Member Info for ddubya

Sorry T and lol - it was of course your link and not Joe’s.

I suppose it is possible that the new camera could be built into a screen strap but if Apple was committed to one, I doubt it would have pulled the camera now but rather have used iPhone deployment to develop and miniaturise it. I think the camera sensors are probably dead for now at least.

I think it possible and more likely that Apple could have interest in NANO to help develop micro led watch screens as well as to supply a rumoured OLED/QD hybrid TV and or iPads and Macs?

Looks like that stripped down budget version is going backwards Joe and most unlikely to be sporting CFQD I am afraid. It is the 2020 phone that we must look to and unless Apple reverses its decision we are not likely to find CFQD behind the camera there either.

There are many other uses for NANO products though, possibly even with Apple. We have to hope that LOAM has information that we do not and that is why it is confident enough to top up over 20%. These guys rarely take a gamble and will be carefully analysing the market, so my gut feel is that we should keep the faith despite the painful journey.

I have some sympathy with NANO having identified Display as the target market, then moved to secure non exclusive distribution via Dow.

I suspect there are numerous vested interests that do not wish for NANO success, but I agree it may have been more sensible to be more active in partnering creation niche market to become more established, e.g sensors for industrial use. In a sense they have done so with Carewear, although it is not viewed as material success by the markets.

Why not offer them at cost or free for a period to a partner that could that market them in some form of display that is produced in volume.

I suspect that performance and contamination through absorption of oxygen and moisture etc has been a problem in the past.

I expect that the American partner had commissioned CFQD, since they would be ideal for use in a camera sensor. However, from outset NANO was keen to describe them as Nano-particles, probably to conceal the plan from competitors.

I have a feeling that any value will come to us through a sale of the IP, rather than through marketing of products, which would be a real shame, since that is where the real value lives.

Military application was mentioned several times at the Interim presentation, so perhaps they are? Drones, missiles and night sights are just a few of many military applications.

Absolutely agree that we should have more information Troublesome. Yes we have had some Director purchases but otherwise, I find it incredible that the Board has nothing else to offer in terms of reassurance, following the largest reduction of share cap in its history.

Not sure that we can assume nano particles are still being churned out at Runcorn, or even that they are capable of use in any application other than iPhone camera’s?

Another good step up. Obviously would prefer more of same, but suspect we may pause for breath shortly?

You are a cynic Compass007 - we all have a bit in us and it can be a healthy thing but not sure that was going on here - some Directors made purchases in earlier months and have been fleeced too. I would say it is more likely that Apple has softened us up for a future low ball bid. It won't want sensors that it has developed and paid for with NANO sold elsewhere (following the two year exclusivity period) and it does not like paying royalties at a premium (e.g. Qualcom). It is also going to need a supplier of CFQD for its displays (on its own terms) when they are proven to be best in market and are cost effective. That's my own cynical viewpoint.

You are a cynic Compass007 - we all have a bit in us and it can be a healthy thing but not sure that was going on here - some Directors made purchases in earlier months and have been fleeced too. I would say it is more likely that Apple has softened us up for a future low ball bid. It won't want sensors that it has developed and paid for with NANO sold elsewhere (following the two year exclusivity period) and it does not like paying royalties at a premium (e.g. Qualcom). It is also going to need a supplier of CFQD for its displays (on its own terms) when they are proven to be best in market and are cost effective. That's my own cynical viewpoint.

Jplay. If you are permitted to trade and do so legitimately there is no obligation to give them back if ‘big’ news breaks subsequently.

Alansugaratyor. The NANO directors are bound by a regulatory Code. I am no expert on the current code but it used to be the case that if the company has knowledge of price sensitive news, they enter a closed period when Directors are prohibited from trading (feel sure that is still the case). For example, where an indicative offer is made to purchase the company or discussion to do so has commenced. Other triggers apply too and usually the company's advisers guide directors on their obligations. In short, since NANO Directors are trading, there should be no imminent and significant events in the offing but that can change fast. Of course, the key thing today is the confidence they have expressed in parting with their own money, whilst they can.

Who knows? From the purchase prices, it looks like the Directors bought today and the RNS was issued PDQ thereafter. Feels like they want to send a message to the market that NANO is down but not out.

Some financial commitment from the Chairman and COO at least in the most recent RNS.

I see, but still Nearly as well placed as a newbie.

Thumbs up to that Basscadet. Well done and you must have bought shed loads in the last two sessions. My average lower than it was but nowhere near yours.

Spotted that too but could be they are suitable Troublesome and the customer is making a switch from nano-particle to QD or CFQD? Not knowing quite what nano-particle is does not help of course.

Existing contract honoured yes but no further income projected beyond year end, so where does NANO go from here without the anticipated orders?

Given the differing views of posters here and elsewhere perhaps not Mikey?

I would like us to have greater clarity on that Itsamaybe, since the way the two RNS read suggests it is the entire American partnership ‘project’ that ceased, hence we might expect the Runcorn extension not to be fulfilling any orders any time soon. Would love that interpretation to be wrong but I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

I believe they rent the new Runcorn production site (as well as the original premises) from a Business Park.