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.
interesting article: New nanomaterial maintains conductivity in three dimensions
An international team of scientists has developed what may be the first one-step process for making seamless carbon-based nanomaterials that possess superior thermal, electrical and mechanical properties in three dimensions.
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2015/09/new-nanomaterial-maintains-conductivity-three-dimensions
one can read nanosys own words and form their own opinion.
I think it would have been more effective for you to just state your opinion and perspective.
wrt Nanosys meeting current mkt demand, (which implies only one) I imagine Nanoco and others would disagree.
Nanosys does have some revenues, but we've seen how fickle the mkt can be, (like Samsung & LG flip-flopping between QD/OLEDs or sources).
I am glad that QDX tm was designed to meet perceived shortcomings.
Looking Forward
you sound upset about what Nanosys is looking for in a chemist or what they're looking to achieve.
.....in a nascent evolving mkt, as what point does a company rest on their laurels?
I don't see QMC sleeping either, as they are continuing with steady steps of progress.
DK about you, but I expect every company to keep evolving in their endeavor to meet mkt needs.
QDX tm
Looking Forward
interesting pov of view. Was that your takeaway about Nanosys?
wrt QDX: as QDX was designed to meet mkt shortcomings, I'd think the perception of mkt needs had shifted and they were working to
meet or surpass them.
QDX tm
Looking Forward
Solterra has some interesting members
https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?f_CC=606723&trk=rr_connectedness
Small Business Owner at Solterra Renewable Technologies, Inc
Witbank Area, South Africa
venditore presso Solterra Renewable Technologies, Inc
Zürich Area, Switzerland
venditore presso - seller/vendor at
A vendor, or a supplier, is a supply chain management term that means anyone who provides goods or services to a company or individuals. A vendor often manufactures inventoriable items, and sells those items to a customer. Typically vendors are tracked in either a finance system or a warehouse management system.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=vendor
QDX tm
Looking Forward
Responsibilities:
Quantum dot formulation for QDEF product development:
•Optimize quantum dot synthesis, washing, ligand exchange; and optical measurements to confirm properties.
•Improve target optical specifications
•Improve synthesis repeatability
•Improve product lifetime
•Optimize formulation of QDs in polymeric resin systems.
•Scale up of a variety of processes from R&D scale.
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/66710867?trk=jserp_job_details_text
.....Nanosys is working on it
QDX tm: Designed to meet mkt needs
Looking Forward
Nanosys is working on..." we need to hire a Chemist who will work with our senior scientists and be responsible for the development, optimization, and formulation of cadmium-free quantum dots for QDEF product development. Responsibility includes improvement of material properties through synthesis and formulation efforts, as well as scale-up of processes and transfer to production."
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/66710867?trk=jserp_job_details_text
QDX tm was designed to meet specific mkt needs according to PR
Looking Forward
Good Find, Trevor
Thanks
Rock On, QMC!
....QDX tm Looking Good!
...."the substance of things hoped for, but the evidence of things not seen"
....makes you wonder why Buffet looks at fundamentals, but invests in people there.
.....know a person's track and you'll know the direction they're most apt to go
We know a bit about S Squires tracks and vision....
Peeps will abide by what they see, imo
...still Looking Forward ;)
Total number of reviews for OLED 4K 18
Total number of reviews for SUHD 4K 329
Total Review months for OLED 4K 6.8
Total Review months for SUHD 4K 8.1
Total Reviews/month for OLED 4K (55" + 65") 2.6
Total Reviews/month for SUHD 4K (55" + 65") 40.5
Ratio of SUHD Reviews/OLED Reviews 15.4
Assuming Review #'s Track with Sales Numbers
Dollars per month 55" OLED 4K $9,677.42
Dollars per month 65" OLED 4K $16,363.64
Dollars per month 55" SUHD 4K $73,064.52
Dollars per month 65" SUHD 4K $133,500.00
OLED 4K Revenue Per Month (55" + 65") $26,041.06
SUHD 4K Revenue Per Month (55" + 65") $206,564.52
Glad to hear your opinion.
To our future: Cheers
QDX tm
think the gist of the convo was be more like nanoco and have a partner like Dow....and the ensuing convo went into pro/con of a like relationship.......owning IP and most of revenues vs collecting royalties, (as well as Dow's exclusive rights)
I guess one could always go back and read the whole convo, (at least posts that remained) and make up their own mind as to convo flow and meaning.
....as to us, I imagine we'd continue to stick to our own pov
Yeah bit more than an impression, feel free to post all said quotes w/msg numbers.
It's not the first time you've bypassed questions, or didn't understand something
.....I presume you don't remember any convos wrt Dow/Nanoco and a like deal for QMC and ensuing pro/con....
Doesn't matter, glad you're being Big
....heel is showing
You still think QMC should be more like Nanoco? looks like a question
Obviously, you left that impression w/me; hence the question
Remind me, in what post did I say "think QMC should be more like Nanoco?"
neither confirms or denies stating such or what your opinion is.
The question was mine.
Looks like the quote was yours, but out of context,....nor did you answer the question.
That's Big
didn't waste the time, peeps remember or they don't.....don't really think your opinion will have any bearing on what QMC does or doesn't do.
Evidently the quality or lack thereof of Nanoco's qds didn't mean much to you either. No matter, happy w/what I have in QMC.
D-Wave is another that's been working w/quantum computers for a while.
....more quantum ventures seem to be popping up on a regular basis. There will also be a need for high quality QDs designed to meet specific needs as more and more ventures come online.
Life is Good
QDX tm
....and you've forgot any implication or reference of such, that's ok
....and you neither confirm nor deny orangey-red qd results, well that's ok too.
....yet you feel the need to correct any flawed logic, (according to you w/o knowing exactly how they came to a stated opinion).
I'm glad you feel your DD wrt QMC is productive and helpful
moving on
......might be, could be, what if.....
what if research is conducted w/o any focus towards results???
what if the sponsored research is towards specific results to address mkt needs??
Any proof about your statement, "QTMM has a marketing director whose only qualification is that he was a leader on this board.",
or is this more idle conjecture and speculation on your part? Did you speak to anyone at the company about this or is it something you just intuitively know?
"This company does a PR when they send out samples, and you don't think they would PR a sale of a few grand??"
j45's stated opinion was; "Disagree, I firmly believe that sample sales of a few grand here and there would NOT be Pr'd and there is no need. "
....any idea how he could state his opinion plainer for you?
ya, between deep red for plants @ 40C and orangey red for their display.....that was the stated opinion from CES, was it not?
.....who knows, maybe they've improved since then
You still think QMC should be more like Nanoco?
heard back when that the tetrapod qd prevented aggregation, of course lava dots also had benefits, then there's the benefits from the giant qds.......
Yes, back in the day, one of the scientests mentioned the superiority of the TQDs at that time.
.....of course CdSe TQDs were to be the flagship product at that time too, (if I rem correctly).
Is there anything that disproves that opinion?
Yes, some companies have contracts, but does that prove or disprove anything,....other than being considered good enough
for current perception of need(s).
Considering that tqds were discovered using ingredient(s) used in some shampoos, do you know of one that would be more environmentally friendly? Could it be considered a superior product in that respect?
Do you know of any other company that can produce qds in mass production with a higher heat tolerance, that has equal or better oxidation and moisture resistance? If not, could QDX tm be considered a superior product, (until proven otherwise)? Didn't Nanoco imply that their cfqd red qds were better for grow lights? Are you upset with them or just peeps that have an opinion that QMC's qds are superior?
It seems some have an opinion that tqds are in fact superior, (while others are being sarcastic). So which are you upset with, the peep(s) that believe in their opinion or the peep(s) that are being sarcastic?
It seems given the speculative nature of buying into any stock that one would start with a positive bias. Some have maintained that bias, while others are frustrated that things haven't happened the way they wanted or expected sooner. I've always maintained that: "it takes the time it takes".
Time will tell the rest of the story.
LOL, like the irony of some that say that they invested in QMC, yet find the means to praise & pumps others which can't be invested in, while holding QMC and peeps here to a higher standard.....something like that kind of funny?
......just gotta love the different povs. I hope peeps know what they own and stick with what they know.
Time will tell the rest of the story.
Looking forward to that story, myself.
.....time is, when the time is; not before. I knew that when I first bought in.
Steady Steps of Progress are a good indicator imo.
Looking forward to selling a few after revenues/contract....when it happens; not before
LOL, I find it ironic that any qtc play is speculative in nature and implies a certain amount of optimism, but any positive statement here is usually countered with a call for absolute facts, (the paradoxical opposite of speculation)
I like the signs we've been seeing from QMC.
Looking Forward
TSU: Grant Awards by Month
TITLE: Development of Advance Catalysis Materials and Methods
SPONSOR: Quantum Materials Corp
Amount: $106,941.00
Date: 6/21/2015
http://www.txstate.edu/research/resources/awards-archives/Awards-Archive-September-2014-August-2015.html
....this information has been out for a while. There must have been a reason why QMC sponsored that development.
Some may freak as they haven't seen revenues or contract yet. Me, I see it as another steady step moving toward a desired outcome,....meeting needs of mkt demand.
Looking Forward
.....at this point in time I'm surprised we haven't heard the question if S Squires is a real person???
too funny
Steady Steps of Progress is a good indicator, imo.
Good Fortune your way
Looking Forward
Thanks for the list. Imagine several companies are still trying to conform and improve their QDs.
....really like QDX tm
Any idea what the capex/opex is for Nanosys system?
sorry for any blokes in for the 12% plus sp drop in nanoco today thus far.
Glad things are going well for the competition. Any idea when their product will achieve parity with QDX tm.?
QMC may not have started when the others did, but I like the steady steps of progress.
Looking Forward
like the sentiment behind the thought,....and for nano industry as a whole
marked you
LOL, we get input from different pov's, (hopefully w/o harming or defaming another)which is a good thing for peeps to consider and value according to merit.
Cheers to the year of the monkey and a better understanding
marked you
I got that about the style the first time; Humor at Clay's expense, not so much.
I thought my response would provide an excellent opportunity for you to exemplify and contrast with a written example of
something you considered more professional and more in a style to which you are appreciative of.
Your written work would provide a contrast,.....and others could better understand where you're coming from.
Personally, I think it would have been more professional to have contacted Clay in private. To toss such stuff on a message board, (where it may have an impact on another's livelihood) for humor's sake.....well it leaves a bit to be desired imo.
Different opinions and pov's are part of a healty forum.
Thank you for yours
ya, and repeating your comment may make it appear more intelligent and relevant than it did the 1st time.
Care to illustrate your expertise so we have something to compare with.....mayhap, that will help others to see things from your pov.
Torrey Hills Capital was founded in 1998. http://www.torreyhillscapital.com/cliff-mastricola/
Given the history and time in business, I'd expect Torrey Hills Capital to pretty well know their market as to what works and what doesn't.
I did notice that Torrey Hills Capital is having a Conference:
Emerging Growth Conference
November 5 – 7, 2015 | Rancho Santa Fe, California
The Torrey Hills Capital Emerging Growth Conference is a great opportunity for small and microcap companies to meet with investment professionals. In a break from tradition, our conference will consist entirely of one-on-one meetings between issuers and investors followed by additional, dedicated networking opportunities.
____________________________________________________
.....Do you also think that QMC should refuse to attend,....or embrace the opportunity?
Good Kick, my friend
....what are you going to do for an encore? ; )
Looking Forward
Good find.
Having communicated with both in the past, (and watched their footsteps) I trust both to know their business and keep focused
on their objective(s).
This conference is another Step of Steady Progress and is a reflectioon of things being done and said focus.
I don't know when, but I'm pretty sure about the direction.
Keep on Rockin', my friend
Demdots,
I think Clay's update was a courtesy to some that asked. I imagine Torrey Hills has a group of investors of whom they apprise of new opportunities, (and update according to the level of interest expressed).
Were I in Clay's shoes, (after the ridicule expressed here) I'd refrain from sharing, (or at least request nodisclosure) wrt anything about the updates.
Neither he or QMC needs that kind of treatment.
....there was plenty of criticism, but I've yet to see what any thought was the proper presentation.
ih8aloss has done Solterra1, (and I like his work); but then he didn't criticize either.
I imagine the announced JDA set shockwaves throughout the nanotech sector, so suspect it's just a matter of time. ; )
Regards
will wonders never cease
QDX tm
Looking Forward
dk, maybe Clay is tired of being sliced and diced for entertainment purposes here and is more focused on new potential investors.
....of course it could just as easily be, timing his update w/other updates to follow, (Renshaw, Q,...)
Who knows?
National Science Foundation (NSF) has selected a consortium of industry, university and government partners to set up Nanotechnology Enabled Water Treatment Systems (NEWT) Center in Houston, US.
This ERC will involve collaborative efforts by experts from Rice, Arizona State University, Yale University and the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), who will work with over 30 partners, including Shell, Baker Hughes, UNESCO, the US Army Corps of Engineers and NASA.
http://www.water-technology.net/news/newsus-nsf-selects-consortium-of-industry-experts-to-develop-off-grid-water-treatment-system-4645466
.....QMC's neck of the woods : )
QDX tm
Looking Forward
NSF funds center to study and develop atomically thin coatings
The National Science Foundation has funded a one-of-a-kind joint university/industry center to study and develop atomically thin coatings. Led by Penn State, in collaboration with Rice University in Houston, Texas, the Industry/University Collaborative Research Center (I/UCRC) will design and develop advanced two-dimensional coatings engineered to solve fundamental scientific and technological challenges that include: corrosion, oxidation and abrasion, friction and wear, energy storage and harvesting, and the large-scale synthesis and deposition of novel multifunctional coatings.
Two-dimensional nanoscale coating materials exhibit unique properties that can be exploited in technologies such as glass and polymer manufacturing, automotive and electronics sectors, civil infrastructure, and marine antifouling and anticorrosion coatings. The Center for Atomically Thin Multifunctional Coatings (ATOMIC) will integrate world-leading research faculty at Penn State and Rice with leading industrial partners and national laboratories.
The National Science Foundation I/UCRC program is designed to grow U.S. innovation capacity by seed funding long-term partnerships among industry, universities, and the government. Members pool their funds to conduct pre-competitive research that solves fundamental problems that will advance the entire industry sector. The program builds relationships between companies and researchers, and provides students with real-world experience and future employment opportunities. The NSF provides the organizational framework along with funding for center administration, in this case over 1 million USD over five years between the two sites. The member companies provide funding for the center research.
Leading the ATOMIC center for Penn State are Mauricio Terrones, Terrones, professor of physics, professor of chemistry and professor of materials science and engineering, and Joshua Robinson, assistant professor of materials science and engineering and Corning Faculty Fellow. Jun Lou and Pulickel M. Ajayan, both professors of materials science and nanoengineering, are leading the ATOMIC center at Rice University.
“The focus of an I/UCRC is industry driven research, which is part of our new mission at Penn State. Ten companies have committed to support us, and we are excited about establishing new partnerships with other companies interested in coatings,” said Robinson.
Because this is such a new area of research there could be significant intellectual property that members will benefit from, he said. “In the future, we expect to create spin-out companies from our center,” Terrones added. “Coatings are everywhere. If we can solve the problem of corrosion, that will save society billions of dollars. If we can create multifunctional coatings that produce energy, that will be huge.”
Penn State’s vice president for research, Neil Sharkey, said, “My heartiest congratulations to Mauricio, Josh and their colleagues at Rice University. As an NSF I/URC, the Center for Atomically Thin Multifunctional Coatings is just the type of industry-university research partnership that we hope to accelerate here at Penn State. We are very proud to be hosting this new center and anticipate seeing highly innovative materials and coatings that will eventually hit the marketplace in any number of useful applications.
The Center, surrounded by highly advanced instrumentation and expertise within Penn State's Materials Research Institute and bolstered by the creativity of its industrial partners, promises to be a wonderful resource for our students and faculty and one with real potential to impact the economy of the commonwealth and the nation.
http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=41009.php
QDX tm
Looking Forward