|Nice to see the Wall Street confidential mentioning Nanoco.. Currently oversold...HttP://wsconfidential.com/technical-investors-are-checking-in-on-shares-of-nanoco-group-plc-nano-l/10774.html|
|Don't see much of this happening in 2016, but may be wrong. I think peeps are holding back to see if this hits 40p again. But someone is soaking them up in the meantime, and others - like me- are holding on to what they've got.|
CFQD Display models launched this quarter or at CES 2017 by LG
Continued increased royalty payments to cement the knowledge that the tech is being taken up
Concrete Dow and Samsung link established
One more WH type deal
Runcorn update regarding "sales"
All of the above|
|Kuss, forgot to say, interesting and informative link. Good to the Big S doing so well with their QD sets - even if we haven't got any of ours in them YET! Will at least help vindicate the story of QDs as the go to display technology for OEMs.|
|Impressive refusal to fall back down below the 50p level, though it's already below the 200sma. This is suggestive to me of value buying, and maybe indeed prove to be the new floor, post MERCK/WAH HONG. Would certainly make sense, given that these agreements imply.
But given the timescale to future profits, what could prove the catalyst, short term?|
|As I was saying...
|kuss1 - Interesting numbers. Especially since the 500kg Runcorn capacity is exactly the same number I had heard rumoured planned for Runcorn. Now if Dow can get 5000kg up and running quickly, and hopefully 15000kg within 18 months, that changes the game.
Add Merck making up another 15000kg within 18 months, and the numbers scale nicely into the CEO's 'multi billion pound MCAP' vision|
Never met anyone under 40 who really understands about what a product actually does. It's all about the brand and the reviews. Most computer users only know 2% of the functionality of Microsoft word. They still want the latest versions. 98% of rec.2020 will become a criterion for the reviewers and the number of stars for each category. Consumers look at the best in price category given their budget. The problem with Oled is that it doesn't figure in the higher end as it's too expensive. Qdots as a previous poster on here mentioned, is as much about marketing as anything. But it's becoming mainstream thanks to Samsung.
Regarding Nano, that recent improvement in yield hasn't been discussed that much. Runcorn going from 50k to 500k, Dow from 500k to 5000k. Or from a maximum of 5000k to 50,000k. Shame we didn't get any specs on the optical improvements etc..|
|It might be a slagging run over the next few weeks but I'm sure by 23rd Nov things will take another dimension before the AGM in December.I am expecting a tie up with a biotechnology company from the USA and conformation of payments recived from Merck licence agreement,with WH going strong in the revenue stream.RoHS should give an indication where CFQD is heading,with short closers giving the markets the indication of the inevitable outcome.whum make sure you wear a double layer of those extra strong pants,your pension will be be rewarded over the coming months and years.;)|
|A bit of info on the difference between QD and QLED for those that don't know.
QD now, QLED later
All TVs with quantum dots so far have used photoluminescent quantum dots. When a photoluminecent QD is hit by light, they emit their own color of light. In current generation TVs, these QDs work in concert with the blue LEDs that power the TVs' backlight.
The blue LEDs create blue light, and supply the photonic energy for two different sizes of quantum dots to create red and green and light. One method is to use a tube along the edge of the TV with blue LEDs wrapped with red and green quantum dots. Another, used by Samsung with its SUHD TVs, is to add an entire QD layer in the "sandwich" that makes up the LED LCD TV.
Quantum dots let LCD TVs offer wide color gamut (WCG) without losing a significant amount of light output. There's a problem, however: they're still LCDs.
Two vials of photoluminescent quantum dots next to a prototype blue electroluminescent QD.
Photo by Nanosys/Amanda Carpenter and Oleg Grachev
Contrast is extremely important for a good picture, and LCDs can't match the contrast ratio of other display types, like OLED or plasma. Local dimming backlights get them close, but not all the way. To get to that next level of picture quality, with lifelike contrast ratios, you need per-pixel control.|
|Getting to 98% of rec 2020 is not useful as far as what the human eye can perceive and more of a headline grabber.Here's some info on it.QLED is another matter if that is what they will be showing.Maybe a prototype if it's QLED.
And then there's your eye
For years, I, as well as other TV reviewers , have discussed how TVs with RGB LEDs (or quantum dots) just had richer, more realistic color reproduction, even when objectively measuring the same color accuracy as other TVs.
One TV designer put it this way: RGB LEDs (and by extension, LEDs augmented by laser and QD), are like painting with better, purer paint. What he meant was this: sure, any paint will let you create an image, but you can get a more realistic image with better paint.
Turns out (not surprisingly), there's a reason for this. The human eye (and brain) see pure colors as brighter. The more "pure" the red, the brighter it seems. So a wide-spectrum red, which is pretty typical on most TVs, won't seem as bright as a more focused red, such as that from a laser, LED, or quantum dot. The result is a more realistic representation of the colors intended by the content creators.
However, there is a potential drawback. The more pure the wavelengths used, the more potential variation there is among the viewers. That's the fascinating part. Because all our eyes are subtly and slightly different, the way we see these pure colors will vary, the purer they are.
In other words, on one future TV I might see a perfect red, exactly how I see an apple or a fire truck. You might see it as close to that, but not quite that realistic. We're both right, as that's how our eyes and brain see it.
Video screenshot by Anthony Domanico/CNET
It goes back to the hoopla about the white/gold/blue/black dress. We have no way of knowing how someone sees a particular color, and neither of us is wrong no matter what. It's how we see it, and in that, it's innately personal.
Does this mean that we might have TVs that get great reviews from one reviewer and bad reviews from another (an opinion echoed in stores and bars and homes around the country)? Perhaps. More likely, the TV manufacturers will figure out what that point is where nearly everyone sees "really good" color, avoiding going beyond so that a few see "amazing" color and others see "meh" color.
This is all pretty new territory for the TV world, so it will be interesting to see (pun intended) how it all plays out.
|Rumours in the eastern press that Samsung's 3rd generation Qdot TV's coming in Jan will have 98% of Rec.2020 colour space. Some 30% more than Oled, 38% more than the best WCG TV's. And still very early days for the technology.|
|And another point, LG have said their Qdot approach is different to Samsung's, so we're seeing multiple engineering approachers using Qdot material. Best case scenario for a Qodt manufacturer like Dow ... and of course Nano. Just Nano's scale up to 500k would easily support their share price and some....
The lead up to CES with more news flow and more Qdot products... More reference to Dow and cadmium free for sure.|
|Yes, fil, there is also the likely synergy with Qlights Q-rod approach. Q-light cadmium based material. Merck focussing on the polarisers in the LCD stack. Would be in line with ME's reference to Merck looking at Qdot filter tech.
But whichever, Merck has been doing this since 2007, so a huge lead on the likes of Dow. Think ME made that point in the interview. So in other words Merck are ready to go.
On another point, if Nano got £200k from Dow in the last royalty payment that means Dow are producing some 40 kilos in samples per quarter. That's quite a lot for samples and if it's increasing it's very positive...
Q-Rod materials provide a similar color conversion mechanism and extend color
gamut like spherical quantum dots. Their unique advantage is that they emit polarized light and allow an even higher light throughput through the polarizer, which results in remarkable brightness improvement for display panel. In addition, its impressive power saving features can drastically extends battery life in mobile devices. Due to their special physical properties, Q-Rod materials also enable the development of future display technologies and modes.|
|I looked at the Merck strategic roadmap this morning and wondered what SAVA technology was. Here is the relevant passage:
"Firstly, Merck intends to sustainably secure its leadership in display materials. To this end, the company recently commissioned a €30 million OLED materials production plant in Darmstadt. In the course of 2017, Merck is planning the market launch of the innovative liquid crystal technology SAVA for large-area displays. In August, Merck announced a collaboration with Nanoco
of the United Kingdom, a leading manufacturer of quantum materials."
Looking into SAVA tech, Google led me to an RSC paper that concluded the ZnS QD's help performance by some noteable percentages. This from the abstract (register to get the whole, hard chemistry, paper):
"A 37.1% reduction in the threshold voltage (Vth) and a 36.6% decrease in the response time were observed for ECB mode LCDs, and a 47.0% reduction in the Vth and a 38.3% decrease in the response time were observed for VA mode LCDs, meaning that the proposed LC–QD composites have a great potential for the production of advanced flexible LCDs."
I'm not suggesting Merck's 2017 SAVA displays will utilise QD's. But the evidence for future utilization and commercialisation looks ever-stronger.
|I take on board most comments. I think we're still some months away before we see profits of any substance on a balance sheet, but I continue to hold my stock in Nanoco, as I believe they have a solid future.
I think the fluctuations in share price is nothing but short term opportunism by markets playing on the fact that Nanoco remain a cash burner until they can demonstrate sizeable income from their own production of dots and royalties from their partners.
I think much now depends on sales to Wah Hong, and 'hoped for' royalties from Dow e.g. at production level volumes not just sampling.
From what has been said, the new kids on the block- Merck, don't seem to be dragging their heels, and are more open than Dow with information. However I think realistically, we are looking at around 12 months minimum before they're in a position to go into production themselves.|
|Yes, Andy the big guns with display credentials all going for Nano. And the major players can only be called that if they have recognised cad free production. For me that means just Nano and Hansol. Also look at the price difference. Samsung paying $40 a metre and 3M charging $100. ME has said Nano is very competitive on price!
He also said Nano are set for rapid revenue growth with no need of funding. That is because he knows Dow are ready to supply in commercial volumes to Samsung and LG. Samsung aiming for 20 million Qd tV's next year. LG some 4-5 million, probably replacing their colorprime range. That range has got to go as it doesn't feature in any of the top reviews at all.
Samsung are bringing out their 3rd generation Qd TV's at CES using QD color filter tech. Their 2nd generation will migrate to lower cost TV's to compete with LG.
The Chinese are increasingly turning to cad free as they know cad only is dead.
The share price will turn and quickly is my guess.|
|Just reading the last two posts. It more or less summarises what the past 6370 posts have been about-you either think poster fil is on the money or you incline to poster andy and look at a bright future. I think that the company fails to get its message across/maybe the company was far too optimistic too soon which has led to a series of false dawns.I certainly can't add to the sum of human knowledge on this one.|
|Looking at display technology, the only real competition is OLED, and that seems to be running into increasing problems, with even its greatest fan LG partly admitting defeat by announcing a line of QD televisions for 2017. Recent news suggests Apple may no longer take up smaller OLED screens from Samsung following the note 7 fiasco.
When looking at the QD industry it seems there are only three or four major players- Nanosys, Hansol (who license a lot of the tech from nanosys), QMC and Nanoco.
Out of those Nanoco seems to be the one that many major players are signed up with.|
|Revenue recognition for Nanoco still x months away. So not an investment for everyone. The fact is the short term shocks could be very scary. I hope we're past all the bouts of low confidence and timidity but who knows? Book value of a company gives no reassurance either these days.|
|So apple turned out to be a good investment. As did Amazon. There was also a 'smattering' of promising tech and web businesses that completely wiped out their hopeful shareholders. You can't make a case for investing in one as yet unproven company by saying that you have heard of a company that did in fact make it big. If Apple was such a clear candidate for success 2 decades ago it would have been very highly valued as everyone would have piled in to that no brainer. As I remember it was deeply troubled back then until Jobs returned to resurrect it with the iPod and all that followed.|
|Not sure about millions, thousands certainly. Amazon shares were the real winners over the last couple of decades.|
|The directive in future strategy when real long term investment is concerned is to buy and hold regardless of the amount invested.£100 in Apple shares invested over two decades ago would of seen a phenomenal return,Infact millions by now for those looking for a quick return on a percentage gain will always sell short for a quick return.I have waited patiently to invest in nanotechnolgies and I'm willing to wait another 5 years+ to reap the rewards.|
|To invest in Nanoco you have to think a bit like a venture capitalist; ie you're betting on a business concept that seems compelling to you, and which you believe will return well on your investment. This particular gambit has been massively derisked. Dow and Merck have essentially done their research for you, free of charge. They are not mere licensees. They have decided to build factories to manufacture the IP product of this company. You are not having to invest on Nanoco's story alone, you're in it with Dow and Merck too, two heavyweight, serious chemcial manufacturers who are parting with millions to build plant. You might doubt your own judgement, and even Nanoco's press efforts, but to doubt Dow and Merck as well seems overly pessimistic - to the point of irrational - to me.|
|Could be, might be. Next time I invest here it will be based on real world results. I've finally learned (I hope) not to risk cash on hopes and guesses. If Nanoco could demonstrate a solid investment case right now then speculation on where nano particles may go in the future would be the icing on the cake. But in order to ice a cake you first need to be handed the cake, not just a recipe.|