u/PHDEinstein007

I'm hoping to connect with the companies, thinking that some lurk here for the feedback and some good thoughts.

I filed a pair of pending patents on a new fiber and ice composite, based on Pykrete, that allows for a more controlled expression of cold, and a high thermal storage capacity.

I'm not claiming extra thermal capacity, just not the reduced capacity of some units.

The key is the fibers control convection to a micro-section and reduce the convection speed significantly while not squelching it entirely. This means melted water transfers heat far slower than regular ice and that we have a regulated speed of cooling as a result.

Changes to total volume and the volume of fiber changes what temperatures we can achieve for specific periods of time.

You can freeze these packs (takes longer to freeze by the way, the effect of regulation works both ways) and then refrigerate to allow a chosen starting temperature to be the launch temperature.

Landed Cost is less than 50% of the absolute minimum Landed Cost of Gel Packs since I can ship packs dry.

Alternatively we could make large chunks of ice and cut to shape, then add a thick plastic and vacuum seal it. This would be cheaper by a fair amount.

Yes I've done testing, yes I've prototypes, yes I would mail you a sample. To be honest, I use cotton and water right now. Needs some Borox to keep out nasty stuff, it also slowly rises in temperature based upon total volume and fiber volume but we can scale as needed to get what you need.

Its as reliable, inside a planned time window, as the highest PCM packs, but far cheaper than even a low grade gel pack.

This should reduce loss, reduce total cold pack costs, and it is far more environmentally friendly than existing packs.

This is a market research effort for a potential cooling device that would keep Ozempic properly cooled for 6 hours and would be about the size of a 1 liter bottle (initial plan, I will make prototypes soon).

1. If such a device existed and was sold for $80 plus shipping, would you be interested in it?
2. Would it be a problem if you had to freeze it for 24 hours preceding your planned trip?
3. Is 6 hours enough with the trip to the airport, getting boarded, flying, departing, and checking in where you can use a fridge to cool the injector going forward?
4. How often would you potentially use it?
5. If you found it worked as advertised, would you recommend it to others?
6. If this also was part of a larger set of products, all lasting longer than gel packs ever could, with many advantages, would you be willing to consider other products from the product range?

This is not a medical device in this function. It is a cooling device but can be made for personal travel needs. Ozempic is but one of many potential products this device could carry. This is based upon a patent pending technology where tests showed a 110ml unit outlasted a 590ml gel pack at 3 hours to their 1-1.5 hour length and a 210ml unit lasted 5 hours. A 700ml unit should last longer but part of that time would be in the higher than Ozempic temperature range allows, so we estimate it would only last 6 hours (testing in the next few weeks to get precise answers).

Answers here would help determine if there is enough demand to proceed past a prototype for this product line.

Aircraft made up by ChatGPT because I do not want to infringe on others images.

https://preview.redd.it/mzj7wzhucpah1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=51a756da287164c3d81c4308018caa346ca1e111

Everyone knows ATS is bad and worse. Here is the golden age chance to replace it. I gift this in hopes that one of you will run with this and bankrupt ATS.

An AI program that has specific slots and requirements for you to input things. You can ask it for help in filling out certain sections.

This becomes the backbone of applications then.

The HR side allows them to define what is needed and they can ask the AI for assistance there.

This becomes the HR backbone.

Include a way to rate the applications, such as when I go for tech support I can say I had won a Prerelease copy of Office XP for my lowest part dispatch rate at my facility when working for Dell. This would be critical information to increase the value of my application for tech support services.

Allow for narrative sections that the AI then filters down before presenting to HR.

Spotter with a 7.5 minutes average trailer move time in a 104 door and 200 parking spot warehouse could be rated as an 8 by the AI for spotting.

Translators can be tested by AI for the quality of their written or spoken language skills.

Everything can be rated if done right and even probable skill ranges can be assigned such as 9-10 stars for innovation.

This allows AI to examine news reports, diplomas, college credits, and more to come up with a higher defined score about an applicant.

ATS has been brutal on me, I used to walk into a building, fill out the application, get am interview, and land a job instantly. No longer is this true with that ATS stuff.

AI can correct typos, it can associate words like security, guard, commissioned officer, and night watchman.

An AI can do the required work with less frustration for people and a quicker match rate.

I have several kilometers of base, and I am building a "peek window system" so I can swim outside, but see where the leviathan is while I swim. Or when using one of my two subs.

I have a double stack of square base stretching through his entire patrol zone, so I can have a quick way to get out of site. Also I have several quick entry airlocks. I am adding wall and spotlights as I go so I can keep him in view even during the night. That part is slow however, because he does enjoy the chase!

https://preview.redd.it/pptmjezahr9h1.png?width=1247&format=png&auto=webp&s=1048ca5419276d04d0b80174a267456cb90c9d3a

I'm new to the startup game, with a very big product. I need some executives with medical device experience, is this an appropriate group to see the four to five executives I need?

I want two types of fleets, one for war where it is obvious it is a fleet, and one for my miners and traders, where I don't have to have them especially placed in the fleet listing but instead they are treated like solo ships. I want to be able to deploy 100 trading ships with three fighters, a corvette, and a destroyer escorts for each one and just not have to see them in the fleets section.

This would greatly enhance play for me as I often am heading into one conflict or another.

The market for my product is pretty large, market cap is between $30-$40 billion. My product is superior in price, duration, and weight/size. There are multiple ESG advantages, a segment of the combined markets has a shipping cost (parcel delivery) and I can reduce those costs significantly due to the size reduction, and there are storage advantages.

I have a lot of advantages and this seems to be off putting according to some advisors?

They keep telling me that too much profits is scary for investors, and yet my moat before I equal the Landed cost of the competitors is equal to my Landed cost.

I do not know how to proceed. I see advice that investors need to make big money, but that showing I can make big money is a red flag? It's very confusing.

I should be able, if I really posted the full values, go with a mark up adding $0.20 to a unit that costs about $0.14 landed. This because they also take in a certain profit. This would be for unit #1, and expected landed costs for the competition is $0.30 at floor levels.

Unit #2, I would be displacing machines that cost thousands with units that cost about $100 Landed. The market segment is weak, I might be lucky to sell 500,000 units annually in this market with an absolute maximum of 1.8 million units. I could charge $200 and allow the distributor to market it up further, and we would both do great for this segment but poor over-all.

Unit #3 would be about $100, this is a shipping unit, designed to help with a specific market of parcel deliveries. I can help those who purchase my units ship at a 75% or less cost. I can price this at $150 to $200 and sell about 500,000 units maximum a year. Eventually we would want to enter this segment with our own deliveries and absorb some of our best customers.

Unit #4 competes in the one field I might have issues with. I can under-price them, but there are alternatives to my product that are more viable than in the others. I can sell for $2-$4 and my Landed costs would be $0.14-$0.40. I would still grow here, my offering is better, but the growth is predicted to be slower here than elsewhere.

All told, between the 8 markets my products can affect between the two pending patents, I can get to that $30-$40 billion market with a superior product that is just starting. The other 4 markets are considered to be unexamined in enough detail to provide a good profit analysis.

I really think I could pay off any investment in the first year or two at maximum, and then proceed to ramp up very fast. The product is a series of medical devices and trials will help us gain acceptance. Once we pass the trials, growth is expected to be double digits annually from then on.

I know this to be true, shipping containers is the closest parallel to the situation I am in.

So how do I do this? Do I make it sound meek, like paying off the investment will take a long while, and I am just a poor lad who can make it happen in time like I seem to be advised (they said 15% net profits is best, E.G. for every $1 in gross revenue, I get $.015 profits), or do I go with a moderate route saying I can hit higher levels such as 40% (moderate) or 65% (high).

This is a serious question, because I am writing iteration #5 of my business plan and need the advise for going forward.

I am trying to find a group I would be able to interact with on a more specific line than just Shipping or Logistics. Might be hidden under a name I am not familiar with? Not been very lucky finding such.

I posited this elsewhere, but it is time to talk about it here. A lot of companies have laid off workers and even permanently terminated positions, to try to take advantage of the "AI Future".

The problem is, these people are not paying attention to the reality of new innovations.

The average "disruptive market" change ended up always increasing costs. Streaming Television, rideshare automobiles, and more... All of them have increased their costs well above any inflation index.

A list of products that have increased their costs at an average of +80% since their successful entry in the market.

Prime Video
Disney+
Netflix
Lyft
Uber
Airbnb

This trend has been there for all of the new breakout concepts and will continue to be a trend for AI and other aspects. I would not be surprised if Starlink, SpaceX rockets, and those new humanoid robots raise in cost by a similar amount as they become the dominant features and crush their competition.

Many of these companies let go lower level programmers or staff as well. This is a double edged sword because how do you get higher talent? By keeping the lower level talent employed until some of them mature to be high level talent.

I expect a counter surge, where the companies will hire back to be at the same levels they were before, only that they will have lost some money with their efforts and they will have disrupted trust in their companies by their employees.

The price to convert is too high, instead use the moment that prices are still low to experiment on increasing what you offer, to do some research and side projects. Do not try to follow the trend because the trend is already falling apart.

I have been researching my invention, with aims to plan ahead for each market segment.

I found one segment is far better than the rest. It reuses the packs, it has a mailing cost, and I can drop that mailing cost a lot with my longer lasting and lighter units. I could possibly sell at $500 for a >$100 unit and sell out constantly once they knew the product was real.

I'd prefer an upfront deal, something to help me launch, instead of slowly getting into the market. So I want to approach the companies in that line if business and seek a deal between my company and one of theirs.

What is the best approach? What methods are plausible?

I'm considering making a final section for on my business plan that would show all sources and using markdown sized numbers in the main section to show which reference(s) applies to a specific part. For example, a competitor has gel packs for $0.22 but they are literally not shipping it on their dime, this is the "barely landed on the coast" and our profits cost.

This, however, is a great source since they are clearly marking up pretty big compared to their probable landed cost of $0.10. A $0.12 increase for their expenses and net profits seems like a valid item to use as a basis to showcase that we can undercut the competition in pricing (since this is before they ship to the final mile).

This would be a reference and methods section with some math after showing references to help support the math.

Good idea, or bad? Either way this weekend I'm pushing out my business plan, pitch deck, and one pager through my dedicated list.

I am not sure of the value, since I cannot seem to make the next step. Since I have a double unicorn invention, I will lay it all out including methods in here.

I have derived a method that allows me to logically break apart values into a sort. The sort ends up with a varying number of smaller sorts as desired or needed.

The end result is sorts on the left tend to be universal or down to as bad as a 94% to 6% ratio, either 0 to 1's or 1 to 0's. Either way works, it does not care what your primary value is.

As you go closer to the right, it becomes more RAND. But we can identify the string lengths involved as part of this, it has a 100% ability to understand how long each substring is and it is entirely lossless.

The problem I hit upon was the lack of a method that really can use it better than leaving it alone and using a normal compression tool. It might be because we do not have a built mechanism for knowing the patterns (it may be possible to know the patterns through several swings, as it were) and this is designed with Text or another biased source. It can do some work down pretty low, but not better so far than others that can get close to the barriers. It could be also that breaking the patterns we recognize is a problem no matter what.

So the method has two processes. First one, then the other.

The first is a reordering tool, it merely takes what exists and makes it part of our reorder with an emphasis of changing those that occur the most, to the most desirable, otherwise it follows known patterns of text and substitutes predicted for desired.

For example, if a text really had a 50% level of M characters, maybe they wrote HMMMM nonstop, then we would want that M to convert. The system has a simple header for this, where it says "do we need a character, yes or no?" and if 0, then yes. Then we use an 8 bit (or 7) value to show what we are substituting from.

We also need a length. The length is used to help the next process. So for example, I can choose 8, and then we choose a sublength smaller than the length. Let us choose 4.

We now want all outcomes tailored first for 0 to a unique extent. The first four is our focus. 0000, 0001, 0010, 0100, 1000 and down the line. The following four is our next weight so 0100-0000 is more preferable than 0100-1000. 0111-1111 is more valuable than 1111-0000. Because it has a 0 in the front and we are building a bias there.

We could in theory, set up multiple substrings, so if the string was 16, we could do any number of substrings. Yes, the last substring is allowed to be less than full. Variable lengths could be done, but that is far more complex and was not tested. I am not a good enough programmer to test a huffman coding scheme in that area.

Anyhow, the next process takes a string, and cuts it into parts based on substrings and a key mechanism I call a trigger. If more than 2, a simple rule applies. Odd values before a cut are appended on one line, and even portions are appended on a second line. When done with this we would have two lines. For example if the trigger is 1111, then anytime a string we are handed has 1111 in it, the 1111 and everything left in front of it goes to line 1. We check the remainder for 1111 again (or you could change the trigger after first trigger activation, but that is more advanced) and split again if it happens in that specific string. But in our 8 bit string length, that is impossible.

So what happens is 00001111, 00011111, 00101111, 01001111, 10001111, 0101111, 1001111, 001111, 01111, and 1111 end up being the norm. But, I mentioned something and never really explained it, because we want to see this. If 1's are more important, then we want 1's

Our planned swap table reinforces this.

So normally it takes character frequency and applies that. For example a 4 bit swap would look like this:

1st most common = 1111
2nd most common = 0111
3rd most common =1011
4th most common = 1101
and 5th is 1110
6th ends are 1100 or such.... and so forth down the line.

This works because text is highly imbalanced and we know it. We take advantage of that for the first cycle and it usually is going to be desired to just leave it be, the gains would be too small. Yet for our set up, it was amazing.

The so back to the trigger stuff. Line 2 gets reversed, then appended to line 1. When you use a trigger to find where line 1 stops and we go to line 2, we know our string length. 10000 is five bits, we take three from line two in reverse.

We run the process, both of them combined, again after trying to find the most frequent and biasing them.

After 3 runs or so, usually, we have a little bit of a header, but line 1.1.1.1 is so biased to a desired output it is insane. 1.1.1.2 ends up being nearly so, and so forth until 2.2.2.2 ends up happening where instead we have basically got RAND. The majority of the line, due to the sort and substitution set up, ends up being biased to the desired character. In practice I have moved a document to 90% of one character in the front portion of the file, and even beyond that in some cases. The problem is, it just does not seem to be enough, counting wont quite beat just using a normal good compressor on the original text file. Other algorithmic compressors also do not work well.

We have an insane bias, but the bias is essentially RAND in nature. It just is not as effective as being able to guess follow up characters or even follow up words.

Some of the variations I tried, changed the substring length. It can really shake things up with a substring that creates multiple parts. You need to plan your replacement swaps to include that. So if zero is desired ZERO HEAVY| planned one heavy but favor zeroes|Zero Heavy is the way to go for what would be two possible trigger activation's. Or you could make an 8 bit substring have a 6 bit trigger. If the initial bias is severe, this actually has a great set of results because then 9 of the 256 possibles, is now got one or none for undesired bit types, and the bias for line one cuts will show this strongly. If 90% of the file first those 9 results, then go for it bro!!!

You can also literally divide the substrings based on their cuts, line 1 to line 100 for all I care. Pick the maximum number of lines, process each line separately. It makes it a wee bit hard to put back together, but maybe you have an idea. But line 1 and line 2? Yeah split them with ease. Work them, they always can remap if the work is lossless. So yeah you can have two save files even in theory.

The number of variations is part of why I gave up on this, it is just too many ways to vary it, and then to test it. Time consuming for a poor programmer like me, maybe not so bad for you.

Maybe someone can make something of it. If you are truly interested I will share the code.

I did play around, trying to make line 1 strictly 0's and line two strictly 1's. I had limited success, it still would not compress better. I also have a unique binary to ternary system and tried variations with it, but that was also unsuccessful.

Examples of my output:

This is for ALICE.TXT, the Canterbury Corpus file.

--- Harrington Report: ROOT ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 608360 bits | 1.41% 1s | Ratio: 69.79:1

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 608360 bits | 67.99% 1s | Ratio: 0.47:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 75 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 43055 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 43130 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.1 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 228135 bits | 0.00% 1s | Ratio: ALL-ZERO

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 380225 bits | 97.17% 1s | Ratio: 0.03:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 199 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 271 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.2 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 228135 bits | 22.02% 1s | Ratio: 3.54:1

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 380225 bits | 59.32% 1s | Ratio: 0.69:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 1409 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 1481 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.1.1 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.1.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 85551 bits | 0.00% 1s | Ratio: ALL-ZERO

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.1.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 142585 bits | 100.00% 1s | Ratio: 0.00:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 23 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 95 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.1.2 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.2.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 142587 bits | 0.28% 1s | Ratio: 359.07:1

[+] gemini-HCM-1.1.2.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 237645 bits | 94.23% 1s | Ratio: 0.06:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 1409 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 1481 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.2.1 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.1.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 85551 bits | 12.54% 1s | Ratio: 6.98:1

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.1.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 142585 bits | 66.95% 1s | Ratio: 0.49:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 1409 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 1481 bytes

-------------------------------------------

--- Harrington Report: 1.2.2 ---

Results Generated:

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.2.1.txt - Sub-branch .1 (Leading)

Stats: 142587 bits | 32.40% 1s | Ratio: 2.09:1

[+] gemini-HCM-1.2.2.2.txt - Sub-branch .2 (Reversed Tail)

Stats: 237645 bits | 53.62% 1s | Ratio: 0.86:1

-------------------------------------------

Header Size: 72 bytes (Lead+Meta)

Swap Table: 1409 bytes (Mapping Legend)

Total Overhead: 1481 bytes

-------------------------------------------