Member Info for bluerill

We're talking about pleasure boat manufacturers, ferry operators, cargo vessels, cruise lines, the Royal Navy potentially, not the merchant f-ing marine, you bitter, ignorant little nobody. Sheesh. ".....Another key driver is the growing awareness and emphasis on safety in the marine industry. With increasing incidences of marine accidents, there is a heightened focus on preventive measures to enhance safety for both cargo and passengers. Ship owners and operators are increasingly investing in advanced fire suppression systems to minimize the risk of fire-related incidents. This growing focus on safety is propelling the demand for both portable and fixed marine fire extinguishers across various types of vessels....."

Sweepie - most encouraging part here is the marine industry has been a major target for the company, possibly its top priority, as Marine - whether merchant or military fleets or commercial transport vessels - have the highest safety requirements (as you are often stuck in the middle of the ocean, obviously, far from conventional help) and Li fires are known to be a major concern in the industry. Selling a small batch to (hopefully) an important industry party SPECIFICALLY to interdict Li fires, is an encouraging development. In addition, previous marine-related RNS reminded the market that ZED fluid remains effective even if refills use seawater.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ad9VZySS4

That's not the standard to put out an RNS, you mindless turd, plus that's not the point anyway, unless of course you're uniquely committed to being a dooshbag at all times

Https://www.linkedin.com/company/zenova-group/posts/?feedView=all

Initial order probably not big enough to RNS but this is a industry that often needs to push safety limits in order to satisfy viewers' insatiable desire for bigger and more realistic stunts, so if Zed is gaining purchase with one or more of the major players over here, then I fancy the brand endorsement goes well beyond the size of the order!

"...We are pleased to announce additional orders of Zenova FX fire extinguishers to support the UK film and TV industry. These latest deliveries underscore Zenova's ongoing commitment to delivering advanced fire safety solutions tailored to the specific demands of both the film and television sectors. With its highly effective fire suppression capabilities, the Zenova FX fire extinguisher has quickly become a trusted choice across the industry, helping to enhance safety standards on set. Zenova is proud to contribute to a safer working environment for UK film and TV productions through this valued partnership..."

Of course not, It's a brand new product, but this is a small company so it's unlikely they would go through the effort - and the R&D spend - if it were not customer-led. The RNS hints at that and thus orders (and forecasts hopefully) should come pretty quickly

Some photos on linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zenova-group/posts/?feedView=all

APOLOGIES. OBVIOUSLY POSTED IN ERROR

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ZED/launch-of-en3-7-certified-ceiling-sprinkler/16732602

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ZED/launch-of-en3-7-certified-ceiling-sprinkler/16732602

Let's see the company turn this into one of 2025's big AIM success stories.

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ECOB/orders-update/16716385

Just replace 'cynic' with 'nobbled' bc you do precisely the same and you're just as bandwidth limited, if materially more bitter over those limitations: Not that it will do a lick of good, but what 'cynic' is now engaged in is a classic logical fallacy, not unlike a debate an atheist might have with someone who insists that god exists. In much the same way that it is the requirement of the religious man to prove his assertion - that god exists - and NOT for the atheist to prove he does not, it is cynic who made the assertion and therefore it is he who is required to prove that Zenova's paints are somehow not certified for use. As I have painstakingly explained, the new guidelines for FP paint that are contained in the regulation amendments after Grenfell, do indeed raise the performance standards, but Gracewood and others have obviously judged Zenova's products - based on the Company's certifications and customer testing - clearly match or exceed those requirements. There is no other official 'approval' to be had or required. Regardless, cynic thinks he can flip the script and make me 'prove' him wrong, when anyone with an shred of integrity and a couple of brain cells, would recognise that the onus is on him to prove that Zenova's paints are NOT approved. He can't because they clearly DO qualify under the new regs. Please do not be fooled by such antique chat board misdirection produced by such a shameless misinformation agent. Oooops, sorry . Did I insult you again, cynic? That must mean I'm intimidated by the marble-like acuity of your argument. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Sure nobs, I'll get right on that. Meantime, the only reason I corrected the record on 'regs' was because a drive-by troll tried to rock up and spread disinformation that would otherwise have been highly damaging to the company if true, you soulless doosh bag. As for orders like Australia that haven't materialised, etc., seems to me that the market is well aware of those missteps without your heroic googling - but thanks for that - and the CEO in charge at the time has at least been forced to take responsibility and resign. Firing underperforming senior management - something I'm confident you're familiar with, nobs.

Not that it will do a lick of good, but what 'cynic' is now engaged in is a classic logical fallacy, not unlike a debate an atheist might have with someone who insists that god exists. In much the same way that it is the requirement of the religious man to prove his assertion - that god exists - and NOT for the atheist to prove he does not, it is cynic who made the assertion and therefore it is he who is required to prove that Zenova's paints are somehow not certified for use. As I have painstakingly explained, the new guidelines for FP paint that are contained in the regulation amendments after Grenfell, do indeed raise the performance standards, but Gracewood and others have obviously judged Zenova's products - based on the Company's certifications and customer testing - clearly match or exceed those requirements. There is no other official 'approval' to be had or required. Regardless, cynic thinks he can flip the script and make me 'prove' him wrong, when anyone with an shred of integrity and a couple of brain cells, would recognise that the onus is on him to prove that Zenova's paints are NOT approved. He can't because they clearly DO qualify under the new regs. Please do not be fooled by such antique chat board misdirection produced by such a shameless misinformation agent. Oooops, sorry . Did I insult you again, cynic? That must mean I'm intimidated by the marble-like acuity of your argument. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Nice try. Actually, its not. It's the same stupid technique every de-bunked troll reverts to. After your seemingly knowledgeable claims are totally debunked, instead of conceding the argument, the shameless troll instead tries to engage in endless rhetorical debate over increasingly meaningless details. Eventually you'll claim victory because I referred to 'Document C' instead of 'B' in response to another of your dopey claims. The bottom-line reality is that the new guidelines are an unreconstructed positive for Zenova, and Gracewood are just one example of companies who are discovering Zenova paints, tested and judged them uniquely qualified. No amount of your embarrassing blather will change that, nor the fact that you are empty barrel.

Would someone else tell this moron? Any more and I am going to be accused of child abuse. You know, cynic, I get that you thought you would get away with this, that you would never be fact-checked, but it would have been good for this board, not to mention your soul, that when you were, if you could have just apologised for getting such an important issue so horribly wrong, instead of trying to engage in this ridiculous rhetorical attempt to try and salvage some credibility. Maybe then some readers may have thought you aren't a shameless hired gun intentionally spreading misinformation, and instead just another hateful troll like nobs. Your loss.

Oh, and how could I forget to mention your post's charming closing message of 'End of the free education lesson...' Good times.

Read it again, you absolutely shameless idiot. The regs require the product meet certain performance standards so the onus is on the construction company to be satisfied by the product's certification and/or their own product testing, which Gracewood obviously was as Zenova's FP paints carry among the highest certifications in the industry. And let's be perfectly clear: you never asked a 'question' in pursuit of an answer. Instead, you made a definitive ASSERTION that Zed's products were noncompliant and that 'no construction company will use FP until full approval under the regulations...', which is objectively false. No question marks to be seen anywhere, replaced instead by 3 exclamation points, obviously meant to underscore your mendacity.

Then maybe you should go back to night school and educate yourself before you open your ignorant pie hole, you pompous misinformation merchant (though I'm sure the other Nob 1 will still 'agree with everything you say'):

The UK Building Regulations, specifically under Approved Document B, do indeed govern the use of fire protection materials, including fire protection paints, and were indeed tightened after Grenfell. However, there IS NOT a specific prohibition stating that no construction company shall use fire protection paint until it has full approval under the regulations.

INSTEAD, the regulations emphasize that any materials, including fire protection coatings, must comply with specified performance standards.

So in fact, the new regulations will actually HELP Zenova promote its highest standards FP/Intumescent paints

Key Points Regarding Fire Protection Paint:

Approval and Compliance: Fire protection paints must meet the relevant performance standards as set out in Approved Document B. This includes compliance with fire resistance classifications and tests, ensuring that they contribute effectively to the fire safety of the structure.

Use of Intumescent Coatings: Intumescent paints, a type of fire protection paint, are often required to provide a certain level of fire resistance for structural steelwork and other building components. The regulations stipulate that these materials must undergo appropriate testing to ensure they can withstand specific fire conditions.

Regulatory Changes: Following the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, there have been significant updates to the building regulations that emphasize the use of non-combustible materials in critical areas and strict guidelines for the application of fire protection systems​

Document Structure: Approved Document B is divided into sections that detail requirements related to means of escape, internal and external fire spread, and access for emergency services, all of which indirectly impact the use of fire protection paints by specifying the safety performance required of any building material used.

As I understand it, Zenova FP intumescent coating have been test against :

BS EN 13501-1:2018

BS EN ISO 11925-2:2020

BS EN 13823:2020

BS 476-22

BS 476-22

EN 13381

'....Gracewood:- Technology does not yet appear to be approved under building regs- Suggest you do some detailed research on UK building reg before you comment again....'

That's because its the Gracewood Group LLC with £18m in net assets, you titanic knob: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC343900/filing-history

Meantime, I notice you and the other knob conveniently ignored your pablum regarding 'the competition'. Suggest you try stfu next time you feel like rocking up and commenting on something you know and/or understand less than nothing about.