Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[JimmyBendrix]

Ps. Genuinely interested what keeps you here apart from the obvious risk/reward scenario.

Are the film makers the problem here you think? Not the dot makers who can all get a slice of pie if (or when?) the film makers can reduce the cost (i.e. no risk to the OEMs to sit tight for now).

Comment from Nanoco about 2 years ago made me think it was the downstream film maker business which was hard to get right. And causing the delays. Deposition alignment and consistency, anyways.

And also this from the Nanoco reply to the ROHS exemtion:-

http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IX/Request_2013-2/20131106_Nonoco_Dow_Contribution_Ex_2013-2_Response_to_RoHS_Questionnaire.pdf

The bit I can't quite understand is this:-

The applicant suggests cadmium-based quantum dots reduce energy consumption of up to 20 % compared to rare-earth LED down-converters (conventional LCD TVs). Any such energy saving would be likely to apply to CFQD™ quantum dot down-converted LEDs. However, our understanding of the energy savings associated with LED down-conversion technology is that it originates from the LED backlight rather than the QD colour converters; LEDs are more efficient than previously used backlight sources such as fluorescent tubes. As such, there should be little difference in energy consumption between QD-LED-LCD displays and standard LED-LCD displays
--------------

Is this code for saying that the film makers for the cad free QDs need to improve? Or maybe a different point altogether...?

One negative scenario which springs to mind is that the film makers will never get this right, or just that there is so much competition in that industry there is constant advancement (and delay).

I will be happy to sit tight if this is a logical reason.

I do not want to have to contemplate that all QDs are just not up to the required level and OEMs will turn to something else instead.

Thoughts?