Member Info for DrAnomoly

Clearly half the LSE board has been sipping the festive sherry since breakfast, because the quality of commentary today looks like someone left the keyboard unattended at a family gathering.

We’ve got Ridgewalker shouting WORLD CLASS ENGINEERING in capitals like he’s trying to summon a dragon, Stockhunter performing GCSE maths on the back of an IOU, Hamilton looking for funding as if it’s hidden under the sofa. Thaiger turns up with a novella diagnosing the EU, PHE, the decline of Western civilisation, and probably the moon landing if you gave him another paragraph.

Meanwhile, the company is still exactly where it was at 09:15 this morning: building out a strategy, moving toward execution, and not relying on message-board philosophers for guidance. Amazing, really, that the technology is judged daily by people who can’t even get through a post without turning it into a drunken episode of Loose Women.

Anyway, do carry on, lads. The entertainment value is superb. I’ll let you know if Brussels rings to ask for your expert insight on hydrogen markets.

I see twat of the year couldn't resist - I'm not reading a single line of your poison anymore, testy - you are just vermin.

Yeah, but back to the original name - bit like circular economy :-)

Entertaining thread today. Half the board is trying to understand the RNS, the other half is reenacting a village argument about whether the vicar stole the jam.

Before anyone starts rewriting history again, today’s update is straightforward. SPV incorporated, 50-year site offer signed, feedstock and offtake locked in, and a UK finance team taking the FEED apart line by line. That’s real progress, not the usual AIM fantasy football.

The broader market still hasn’t forgiven the March raise, sentiment took a beating, and liquidity was left for dead. It’s not mysterious. If you want an instant rerate, AIM sadly doesn’t operate a same-day delivery service. The mechanics are simple: trust rebuilds slowly, volume returns slowly, and then you get a price that behaves like something other than a damp trampoline.

And just to head off the inevitable: yes, I’m fully aware certain posters will arrive shortly to “reinterpret” everything that’s happened, conflate unrelated points, and try to spin a narrative that even ITV wouldn’t commission. We’ve all seen that routine for years. When someone who fabricates conversations from three summers ago tries to present themselves as the archivist of truth, you can safely file their commentary under fiction.

The rest of us can continue dealing in actual events.

If you’re optimistic, fine. If you’re cautious, also fine. Just don’t let the serial storytellers drag you into another round of make-believe. Today’s RNS stands on its own merits, and for once, AIM has delivered something built on substance rather than noise.

Carry on.

All this lovely green text I'm not reading - Christ, it's like Pavlov's dogs, I ring a bell and they come running. What a bunch of losers.

Nice to see my name still working overtime for the bored and bitter. I’m not unfiltering proven liars. Touching that they’re still talking to an empty room. I haven’t posted in ages, because there’s nothing new to discuss until PHE actually publishes something. So much for the “paid uberramper” fantasy. Quick reminder from the Book of AIM: he without a busted trade can cast the first stone. The rest can put the rocks down and drop the guru act. None of us are waste-to-energy professors, me included, so argue the data, not the person.

On charts, yes they’re still there. This share has eaten more black swans than most small caps see in a decade. If half the blindsides hadn’t landed, we’d be talking about results, not reruns. Hindsight is easy, patience is the hard bit. Now, can we get back to PHE, and park the playground?

Agree, it's gone on far too long now. Time for a break and time to put them back on ignore - sorry to other posters, but while they are around, nothing is going to improve here.

How correct the title is.

Apologies Dusty, i'm happy to stop, just not happy for the cretins to continue with a pass. Just to close I do wonder what he meant by 'I’m a qualified non-practising Solicitor (career change)'

Red — you’ve outdone yourself this time. First, you “work in law”, advising on corporate and IP, then a few months later you “don’t work in law”, you just “happen to have a degree in it.” Which is it, Perry Mason or Paralegal of Make-Believe?

It’s classic forum fraudulence — inflate when you’re bragging, deflate when you’re cornered. You’d fit right in with Testpack’s pathology of revisionist storytelling; two men united by the same selective memory and a broadband connection. Birds of a feather, and all that.

If you’re going to posture as the grown-up in the room, at least pick a career and stick with it for the length of a thread.

Red, I could’ve sworn you once said you were a lawyer — yet here you are explaining patents like you’ve just skimmed a Wikipedia summary.

If you genuinely believe IP only has value once enforced, then you’ve missed the whole commercial point. Patents aren’t about running to court; they’re about controlling behaviour before it ever gets that far. They create leverage, define the field, and deter copycats long before a single writ is drafted. That’s why serious companies spend millions filing them globally — not for litigation, but for position.

Your “paper trophies” line would make sense if this were a pub chat, but from someone claiming legal credentials? It’s just sloppy. The rest of your post reads like you’re auditioning for a TED Talk on things you’ve never actually done.

Tell you what — if you really are a lawyer, send me your business card. I’ll pass it on to Paul; he could use a good laugh. Though honestly, you’d be more useful if we threw you in as the next feedstock test.

Oh Red, when the punctuation starts laughing for you, it’s usually a sign the ideas have left the building.

If you think that was written for me, maybe it’s because you’re not used to seeing joined-up sentences that actually make a point. I don’t need a ghostwriter — just a functioning attention span, which appears to be rarer on here than profits at HUI.

Anyway, when you’ve got something more than “haha” and a caps lock tantrum, I’ll be over here discussing the grown-up bits — you know, the ones with facts and reasoning.

Christ, Testpack — every time you post it’s like being cornered by a retired geography teacher who’s just discovered copy-and-paste. You keep mistaking verbosity for intellect.

You’ve spent a thousand words proving you don’t understand the difference between a process patent and a concept patent. Every example you give — from India’s roadside cookers to your imaginary temperature gauges in Japan — just reinforces how little you grasp of IP law or industrial practice. The patents aren’t about inventing pyrolysis, you clown, they’re about the specific configuration and control system that make it efficient, safe, and commercially scalable. That’s what’s novel, and that’s what’s protected.

Your “thermodynamics lecture” reads like something nicked from a 1970s Open University leaflet. You quote temperature differentials as if you’ve uncovered state secrets, when in reality you’re describing the most basic engineering principle there is. You’re not a pioneer — you’re a parody.

And the Concorde line? That’s your big “gotcha”? You’ve officially compared a £1.3 billion aerospace programme to a waste-to-energy pilot plant. It’s like comparing your hairdryer to the Large Hadron Collider.

As for the “unemployed” jab — you’ve tried that one so often it’s starting to sound like wishful thinking. Maybe it bothers you that people with actual jobs still manage to outthink you before breakfast.

So here’s your reality check, professor: you’ve been caught lying, twisting, and recycling the same tired fantasy for years. You don’t debate — you drone. You’re not educating anyone; you’re just narrating your own irrelevance.

Red, it’s cute how you keep mistaking calm explanation for “textbook.” That’s what happens when someone who’s read a manual argues with someone who’s actually spoken to the engineers.

You’re describing litigation, not IP strategy. The value of a patent doesn’t depend on rushing to court — it’s in deterring copycats, enabling licensing, and giving investors legal confidence that the IP is protected. You don’t need to have a war chest to make patents matter; you just need to have them when the grown-ups come to the table.

As for “how long before PHE become aware of a breach” — Christ, this isn’t the 1980s. The minute a company tries to license or export pyrolysis tech in a jurisdiction where PHE holds rights, it’s flagged. Legal discovery doesn’t start with binoculars and a clipboard.

And your last line sort of proves my point. Exactly. Once it’s commercialised, those patents anchor the value. You can’t sign a meaningful deal without them. That’s why they’re there now — to protect the upside later.

So if you want the “real world” take: patents don’t need enforcing every week to have worth — they just need to exist when the money shows up. Everything else is noise.

You’re half right, Red — enforcing patents takes time and money. But that doesn’t make them “worthless”; it makes them strategic. Companies don’t patent to start lawsuits; they patent to establish ownership, secure valuation, and give investors and partners a legal framework for licensing. It’s a defensive moat, not a courtroom hobby.

If patents were “worthless without litigation,” every R&D company on AIM would be wallpapering their offices with them. Yet investors, auditors, and acquirers routinely assign millions in balance-sheet value to IP portfolios. Why? Because the existence of a granted patent establishes novelty and exclusivity. Enforcement is the last resort — not the business model.

As for “no full-scale plant, so dead share” — nonsense. Every FOAK system starts at pilot scale. That’s how engineering risk is managed. You don’t build a 40-tonne reactor to prove a concept; you scale once the model validates. That’s exactly what the FTU phase is doing.

So, Red, if you’re going to talk about valuation, at least grasp the basics: patents aren’t paper — they’re the receipts proving the technology actually belongs to the company. The only thing truly worthless here is your analysis.

He’s droning on again like a man mistaking word count for insight. Here’s the reality, stripped of his pseudo-expert waffle:

Yes, pyrolysis as a *principle* isn’t new — neither is electricity, but that didn’t stop people patenting everything from how it’s generated to how it’s stored. What matters is **the method**, not the concept. PHE’s patents don’t claim to have invented pyrolysis; they protect a specific, optimised configuration — temperature zoning, gas recirculation, control logic, materials handling — all the things that make their version commercially viable and reproducible.

Enforcement? He clearly doesn’t understand how patent protection actually works. You don’t need to “monitor every plant in China.” You need to protect your markets of interest — EU, UK, US, ANZ — and anyone importing or licensing tech into those jurisdictions hits the patent wall. The rest of the world copies everyone; that’s life. Serious companies know where they can operate safely, and that’s where the legal value sits.

And the irony? He keeps Googling examples that *prove* why patents matter. Every one of those “Chinese outfits” he cites is exactly why you patent — to differentiate your intellectual property from theirs and secure investor confidence.

So, yes — he’s right that enforcement abroad is hard. He’s just too dim to realise that *this is precisely why you register patents in the first place*.

At this point it’s like arguing thermodynamics with a hairdryer. He’s not engaging, he’s projecting. Let him keep typing — it reads like a technical bedtime story for people who don’t understand what words mean.

Patents mean nothing? Tell that to every engineering firm on the planet. Patents are the legal fence around IP — without them, you don’t have a business, you have a hobby. You don’t hand over a full-scale commercial unit before protecting the technology; you lock down the rights first, then scale. That’s why early demonstrations and prototype validation exist — to prove performance, not to supply the first customer car off the line.

As for the car analogy — nonsense. You’re not buying a hatchback, you’re funding an industrial system that converts unrecyclable waste into syngas. Different ballgame. Due diligence is built around risk mitigation and IP control, both of which are precisely why PHE now owns its patents and is testing under NDA.

“Serious players won’t entertain PHE”? They already have — otherwise there wouldn’t be customers specifying feedstock compositions or groups like NH2 tailoring inputs. The lawyers and banks know what “first-of-a-kind” means: higher risk, yes, but potentially transformative returns. That’s why it attracts project finance, not a car loan.

EEE losses aside, maybe the lesson here is simple — don’t confuse patience with failure. FOAK tech doesn’t move at AIM-trader speed, and shouting “patents mean nothing” just tells everyone you’ve never sat in a due-diligence room in your life.

Its friday, bit of a winddown day so... Here’s your answer, Twat — longer, surgical, and with crayons so you can follow along.

You keep shrieking, “He won’t answer!” as if I owe you viva voce on command. I’m not here to sit your little cross-examination. I answer what merits an answer, not whatever pops into your head between breakfast and your next rant. A liar can’t answer, you say? Cute. A liar certainly can ask, demand, repeat, and then rewrite his own story three times before lunch. Which is your entire shtick.

Now, the line you’re fixating on:

“You lied about the AGM, bent the timeline to suit yourself, then accidentally ended up agreeing with the exact point you were trying to argue against.”

What it means, in plain English:

You first pushed a timeline that suited your narrative: either denying what was said at the AGM/CMD about commissioning and customer trials, or pretending the “once fully commissioned” wording in a later RNS proved nothing had run.

When corrected on how disclosure actually works — inside information at the earliest appropriate time, boilerplate caution isn’t a confession — you pivoted.

Then, while arguing against me, you parroted the exact principle I stated: that companies release at the appropriate moment and use cautious RNS language. In other words, you denied, shifted, and finally adopted my point while pretending you were refuting it. That’s the bend… and the face-plant.

Since you like receipts, here’s your pattern in miniature:

BP saga: boast, backtrack, rewrite, declare victory.

FTU/AGM: deny, distort, discover boilerplate, then quote it like you found the tablets on Sinai.

NDAs: “NDAs don’t exist,” followed by “not public equals didn’t happen,” followed by you grudgingly repeating the basic disclosure rule you’d been attacking.

So no, I’m not “refusing debate.” I’m refusing to be your performing seal. Debate requires facts and a consistent position. You bring neither. You bring volume, revision, and the confidence of a man who’s never once checked his own notes.

Here’s the closer, nice and slow: I don’t answer you on demand because your questions are bad-faith scaffolding for the next rewrite. And the AGM line stands because you did exactly that — you twisted the sequence to score a point, got corrected, then accidentally agreed with me while pretending you’d won. It’s not Socratic; it’s slapstick.

Carry on performing if it soothes you. Just don’t confuse an interrogation fantasy with a debate, and don’t mistake your echo for applause.

Twat, the obsession is getting a bit weird now. You’ve gone from arguing about shares to fantasising about my employment status — what’s next, guessing my shoe size?

It’s the same pattern every time: you invent something, argue with it, then congratulate yourself for winning. You’ve written enough words to fill a novella, and still managed to prove only one thing — that you can’t stand being ignored.

You keep demanding answers like you’re chairing some grand inquisition, but here’s the truth: I don’t owe you a thing. I’ll post when and where I like, and you can keep shouting into the void if it helps you sleep.

You’re not uncovering anything, you’re just flailing. The only “gotcha” here is watching you mistake your own echo for applause.

Twat, look at the sheer volume of words you’ve churned out — and still managed to say absolutely nothing. I’m not reading it. Nobody is. It’s just the same circular drivel on repeat, and at this point, it’s background noise.

You’ve been calling me a liar about my PhD for years, as if repetition somehow makes it true. You’ve been caught out on BP, the avatar, the timeline — yet here you are again, rewriting your own script like anyone’s still following the plot.

I get it — it’s straight out of the troll handbook: never concede, always deflect, keep the argument alive because it’s all you’ve got left.

But really, it’s past its sell-by date. Round and round you go, and I’ve long since stepped off the ride.