Replies to post #50119 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[JimmyBendrix]

It is speculation which draws upon various public statements. As I said I am open minded at present

[BigE1960]

Right or wrong, because of their licensing arrangement, folks typically combine Dow and Nanoco. Dow has relationships and sells multiple products to Samsung. Whether or not that currently includes QD's has yet TBD.

[wynns01]

And from Nanosys' twitter account Samsung was there visiting less than a month ago.

Here's my take on things such as secondary suppliers. Because every QD synthesis method is slightly different, the resulting dots can be highly variable. I don't mean variable "batch to batch" so to speak (QMC can produce consistent batches, Nanosys can produce consistent batches, Nanoco can produced consistent batches, etc.), but more in the sense of final product specifications (ie, FWHM, Emission Wavelength, etc.). Because of this, I don't think that Samsung, or any display manufacturer for that matter, would use a secondary supplier that has a different manufacturing process from the one they're currently using. For example, Hansol isn't a QD company. They're a chemical manufacturer. They use technology and patents from Nanosys, and probably have their manufacturing set up to mirror Nanosys', so they can produce the dots to the exact specifications needed. Nanosys makes money off of every Hansol dot or Samsung TV sold I imagine as part of the licensing deal (or it could have been a set payment, I don't know the details obviously). I'm not saying that Samsung wouldn't use Nanoco, but I imagine if they did, Nanoco/Dow would have to follow the same synthesis procedures that Nanosys/Hansol use (for reference Nanoco uses a "seeding" synthesis, which they claim is unique to them), which turns right back around and puts more money in Nanosys' pocket, and basically making Nanoco "non-essential".

I've come to realize there is a big difference between making dots, and making quality dots. From the light research I've done in academic papers and various patents, it's quite hard to get all of the specifications with a run of the mill process it seems. What I mean is that if you want to hit a certain emission wavelength for example, there's often a trade off in the full width half maximum of the dots, and vice versa. This is where a lot of research goes into meeting certain specs with synthesis modification, hence every QD company having slightly different methods. Perhaps this has been the biggest hold up for QMC? Flow through might be the cheapest, but if the specifications display OEMs want can't be met, there's not going to be any sales. 100% speculation here but maybe that's what ND gave the 250k for? As a small budget to do some research into whether or not QMC could alter the synthesis to meet certain specs? That might explain why there was no deliverables needed?

[RPR]

They may not have a relationship but they did try for one year ago. That time Samsung outright rejected their Dots and publicly stated they are of bad quality and not stable enough. Things could have changed and new samples may be good. Or in our biased view the new alternate supplier might be QMC?