Member Info for Gitfinger

Hey folks, another transformative year!

Just looking at the accounts for a moment, a couple of things stand out..

1. Deferred income has reduced by £177K in the year. So does this not mean that the amount of actually recognisable value added to the project in the year under review is £177K? More importantly, out of a total contract value of £2.0M, only £577K in total has been recognised. Is this not a worrying state of affairs?

Total turnover for the year amounts to £277K, of which £177K is attributable to the above, leaving a balance of £100K attributable to non ABB activity. Of this £100K, consideration receivable, the company actually received £34K, as £66K has been received as "payment in kind" relating to so called "marketing services" provided by the customer. So in effect, the total cash receipt due to the company for the year, is in effect £34K, rather than the already disappointing £277K.

Never mind, we have a pipeline and all that.....I just wonder how much the company will be paying Speedy for "marketing services" in respect of the JV.........It's already stated that they will be providing admin support and such.....

B3

What are you on about chum?

"instead of being pathetic spineless posters hiding behind a code names, why don't you all meet up face to face and see who is brave enough to say these things to each other ??? i am game".

shortly followed by the arch keyboard warrior Ginger T, whos got plenty of previous on intimidatory aggressive postings....

Only thing wrong with kath's post was that she probably missed the words "on the" from the final sentence...

Good old Kaff

Nice to see that the Ubers are taking the usual aggressive stance, as per usual.....

I don't need to go to the AGM, because I can simply imagine it.....

https://youtu.be/avXLKVYLlcs

McStock….

You are truly the most dangerous poster on this board by a long way. You do not “Ramp” in the traditional sense, but you continual barrage of overly positive spun up drivel ultimately has the same effect. Case in point your recent post stating that AFC have indeed made sales of £2 M….yes, this is true, but no one knows the terms of the sale agreement. We don’t know unit price or margin achievable per unit, whether the £2 M is going to be paid in cash, or “in kind” (AFC’S favoured method of disguising a giveaway, as with the amazing tower of power tests) or whether there may be a share subscription sweetener as per ABB….surely given the lack of detail surrounding the deal, an element of circumspection would be appropriate, but no, not in your world, it’s straight in with the Uber positive spin as per usual…..my belief is that you are not a genuine shareholder, but simply a mouthpiece for someone looking to make margin out of artificially induced volatility….

Johnboy

Love you too.......you little old long term holding scamp!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I think holding for over 10 years classifies me as a long term holder. and yes, I have been holding a residual amount, having sold into various rises ahead of the inevitable retrace. I just pity the fools who are taken in by the ramping drivel of McStock and all of the other company acolytes.....

As for pseudonym, never used one, happy to stand toe to toe with anyone ad infinitum, simply because no one has ever come up with a valid counter argument to anything I post, they simply go quiet, or resort to insults.....

as for the "news from HQ" comment, that's completely risible and shows you to be the joke that you are.....A joke who is probably so underwater that they simply cannot accept that they've been sold a pup.....

JN

50%. Of a lot is still a lot, and 16% of a lot is still a lot…..the problem is, we’ve never been told what the “lot” is, so what exactly is the point of the RNS?

If we are assuming that the Pramac P11000 is going to be the natural hunting ground of the speedy tower of power, then I presume that the capex is going to have to be somewhere similar.....do we have any idea what the unit cost to the JV is likely to be, because this is going to be a key indicator of the commercial viability of using fuel cells as a replacement to Diesel, even before you start looking at comparisons between white diesel and H2....

Newt.

Still not prepared to respond in an agree / disagree form to the points raised on 07/03 then?

Daz. Ah, so what you're saying is that the FAT test isn't really independent, it's just a case that it's met the performance parameters set down by the customer. I suppose if the "customer" just happens to be your joint venture partner, then you can set the performance criteria exactly as you wish in order to make sure that the so called "test" is passed....a bit like marking your own exam paper I suppose.....The acid test will be whether any units are actually hired out by the JV, on what terms, and whether these so called sales actually generate any kind of gross margin.

First things first. On face value, looks like a step forward, and could be the start of a move out of the doldrums. If it is indeed a move out of the doldrums, and the share price manages to lurch above my exit point (23.5 pence, which is a no profit / no loss position on my not inconsiderable residual holding) then I'm off, never to be

heard of again.....that's the good news for all you ubers. If it still lurches in the 15 - 20 pence channel afer this news, I'll carry on calling this dog out.

Just one question.... does anyone actually know what's entailed in a FAT test? Do they know what the parameters of the test are, and who sets them? Do they know who is undertaking the test? Are the testers independent, or is it done in house?

Answers on a postcard please.

I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe I believe that all will come good, and that there will be a commercially viable product, and that there will be many units flying off the Speedy shelves, and that ABB will buy loads of super duper big units, so much so that they will exhaust their agreed discount.....Oh, that's all right then, it's now going to happen, because I believe that it will happen, in spite of the whole raft of evidence to the contrary and complete apathy in the market.....

Newt.....The only clown around here is the one who insists, in spite of all of the evidence, that this is anything other than a cynical money engine being operated for the benefit of others, rather than in the best interests of the shareholders.

Funny how you get all uppity and aggressive when I post something that you aren't able to counter with you usual ambiguous double speak....again, give evidence of anything that is factually incorrect......

I await your next volley of insults....oh, I forgot, it's a friday afternoon, and you're probably busy having a cosy "tutorial" with some "newt studies" student somewhere......

Still sitting on the fence then newt wrangler......unable to put a valid response to the points posed, so just get all supercilious....show me where I am factually incorrect in the points raised.....you won't be able to and that's what really grieves you, hence your childish need to resort to insults, which are water off a duck's back.....Oh, nice red day again, things going well in AFC deluded land then......

Isn't she related to David Dickinson?

Klunk

Well, that's B3 sorted... your turn.

Putting a Ferrari badge on a Fiat Panda means that you just look like a newt wrangler, because everyone can see that underneath, it's a Fiat Panda. If you have a big grey box, which has a Fiat Panda engine in it, but put a Ferrari badge on it, there is nothing that the average man on the street can use to identify the fact that the gubbins inside aren't Ferrari, but Fiat. This is precisely what AFC has done, which is misleading and immoral.

By definition, if the energy generated by the solar array is subject to two separate inefficiencies, then by definition, it would be more efficient to cut out the middle man, and go straight to battery. If your comment about the size of solar array is correct, then that means that the whole project is very reliant on imported energy, which really casts doubt on the validity of the whole thing. Basically, whatever contribution the chocolate teapot had in energy delivery, derived from the solar array, more energy could have been supplied to the battery array directly, if the teapot was simply by passed.....

B3

You seem to be deliberately missing the point, as per usual. The picture shown on the website clearly shows a box marked "Electrolyser" with AFC written on it. To the average man in the street (one of which you, of course aren't because of your superior intellect) implies that its is actually AFC's electrolyser. You have confirmed your understanding that it isn't AFC's electrolyser, so do you, or do you not agree that to place the words AFC on a box of tricks that isn't theirs is misleading.

How about, just for once, you stop acting as the arch apologist for the company, get off the fence, and answer the following in simple agree / disagree form, and if "disagree" provide a valid alternative fact.

1. Does AFC have an in house developed electrolyser

2. Did AFC show a box marked "electrolyser" in a document produced by them, with AFC clearly shown on the box

3. Is this, or is this not misleading

4. In Extreme E, the AFC unit was not capable of providing the necessry charge density, and therefore the unit was reliant on a significant batter buffer

5. The AFC unit could effectively only trickle charge the battery array.

6. The solar array created electricity. This was then used to create hydrogen using an electroyser (thereby suffering efficiency losses)

7. The H2 was put into a fuel cell, which trickle charged the battery array, thereby generating further efficiency losses.

8. The battery array was used to charge the cars.

9. The energy produced by the solar array which was used to generate the hydrogen could quite easily have been used to trickle charge the battery array without the intermediate steps of electrolysis or conversion back into hydrogen by the fuel cell.

10. There would be more energy available to charge the battery array if the trickle charge was direct from the solar array, as opposed to going through two intermediry steps.

You call me a buffoon if you like. Fine, no problem with that, but I'm the "buffoon" who has maintained for years that the tech doesn't work as promoted, and that sales are a long way off, with the company entering into many MOU's JV's sales agreements which have all come to nought. Where are we now by comparison to 4 years ago.....still in the doldrums and no commercially viable product, but what do I know, I'm only a simple buffoon who saw the light and sold out the majority of my very significant holdings when I twigged what was going on....better be a buffoon than a deluded pretend academic who no doubt teaches something like "newt studies" or the like, all the while thinking that this pile of junk will come good....trust me, it won't.

losses.

Klunk

But it wasn't an AFC eletrolyser though, was it? Please explain your comment about the solar array needing to be the size of a football field, because it just makes no sense.

Solar array > electrolyser > fuel cell > battery means far more inefficiency than solar array > battery,.

By definition, if you are cutting out the middle man, you will get more energy into the battery per hours production by the solar by direct charge than by the convoluted electrolyser / chocolate teapot route, ergo, you should in fact need a SMALLER array, rather than a bigger one.....try applying a bit of logic, old boy!

With all due respect, who are you to tell me what I do, and do not know about this company. I do know that there is no AFC electrolyser, and I do know that the Extreme E system failed to perform as per specification, hence the need for the huge battery buffer and the ultimate removal of AFC from the enterprise.

B3. Actually, just to put the record straight, they used a solar array to generate electricity. It was then put through SOMEONE ELSE'S ELECTOLYSER to produce the hydrogen, which was then put through the AFC fuel cell, which trickle charged the batteries that were needed to provide the required charge, because the fuel cell itself couldn't deliver it on an instantaneous basis.

Which begs the question, why go to all of the trouble of having an electrolyrser and a fuel cell, when you could simply cut out the middle man and trickle charge the battery array from the solar array directly.

I challenge you to put a valid counter argument to this last point....

B3. So sorry I couldn't be bothered to go to the AGM, along with all of the other gullible sheep.....I guess if I had, i'd have seen the poster....Sorry to burst your bubble, but THERE IS NO ELETROLYSER! A picture on a wishful thinking poster isn't a product. Please show me actual evidence of there being an eletrolyser in the armory of AFC's cutting edge products and I'll shut up, but until then, I'll maintain my position that it's just another example of borderline fraudulent spin.

If there were such a product, why have we never heard of it, surely it would have been newsworthy, especially on the basis that the company issues RNS's on the most pathetic non events imaginable....