James, my stance is that QMC management's plan IS the best way to build the company and maximize shareholder revenue in the long run.
I remind you that QDVision had TV deals. QDV is no more. Noone was better at promotion than Seth Coe-Sullivan. He either spoke at or led most conferences, always saying how great their quantum dots were.
Tesla is using a soon to be antiquated technology of silicon cells encased in glass. We've yet to see what efficiency and how many reject tiles they produce. They have lots of press, but don't answer those critical questions. Consumer Reports has a cost evaluation that says the high initial cost may not be justified unless you live there long enough for payback.
Hmm, I may move in 5 years, I will just get the regular tiles.
Edison put out a shiny report which appears to have been written by Nanoco, but at least they did not sugarcoat Nanoco's potential, as I quoted in my last post. QMC's capacity now is equal to what Nanoco's will be in 2+years.
Nanosys publishes 25000Kg of QD materials, but its really QD solution with a 10 to 20 percent load of QD. That is in the same range as QMC's capacity.
Lets talk about the reactor you say they have not bought. I don't know if they have or not. Wouldn't you want them to get their current reactor to full utilization of 2 metric tons/year before they made new purchases? That's good management, not being showy just to say 'we're the biggest producer!'. Isn't that what you want?
I hope you will not be misled by bright, shiny objects of early new technology which still needs more development and financing to become commercial. Primary to them becoming real will be advanced nanomaterials and quantum dots. Most all methods of nanomaterial production have an inherent fault - either imperfect uniformity, inability to scale at low cost, or is limited to only one type of material. QMC has none of those limits.
Regarding your fear that the train could leave the station before we get going. Despite everything you read about nanotechnology, we are still at the point of creation and the train is waiting for us. Samsung's new QD TV is selling for over $5000 I hear. Why? Either their cost of production is high or their quantum dots are poor and need heavy loading to get up to specs. QMC is the ONLY mass production choice for environmentally resistant quantum dots.
Kisco says our QD meets manufacturer's specs.
Here is my perspective - Lets say you are right and we are reaching critical mass in the demand by display manufacturers for quantum dots. You ever been on a fishing boat that tossed a bucket of chum overboard and boy did those fish go crazy feeding on those scraps. And then you put your hook in the water and start reeling in those hungry fish. If that is our situation now, well, sounds good to me. QD are in demand? We have QD! All they have to do is meet our terms, and we have a deal. How many times do you think Steve Squires could have taken the easy and cheap deal, like Nanosys, Nanoco and QDVision have in the past? More times than you think. QMC was born about nine years ago, and Squires vision has not changed, IMO. He learned early by mistakes, which delayed by did not ruin QMC. A vision is somethng you see clearly in your mind, and you can envision a plan to accomplish it. Thats what great people do. We are watching it now.
I remind you that QDVision had TV deals. QDV is no more. Noone was better at promotion than Seth Coe-Sullivan. He either spoke at or led most conferences, always saying how great their quantum dots were.
Tesla is using a soon to be antiquated technology of silicon cells encased in glass. We've yet to see what efficiency and how many reject tiles they produce. They have lots of press, but don't answer those critical questions. Consumer Reports has a cost evaluation that says the high initial cost may not be justified unless you live there long enough for payback.
Hmm, I may move in 5 years, I will just get the regular tiles.
Edison put out a shiny report which appears to have been written by Nanoco, but at least they did not sugarcoat Nanoco's potential, as I quoted in my last post. QMC's capacity now is equal to what Nanoco's will be in 2+years.
Nanosys publishes 25000Kg of QD materials, but its really QD solution with a 10 to 20 percent load of QD. That is in the same range as QMC's capacity.
Lets talk about the reactor you say they have not bought. I don't know if they have or not. Wouldn't you want them to get their current reactor to full utilization of 2 metric tons/year before they made new purchases? That's good management, not being showy just to say 'we're the biggest producer!'. Isn't that what you want?
I hope you will not be misled by bright, shiny objects of early new technology which still needs more development and financing to become commercial. Primary to them becoming real will be advanced nanomaterials and quantum dots. Most all methods of nanomaterial production have an inherent fault - either imperfect uniformity, inability to scale at low cost, or is limited to only one type of material. QMC has none of those limits.
Regarding your fear that the train could leave the station before we get going. Despite everything you read about nanotechnology, we are still at the point of creation and the train is waiting for us. Samsung's new QD TV is selling for over $5000 I hear. Why? Either their cost of production is high or their quantum dots are poor and need heavy loading to get up to specs. QMC is the ONLY mass production choice for environmentally resistant quantum dots.
Kisco says our QD meets manufacturer's specs.
Here is my perspective - Lets say you are right and we are reaching critical mass in the demand by display manufacturers for quantum dots. You ever been on a fishing boat that tossed a bucket of chum overboard and boy did those fish go crazy feeding on those scraps. And then you put your hook in the water and start reeling in those hungry fish. If that is our situation now, well, sounds good to me. QD are in demand? We have QD! All they have to do is meet our terms, and we have a deal. How many times do you think Steve Squires could have taken the easy and cheap deal, like Nanosys, Nanoco and QDVision have in the past? More times than you think. QMC was born about nine years ago, and Squires vision has not changed, IMO. He learned early by mistakes, which delayed by did not ruin QMC. A vision is somethng you see clearly in your mind, and you can envision a plan to accomplish it. Thats what great people do. We are watching it now.
7
