Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

I know what you mean about UbiQD Mars: they have a curious reticence about what they actually do, and most of the stuff on their website seems to studiously avoid talk of actually getting their hands dirty manufacturing dots. It's interesting that they are focused on the CIGS technology area (i.e. the same type of technology that Nanoco have recently rekindled from their previous solar research), but the evasive language leaves their actual methods or product rather vague: http://ubiqd.com/our-materials/ The article I linked to does say "the company manufactured optimized quantum dots" and "UbiQD�s materials now have the highest reported photon conversion efficiency for quantum dots that do not contain cadmium, an element known for its toxicity ". Another, later article seems to confirm that they are a QD manufacturer, but seems oddly unconcerned about the cadmium-free aspect, just about mentioning it as an afterthought: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/growing-quantum-dot-manufacturer-ubiqd-named-breakout-labs-portfolio-company-300536816.html My conclusion is that they like to give the impression that they are CFQD manufacturers externally, but avoid claiming so on their website, and seemingly lack the confidence to talk about their process even vaguely. This probably means it's very small scale, and at an early development stage. Collaboration might be more sensible than duplicating Nano's research, which seems like a possibility, but they seem intent on developing a putative CFQD manufacturing process, which currently leaves little ground for mutual benefit as far as I can see

Mars, I don't know why you think UbiQD "develop uses of not develop cfqds so whatever they do they will acquire cfqds from whoever will supply." They certainly claim to be manufacturers, so does it really seem likely they need supply from elsewhere? http://ubiqd.com/2017/04/10/ubiqd-announces-record-efficiency-cadmium-free-quantum-dots/ Nanoco have emerged as a supplier of ir nanomaterials, partly based on research for solar technology, so there would be a clear avenue for collaboration-speculation if there was anything else to go on, but it seems all we have is the job change and some cheeky banter about ip. I don't know how serious even rc30 was about a link-up, the evidence seems very light (pun intended).

Pretending it's in someone's head seems to require ignoring the HL report altogether, as well as the examples just given of how the statement could have been clearer. A feeble insult is a poor substitute for a convincing refutation. Unfortunately we had similar confusion over comments about the "doubling" of size at Runcorn, and a conflicting report, which was eventually clarified after much speculation, but the clarification would have been unnecessary if all the facts were simply stated at the outset. It's difficult to agree that Nanoco announcements are perfectly clear when they constantly result in confusion, speculation, or misinterpretation. The market also seems to have been somewhat confused over this announcement, surging upwards before realising that, although positive in the longer term, it won't have much impact on short term revenues. It's quite likely some people reacted to the news they read on HL.

"It couldn't be much clearer." I've just stated several ways it could be much clearer about the specific issue of further expansion at Runcorn, even if it just meant ruling it out. HL don't seem to have found it very clear, do they? The gratuitous mention of the current expansion for the original material, which you seem to regard as irrelevant, surely begs the question about the associated production capacity for the new materials, but they then decline to answer that question. It might have been clearer to just leave it out altogether.

I agree Infinite, that's what the Nanoco announcement says, and on it's own it amounts to increased activity at Manchester rather than Runcorn. The wording of the HL statement, however, did not include the words "as previously disclosed", so it appeared to be talking about something new at Runcorn connected to the expansion of the deal, rather than just referring back to the existing deal. The Nanoco announcement is almost certainly the more reliable one! Logically though, the R&D expansion, to include multiple materials rather than just one, seems to strongly imply physical expansion may be necessary at some point. On the other hand, the possibility of this extension to the agreement may have been taken into consideration back in February, and all future capacity requirements may already be catered for? It would be nice to have clarity either way.

"I think that the RNS is quite clear" Does it say there will be further expansion or not? I don't think it says either, doesn't mention it as a possibility, but nor does it rule it out, so like the February statement, not entirely clear about this issue, and maybe like that one, we'll get a clearer picture later on. By saying "as previously stated" they imply that there is nothing further to the current expansion, but fail to explicitly say so. An expansion of the agreement does not necessitate a further physical expansion of production capacity, particularly in the short term, but it certainly suggests it. Even if they don't know yet, they could state that it is dependent upon R&D progress: that would make things clearer. In the light of the somewhat confusing, or confused, HL report, clarification would surely be welcome.

Good point infinite, but that's quite a common mistake - the expansion story seems credible, but begs the question why it is not in the official statement. Could be a Nanoco-ism, with more information emerging later. A pinch of salt certainly, but perhaps a whiff of pepper too.

The Hargreaves Lansdown report on this appears to have additional material not in the Nanoco announcement? "Much like its previously announced agreement, Nanoco's partner will supply the capital required to fund expansions to the manufacturing capabilities at the AIM-quoted company's existing Runcorn facility in order to turn over commercial volumes of product. The cadmium-free quantum dots producer begun its expansion process immediately after signing an agreement in March to take over 10,000 square foot of additional space in Runcorn to build a state-of-the-art production facility in order to provide commercial supply levels in January 2019." This implies there are already plans in hand for yet more expansion at Runcorn, above and beyond the February deal? Not sure if they have got that right, as it is not in the official statement, and I guess this could be entirely dependent on R&D success, but it reads like it is in already in motion, much like the February one was? No indication of size yet, but from the tone of the deal, I guess it would be even bigger than the Feb one.

Let's stop joking about appropriation and have a serious discussion about "collaboration" instead? Yawn. OK: some guy changed his job. Er, that's it.

Thanks rc30, I had forgotten that. Not entirely serious about this, but I seem to recall ME making some interesting comments around that time, how they sometimes have to make difficult decisions about whether to patent things, because once it's published, any Tom, Dick or NigWit can read about it, and sometimes it's judged better to keep things more secret but less protected. Wonder why he mentioned that then. Coincidence? I think we we should keep stirring this pot, making unfounded insinuations, and taking the pmickey. Nanoco's Solar technology has miraculously risen from the dead: it's come back to haunt people and just won't die!

"Nanoco could be linked with UbiQd" Well, NW has pointed out a link through former employee Steve Reinhard, who probably finds it difficult to avoid impinging on Nanoco patents? lol The quote says the solar work is useful and relevant to the new deal (which is not solar), so we know the solar work and patents are no longer up for sale, which leaves open the possibility of a return to solar applications if we get bored and have nothing else to do.

Nice one yerself Bagpuss, very exciting application for a spin-off enterprise and UCL are a very enterprising partner, there could well be other departments there for Nano to explore. There's just too much good stuff to keep up with at the moment, and ME isn't kidding when he talks about momentum! Regarding UbiQD, they seem to be working on near-infrared technology in solar applications: http://ubiqd.com/2017/04/10/ubiqd-announces-record-efficiency-cadmium-free-quantum-dots/ I wondered if we should be concerned about their progress, but this field is so huge now, we really should expect a few competitors!

This ties it to Nanoco: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/amr/Network_event_talks/07_Koranteng

Good spot wellwell, I hadn't even noticed those images! They tie in well with Esker's find about the Nvidia system, with their sensors for gestures and facial recognition, but as far as I am aware that is not a LIDAR application. Of course, this could be a different infrared based technology altogether, we're right at the cutting edge, and even LIDAR itself seems to be undergoing a step change, so who knows?

If the new material is for LIDAR, and I've yet to hear a more convincing idea, it's a huge field we are entering. In fact the sensors could be an important enabler of the Internet Of Things, which ME has hinted at when talking about human-machine interraction and machine-machine interraction, but LIDAR alone already has an astonishing range of applications, the wikipedia page is a real eye-opener: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar

Surprised to see ME back on Directors Talk so soon, and a good performance, his best for a while I think, he seems happy with the situation, albeit confirming the slowness of display. You get a sense of the urgency and excitement about creating the new workspace at Runcorn. It's good to hear him directly answer BTBs worries about fundraising, although the rest of us didn't really seem all that worried! I think we can be fairly confident there is increased revenue coming in this half, the debate should probably be about how wildly inaccurate the analysts estimates are: just plain wrong, or ludicrous? The big news seems to be the long term plan for spinning off the Life Sciences division as a separate enterprise - is ME trying to repeat that magic trick of getting someone else to pay for it? Hope he continues this trend of more frequent updates as the good news starts to flow.

We surely don't need to consider all the companies Nvidia are working with on autonomous cars, only those in the narrow field ME has indicated. If Nvidia are planning on producing their own LIDAR devices to complement their processors, then I guess they can choose whatever standard they prefer. If not, then we should probably be looking at LIDAR companies instead.

Intriguing! So, Osram produce the lasers used in LIDAR, and Leddar use light wave digital signal processing and superb algorithms to interpret the data in the beam with no moving parts? Does nanoco's infrared nanomaterial receive the laser and somehow transform it into digital format?

Good points BC, but hopefully research (and production plans) has already been completed: we're supposed to be commercial within about 9 months! In fact, it sounded like some of the research is fairly old, coming out of the CIGS project. The company has stated more than once that the site expansion is fully funded, so I'm not sure what operating expenses can be incurred in that area, although I accept that these are not always foreseeable. We all seem to assume execution will be successful, which shows tremendous respect for Nanoco's scientific brilliance, but our nagging worries about unquantifiable, hard-to-pin-down costs demonstrates a rather different attitude when it comes to their finances!

All I can find on Nvidia's website regarding LIDAR is this: "NVIDIA DRIVE systems can fuse data from multiple cameras, as well as lidar, radar, and ultrasonic sensors. " So, the platform processes data from multiple input sources, of which LIDAR is arguably the most important, since it can "see" in the dark, in 3D. There is no indication that any of these input devices are actually sold by Nvidia, they seem to be only supplying hardware in the form of processors, and software to support it. What may be happening is that Nvidia want to integrate these input devices to provide a one-stop solution in the near future? LIDAR seems to be going through a breakthrough in both price and performance, so now would be a good time. Edelman's words about the upcoming ubiquity of sensors seems to support this? All sorts of avenues of thought open up from this!