Member Info for Hydro-Jen

I expect approval as well. but given the history I do not regard orders (when they come) as firm if they have conditions attached to them. Too badly bitten by Bond's mythical order book. An order, for me, is a contractual obligation to buy the product/service.

To all halfwits.

I think I called CN one once and that was deeply unfair. To halfwits.

Why this lunatic can't get it into his head that not being 100% positive all the time does not equal being a shorter will have to remain a mystery.

An order prior to regulatory approval isn't an order in my book. That wouldn't be a commitment to buy

Nobody, bar the obvious resident lunatics, expected material commercial news at this point, Aldebaran.

This was as good as we could hope for now, and an important staging point. I don't see a fundraise this year as I think that costs have been controlled to a degree where it won't be necessary yet - but I am sure it will be at some point because there is no way we'll become profitable in the next couple of years - too much upfront investment needed for that.

As you say, that will become a lot easier (and less destructive for the share price) if we have genuine commercial traction at that point, whenever it is.

Given the track record of brokers when 'analysing' this share - does anyone really care?!

Having a credible manufacturing partner already in place would suggest hey can be churned out pretty rapidly if needed, Tweedly - let's hope so! I'd imagine Volex would not have partnered without an idea of the prospects of the pipeline delivering actual orders.

Fewer components! It becomes clearer by the day that the previous team were engaged in a science project rather than a commercial business. What on earth were they thinking?!

It's good news, for sure. A take-off comes when there are clear signs of material commercial adoption. We have a 'pipeline of opportunities'. They need converting and we are, of course, optimistic that will happen.

Still ramping away.

Are you sticking with your prediction that within two years it will be worth five times what JW thinks it might be worth within five years?

The financial report that the presentation focuses on is of minimal interest. We know that very little revenue generating business was undertaken in that period. Might be a bit from the historic units via Speedy and Acciona but that's going to be peanuts.

Cash burn matters - we'd anticipate that the ongoing rate will have been reduced but redundancy payments may give a lopsided picture.

Of much more interest will be events post the October year end:

Is the ICL JV up, running and producing hydrogen and income?

Have we moved to the next stage of the S&P co. arrangement?

Is the re-engineering of units by Volex on track

And the perennial big one - are we close to actually commercialising anything?

I'm not ridiculing facts. I'm ridiculing interpretations (and you).

You and your twin/alias are both adamant that nothing can possibly go wrong. That's not a fact, but it is ridiculous.

AI really does have a lot to answer for.

I've used it to good effect for tasks but pumping out this gibberish as factual information ten times a day somehow lessens its credibility

You've already been told that there is only one institutional shareholder above the 3% notifiable level - Janus Henderson.

Who are these other major strategic players' that you have identified on the share register? ABB certainly doesn't count - they are a 1.6% shareholder and that is legacy from a relationship that no longer exists, as JW has made clear.

Idiotic.

I'd be very happy with 23p from here.

Keep ramping , CN.

You say you don't do that but you reckon £5 by the end of 2027? So, ignoring the possibility of any further raises you reckon the market cap could be around £5.6bn.

That's despite JW saying that if the company had gone private then a 10% stake could be worth £100m in 5 years time.

Meanwhile the grown ups can have a chat

Do you understand that this is the USA imposing tariffs on our goods?

Presumably you are advocating tit-for-tat tariffs on goods from the USA?

So you think a trade war is potentially a good thing?

Even by your standards...

'Proves'? Clown

You just don't get, it do you CN.

Past trials are of very little importance on a COMMERCIAL basis. That is because they were trial of products that were not and could never have become commercial because they were horrendously over-complicated and totally overpriced. Most of those trials were four or five years ago and before anyone had any inkling that the cracker was the most likely route to success.

The tech was validated but as nobody was going to buy it (as has been shown) The specific trials produced absolutely zip-all - demonstrably and were therefore of no great relevance.

This does not add up to thinking AFC are 'cr#p'. This is just rational thought based on facts as oppose to your approach which just assumes everything will be fine when, in fact, there are very clear and considerable risks.

I will say again. I have a significant shareholding and have held most of it for some considerable time. I am in profit on my last three purchases which were the placing and one either side of the level that was made at.

Now grow up.

The trial was fairly pointless as it had long since been established that the systems worked in terms of producing power

Extreme E

Acciona

Keir

Vinic

Keltbray

Balfour Beatty

Brett

et al

But what we didn't know during most if not all of those trials was that the cost of units made commerciality completely unrealistic.

I do recall another clown on here arguing that the cost was irrelevant due to government emission targets - which was quite possibly the most ludicrous proposition ever propounded, even on here!

Past trials are of zero relevance.

Hmm. I didn't think the latest clown was an alias of another clown but posting old articles as if they are directly relevant now suggest otherwise.

We've no idea if the Brett relationship is ongoing. We do know that it was facilitated by grant money and that it is/was using systems that would otherwise be commercially non-viable. I may have missed something but I can't recall it being mentioned in the last IM presentation. Can't think why it wouldn't be if it was still ongoing and had potential.