It is an impressive technology and yes I think that the existing management are very correct in their assessment of just how disruptive it will be.
I was giving some thought to the optical engine and one of the comments I have heard a couple of times which I may have shared on this forum. The optical engine is tiny and powerful. We can now talk about this in the open as they have published data.
So let’s talk about it. We have been told and data has been presented that illustrates how good the POET resonant-cavity-detector performance is. The same structure is used for the laser and we are hoping for best in class performance to be provided by the laser. It is not necessary for the laser to achieve best in class it just has to meet the commercial standards required for that device application.
We have also been presented with information about the optical engine in the latest presentation. Consider these facts. The POET optical engine is posted as 5 square millimeters which is very close to the rumoured 4mm which was being talked about.
I don’t think the implications of this have been discussed on this forum. We all know they made a big move coming out of the lab and we probably don’t realise just how big a move it was to go from MBE in the lab to MOCVD at 6 inch. It enables volume. Let’s talk about volume. At 5mm there is an expectation that 2000 optical engines will fit on a 6 inch wafer (and probably more as the process matures as is normally the case). MOCVD cuts the amount of time to produce the wafer very dramatically…ie multiple wafer runs can be achieved in a day at Epiwafer and each machine produces 7 at a time so that supply chain has been enabled. Wavetek’s capacity is roughly 50k wafers per month and they have the capability to expand.
Now start working out the numbers…2000 optical engines per wafer (maybe more) times let’s say 10k wafers per month. That would be 20 million optical engines a month.
Think about that number and think about why this management team have chosen to take the most difficult path to enable volume production. They could have went with 3 in or 4 in and stayed with MBE. It would have been a much lower volume at a significantly higher cost.
I don’t know whether we lose sight of what is important on this forum. This company is working to present a differentiated technology to the world and go into commercial production at high volume as quickly as they can. We know the needs by industry are there. Isn’t that what should be the top priority right now? And it is very much so for this company. They execute properly on this and we all get well rewarded.
Oh, I guess I owe a big apology to the forum according to QX. So for those that feel the same way he does I do apologise I will try in the future to keep any information I have which is not public to myself. I have spent a lot of time talking to a lot of sources and most of the time there are elements of truth to what has been discussed here in the past as we begin to learn from people who are no longer with the company who can provide some interesting insight as to past history. I will leave it at that.
