|"Cristine Kerr" <email@example.com>
|Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:05:18 +1000
Sorry if it appeared that way but I wasn't writing-off AUM.
I know nothing of their prospects which may be excellent.
Basically; I was sharing info to counter some incorrect statements I saw on a different forum. (I should have explained this but time was very short yesterday.)
The comments I saw claimed similarities between the two technologies, misrepresenting the processes and purpose of each technology.
Knowing little of AUM, I was only able to comment on INL and explain the principle differences, which are as follows:
INL's technology processes copper through a shorter than standard production path which results in copper dendrites.
Standard processing of copper employs sulphate (eg AUM). The sulphate process produces copper cathodes. The sulphate process is not capable of producing copper dendrites.
Copper cathodes and copper dendrites appeal to totally different production/market segments.
Copper cathodes are currently used in most copper production processes, however; due to the sulphate employed, copper cathodes are not suitable for all production processes, eg; Rautomead's upward copper casting technology.
Rautomead's upward casting technology utilises copper dendrites to produce a high quality, thin, oxygen-free copper wire rod = less copper required to produce = less cost to produce, + other benefits.
. copper cathode produced by sulphate process is suitable for it's intended market segment;
. copper cathode is not suitable for all production technologies, eg; Rautomead's; which requires copper dendrites.
INL's technology is the only one I know of that is capable of producing copper dendrites = INL's technology cannot be compared to AUM's technology.
I apologise for any confusion due to my rush yesterday.
Hope this makes sense.
Have a great weekend.