Ok so I hadn't read your other informative post just now.
Thanks and much appreciated for spending the time explaining your view.
You said:-
Nanoco's deal with Dow was a good sign, but I they haven't been able to back up any claims about their dots, and I think their performance is really holding them back. QMC has simply worked their way into being mentioned with these companies, even though there is no evidence to back that up besides their own claims. That's why I find this company so fascinating. They've built this reputation on "he said she said" without any industry acceptance.
---------------
OK, so was DOW a good sign? I never believed so. Nanoco HAS to have a DOW because their manufacturing capability is MASSIVELY expensive to install. It is neutral. QTMM does not have the same problem (does it?).
So DOW meant rather less to me, and I said so before (lo and behold) Nanoco do a split (or was it...?) to find a way through to gaining their own direct revenues. And yet, DOW are still committed it seems as they have previously signalled that this a big part of their future business streams.
You say Nanoco performance holds them back but they took £20m to work on scientific advances and the latest comment we have from Edelman is confidently stating they have the leading dots (and QTMM say they have moved forward on that score too, with leading dots). SO we have all three (including Nanosys) saying they have the leading dots..... But you think only Nanosys, due to...... sales? That would be sales for soon to be obsolete cad dots.
If Nanosys hyperion dots are out of favour then it is only QTMM or Nanoco... or nobody?
