Member Info for ddubya

It certainly looks like there are useful synergies between the two operations Mars. I would be more than happy with any major player if I am honest but (if it were so) to be aligned with Apple would be a particularly exciting prospect. Irrespective of which customer, reliance on NANO IP would be icing on the cake.

Max - I did acknowledge UCL's involvement in my message of Sunday at 15.53 when I said "UCL is currently undertaking studies to use QD to diagnose pancreatic cancer and hopefully to demonstrate it is not toxic in humans." I don't have secrets to keep from you.

Good morning Max. I am not aware that QD are toxic in humans either but unfortunately neither the EMA nor FDA is likely to take our word for it and offer NANO a licence, so an assessment of toxicity is a first step toward development.

As this article from the Telegraph suggests drugs cost a lot to develop both in terms of time and money but just how much depends on whether QD deliver a currently licenced drug (much cheaper) or something entirely new, which of would need to go through all the hoops. Whichever method, the delivery mechanism still needs to be proven and it is the licensing authorities that determine the extent of tests required. Cost will be dependant upon the nature of the product. Hope this is of some use Max.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/14/new-medicine-costs-12bn-develop-70pc-just-seven-years/

Should also have said that Google has been describing several life science applications as 'Sensor' technology for several years.

There are high hopes for use of QD in variety of applications such as dyes, cancer identification and treatment as well as anti-biotics. UCL is currently undertaking studies to use QD to diagnose pancreatic cancer and hopefully to demonstrate it is not toxic in humans.

However, given the slow pace of development in the pharma and life science space, human trials may be years off, and each treatment would require tens of millions to develop and bring to market (or not). I agree this is where much of the potential value lives, as well as being the main benefit to society. But first NANO needs a cash cow, so all eyes on the current offering.

Good afternoon revolutionary. As NigWit correctly says, ME did not use the term LIDAR but provided context within his statement (below). I think it fair to say most took MEs comment to mean LIDAR at the time. It is a good point though - NANO could be helping with a different aspect of the technology to sense surroundings?

"If you look at all the sensors, proximity sensors, that are used in automobiles to locate what’s around you, you look at autonomous vehicles and their need to understand what’s around them, these are the areas where these types of sensors are used and our materials work in that area to help improve performance."

Hi Nige_W. I am no expert on record keeping I am afraid but understand the beneficial (ultimate) owners in each transaction are known, so as to satisfy anti-money laundering regulations, even where trusts are involved. So detail of who owns what is out there somewhere, although perhaps not in a single place.

NANOCO holds a shareholder register and a copy can be requested (at cost) but as it provides a snapshot at a single point in time, I doubt it would provide a clean answer to your question. You would need the versions immediately pre and post the Lombard transaction to stand any chance of identifying the parties involved.

Neither do I know of any obligation to publish detail of private trades except where RNS is required, and doubt there is a right to enquire either. Other posters may have a fuller understanding but I suspect it will remain a secret, unless all parties wished to make it public.

Nvidia would of course be another great partner too NigWit and a heavyweight.

I do not think ME would intentionally make an untrue statement either. If nano-particles find their way into LIDAR his comments become true and remain so if there were other products.

On Apple, some commentators are saying it may not launch an autonomous car at all, and will focus on supplying autonomous driving tech to auto majors, which really know how to make cars people want in a way Apple does not - potentially very smart.

We can wait just a few more months for news of the partner and scale I guess.

That is not what I am saying either NigWit – it is of course possible to allow or licence others to benefit from inventions during the lifetime of a patent. I was simply pointing out that my post does not cover patents but does serve up some food for thought on US Corp candidates.

In the world of facts, we know that nano-particles should be in production for a US listed firm by the year end and from a plant with significantly increased capacity. Don’t know who but the indications suggest a heavyweight to me, one that knows how to lock news down.

Sorry NigWit, you have lost me. Rather spuriously you mention it is not illegal for others to make QD from metal-chalcogenides. I agree, provided it does infringe any patent, but you are not responding to anything raised in my post. Neither have I presented a view as a fact, just presented clearly labelled conjecture. Have you simply misread?

Having limited or insufficient information to form a view is, of course, conjecture NigWit.

Invisage CEO Jess Lee claims their quantum dot film does not use cadmium but rather a metal-chalcogenide material, per the article below.

www.eenewsanalog.com/news/ceo-interview-invisages-lee-discusses-image-sensor-revolution

If NANO is the only Independent supplier of CFQD, it does beg the question where does Invisage source its CFQD from? Have they been using Hansol QD, which effectively forms part of an Apple competitor? Perhaps they have been making their own and if so, is it able to scale up production to a level that would satisfy Apple?

All conjecture of course but the above, together with their keen interest in development of micro led and autonomous driving tech are my reasons for considering Apple to be a front runner. However, even if it were Apple/Invisage, we need to know whether we are simply acting as their manufacturer of choice, or whether NANO IP is use, to understand what size of payday awaits.

I recollect ME said the deal "includes" LIDAR. Given the desire for secrecy on one hand my feelings are that it makes no sense to then reveal LIDAR as the product. It must surely be Red Herring to deflect from the main event, whether that be smartphone, gesture recognition, or whatever. We shall only know when the time is ripe to tell, or it is leaked by an insider or investigative journalist.

Oh no - I have not stopped!

Or I had started drinking too early?

Solar has potential to be a dark house in the nano-particle space and huge potential more generally, so pleased it no longer seems to be offered for sale and that patents continue to be filed.

Thinking about it, 2013 is probably closer to when QD should have been out there NigWit but I would be happy to accept promise building to big production by 2023, if we could rely upon it.

Lol. Just noticed myself but you beat me to it!

Below is another survey we are invited to purchase, and which I do not normally take too much notice of. I shall not be buying this one either but as well as forecasting expansion at a healthy pace between now and 2013, it references both Dow and Nanoco as key players and also the cadmium free product category, which I have not seen before.

https://thebusinesstactics.com/494665/qd-led-market-to-expand-at-a-considerable-pace-with-key-players-dow-chemical-company-invisage-technologies-nanoco-group/

Unfortunately that was our dream that never came true Jurado - win some lose some. I was not expecting an uplift this early though and very pleased (now at least) that I kept in the game after the announcement that development of Ezutromid was ceasing. Alas, I am still chasing break even though.

But by the same measure NigWit, the markets have disagreed with your view for several years.