Nanoco Share Discussion Threads

[boris cobaka] 12/6/2019 08:36

I guess with Brexit if the EU make a ruling the UK doesn't have to follow.

[nigwit] 11/6/2019 18:44

You may like to check Kyulux's recent blog posts here



and here



And, by way of reminder, here's the RNS regarding their JV with Nanoco



And a list of their investors




_______


FWIW I think the delays in display are industry-wide since no-one, other than Samsung/Hansol, has commercialized Cadmium-free QD's (other than one HP monitor, which is most unlikely to be entirely free of Cadmium). I don't think the reasons are complicated or unexplained and I think some may be looking for conspiracies and complicated reasons where there aren't any. For me it's all explained in the submissions to RoHS here.

[andycapped] 11/6/2019 18:09

It's speculation, we just don't know exactly what is going on behind the scenes. I think with regards to display, a lot hinges on what the EU decision with regards to the 2019 Rohs ban of cadmium in display.

[notimpressed] 11/6/2019 17:51

andy if they prefer nanosys cfqd dots we are
somewhat in the mire, as it means we cant compete
on a level playing field

[andycapped] 11/6/2019 14:33

We don't know the full reasons for the delays in display commercialisation. Perhaps companies prefer Nanosys dots, or they consider Nanoco's price is presently too high, or perhaps they'll only switch if or when legislation forces their hand.

[notimpressed] 11/6/2019 13:54

its ok pursuing niche applications,but in the
very near future the big bucks are to be made in tv
and monitors, a market nanoco appears
to have abandoned at least in the short
term.

[howl01] 11/6/2019 09:43

They do walk among us

[nigwit] 10/6/2019 17:50

I'm not making claims about anyone's credibility. I'm just stating facts, based on references I've provided, from which anyone can draw their own conclusions.


There's no sales data I can find for any Cd-free QD display products on the market other than from Samsung/Hansol. Outside Samsung, all but one HP monitor for sale today contains Cadmium.

What's more I've read Nanosys's Cd-free patents (they don't have many) and they make clear within them that they regard Cd free as anything that complies with RoHS - meaning they may still contain up 100ppm of Cd and therefore be useless for medical applications and potentially toxic in other applications

[howl01] 10/6/2019 17:34

So even though Nanosys have commercialised Cd based, low Cd based and Cd free quantum dot solutions, all available in current products on the market as well as being partnered and invested in by LG, they are less credible claims than Nanoco whom have non of the above to support their own claims. No involvement apparently in these display industry events and little to no data reported on product performance. Hmmm

[nigwit] 10/6/2019 17:18

With one hand Nanosys claim their cadmium-free QDs are the best but with the other they support Nanjing's application for an extension to the RoHS Cadmium ban exemption extension. Why?

Being against the extension, on page 5 of their letter to RoHS, Nanoco have quoted data from Nanosys's own website where they claim their (Nanosys's) Cd-free dots perform as well as their Cd-based. I'd say that's a slam-dunk argument against the extension. What's more it proves that they are given to unscientific hyperboles.

hxxps://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_Pack_15/3rd_Consultation/contribution_Nanoco_RoHS15_Ex_Joint_Cd_QD_letter_to_Commission_20190515.pdf

[ih_332411] 10/6/2019 16:42

Nanosys, Californian maker of rare earths alternative, could be hit by tariffs on both ends of US-China trade war

[howl01] 10/6/2019 16:07

The Nanosys View on the State of Electroluminescent Quantum Dot Technology

By Chris Chinnock, Insight Media

Quantum Dots are amazing particles. They can emit light when pumped with higher energy light (photoluminescent). They can emit electrons when pumped with light (photoelectric) and they can emit light when pumped with electrons (electroluminescent). I want to talk about this latter use, ELQDs, in this article.

Many Universities and display companies are working on ELQDs as a next generation emissive display technology. They hold great potential for bright, high contrast, wide color gamut displays. But to be successful, they will need to reach mass production with cost and performance levels that can rival competing technologies. And the competition seems to keep growing and evolving, so the benchmark keeps moving forward.

So what is the state of the art and what are the prospects for success? At SID DisplayWeek 2019 there were many papers on advancements in materials and device structures for ELQDs. I won’t try to summarize all those papers, but instead will focus on one paper given by QD developer Nanosys and R&D device fabrication partner, LG Display’s R&D Center. I also spoke with Nanosys CEO Jason Hartlove to get more up-to-date results and his prognosis for commercialization. (Hartlove is also discussing how quantum dots are a key component for 8K displays at the 8K Display Summit, June 11)

To begin, there are two camps of development: Cadmium-based and Cadmium-free. The Cd-based development is primarily coming from Chinese players and the Cd-free from everyone else. This mirrors the photoluminescent quantum dot arena with many major companies and countries having overt policies to not include heavy metals in finished products. That conviction is not so strong in China.

Historically, Cd-based photoluminescent quantum dot technology was superior to Cd-free, but that gap has narrowed significantly. That gap is also narrowing on the ELQD side, especially for external quantum efficiency (EQE), but lifetime still lags Cd-based ELQDs.

Development of ELQDs also has parallels to OLED technology as the fundamental device structures are similar and many of the same processing equipment can be used for both. Naturally, some of the materials and processing needs to be different, but like OLEDs, red and green are more mature than blue.

In the paper, the team reported the latest results for red, green and blue ELQD devices (not displays). The figure below shows the EQE development history along with the current results for Cd-based and Cd-free devices. Note that the EQE for Cd-free is now quite close to the Cd-based results.

Is this EQE good enough, we asked Hartlove? “Not quite,” said. “We think an EQE of 20% is the threshold for commercial viability and we expect to reach that in about a year. Display as opposed to device EQE can be higher as optical engineering can be applied to extract more light.” Nanosys exhibited the RGB demo shown above at DisplayWeek.

What about lifetime, we asked next? “There is more work that needs to be done here, and like OLED, blue is the tough nut to crack. Some of the red and green Cd-based ELQD materials may now have the lifetime and EQE to be viable commercially, but blue still lags for a full color display. We think our Cd-free lifetimes and EQE are now some of the best in the industry,” said Hartlove.

Note in the lifetime data below that the vertical axis is the time to reach 50% of the initial luminance, a common metric for determining commercial viability. This data is only at 100 nits, a level too low for most applications, however, to be fair, most groups report results at this level so it makes for better comparison. A more typical luminance level of 500 nits is more representative, but lifetime degrade much more quickly at this level – “and not in a linear way,” says Hartlove.


Hartlove didn’t say what the lifetime might be at elevated luminance levels but he references TADF developments for OLEDs where blue lifetimes are in the 5-30 hour range for higher luminance levels. He thinks their team can get to this level in about a year as well.

Nanosys is focused on developing a blue ELQD composed of a ZnTeSe alloy that allows for blue emission in the 450-460 nm range. InP-based QD can be pushed down to 460nm but with very low quantum yield (~40%). ZnSe quantum dots can be pushed upward to maybe 450 but with a similar low quantum yield. By building a quantum dot with a little Tellurium in the ZnSe core, transitioning to ZnSe and then to ZnS, Nanosys can achieve blue light at 451nm with 80% quantum yield and a FWHM of 21 nm – all very acceptable values.

Nanosys is working with LG Display to perfect an all solution-processed approach to device fabrication. According to Hartlove, LGD has a complete solution processing facility for OLEDs that they are also using to develop ELQDs on. The goal is to use the same equipment but to develop new materials and processing to optimize performance for ELQD. Some of the layers and materials can be similar but others will be different.

Development is a complex process with interactions between materials and equipment and between layers above and below – all impacting performance, lifetime and manufacturability. The mobility of holes and electrons are different for red, green and blue and for each device structure, but maintaining charge balance is a critical goal. Suitable solution-processed charge transport materials is a particular challenge, for example.

In their paper (81.3), the team described experiments that varied the shell thickness of red ELQDs and its impact on EQE as well as the solution quantum yield. As the QD shell thickness increased a peak in solution quantum yield and EQE were noted. With the increase of shell thickness, the device EQE initially improves due to the better charge confinement and reduced energy transfer among the quantum dots. This is demonstrated by the QD film quantum yield behavior. However, when the shell thickness passes an upper bound, the large strain caused by lattice mismatch between core and shell has a detrimental effect to device EQE and solution QY.

The team also investigated quantum yield vs. shell size when the QD solution was assembled into a device to form a QD film (QDs in solid form). Fortunately, these two maximum occurred at a similar shell thickness. The film quantum yield is an indicator of how efficient the ELQDs can be in a closed packed format (like in a ELQD device) . These results were positive as well suggesting it is the device structure, not the ELQD materials that are the limiting factor in device EQE.

Similar studies were then done on green and blue ELQDs to deliver the EQE results summarized above (red/green/blue at 16.9%/15.6%/12.4%). Hartlove sees ELQD materials reaching commercial viability for red, green and blue in the 2022 time frame. Once the materials are ready, someone will need to build a factory to start to make actual ELQD-based products. IoT indicator type displays might be one of the first applications, for example, but such products will likely appear after 2022, Hartlove wanted to make clear.

Initial products will have to find niche applications where other display technology may not be as competitive, so smaller, sunlight readable may be one good focus area. But Hartlove also sees the need for these to be very inexpensive, which is why they are focused on solution-based processing which offers this potential. In addition, the capex for a solution-processing factory will be substantially less (millions) compared to an OLED of LCD fab (billions).

It is a long way to get there from where we are today, and I think Hartlove is being too optimistic, but he has a better view of developments than I do. We will see.

[boris cobaka] 10/6/2019 11:03

Hmmm looking at the recent rns' is there anyone happy to hold these shares???

[petepitstop] 10/6/2019 10:28

Ocado invests £17 million in vertical farming. Microsoft says next Xbox launching next year will have incredible graphics. Both articles on Hargreaves Lansdown.

[jfacwc] 10/6/2019 09:27

Its depressing enough as it is, just watching the progress of the nano sp, without all this infighting.

[activmojo] 10/6/2019 08:05

Article in the weekend papers about Apple aquiring a company called Drive.ai
The main reason was to have a team of autonomous vehicle experts

[howl01] 09/6/2019 15:26

Patronising fool and his posts are toilet paper.

[davidw1] 09/6/2019 12:11

Cannacord Genuity published a ‘professional’ BUY rating and a target of 275p as far back as April 2013. They continue to reiterate NANO as a BUY with a downwardly revised target of 110p (yes please.

Were Cannacord just six years too early?

[bagpuss67] 08/6/2019 22:41

So patronising to imply you are different to most investors. You just came upon this later and at a lower entry point so feel smug you are perhaps in profit. We all have those situations ourselves. Too early? LOL.

[nigwit] 08/6/2019 16:14

Quite so. (Although I consider it’s too early to criticise management given that no other company outside Samsung/Hansol has commercialised Cd-free dots, including Dow/DuPont and Merck.)

The real issue displayed on these forums is that too many private investors go in too early and too strong either without, or whilst ignoring, standard professional advice not too.

[andycapped] 08/6/2019 14:48

Too bad- should have held their nerve and waited, same as the majority of investors did. Plus they had ample opportunity to buy back in and make up losses, as they stayed in the low twenties for a considerable time before climbing back up.

Been plenty to be a critical about Nanoco senior management, but they can't control legislation or business choices of third party companies.

[bagpuss67] 08/6/2019 12:45

Nice for him. Not even an exec director? Bendan Cummins scooped 280k at 18p as well I believe.

Some might say we could have bought in the market at that price but most people were sh1tting themselves and didnt have the key information these people did ie there was an underwriten share issue and the company wasn't going bust any time soon

Some poor guy on here was forced out or just baled his decent size holding sub 20p presumably crystalising a huge loss