InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

puravida19

10/24/17 2:55 PM

#60732 RE: trevorbc #60731

Nanoco gets my vote for best hyped company, using a combination of paid promoters and underwriters combined with getting PR for contracts signed but never fulfilled, again and again.
icon url

puravida19

10/24/17 3:23 PM

#60734 RE: trevorbc #60731

This post is more for newer board members. Champion samples = High quantum yield and narrow FWHM quantum dots.

The lower the quality, the more QD are needed to increase the brightness, the higher the cost. Every company can make champion samples by increasing processing and centerfuging out the poorer QD.

QMC makes all samples on its automated continuous flow process machine (The ACFPM?) so sample and final product are the same. Shareholder letter says QMC is focused on tweaking to clients specifications. Others have mentioned OEMS want to be sure before committing their billions building Fabs. If QMC can demonstrate a better product, uniformity, and quantity, it will get a better price.
icon url

quarrydawg

10/24/17 4:33 PM

#60739 RE: trevorbc #60731

Regarding "Nanoco's" ability to ramp up production, maybe that's why they are getting their Runcorn dots into films and Dow hasn't been able to move their Korean made dots. Quality control has never been the biggest selling point for overseas manufacturing. Granted, i'd buy a Hyundai before a Chinese car (if there was one on the US market), but Hyundais are still lunchbox-tinker toys compared to Japanese, American, and European cars. It will be interesting to see if Merk keeps their manufacturing of Nanoco dots in Germany and if so, will they have better luck selling them.

As to the "blah, blah, blah," if you've been on this board for more than a week, you know the merits of QMC. That's why I invested here years back. It seems that rather than engage in a conversation, many here just want to pepper curious minds with the merits of QMC. So when I make a post, i try to fend off those responses by illustrating to some degree that i know what the QMC IP is, and I'm sick of being peppered with it in responses without any other useful insights. Picture this, a guy who's good looking, and well endowed, and drives a nice car, but he doesn't know how to listen, doesn't focus on the needs of his partner, and is just over all boring. Him saying "but i'm hot, I have a nice car, and look at the size of this!! Why won't you go out with me?!?!" Sounds like Blah, Blah, Blah to me.

So yeah, according to what QMC says, they have what it takes. I believe they now can make the dots the industry wants, in quantity. So what is interesting to me is how they move forward. Looking at other companies' successes, failures, and everything in between gives us some idea of where QMC could and or will go and that, to me, is interesting fodder for discussion. Sitting around going over the same old bullet list is akin to those three guys from the small town that never left and talk about that one high school football game over and over again. Once you've heard it the first time, you've got it. The second time you hear "Blah, Blah, Blah," and eventually you ignore them completely.

I don't tend to post unless asked a question, i believe i have a different way of looking at the evidence, and or i've found something i believe to be worthy of discussion. If you're (not Trevorbc specifically) interested in the conversations i try to start, great! Let's talk! If not, don't reply, or at least don't react like i made a pass at your wife.