Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
See, QMC isn't the only quantum dot supplier that announces partnerships and revenue and the share price goes no where. Too many years to make it to market for Nanoco and QMC has clearly made skeptics of some investors.
https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/2034622-nanoco-achieves-milestone-to-trigger-payments-from-us-customer
https://www.apnews.com/cf322a42e927426b9b9db953720e97fb
Samsung will show 'OLED' TV based on quantum dots
by Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 01/02/2019 09:17 AM | source: c\\\'t magazine |
Yes, that news title is a bit of a paradox eh? But is the claim really, perhaps OLED quality would describe it better. At the CES, the manufacturer wants to show a TV in which an organic luminescent layer based on quantum dots that provides high-color and high-contrast images.
Samsung apparently wants to rely again on OLEDs: The Korean display specialist uses a blue-glowing organic layer to stimulate quantum dots that produce red and green pixels from the blue light. The advantage over the previous LCD TVs with quantum dots: a viewpoint independent, high-contrast representation. The advantage over previous OLED TVs: extremely rich colors. In addition, the quantum dot OLED combination (QD-OLED) works in an energy-efficient way, as the complete light from the blue "OLED backlight" is used here for image generation. In LCDs, on the other hand, two-thirds of the light is blocked at the color filters and is therefore lost to the display.
The QD OLEDs also require a yellow reflector, which prevents the ambient light from exciting the quantum dots and emitting them, even though the underlying organic layer does not light up. The quantum dots for the red and green subpixels are printed in the pixel grid, while the organic luminescent layer is applied over a large area.
It consists of various organic layers, which can, however, be vapor-deposited cost-effectively and unstructured by means of CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposition) methods. As a result, no metal mask has to be precisely positioned and moved over the large TV substrates in production and, unlike the techniques used for smartphones, no expensive organic material is lost when the luminous layer is applied. Both of these factors led Samsung, among other things, to refrain from developing its 2013 OLED TV with a pixel matrix of red, green and blue organic light dots.
According to Digitimes, Samsung wants to redesign a generation 8 LCD factory for OLED fab with oxide TFT substrates. Thus, the manufacturer could go relatively quickly into series production. For example, the first samples will be available by mid-2019 and then run 25,000 substrates per month - if six (perfect) TV screens are cut from each substrate, that would be 150,000 TVs per month. By 2020, capacity will be doubled. However, Samsung still has a few technical hurdles to overcome. Samsung plans to apply the organic material to Canon coating machines and print the quantum material on Kateeva machines. What will cost such a QD OLED TV in the end, is still open. The goal can only be to not be significantly above the current OLED prices.
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/samsung-will-show-with-oled-tv-based-on-quantum-dots.html
Woohoo! Last trading day of the year. Cash in those last minute losses for your taxes!
Let’s see what 2019 and increases in revenue from India brings to the share price!
Hopefully additional deals will be inked too.
I think one thing no one has really discussed is lighting application. With accelerated testing in progress for the remote phosphor QLED, a LED lighting OEM could quickly adopt QMC’s new approach into their LEDs and improve light output while reducing energy usage relative to the output.
Lighting is a much larger market than displays. Therefore, revenue potential is greater. If QMC completes accelerated testing in 2019 and already has an interested lighting OEM, we could see revenue from this in late 2019.
I would hope it’s much sooner than that. Say end of 2019.
We may be going out of 2018 at $0.03, but if revenues start getting recorded from the India deal and they see $3-6 million (reactor or reactors delivery and setup) from this deal in the next few filings and more deals are landed, we should be finishing 2019 between $0.30 and $3.00.
We require an up front (initial) milestone payment for us to order materials.
We then have a delivery milestone which absorbs the labor costs for fabrication and transport to client site.
We’ll agree to disagree. I deliver systems, setup for services, and deliver services. We get paid for procurement of materials, delivery of equipment, setup (commissioning), training, and services for operation of equipment.
Historically, news doesn't come between now and CES.
Samsung jumps out of the gates for first CES product line announcement.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2018/12/19/samsung-unveils-new-designer-4k-tvs/
It appears they have $1 million up front for signing the licensing agreement. I believe we will have to wait to see that in the next 10Q as a revenue item.
in addition to technology development funding, scheduled milestone payments and royalties on all quantum dots/solar cells produced.
The use of the word "Shrink" is a bit misleading. They aren't shrinking anything. They are just making smaller objects.
Next-Generation Materials to Tackle the Energy Challenge
by F. Pelayo García de Arquer, University of Toronto
Monday, 17 December 2018 @ 12 pm
ICMAB - Sala d'Actes Carles Miravitlles
Abstract:
The ever-growing energy demand and increasing CO2 emissions call for large-scale solutions for renewable energy harvesting and storage. Colloidal quantum dots (CQDs) and metal halide perovskites are solution-processed materials tunable across the solar spectrum, representing a compelling material platform for standalone flexible photovoltaics or as a complement to existing cSi technologies. I will begin by showing how CQD tunability can be exploited to achieve solar-matched multispectral energy harvesting beyond Si bandgap. I will present a new strategy that, using quantum-dot-in-perovskite solids, addresses the major bottleneck in solution-processed materials: their poor stability, showing how lattice-anchoring in cesium-lead halide perovskites leads to enhanced optoelectronic properties and days-to-months extended stability. In the second part of my talk, I will focus on energy storage through the electrochemical upgrade of CO2. An efficient electrocatalyst should combine high selectivity with high productivity (high current density) at low overpotentials. At these conditions most metal catalysts exhibit extensive reconstruction.
I will present a new approach to design electrocatalysts with targeted properties using 2D metal oxyhalides that lead to record activity for CO2 electroreduction. High-performance hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) catalysts are needed for the conversion of renewable electricity to fuels. Today’s best HER catalysts show their highest performance in acidic media. Unfortunately, this environment is incompatible with the operation of bacteria capable of efficiently upgrading CO2 to value-added chemicals; and is also far from the characteristics of the largest source of water: seawater. I will conclude by presenting an HER catalyst design strategy that achieves high activity in neutral media through anisotropic surface doping to destabilize the H-OH bond in water molecules.
http://icmab.es/next-generation-materials-to-tackle-the-energy-challenge-by-f-pelayo-garcia-de-arquer-mon-17-dec-2018
Ok. Forgot context of your first reply. I never understood the beginning or end of day action on this stock. We’ve see the reverse where they caused it to be significantly lower than the majority of the trading day price.
I don't know who likes to take a 15% immediate loss on a trade like that (about $7 transaction cost with several of my brokers on a $39 purchase).
I'm sure some people might to try and paint the end of day price, but for what purpose? What do they really gain by this?
I'm clueless as to the motive. Educate me!
Unlikely to be such small sales. More likely they are partial fills left over from larger orders or the start of larger orders.
Painting the price higher from day to day doesn't do much to this stock. We all have seen that there' little sense to the trading and share price movement.
Interesting tidbits in this interview with Nanosys' Russell Kempt.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/526856d7e4b05b8fbefaa9b6/t/5c1176c4575d1ff3c280f993/1544648389591/Interview+with+Russell+Kempt+from+Nanosys.pdf
Note that Nanosys has shipped 15 tons (about 15,000 kg) of qdot materials. We can speculate on their revenue to date from sales alone.
Not sure a what price point and what concentration in solution that the material was, but if you assumed $25-100 per gram of solution, their revenues are between $375 million to $1.5 billion.
Based on things I've read, it's probably closer to the $25 as the solution isn't too concentrated.
Latest on K&L gates suit in Texas:
12/10/2018 Notice Plaintiff's Notice of Oral Deposition
12/13/2018 Motion K&L Gates LLP's Motion to Quash Deposition of Charles Tea
12/13/2018 Motion Defendant K&L Gates LLP's Motion to Dismiss Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 27.001 et seq. and Attorney Immunity
01/16/2019 Motion To Dismiss (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Boyer, Bruce)
http://public.co.hays.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=13069931
http://www.dallasbar.org/book-page/attorney-immunity-and-lawyers%E2%80%99-responsibilities-non-clients
Not sure how you claim attorney immunity from 3rd party liability when you are being sued for conflict of interest violations and representing two parties at the same time. But, that apparently is K&Ls first approach to dismissal.
Lol! There may be difference between smart people and smart investors! ;)
Smart people can all have different risk profiles.
I think it's as couple people are mentioned. QMC has made announcement of revenues in the past that didn't materialize. I think investors want to see either a PR that money has been transferred or see it in the 10Q.
After we get that, then new investors may be willing to invest.
I noted something similar the other day. There is/are big bids hidden under the other bids. The seller hit them for a big chunk the other day.
I’m curious as to who may be buying such large blocks. I honestly haven’t purchased more than a couple hundred thousand shares in on day.
A million shares at 3.2 cents is a nice chunk of change, $32,000.
You’re not getting my point. Has man kind always waited until science proved something to without a doubt to take action? The answer is no. Mercury, lead, asbestos are all materials that we took action on as the evidence built up that they were harmful to human health.
You’re premise is that we shouldn’t do anything because the models and evidence may not be fully substantiated or some portion of the hypothesis may be false, bad models, etc.
So under your thinking, man should never take action to reduce risk to our existence unless we know without a doubt that the action taken will achieve a specific outcome.
My argument is that man’s existence is impacting the earth. Whether it’s chemicals that are harmful to humanity or organisms directly or potentially harmful to the whole ecosystem or climate, we should be good stewards and try to minimize the impact of our lives on the earth by minimizing all by-products of our existence and civilization.
You keep trying to misrepresent my argument as having something to do with climate science or the lack of enough proof for your acknowledgement. I don’t need science to believe that I should try to minimize my long term impact from the by-products of my existence. One example is plastic. Burning of fossil fuels is polluting period. There’s no denying that pollution comes from
this source without even acknowledging CO2 emissions. If we can derive a better source of energy that has zero emissions, then mankind is better off as well as the earth’s ecosystem.
Ok. So we don’t call it a pollutant. But it’s a greenhouse gas and is known to cause that effect on our atmosphere.
We can’t measure with certainty the long term impact of our continued emissions. That’s not an argument to not reduce an emission if possible and within economic capability.
Arguing people don’t want to pay for more expensive energy sources is invalid. People don’t like paying for current pollution filtration, yet the cost is passed along to consumers.
Who of us doesn’t want something as cheap as possible for the benefit it provides to us?
You didn’t quote my exact words at all.
I compared past types of known emissions being eventually deemed as pollutants and subsequent management to mitigate that pollution at a price to the cost of energy productions.
Per wiki: “A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.”
You tell me if CO2 has an undesired effect. It’s a fact that it’s a greenhouse gas.
That’s your interpretation as interchangeable. Not how I wrote it.
You can argue against the science or models all you want. I could care less.
I’m an advocate to minimize human impact on the earth as population continues to rise. CO2 is a emission from man, pure and simple. It’s a fact that it’s a greenhouse gas.
I could care less how much of a scam you think the science is or the politics behind it. Fact is we are emitting CO2 and it, as a greenhouse gas, could potentially assist is the rise in global temperatures. These are all scientific facts and irrefutable. Projections and model inconsistencies are irrelevant. If we have the tech to reduce a man made emission, we should do so as we can’t prove ultimate impact on our earth.
I didn’t define CO2 as a pollutant if you reread my post. I called it a man made emission. You can’t argue it’s not a man made emission, it’s a fact.
As far as your argument about missed models, I don’t rightly care. I know from my own scientific deduction that we are emitting a gas into the atmosphere via an unnatural process. There is a causality to everything. What is the impact from that CO2 emission? We can only guess and unfortunately the environment is very complicated with astronomical, geological, and man made inputs.
I agree we can’t accurately model the outcome, but should that stop us from trying to reduce a gas emission that we know is our fault regardless of knowing the exact outcome? The outcome clearly can’t be a natural outcome since the input is artificial to the global geological and environmental processes.
On the subject of being better to our environment to our benefit, your logic is slightly flawed. Just because the cost to produce electricity from a less polluting mechanism is higher doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying to reduce human impact by reducing chemical emissions.
We’ve cut back substantially on pollutants since the industrial revolution began. Why? Because the pollutants were found to be bad for human health and living organisms, such as mercury and lead. What did we do to reduce those emissions? We installed expensive filtration systems which increased the cost of electricity.
We know that burning of fossil fuels artificially (human made not a natural earth process) exhaust CO2 into the atmosphere. So why shouldn’t we try to minimize doing that whether we can prove at the moment it is contributing to global climate.
Unfortunately, the timeline for earth processes are so long that man can’t accurately calculate the impact due to all the complicated factors that make up the earth natural processes.
So since the earth process timeline is so long and can’t be accurately modeled and the short amount (decades/century) of empirical data hasn’t matched some models, means we should reduce human emissions?
I’m an advocate of being a human who tries to minimize over human impact to our environment by reducing overall dumping of human made garbage or emissions to the environment. Solar is one technology that when paired with a good storage system (still being developed) will ultimately make for a cleaner environment by reducing all man made emissions to the environment which includes CO2.
We’ve always seemed to have sellers of large chunks from time to time. I think it’s equally interesting at how quickly the shares were purchased in such large blocks.
Is some large buyer there waiting to buy large blocks when the sellers come along? Is someone accumulating a huge block of ownership?
You're right, I missed the last couple paragraphs in the video when I was pausing and progressing the video.
Regardless, we don't know that QMC is paying for this. One of the large investors could potential pay for it.
We do need more investor awareness that this investment exists. Per the last OTCQB certification, there are less than 300 shareholders. That's not even close to being a acceptable level to allow for liquidity or to signify that investors are aware of this investment opportunity.
Not in video disclaimer. I read the video disclaimer. Regardless, I don’t care if it’s paid. We need more investor awareness that QMC even exists.
Found this from yesterday. Getting a little coverage.
He's a long time investor and former co-worker of mine.
He's definitely more professional. He is presenting his view point on the potential of QMC. No cool-aid drinking. The potential is true, but we still need to see revenues and marketable products.
We all hope you are right and that we'll all be really surprised by the efficiency of their cell in the not too distance future.
While I agree and am excited about QMC's first source of revenue, we have little to no information on their proposed solar cell.
In my opinion, this is why the market has not reacted to the AMTRON (Assam, India) licensing agreement, on top of waiting for actual 10Q with $1 million in revenue showing.
If QMC would have had a demonstration solar cell for pictures and provided some early efficiency or performance information, the share price would be screaming right now, assuming the efficiency was above the 15% commercially viable QDSC threshold previously noted by Squires.
Combine the infrared with visible light records for QDSC of around 12%, and they are at over 20% overall energy conversion. I say this considering that today's silicon based solar cells are not known for infrared conversion.
I know very little of actual solar cell architecture, but I would think with quantum dots, they could combine a quantum dot that absorbs visible light with one that absorb infrared (in separate layered sheets, possibly?) and have a solar cell that is high enough in energy conversion to make it cost effective.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/iiop-cqd120318.php
February 15
You're welcome. Really, I've posted over 4,000 times in the last 5 plus years?
That's a lot of interaction. Maybe I should lay low for awhile, lol.