    At this point S.S. is great in theory, is likely to be eventually adopted and certifiable, IMHO, but as yet it is not part of the sticker claim. Once the government accepts S.S. as an integral/important/val... strategy with a testing standard it is impossible to know whether fuel economies/emission reductions benefits are 1% or 25%. Likely part of the problem with the Gov. adopting S.S. standards is that the testing regimen would require that the system not be voluntary (not driver select-able with an on-off switch), and the battery has to have the 'stuff' to allow the S.S to work most of the time and for a number of years.
    So your right, "going forward" it will be potentially beneficial to AXION when/if S.S. ever becomes a real (recognized/certifiable) part of the sticker MPG claim.


    21 Mar 2013, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • There are many issues involved---ethical, legal, financial, customer satisfaction-al, etc. I can think of major problems for the OEMs in all those categories when their s/s batteries fail early (e.g., "I know it's not on the mpg sticker, but the saleman told me the reason I'm paying for s/s is that it increases my mileage 10%". From my commercial lending days, my lawyers might call it "fair exchange of value"). JP said a Ford guy told him, in effect, that they've concluded the cost of problem resolution < problem avoidance. The equation can be, and I think will be, tipped, though, to ">" from "<". Not sure when, but to me it is inevitable. And yes, I do think that grass-roots efforts to hasten the tipping day can be successful. The more the word gets out to "influencers", the better, whether they be in government, media, or wherever.
    21 Mar 2013, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Hello 42itus1, Been awhile. Hope you're well.


    What you say about "the government" is true for the US drive cycle which gives no advantage to base SS which is only initiated at full stops. This however is not true of the European and Japanese drive cycles which do incorporate more of these events in their drive cycles that impact the stated vehicle efficiency rating.


    Next we need to look at some of the other functions that are now starting to be and will be incorporated into what we call SS. This will come as more of the functions are electrified and can thus be powered independent of the engine being on. some of these functions include power steering, brakes and air conditioning compressors. Once this begins to happen then the electrical storage system will take on a much greater roll because you can start to turn the engine off while the vehicle is in motion if you are coasting or decelerating. Now you're starting to impact vehicle performance based on how well your energy storage system can capture and release energy efficiently. How this will impact the US drive cycle remains undefined as far as I know. It will however need to be addressed.


    I think what the others are commenting on relative to the poor performance of AGM (thanks HTL) impacting the customers with negative payback relates to it's implementation primarily in Europe. This is to say that the current regulations give credit for this function in the drive cycle even though it fails to function as often as it should based on what we know about things like poor DCA, cold weather performance and such attributable to AGM. This is not as true in Japan because, from what I've seen, they are relying less on AGM batteries and choosing other paths. I'm not sure if this statement applies 100% however.


    One statement I would however like to make about the US market is that while the government standards do not give efficiency credit for base SS on the window sticker that marketing people for the companies do advertise the improvement. This I fear is setting them up for future legal action. We have already seen one law firm fishing for clients in the case of BMW reprogramming their vehicles to turn this feature off. I think the others are watching how this goes and if there is money to be made we will see subsequent legal action for those that sell this feature without consideration for how robust the solution is.
    21 Mar 2013, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • In the US, caveat venditor.
    21 Mar 2013, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco, et al
    Yes, I am do OK, lest you ask anyone that knows me! Thanks for asking!
    I don't know/understand the legal system(s) in Europe, nor the certification processes there, so I won't comment on that other than to suggest that if even a tangential legal case can be made, it will come! The old "which came first?", Lawyers or Capitalism argument!


    I'm not sure of your meaning when you refer to "base SS", unless you refer to the micro-micro hybrid, without regenerative braking, manual transmission, hand crank windows, no air-conditioning... models that are such a niche market as to be relatively negligible. IIRC John P. speculated that these base models would be the first to implement S.S. because of the simplicity of doing so. However, I believe that the roll-out is and will continue to be in the micro to mild hybrids with lots of bells and whistles, not the least of which is the predominant automatic transmission in the US market.
    My only point is we don't know what the real benefits of S.S. are until there is relative standardization of its implementation, and there is some way to ACTUALLY measure those benefits. And there will be little impactful legal action here in the US market until EPA correctly or incorrectly certifies a benefit to S.S.. Legal action against over-hyped marketing claims may or may-not be successful, but will mostly garner a fine that is a fraction of sales and an admonishment to STOP IT. IMHO
    Sorry, but this is the dead horse that occasionally needs to be beaten again!
    21 Mar 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • 42itus1,


    Yes, By base SS my intent was to mean tuning the engine off and on at complete stops with no additional auxiliary functions. I did however not intend to exclude automatic transmissions, thanks for your reminder, as this would be too small a market for the US. Windows are already electrified and would need to work with the engine off as they do today. Having the air conditioning on would most likely disable the system unless we move up to more advanced systems using phase change material.


    As for the comments concerning the value of SS and integrating it into the US drive cycle . I would hope that if they do it there would be some method integrated into the annual inspections to assure that the system keeps working. This inspection however varies from state to state.

    21 Mar 2013, 04:53 PM Reply Like
  • Fuel Economy is the focus for new truck models
    21 Mar 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • I must admit I thought that the sheeting process was long solved, but clearly that was my incorrect assumption.


    Now that it would appear that it certainly IS solved, which is good news all around.


    Can someone help me understand then why on higher volume we are stuck on the bottom rung of the ladder at .28c.


    Doing a technical analysis doesn't make sense to me so I can't believe any of the reasoning boils down to technical trading, because this is such a thinly traded stock, nobody else is paying attention to it.


    My belief, and I may be totally out of it, is that the trading in the last 2 years has been emotion based, and not fact or technical based, because .28c makes zero sense to me, even if so called fence sitters are waiting for financing news !


    If that could be the case then I worry, because of the "boy who cried Wolf" scenario that could develop on Excellent news etc from Axion, if the belief system is not embraced by the stakeholders.


    What I am wondering is, have we left it too little too late to expect full market acceptance upon release of potential groundbreaking news ??
    21 Mar 2013, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • JR,


    There is a conference call on Monday. The higher volume of late is likely the result of a few Axionistas who can't stand the game of chicken in light of no news.


    There indeed is a serious chance that good news may come (agreements, financing, etc) - but also we could find out that sales were less than expected etc.


    In my opinion, volatility should be expected here and I doubt anyone will rush into a long position this late in the week. I wouldn't expect a huge break above .30 unless the CC has some new info; heck I'm sure a few will get scared and exit tomorrow and/or monday if your tone is indicative of other's thinking on the pps.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • I hate to keep beating a dead horse but the only analysis that jibes with my prior experience is my old favorite of supply and demand.


    If you look at annual trading volumes for several years the progression has been:


    2008 Volume – 1,902,700
    2009 Volume – 7,176,200
    2010 Volume – 22,016,900
    2011 Volume – 77,690,400
    2012 Volume – 86,440,400
    2013 Volume – 15,620,800


    From 2008 to 2009 the jump in volume was demand pull that flowed from the Exide partnership and the subsequent DOE award to Exide with Axion.


    Since 2010, the volume increases have been attributable to sell-side push as dueling trustees started driving the price down, some of the 2009 retail buyers joined the party and then the big uglies started selling for reasons including the 2008 crash (Quercus), a death (Winner), a couple of fund manager changes (SS and Manatuck) and sheer exhaustion (Blackrock).


    Any time there's that much selling pressure over an extended period of time the price has to buckle. Buyers become careful bottom feeders and the assumption that "somebody knows more than me" begins to dominate. Eventually it leads to a mindset where there is no room for optimism and the universal attitude is "show me." We've become so accustomed to the idea that there are tens of millions of shares available on the supply side that we duck for cover when somebody shows 100,000 shares.


    The good news at this point is that the sellers who made life tough in the past are gone. The shares that were owned by a handful of sellers are now owned by thousands of investors who climbed their wall of worry and invested in spite of the stock chart from hell. There is an even larger legion of "watchers and lurkers who are sitting on the sidelines waiting for "something to happen." There's not much in the way of bubbly optimism, but there's a ton of steely-eyed determination.


    A few of the strong are scared enough by financing uncertainties and the imminent 10-K filing that they're moving to the sidelines, but the vast majority are simply hanging tough. When something really good happens, it should be epic because the steely-eyed who've suffered the pain won't be flipping for pennies, nickels, dimes or quarters.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • For me, the key question from the very beginning has been the boundaries of the Big Run everyone is expecting. For example, if you believe that we'll have a 10-bagger:


    35 cents to $3.50?
    30 cents to $3?
    25 cents to $2.50?
    20 cents to $2?
    15 cents to $1.50?
    10 cents to $1?


    The game has obviously been down, so the longer we go without a game-changing event, the lower the boundaries. More shares will need to be issued. More timelines pushed out. More doubt.


    I look forward to the game-changer. The sooner the better.
    21 Mar 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • So at least we know that ATDF order wasn't you starting to lighten your considerable haul. Having not heard from you all day I was worried there for a moment ;) j/k
    21 Mar 2013, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • Mr I> the crazy part is the Missouri personality traits are strong enough at this point that even a game changer like yesterday's announcement of a 95% labor cost reduction in the carbon sheeting process isn't enough.
    21 Mar 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • >JP ... It's nothing a little revenue visibility wouldn't fix.
    21 Mar 2013, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • JP---I think it's going to take a lot, lot more than that. Something like a battery company strategic partnership, BMW and/or Toyota fleet testing, multiple NS production orders, several major PC sales, or even some combination of these or others. Something that confirms that big sales and profits are finally, truly on their way, in the not-to-distant future. None of this potential, maybe in a couple years stuff. The AXPW stk mkt is not going to pay up for that any more, seems clear to me.
    21 Mar 2013, 06:18 PM Reply Like
  • We will be close to a 140-150M shares outstanding soon. However a few percentage points of a 50-100B (??) dollar market in storage (combined: railroads, vehicles, stationary, etc) still leaves a lot a headway above $1 pps or even $5 for that matter. But getting even a single percent of any of these markets is a huge "if". And it's hard to complete the journey when you have to stop for gas annually and the gas price seemingly keeps going up. I'd settle for a fraction of a percent at this junction if I'm being honest with myself.
    21 Mar 2013, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • A friend picked up 14K today.
    21 Mar 2013, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • You guys are welcome.
    21 Mar 2013, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • Time is precious; good luck.
    21 Mar 2013, 11:33 PM Reply Like
  • Not for nothing but if you're really interested pull the bug out of your a$%. Otherwise be well.
    22 Mar 2013, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • More evidence that the sellers are not done yet---180k for sale at .275. While we've had big blocks for sale by NITE and UBSS, this one is the old clown car, ATDF.
    21 Mar 2013, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • Already 314K volume on the day ... is there another 174K of demand at .275?
    21 Mar 2013, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • I find it hard to believe someone realistically thought they could sell that many shares. I think they were trying to prevent an end of day uptick. If it were a retailer fishing to get out - we'd see it posted at the ask and also we'd see it tomorrow.


    I'm glad the quarterly report and CC is coming up.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Offer got pulled, now UBSS 38,250 at .2990 (UBSS)
    21 Mar 2013, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Wtb: ATDF is one that habitually pulls the order at EOD. They also wait until market open before showing up again.


    21 Mar 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Crap ... loss track of time, didn't realize it was just after market close.


    Day order instead of GTC
    21 Mar 2013, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • Most likely a scare tactic by an MM or investor who wants to acquire a significant holding before the year end results. Often those who show their cards are actually playing another hand altogether. =)
    21 Mar 2013, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Bazooooka: I thought I saw some bullish positioning for the quarterly earlier in the day. From 13:06-14:01 saw a string of "buys", with some larger orders like 15, 20 and 30 thousand sizes, all at $0.2790.


    That bunch was 94.2K and there were some others at similar price before and after that bunch that might have been part of that. Maybe another ~50K or so.


    From the time that 179K ask came in, 15:45, to the close, only 9,797 shares traded at that ask even though it dropped the best ask by $0.019 from the immediate prior best ask that I could spot. At the time the best bids were in the $0.2701-$0.2702 range (*after* that ask appeared - before was $0.275 at 15:31).


    Since ATDF has a history of always trying to be top of the list on both sides, I suspect someone that ATDF services tried to hold out all day for a higher price and finally gave up at the end and hoped someone would take most of it.


    Course, we'll never know and your scenario seems just as likely as mine.


    21 Mar 2013, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • Unfortunately, I think the only explanation at this point is an attempt to affect the next capital raise.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan, I would love to agree with you, but ...


    Consider how much concern has been expressed about the next capital raise, the lack of sales, the doubts about automotive, the doubts about Rosewater, ... and so forth.


    Long-time participants consider these and past price action, concern about the coming report, ...


    Remember the "Wall of Worry"? I'm certain that here we qualify as "expert" at creating it, even if not climbing it, unfortunately. And no help from management, mostly due to the NDAs I think.


    Just wanted to raise the possibility here that the obvious *may* be the right answer.


    21 Mar 2013, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • HT,


    What is the obvious? It's hard to tell nowadays. Could a former Axionista be raising money for some March Madness betting. =)
    21 Mar 2013, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • Bazoooka: LoL! If he's crazy enough to be *very* long AXPW, he's crazy enough to do anything. :-)) (sets mirror face down here).


    21 Mar 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • Would have been sweet to see someone step up and buy that whole block. Reminds me of a classic Mary Tyler Moore episode ... Ted owes Murray money, and the running gag through the show is that Murray keeps asking him to pay up, but Ted always only has a $500 bill, and asks "do you have change for this?" And the show ends with Murray saying ... "why yes Ted, I do!"
    21 Mar 2013, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • HTL, I could see your point but when you have an entity commonly showing up and throwing out such large blocks vs the daily volume you do have to kind of figure that their intent is really not to adjust their position.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Possibly it was JR from above; if you like at the time of his/her comment and then reference the ATDF order there does seems to be a connection. Or worse yet, could comments on this board actually influence other lurkers? Nah, it's all a coincidence. Oh My =)
    21 Mar 2013, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Bazooka


    I assure you that I have not actively bought or sold since I blew my load 2004-2006, and will either be waiting for me to break even at just under $3, to sell, or go down with the ship. There is no in between for me, that is why even a run to $1-$1.50 while being a big win for a lot of board participants would still be a big bust for me, and so I have to wait.


    If I did have any $$ at all though, I do believe that I would a buyer be, and not a seller.
    21 Mar 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • Since you've almost been in for a decade I can see your point. I would suggest that you can average in for 1/10th of your cost basis and that might be wise if your really going to ride this to the moon or bust. Those that are still long really have no choice but to average in if they still like the long term story. imo =)
    21 Mar 2013, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • HTL,


    I'm talking about large offers showing up and getting pulled. I think that they are attempting to add to the fear.
    21 Mar 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan: I didn't see any get pulled today. And it's not been that common an occurrence AFAICT. But appearances can be deceiving. JIC, I'm going to cover a couple items that might be too basic, so apologies if this is common knowledge already.


    Very often what appears on Level II to be a pulled order is *not* that at all. What it *usually* is can best be described as a "masked" order. From any MM only the *best* order is shown. Let's say I put an ask $0.29. If someone using the same MM, or the MM himself, enters an ask of $0.2899, my $0.29 looks like it was pulled. It wasn't, it was "masked" by the better offer. Similar on the bid side.


    I see this all day long. In fact, when there's a notable order masked, I make note of it in my spreadsheets (within the limits of time and being lucky enough to have seen it) because there's a good chance it will appear again if the action moves the right way. If I'm thinking of doing a trade I want to remember that order is lurking, but "masked".


    Now, there are times we can be pretty sure what you mention has occurred - when the order disappears and is replaced by a worse price is a good candidate. Sometimes it's just folks changing their mind, sometimes I'm also convinced it's manipulation (e.g. "quote stuffing"), especially if it's frequent and rapid enough.


    Today I suspect that 179K was a real order because once it appeared it stayed put and even had some shares taken. If it had appeared earlier in the day they might have all gotten taken, but I think the trader was trying to get greedy and waited too long - all the willing buyers at better prices had done their thing already. This is evidenced by the buy:sell leaving it's intra-day high at 14:08 of 1.58:1 and deteriorating to 1.23:1 at EOD. I think someone just missed the boat of higher prices at higher volumes earlier in the day.


    If I was trying to move the market with this sort of thing, I would do it early in the day multiple times (and pull relatively quickly) so that a) they get to see it lots of times and everyone knows it's there, and b) it would make them fearful. I might even drop the price a bit here and there. But if I didn't really want to sell, I would cancel the order relatively quickly.


    Short form: if I want to spook for a lower price (or cap the top), I pull a Schwarzkopf strategy early, repeatedly, frequently and with overwhelming force.


    21 Mar 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • HTL, you make sense, but sometimes we prefer to believe the more nefarious scenario. Though, with this unusual flash of an odd lot of shares, does this mean we now know how many shares this ADTF seller has left? If so, we may get our inflection point yet.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • >Ranma ... " ... we now know how many shares this ADTF seller has left?" That would be a big "NO". MM's are required to show a minimum depending on daily volume & share price but are not under any obligation to display their book to Level II or III. Their full offer is visible (I think this is true on the OTC & Pinks) to the market at the Total View Level and that may not be their total book. In day trading most platforms allow this masking down to my level. I can offer to sell 100k shares and only display 100 (the min.), but I can't show more than I have. MM's have even more flexibility in order to feign or dampen liquidity.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • I don't think that was this case. Besides being an odd lot, HTL said that some of the shares were reduced. Which seems to me that this seller may have simply tried to put the remaining shares openly for sale.


    That said, I still don't get who would spend so much time bashing this stock if they weren't trying to accumulate at low levels.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • HTL,


    Thanks for the insight. I learn a lot from your posts.
    21 Mar 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Ranma---what looks like an odd number on the ask is often the result of a rounder-number's balance remaining. For example, a MM may place a sell of 180k shares at .275, and the 1k shares bid there, but not showing on Level II, is instantly traded, leaving 179k shares. The net is that the 180k never showed on Level II. 179k did.


    Of course, another common explanation is that the traders know that odd-looking numbers will appear to some to be the completion of an intention. Like 6,800 shares, or 103k. I've done it plenty of times myself. Who knows if it works well, but it's worth a try sometimes, in an illiquid stock like AXPW.
    22 Mar 2013, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • Ranma: What DRich said. Also keep in mind that even when I sloppily say "a seller", we *may* really be talking "sellers". What we might be seeing, on larger *presents* especially, is the aggregate quantities from multiple folks.


    We have no way to know. On a one-time occurrence near EOD, as seen today, this seems *somewhat* likely to me. Where we have signs of manipulation repeatedly occur, I then tend to think a very small number of folks (e.g. <= ... 5?).


    As to "bashing", recall that JP has discussed, in the long past, some of the Mega-C related history. I don't know, but could be some vengeful person?


    22 Mar 2013, 06:35 AM Reply Like
  • Expect bad news tomorrow


    This has never been a short term hold


    Hope for the best - expect the worst


    Until AXPW show steadily increasing sales and profits this is going to be a roller coaster. Nature of the beast


    Long term rewards look to be more and more substantial with each announcement


    Great group...lots of fun...lessons learned...Roll with it
    21 Mar 2013, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Third of four articles on Naval smart grid. Axion not mentioned in this article. (Zero energy building)

    21 Mar 2013, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • I think until some level of continuing PbC sales volume materializes there ultimately will be some low price people will be willing to pay just to sit in the bus station and hope for a bus to show up someday. If anyone is playing with this .27X cent stock they need to seek some professional help (excluding MM's).


    I nearly bought back in with the continuous roll announcement, but still had the capital raise issue and lack of sales announcements weighing against it. So I wait. I also think a reverse split almost has to happen at some point in time because there are just going to be to many shares out there to have any meaningful EPS number.
    21 Mar 2013, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • BW,


    EPS is not even on most radars. Revenues have to come first then we can argue margins =)
    21 Mar 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • JP has often stated one of his goals for Axion was to upgrade the stock out of the OTCBB market. So far management has resisted a reverse split as a tactic to accomplish this objective.. As the total stock in circulation hits 200M shares I think a reverse split is almost inevitable. Is it a concern for today? No. Right now the concern is keeping the lights on and getting sales. I just believe it will inevitably have to happen.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • I disagree Bang.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • John,


    Would you mind sharing a little more of your thoughts and reasoning regarding why a reverse split is not likely?


    21 Mar 2013, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun,
    If I recall correctly JP has stated in the past that the Axion BOD has had ample opportunity to address this strategy. They have not gone that route. Therefore he does not believe they will ever do it. A rising stock price and more volume will allow the stock to be traded on an exchange in the future.
    I'm curious to know if I remember this correctly.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist,


    Thanks for your response, I also remember "although a bit foggy" JP commenting on the subject in the past and since I always gain from JP's thoughts and opinions I was just trolling for his more indepth response.
    I have been through many a reverse split over the past 25 years and with the number of outstanding shares and more on the way I am looking for more data to support the no reverse concept!
    My experience with reverse splits never seemed to work well for me and I truly want to believe that we will not have to experience one in this story!
    I know that there is no absolute answer to this inquiry but just looking for ideas on it!


    21 Mar 2013, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • My limited understanding is that a reverse split rarely achieves success. It is more often a warning signal that they will play "Taps" pretty soon.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:21 AM Reply Like
  • Rick,
    All stocks that are doing a reverse split have been on the downhill slide. The number of shares need to go down so the price can be higher in order to qualify for trading exchanges. Reversing splits don't change the companies business practices or sales. It just gives the major players more time to get out with a little skin left intact.


    Axion doesn't need to be on an exchange today. It needs sales and more product acceptance in the marketplace. If that happens the price will rise and they can be accepted on a major exchange.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • Reverse splits are very odd creatures because investors hate them. There's a visceral negative reaction to the idea that "yesterday I had ten pieces of candy and today I only have five," even if the total weight is exactly the same.


    Reverse splits can work well if they're coupled with a sufficiently impressive event like a financing or merger transaction, or a market listing upgrade, but in the normal course they're perceived as a sign of weakness.


    Axion's board has had several opportunities to implement a reverse split and chosen the harder road. I think a change in policy at this point is very unlikely.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • don't forget that some investors and funds can not invest in a company with a stock price less than $5 some $3, so as bad as everyone hates a reverse split, considering 200 M shares out.... that puts AXPW in the market cap of $600 M - $1B.
    That might be a bit much in the time frame they may need to be on a major exchange.


    No argument for or against ... no pun intended.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • LT,
    Why would Axion "need" to be on a major exchange, soon. They need sales. They need product acceptance. If they have that, then they can get financing for expansion, no matter what. Yes, it might be simpler to obtain financing if on an exchange. But it won't be cheaper financing.
    Sometimes, I think company ego's drive these decisions rather than practicality.
    22 Mar 2013, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • Axion doesn't have 200 M shares out LT and absent an event that requires major capital spending it isn't likely to have 200 M shares out any time soon. There's nothing wrong with rounding for the sake of convenience but rounding 113 M to 200 M seems disingenuous.
    22 Mar 2013, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • Agree, Bang. I once owned an internet stock I bought a boat load of at $1.50, watched it drop to $.40 and then do a 10-for-1 reverse split. Now with my shares being worth $4.00 (but only owning 1/10 of them), I watched the stock climb to $9.00, vegetate for a while then climb to $35.00! I sold. Two weeks later it was $80.00!! Sigh.


    I think I see a similar set of circumstances falling into place for AXPW. This time I'll be less quick to sell!
    22 Mar 2013, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • i wasnt talking about financing, it was stock price & a follow up to the other posts. Specifically saying market cap is something to consider when talking about how high the pps may go
    22 Mar 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • they have the 113 out now...200 M approved and expected to issue most of it.
    22 Mar 2013, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • There are 200 Million authorized and unless you're way smarter than I am and have a far better inside information pipeline than I do, you have no idea how many shares will be issued in the next financing round. I wouldn't have said anything about an assumption that 150 million shares will be out after the next financing, but assuming 200 million is way over the top – just like your other persistent exaggerations.
    22 Mar 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • I in no way meant they would issue them all now....but would assume they will at some point.
    Not to make that assumption, would be like figuring price per share potential before the board approved up to 200 M .... I made that mistake once. Paid dearly for it.
    22 Mar 2013, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Way OT---normally I'd wait until Friday to post this kind of stuff, but close enough:



    I submitted, "Dennis Rodman, Ambassador to North Korea" but it didn't get chosen. On to the NIT, I guess. ;^)


    Nothing on AXPW stock performance, thank goodness!
    21 Mar 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. I, "Mayan Predictions" made the list. I know someone who didn't submit that!


    Edit: For those that wish you can fire this up for the reading of the annual report. OMMMmmmm. Breath...........

    21 Mar 2013, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • re: price .... I agree with HTL on the price movement. I think MM's are basically net neutral for the most part. What we are seeing is just retail pushing it up/down based on some lightening up a bit ahead of a new issue, a few bottom fishing adding a few shares.
    Most are waiting for the outcome before adding, alot are already overweight too much.
    However, I would not be surprised if some are stealthily accumulating & that when good news comes it will be a nice pop to the upside. If it was a major contract, we could see .30 jump to $1 if axionista's don't become their own worst enemy.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • Interesting. Example of one of the challenges with SS. Audio systems in the aftermarket might not have the on board power conditioning to stabilize voltage for the start cycle. Here's a solution but it's expensive. Might be a good reason for dual battery bus architecture.


    Crux Interfaces - Start-Stop

    21 Mar 2013, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • “The immediate impact is an improvement in fuel economy of up to 3.5% with the 2013 MX-13,” he said. “That’s a significant gain for customers which may amount to about a $2,500 annual fuel savings for the typical long-haul truck averaging 120,000 miles per year.”


    If 3.5% is "a significant gain", imagine what 35% + will be.
    21 Mar 2013, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • Greentongue: 35% = fantasy or fraud.


    Yesterday's engineers were not stupid. However, both yesterday's and tomorrow's investors will include some (stupid) suckers.
    21 Mar 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • Rick, are you talking about the Kenworth only, or trucks in general?


    If it's the latter, then the AXPW investment thesis is severely tested, as Axion recently said:


    "Our early testing has gone well and has demonstrated an ability to increase miles per gallon by more than 35%. We believe, and more importantly ePower believes, that with improved synergy of function between the proprietary hybrid drive train and our PbC batteries, that improvements in miles per gallon exceeding 50% can be achieved."

    22 Mar 2013, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • I wonder what base fuel mileage number is being used when calculating percent improvement. Maybe we won't see the figures in the short term, but if sales start happening, I guess we can assume it is good.
    22 Mar 2013, 05:55 AM Reply Like
  • I am extremely skeptical of anybody saying a real, economic 35% increase in fuel economy. Manufacturers for OTR trucking have spent hundreds of billion$ improving fuel economy over many decades. The low hanging fruit was harvested during the fuel crisises of the 1970s, and has continued to improve. I played with the concepts of serial hybrids in high school - in the 1970s.


    Assuming the combined R&D budgets of Cummins, Caterpillar, Toyota, Mercedes, GM, MTU, International, Detroit, Deere, Perkins, Yanmar, Volvo, YaMZ, Yuchai, Weichai, and Fiat (and many other billion+$ companies) have ignored or not thought about fuel economy, or all management is just plain stupid, is grossly hubristic. Any manufacturer that could have delivered an engine system with an economic, real 35%+ fuel economy improvement would rapidly become the largest company in the world, bigger than Apple and Exxon combined. Anyone seriously thinking a little, under-funded startup can deliver a real 35% improvement should immediately be admitted to the emergency room for a massive hopium, LSD, and crack overdose.


    There has not been a fundamental breakthru in energy since the development of nuclear fission, and it still is not wildly economic. As JP has frequently repeated, batteries have improved by less than order of magnitude since the 19th century.


    Perhaps someday a small thorium reactor, or a "frikkin' magic" f-cell converts hydrocarbons to electricity at 99% efficiency, or some patented pixie dust or …


    I know this is unpopular to articulate around these parts. Sorry.


    Can a serial hybrid with bio-carbon batteries make an improvement of a few percent in fuel economy? Almost certain. Can it be done and create a true economic solution? Probably, but to me there is an ominous data void. Is a few percent improvement worthwhile? Could be really, really great, or not: the details are important, eg, cost, terrain, maintenance, product life, reliability, driver training, quality, driving cycle, safety, risk, regulation, ancillary loads, hotel, etc.


    Don't be down on Axion; the PbC has some great opportunities.


    Just don't smoke pure unsubstantiated hopium, or else you might wake up with an EVangelista in your bed, a very sore sun-less orifice, and less money in your investment account.
    22 Mar 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Rick, if you're right, then the AXPW investment thesis is severely tested. What rational investor invests in a company that either has made a big mistake in a core competency or is misrepresenting it? This represents, at its most basic level, a trust issue that can cloud investors' whole relationship with the company.


    Perhaps the wiggle room is that their measurement of > 35% is NOT a core competency; the PbC is but devices that use it are not. So a mistake by them, although not good, does not strike at the heart of their skills.


    Or perhaps they know their > 35% claim is bogus but deemed necessary in a world populated by inflated mpg claims. The "you have to shout as loud or louder as the other guys or you won't get heard" approach.


    I haven't made any firm conclusions but initially this looks like a big red flag to me. Hope I'm missing something.
    22 Mar 2013, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • The ePower mileage claims are their responsibility, not Axion's.


    ePower's claims are based on limited testing of an admittedly underpowered Class 8 Tractor that's exploring the outer limits of the possible in friendly terrain before getting into the nitty-gritty of the most acceptable commercial solution.


    Ultimately the customers will tell ePower what they're willing to sacrifice for fuel economy and what they're not willing to sacrifice. I don't think Axion cares one way or the other as long as the final solution uses the PbC.
    22 Mar 2013, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • Don't those ePower guys have a good lawyer? :-)
    22 Mar 2013, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor - I think Axion has some tremendous opportunities, and is likely to be highly successful. I remain long.


    I do not think Axion's relationship with ePower is significant, so ePower's success or failure is trivial to Axion. Axion is claiming their batteries will perform to the electric specifications (depth of discharge, watt hours, # of cycles, etc.). I have no reason to think that the PbC does not perform to specification.


    Even assuming the PbC performs better than spec does not mean that ePower wil be successful and produce a real, economic 35%+ fuel economy gain.


    Of course, I could be wrong and there is a miracle improvement in real fuel economy. I look forward to seeing some data, not declarations of future visions.
    22 Mar 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Then Axion should say that. Something like, "ePower is finding that..."


    But they did not. Their 3/4/2013 press release is VERY clear. It even says that Axion believes "that improvements in miles per gallon exceeding 50% can be achieved."


    This is a GIANT disconnect with what Rick is saying about mpg improvements. Something is very wrong here. Who is an investor going to trust more?
    22 Mar 2013, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Rick: What percentage of chemical and kinetic enrgy in a typical vehicle is wasted? ISTM that with a non-conventional push to capture that wasted energy, larger gains are possible.


    The combination of running an engine steady-state in it's most fuel-efficient RPM range, no acceleration or deceleration of internal components, other than the normal reciprocating accelerations and decelerations, and storing otherwise-wasted energy should yield some relatively hefty gains.


    I don't have a feel for how much, but double-digit percentages seems like it should be "easy".


    22 Mar 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • >Mr Investor ... There are several ways to skin that cat that make Rick Krementz skepticism as real and true as ePower Engine Systems claims. Ah, the miracle of statistics. I'd be happy reading collected data and even happier reading about sales.
    22 Mar 2013, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. I, I need to go back and look because I thought the release stated "e-Power believes" for the future higher efficiency number.


    BTW, What they get for an efficiency improvement number depends on what they compare it to. You can get such an efficiency number in personal transport today by getting out of your Hemi powered truck and getting into a Civic if all you're doing is going to the grocery store. They just might be comparing their offering to some old fashioned way over powered and improperly tuned poorly running low tire pressure hunk of junk. Voilà! C'est Magnifique!


    Edit: Here's the exact statement for clarity. Seems they both believe.


    "Our early testing has gone well and has demonstrated an ability to increase miles per gallon by more than 35%. We believe, and more importantly ePower believes, that with improved synergy of function between the proprietary hybrid drive train and our PbC batteries, that improvements in miles per gallon exceeding 50% can be achieved."

    22 Mar 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • yup, the question is 35% compared to what exactly?
    22 Mar 2013, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Since ePower's comparisons have always been based on fleet-wide averages for vehicles in service that's the base I'd expect.
    22 Mar 2013, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • If you believe Rick, then there is, as he stated, either fantasy or fraud involved. Both harm trust and you gotta have a lot of it when investing in a micro-cap with very thin information flow.


    If you believe Axion, then there is neither, and thus no problem.
    22 Mar 2013, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • I don't believe ePower is lying about the mileage they've been getting from their existing tractor. I also don't believe their existing tractor is strong enough to do the required work because even an owner in Iowa characterizes it as a dog from 35 to 65 and a problem on hills.


    ePower's entire program has been to find the outer boundaries of the envelope where nothing matters but fuel economy, and then start dialing back the fuel economy performance for better on the road performance.


    Until you understand the limits of the possible, it's tough to specify the ideal.
    22 Mar 2013, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • Rick,
    Concur entirely. The ePower announcement is what broke my camel's back, so to speak, and has really fueled my skepticism, bordering on cynicism, of Axion. I may be a bit dim-witted, but I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm being hoodwinked with my investment. I've said it before, but I strongly suspect that the next capital raise is earmarked for salaries and nothing else.


    The next cc and capital raise details will settle it for me.


    Now off to check on my Herbalife position...
    22 Mar 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Rick: I understand your skepticism and appreciate it. I also agree with JP's current statement that ePower is underpowered and may not be practical for mainstream operations. If 50% is the upside in that scenario that would make me think that 25% improvement could probably be achieved with a system that operates very similar to standard trucks. Remember, the PbC is what makes this technology viable. When you were experimenting in the 1970's with the drive technology how much would the necessary batteries have cost even if it could have been obtained?


    Also, do take a look at this link. Towards the bottom of the page are Freightliner's estimates of fuel savings using their approach to hybridization and additional fuel savings measures. As you can see, when they incorporate anti-idling opportunities the numbers can get very large but are still over 20%+ in the other scenarios.

    22 Mar 2013, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • 35% increase? Relative to what exactly? a worn out drive train that is getting between 4-5 mpg then 35-50% is in the ball park. If we are comparing it to our modern cutting edge improvements from the folks in the industry then a resounding no way. Gentlemen, there is, and never will be, a single answer...
    22 Mar 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Mitch: if salary was their only concern, they would have raised the cash already from financial investors.
    22 Mar 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • The ePower conversion is something akin to converting a Camry into a Prius. A Prius certainly does get something on the order of 35% more fuel economy, so I am not sure whay you'd think that is not possible.
    22 Mar 2013, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Tim, I agree with you, but perhaps did not make it clear in my earlier post.


    The lack of data, such as what is the comparison base, is frustrating. If the base is a 20 year old truck fleet (with minimal maintenance) climbing the Rockies and the driver is not paying for fuel, compared to an owner-driver with a modern state-of-the-art truck with a brand new Deere engine driving around Iowa, 35% may be on the low side. It is not a fair comparison.


    ePower does not have to be anywhere near 35% "better" (unless the costs are out of line) to be successful.


    22 Mar 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Rick, I agree that the lack of hard data makes ePower's comparisons very mushy. From what I've been able to find, however, it's far easier to find national average data on fuel consumed and miles driven by Class 8 tractors than it is to find more granular data on the performance of "an owner-driver with a modern state-of-the-art truck."


    You're essentially noting the same lack of comparability I complain about when EVangelicals compare new EV economy with fleet average fuel economy instead of focusing on new vehicles only, or better yet new HEVs.
    22 Mar 2013, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Axion has written that they think >50% can be obtained by ePower's system, and > 35% now. My problem is that, if that's only true with so many qualifiers (the old GM sales approach of low-ball the unsellable stripper version---"oh, you wanted an engine, that'll cost extra") that it is, in any practical terms, not true, then that is misleading at best and fraud at worst. Not what I want to see from the mgmt of any company I have invested in.
    22 Mar 2013, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Mr I, again, relative to what? I believe the target market is 1M mile trucks that are due for a complete rebuild. Does an advance from 5 mpg to 8 mpg seem unreasonable? not to me. The question should be is there a market...
    22 Mar 2013, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • Tim, yep, the most important thing is the prospective purchasers--what do they want and at what price? A choice will be the ePower solution, and another will be the traditional rebuild. There was discussion estimating the ePower choice as costing $10k more: $70k vs $60k or thereabouts. What mpg's do those choices offer? I don't know. Yet.


    If it's say, 8 for a traditional rebuild (is that even close?) then ePower will need to offer > 10.8 to come thru on their and Axion's > 35% claim. And > 12 for > 50%.
    22 Mar 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • No argument from me...


    The word on the street (or road) is that you just might be able to get to that 8 if you include the trailer modifications and left off all the EPA stuff. The EPA stuff (EGR, DPF & DEF) all work against fuel economy to the tune of 1-2 mpg. However, if you leave this stuff off you will be not allowed in the greatest traffic areas in the US (and its getting worse by the year). The cost to add the EPA stuff puts you on a cost parity with ePower but at a mpg of around 6.5. I have no idea where ePower sits with the EPA...
    22 Mar 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Rick,


    Great post. I have told as my much to a few friends who thought the EPower thing is the main driver of Axion stock going forward. Too me it's a nice additional customer (hopefully) but not our savior by any means. EPower likely has a tougher road ahead of it than Axion and our trip hasn't been to fun or easy of late.
    22 Mar 2013, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. I,


    I don't think Axion has done anything wrong. The 50% claim surely is marketing and there indeed likely exists some scenario (wind at the back going 45mph, etc) that they are seeing those numbers if only briefly.


    I don't think anyone can accuse Axion of being a tout firm. I hope for some more marketing from them but of the other more lucrative relationships.
    22 Mar 2013, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • My sense is that ePower needed the release more than Axion did. They were having a devil of a time with their batteries and the PbC solved their biggest problem. It was good news for Axion but great news for ePower.
    22 Mar 2013, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • "a devil of a time with their batteries"


    Remember all, the major weakness of AGM, especially in this application, is their inability to take a charge. Imagine this scenario in an ePower truck a few months old: You've just climbed a decent 500' hill while maintaining healthy speed, and the nice AGM batteries onboard helped you out greatly all the way up... now you're on the backside, hoping to regain that energy and put it back into the batteries, so you can tackle the next hill just as adroitly...but Noooooo, the AGMs just can't aborb the current right now, it makes too much hydrogen and heats them up something, gotta use the brakes...and waste all that energy. This sux. And kills your mpg.
    22 Mar 2013, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Think slag.
    22 Mar 2013, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • Nothing says "I gave it all I got" than a melted puddle of metal.


    "Sorry son, but your best just isn't good enough here. But listen now, and buck up kid, the world needs golf-cart batteries too... "
    22 Mar 2013, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Ranma,
    No, I think financial investors would be too savvy to throw any money AXPW's way too early--better to wait to make the management sweat it out and get better terms.
    26 Mar 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • It seems Tesla thought it was important enough to tweet it has ramped up to 400 cars a week. ?
    (Which they stated they were doing the last 3 weeks of Dec. in the shareholder letter.)


    #WattsUp: We've ramped up! The Tesla factory is now producing 400 Model S a week! #GoElectric


    Apparently someone asked a question about this as Elon had mentioned 500 in an interview Teslas response was.
    (I believe he said they could be doing 500 but were constraining themselves to 400 but I might have missed an interview or six)


    It's often upwards of 400


    Nothing to see here fanboys keep marching.
    21 Mar 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • froggey - anecdotal. I am working across the street from a Tesla delivery point in NJ. The location is not a "dealership" or service center, and does not have even have a sign outside. They seem to be getting two to five truckloads of Tesla's per week. At 8 cars per truck, that is up to 40 cars per week. Seems like a lot of cars for a small state. Inventory is obvious churning, not stockpiling.


    I have not been doing any sort of accurate inventory or delivery count - just informally occasionally looking out the window.


    There have not been any red cars, only blacks and grays. I chatted with an employee who was showing off a S-60. He said they did not have any S-85s in stock.


    Who knows, i might even ask for test drive!
    21 Mar 2013, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Rick, if I had the opportunity...I would most definitely take that test drive.
    It would be cool to hear your comments after.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:05 PM Reply Like
  • Everything I've read says it would be a fun test ride, a bit like the 20-something hotties you see on the beach.
    21 Mar 2013, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Re Tesla sales in the New Jersey region.
    NJ is a small state (in area) yet surprisingly large in population. Almost 9M headcount makes it about one third more than US average.
    22 Mar 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • "During the past three weeks we have averaged more than 500 Model S deliveries per week, and it looks like we’ll be setting another record this week."

    23 Mar 2013, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • Jrp3
    Not bad in 24 hours they went from ramping up to 400 pr week to 500 a week for 3 weeks.


    Tesla Motors ‏@TeslaMotors 21 Mar
    #WattsUp: We've ramped up! The Tesla factory is now producing 400 Model S a week!


    Tesla Motors ‏@TeslaMotors 22 Mar
    #WattsUp: We have averaged more than 500 Model S deliveries per week over the past three weeks!



    I really can't say I believe anything Tesla posts.
    23 Mar 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • Since we know they were already at 400 per week months ago I'd say the 400 a week claim was either a typo or misstatement. The official blog post from Blankenship seems rather credible, don't you think? Plus the fact that the frunk liner supplier has stated publicly that they are shipping 500 liners per week with instructions to increase that to 650 by fall.
    For some reason SA is messing up it's own link, it's supposed to be a new article by Nick Butcher, Tesla Still Accelerating Hard
    24 Mar 2013, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Blankenship seems rather credible, don't you think?
    No, I don't think so.
    It comes from Tesla.
    Tesla claimed 200 at the beginning of Q4 and 400 for the last 3 weeks of of the Q. That leaves about 160 for every other week.
    How likely is this?
    Tesla said they didn't need money last summer. A 206 million dollar raise in 2 months?
    No I don't think anything from Tesla can be trusted. They continuously prove that they lie.
    They may deliver as promised or they may not.
    But as a company?
    I don't trust anything from them any longer.
    24 Mar 2013, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Froggey


    The hole in your calcs comes from claiming that Tesla was at 200 vehicles per week at the start of Q4. hint, look closer at the date of 200 vehicles per week


    Tesla's 3 Specific Measurable Accountable Realistic Targets


    'commenced production of our Model S in June 2012' (fundamental and now historic, target reached a month early)


    'produce more than 20,000 Model S vehicles in 2013'


    'achieve a gross margin of 25% in 2013'
    25 Mar 2013, 05:11 AM Reply Like
  • Renim
    "The hole in your calcs comes from claiming that Tesla was at 200 vehicles per week at the start of Q4. hint, look closer at the date of 200 vehicles per week"
    I didn't claim it Tesla did.


    They did make a mistake in their math. They assumed only one week at 400. The shareholders letter clearly states 3 weeks at 400 a week.


    That's simply another reason I consider anything from Tesla to potentially be a complete fabrication.


    "commenced production of our Model S in June 2012' (fundamental and now historic, target reached a month early)
    'produce more than 20,000 Model S vehicles in 2013'
    'achieve a gross margin of 25% in 2013' "


    You are welcome to use the present list to claim success.


    Other things they claimed were. They would make enough from the Roadster to make the MS.
    They claimed they made money one month.
    (They have lost money every single Q.)
    Just because they ignore what they've failed at, doesn't mean they haven't failed.


    I am very impressed with what they have accomplished.
    I wouldn't trust them to tell me the truth about what's going on any farther than I could throw NUMMI.
    25 Mar 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • Froggey77


    Tesla in their Nov 5 8-K report


    '100 cars per week by the end. That rate has doubled since last month and is now at over 200 cars per week'


    I don't see any statement from Tesla started that quarter at 200 cars per month. I would interpret it as ending Sept at around 100 per month and ramping to over 200 by end of Oct.


    Apart from hearsay, how do you get Tesla claiming 200 at the beginning of Q4 ?
    25 Mar 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • Musk reconfirmed 500/week on twitter.
    So we have Blankenship, Musk, and a part supplier all publicly pointing to 500/week.
    25 Mar 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Remember this time well, because that moment is surely going to come, two or three handfuls of months from now, where they won't be able to *sell* 500 a week...
    25 Mar 2013, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • Sure, people have been predicting Tesla's imminent doom for years now. Every one of them has been wrong every time.
    26 Mar 2013, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • I finally got around to do a Tesla test drive.


    7 Apr 2013, 05:20 PM Reply Like