Replies to post #52817 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[MrDots]

I looked at my other option and having reviewed their delay after delay even having a 7 or more year advantage I decided on QMC.The hiring of Nathan Stott and appointment of Sri Peruvemba to CEO as well as reading many white papers and patents on the process of making nanoparticles I felt my best risk to reward was with QMC.Nanosys are a public company and its hard to tell how successful they are without financial filings to review.I believe the whole industry is still finding it's foothold,some qd companies may fall as in QD Vision,some may slip or maintain a foothold and some may climb.I guess my vote was cast when I invested a short while ago and it's whom I believe as a public company will climb from where they are currently.Thanks for your personal opinions.

[JimmyBendrix]

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?

[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?