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.
Who is this "diminuative psychopath" you are referring to?
I dont think so
Companies typically check off the "No" box simply to avoid the requirement to provide details.
("If so, attach an explanation of the anticipated change, both narratively and quantitatively, and, if appropriate, state the reasons why a reasonable estimate of the results cannot be made.")
somebody was paying partial attention
In the context of the filing "earnings" does not mean " revenue ".
Revenue minus expenses equals earnings. We still are in the red so nothing to report. Big deal. Just wait till end of 2012
No significant change in earnings?
(3)
Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof?
Yes ¨ No þ
Thanks for the pictures coho54
In the last two pictures you can clearly see the gathering line ( pipe which snakes over the fence ) which can bring product to the bulk distribution point, which in this case is the railway siding.
....long and strong
My point was that the UofT "breakthrough" works in the lab, but they can't commercialize it without the ability to lay down a nano thin layer of refractive material....which seems to be exactly what Natcore can do.
Flexible OLED needs deposition technology
University of Toronto photonics lab just announced and demonstrated the first functional flexible OLED
(link below)
The article goes on to describe of the device which is an OLED light on flexible substrate (there is a pic in the article) and it's wide potential for use worldwide.
Here is the part that I think should concern Natcore, from the article:
"However, the nature of OLEDs means a lot of light tends to get trapped in their structures, resulting in poor efficiencies of 20-30 per cent. The established way to avoid this problem is to fabricate the devices on substrates with a high refractive index, such as crystal glass, which can channel the light outwards and thereby improve efficiency. But glass isn't flexible, so flexible OLEDs have had to stay largely in the poor-efficiency camp.
This is all set to change, according to Michael Helander of the University of Toronto. Helander, working with colleagues at Toronto and Queen's University, Ontario, has come up with a way to keep OLEDs on flexible plastic while boosting efficiency. Instead of using an entire substrate of high-index material to channel light outwards, the researchers insert a very thin layer on top of the substrate, beneath the OLED. This high-index layer - tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), just 50-100nm thick - appears to have the same effect as making the entire substrate high-index, and demonstrates an efficiency (for green light) of 63 per cent.
Michele Muccini, an expert in OLEDs at the Bologna Research Area of the Italian National Research Council, says the development by Helander and colleagues has 'great value' for the field of organic optoelectronics. However, he adds that low-cost mass production remains a challenge, because of the logistics and cost of processing Ta2O5 by sputtering. 'Finding alternatives to these materials and processing will be part of the next steps of the development strategy,' he says.
(bold type is mine)
Seems an ideal fit for our non sputtering technology. Can someone alert Natcore about this?
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/October/31101102.asp
You missed my point which was about the final product oil being burnt by our customers.
What I meant is that when you burn the fuel output it is lost, and also causes environmental problems. When you recycle the output oil into plastic products, which themselves can be put back thru our processors, it just keeps on giving, with no downside, or prospect of ever running out.
True value of JBII : ultimate feedstock recycling
I am excited about the concept of having a JBI plant onsite at every factory using hydrocarbons as a feed stock.
Burning the stuff as fuel will get us off the ground as a business, but is dumb in the long run.
I think we all need to start viewing the hydrocarbons in plastic or oil as modular building blocks which can be broken down and reassembled into new products.
Again I want to say that burning the stuff is just plain dumb. No to mention damage to climate.
I think John is smart enough to see this, and hopefully has a long range view similar to mine.
best
Pete
New on board
Been watching this for a year, just bought in 5k for starters.
good luck y'all
Pete
"You" have no "proprietory rights" until a patent is granted.
You are giving me more power and influence than I possess.
The stock market is about reality, not fantasy, except that people lost in fantasy can be taken advantage of by investors who take that into account.
Why do you think that my asking questions that you yourself should have asked for your own DD is a problem for you?
If the company can withstand the questions, then invest, if not then don't. Otherwise it's a more like a cult. However, I actually think there might be some potential with this company. But I am not foolish enough to invest blindly, or on a dream.
I was serious about buying into QTMM in a big way if my questions were answered. I have no desire to bring anybody down. I am sorry if my referring the info of the milestones not being met to others offended you. Believe me, any serious investor watching would have noticed the same thing. Once again, DD. On the face of it, the SEC reports,etc, QTMM really did look like it was going down. $8500 back in the day and no income since. I was also serious about my motives. You can take that or leave it, no skin off my neck.
You can malign me all you want, but that does not change the reality on the ground.
Many on this board have said that they cant figure why investors are staying away from this company. You don't take risk without information at hand. And you will recall, after several posts of other folks asking about the status of the milesones, after they had expired, it took my using tougher methods to tease that info out of Squires. It worked. I shouldn't have had to do that.For the life of me I can't understand why he didn't announce the extensions up front. Surely that would have helped the cause.
Finally, I hope you will get over it, and realize that the market is not for folks who are fearful or paranoid. Stand tall and get tough. And demand the info that is your right as a shareholder!
Now that we're getting all warm and fuzzy about first impressions, I guess it's safe to stick my toe into the pond again.
Here's where I am coming from. I want to use whatever resources I have to accelerate our getting off fossil fuels, for the sake of my kids, also to make a killing in the process, for which I am willing to wait, as in "hold" my stocks.
Sometimes while doing DD I see the possibility of synergy between two technologies, and invest in both of em. The name "Pete" should have given you all a clue that I am up to speed on the latest.
I must say I didn't appreciate being called "uninformed" a while back, merely for asking some hard hitting questions. Presumably, being "uninformed" is the prerequisite for wanting to inquire?
re solterra/qtmm, I have two points to raise.
Squires strategy seems to have a chance of success for another reason not yet mentioned on this board. A number of analysts in the past year have shown that there will soon be a big overcapacity in solar manufacturing. Meaning that some players will go down. Why build new, when you can soon get whole plants at liquidation prices. I am talking about structures, frames and assembly jigs etc of panels, not the solar collection media themselves.
Second, and don't shoot me. I have been following this stock for many months, but can't bring myself to buy yet. The "stealth" thing is a big turn off. But the main thing is that there is as of yet no patent....merely an application...with many other players in the nano game, who might step up and challenge the patent. I'd love to be corrected if I am mistaken, I'll call my broker asap and buy a big chunk.
Another niggling doubt is stated in the patent application, that is the disclosure that 3M company, which partly funded the qdot research at Rice, may have a partial claim to the patent. Any info on the status of that would be appreciated/
My conjecture is that the reason Squires can renegociate his deal with Rice is exactly because the patent is not final yet, and that foot dragging is advantageous for the reasons mentioned above and that Rice can't enforce the deal because of the patent not yet being final. I repeat this is only my conjecture, and I stand willing to be corrected.
So I invite y'all to have a dialogue, based on facts, with me, and we might all benefit.
RE: PETE check out google and find that there is one company on the big board who controls almost all the world's supply of Ce mineral. Once again synergy is possible, both in technology and investment.
Y'all have a good day.
Questions about QTM
I have been wanting to buy QTM for some time, but DD keeps bringing up things that seem unresolved. Perhaps you can answer some of these?
~Has QTM actually made a bulk batch of qdots at a commercial scale, and if so have they been tested by end users or independant labs?
~Since there has been no announcement as to whether QTM has met it's required milestones with the patent holder Rice U, does that not preclude the principles in the company from raising operating funds for day to day expenses by selling stock? I would suspect that insider trading laws would apply here, as either the meeting, or the default, of the milestones would have to effect the company's value, seeing how Rice's intellectual property is their only product so far.
~How else is the company funding it's operations day to day? My concern is that share value could be diluted should the company have to pay for salaries and services through the means of offering future shares
Correction re posted comments about Nanoco
Nanoco does not make CdaSe dots except in small quantities for research. Their patents cover bulk manufacturing of cadmium free dots,covering a wide non toxic spectrum of the periodic table. Cadmium is banned in many markets, and Nanoco hopes to gain an edge because of this. Most stateside Qdot makers have gone the cadmium route, which I think could be a mistake.
Nanoco's dots are structurally different as well, being spheres, while QTM's are tetrapods.
Also the Nanoco share price was mis-stated in a lower post. It ranges around 89-92 pence (not dollars)lately. That would be around $1.36 US today.
Can you give me the source of your contention that QTM can deliver bulk QDots more cheaply than Nanoco, or others? There is a big difference between per gram price for research use and the bulk price in kilos for end user manufacturing. Are you sure you haven't been comparing apples to oranges?
`
Thanks for the clarification
Perhaps I misspoke in my enthusiasm for Natcore's technology and it's possibilities. I acknowledge that its patent for thin film disposition has many uses and stands alone as a key process in the commercial realisation of many new products.
My query could be re addressed as follows:
If a solar panel maker licenced Natcore's technology, and wished to make very efficient cells combining thin film with Quantum dots, (Nano dots) does Natcore hold rights, or patents, on the mass production of such dots? Or would the maker have to licence from other companies, such as Nanoco, QM et al.
I am aware, from reading Natcore's site, that it has worked with combining QD and thin film in the labs at Rice, but I have seen no mention of Natcore's holding any rights to mass production techniques therein.
My question had to do with the huge commercial synergy possible by being able to supply both requirements up front.
regards
CP
Why market falls on good news
Check out this link http://blog.afraidtotrade.com/why-might-a-stock-fall-on-good-news/ then remember this is a long term hold stock, and go and enjoy life meanwhile
Valuable Rice patent licence maybe up for grabs?
I have holdings in Natcore, and am wondering if anyone here has contacts with the firm. My research has noticed that Quantum Materials Inc, (Solterrra Renewable Technologies) may be about to default on their licence to use the Rice patent covering the mass production of nano particles, which are essential to develop the full potential of Natcore's technology.
The QM licence with Rice specifies that there be a "plant" in place by June 30 2010 producing I kg of nano particles. However in their most recent SEC filing QM states the following:
"At March 31, 2010, the Company had not yet achieved profitable operations, has accumulated losses of $5,449,952 since its inception, at March 31, 2010, has a working capital deficit of $2,293,702 and current assets of $8,557. The Company needs substantial and immediate financing to sustain operations and to meet its obligations over the next twelve months, as it expects to incur further losses in the development of its business, all of which raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon its ability to generate future profitable operations and/or to obtain the necessary financing to meet its obligations and repay its liabilities arising from normal business operations when they come due. The Company is exploring all avenues of financing at this time and can provide no assurances that such financing will be obtained on terms satisfactory to the Company, if at all.
Note 3. Related party transactions
During the nine months ended March 31, 2010, the Company accrued $90,000 which was expensed but not paid for services to the CEO / major shareholder. During the nine months ended March 31, 2010 the Company recorded $8,292 of rent expense for the use of executive office space in the home of the CEO / major shareholder.
Included in accrued liabilities – related party of $554,390 is $120,000 due to Mr. Stephen Squires, the CEO / director of the Company, for unpaid wages. The remainder of the accrued liabilities – related party of $434,390 consists of unpaid wages to other officers and related parties of the Company. At June 30, 2009 there was $40,368 due the director of the Company and $122,319 due the officers of the Company.
Included in advances - related party of $108,098 is $102,552 cash advances due to Mr. Squires and $5,546 unpaid expenses due to other officers and related parties of the Company.
On January 20, 2010, the Board recognized that Mr. Stephen Squires has made loans to the Company and may make additional loans to the Company. The Board approved granting Mr. Squires a two-year option to convert up to $200,000 of cash advances into a maximum of 5% of the outstanding common stock of Solterra currently 100% owned by the Company."
...which begs the question of whether QM can meet it's licensing requirement.
Perhaps Natcore could make a few calls to Rice and get the inside track on aquiring this patent should QM not deliver?