Member Info for 13thmonkey

Targeted adverts.

Did you used to work for them wfiik? If not you've just given them money in exchange for a tiny amount of ownership and the hope that it will be worth more in the future. Saying the same thing several times a day won't change anything except your blood pressure.

As an ex manufacturing engineer (the people who figure out how to make it), I'd never expect it to be proposed that a company waits until manufacturing is completely efficent before starting supply. You'd make sure it was right, some bits might be more labour intensive than desired, but you'd start and the continuously improve the method over time. So even if you want to do it with a robot but can do it by hand, you'd start by hand and then progress to a robot when you understood foibles well enough. Automation removes flexibility in the design and supply of components and how they are presented, things that take an age to get perfect.

Whilst not in itself incredible news, the award was made on the 17th, which would have led to a late in the week announcement, instead it was held for the Monday. I'm pleased with this course of action.

I'm not sure how practical energy hub cars are, peak time is around end of working day, at which point the car needs to be charged not discharged, or its start of working day when I'm driving to work. As a tertiary car it'll work but then it just seems like putting a fuel cell on wheels for the sake of calling it a car. On big trucks I see the space for a fuel cell, supplemented with li-ion, use both in acceleration and fuel cell in steady state, quick to refuel as refuelling time is key for trucks. For cars smaller fuel cells might be needed, I get the impression that size would be an issue for non precious metal cells as I'm assuming that the precious metals increase the reaction speeds and therefore output for a given size, for static solutions cost rather than size is the constraining factor, for cars size and cost are both constraints.

He doesn't believe hydrogen is practical, therefore it's not a threat in his eyes. I think there will be certain use cases where its more practical than batteries. Heavy haulage perhaps.

All hail the white coated US professor lab people, and the UK engineer blue coated spanner people.

Bumbleb someone would rather we didn't do the research step, just magically created the foundations for new technology. DW - professor guys are called researchers, you're either belittling them, although without them you'd be talking to your self or waiting for the pigeon, or you don't know the word.

More buys than sells, but a 15% drop?

That's a surprise, given how deisel centric they used to be, used to work for their powergen business.

He should be saying something about the share price, but other than succeeding at activities that make the company successful there's not much he can do. And it sounds like he's doing the right things, we now have to see whether they will be successful. I'd much rather he acted as if the share price were a side effect of success than a thing to be managed in its own right, as he would fail to manage something that intrinsically he had little actual control over. Do the right things and the share price will move. That is I suspect the nature of immature engineering companies, tech like that takes time, has problems, so news is sporadic. When I worked at a large mature alternator manufacturer, there would be only a couple of rns worthy events a year (not that I cared at that point), but tech development took a couple of years and that was with a fundamentally well understood set of internals. The price surely only matters when you sell, if you still think it's going to work then don't sell, if you don't think that (what are you basing that on, I don't see the lack of information as being too big a concern), then you need to shit or get off the pot.

I suppose it is the illiquidity question, so it's not a drip feed to have an effect, its because they have no other choice.

Why would a persistent seller sell into a falling price that they are creating, rather than just dump once for the best price?

So you took those figures as gospel as opposed to reading 'so let's say' as a hypothetical situation, that's nothing I can do anything about. The point of the post was still to show that failing to achieve the take up they might want is not critical.

Yep another source if needed, doesn't take much to think through the options and there's enough of them.

I'm assuming you are talking to me. They are example figures as the actual values don't matter just the scenarios that they end up with. Try and keep a civil tongue in your head it helps with the discussions.

So let's say they need 6M to run for another 6 months until revenue kicks in, they get 4M from a rights issue, they run for 4 months, given how much closer they would be to revenue at that point then the go to banks, invoice factoring other sources or they issue again. Your point is only problematic if they only get a tiny percentage of what they ask for. Or if the revenue fails to materialise. The former case they'd have to borrow or fail The latter case the rights issue is irrelevant and they probably fail. Can't see why it's complex or contentious, it's the same for all businesses, and for each investor given the evidence they've got to work with and gut feel so they think those fail scenarios are likely or unlikely.

The German deal tbh created more concern in my mind than anything else, I'm ex manufacturing and could see the problem getting to many hundreds of units in such a way that the infrastructure costs associated with scans didn't drown them.

Scaling production will be a *****, but there are known good practises, just need some good manufacturing engineers on board. Do they even have the acreage to manage volume.

Insightful winnings, Insightful.