Member Info for Hydro-Jen

I have a vague recollection that the last IM presentation reported that we could expect to see another partner or the naming of this one within a few weeks - and that's a month ago. Am I mistaken in my recollection?

Everyone with a brain cell knows we are a long way from profitability. We need to be able to see a credible way of getting there - i.e. the availability of working and commercially viable products and servies

Fuel cell tech was validated years ago. What needs validating now is commercial viability.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, As it stands we have nothing to sell and can therefore generate (ironically) no income other than grants. I'd say that all shares are eventually priced on fundamentals and sooner or later the most important fundamentals are income and profit. What this share needs is a clear road to those key criteria and that doesn't exist yet.

I really don't see that shares like this one can really be subject to accurate technical analysis. They need to sell something, or at least prove conclusively that they have a fully working and commercially viable product.

Thank you for your up to the minute and incisive analysis - always appreciated...

I wish the CEO had been in a position to make £80-100m himself as if he had been I'd currently be in the final stages of completing the deal for my private Caribbean island.

I imagine there's an Avacta board out there somewhere where your ramping might be more relevant.

Thanks. But in any event a reported 'buy' means bought from the market makers and vice versa for a 'sell'

Didn't think it was that daft a question, Daz. It was immediately preceded by a 250,000 buy so possibly a million shares in quick order.

I didn't ask a question... I was pointing out that people on here continually ask daft questions!

I'm really not that bothered about the LSE thing but day in day out the class clowns (both filtered so responses irrelevant) start threads about the actual or, perceived inaccuracies of this site. Usually they are the basis of stupid and baseless conspiracy theories about market makers' activities and motives. On this thread alone these are quotes (my comments in brackets) which make me think that their authors are labouring under some sort of false impression about what this site is:

A great deal of technology ends up being TAKENOLOGY. (I've no real idea what that means to be honest)

Why in this day & age & with AI , Why they can't get a simple thing like wether it's a buy or sell correct is beyond me."

surprising they use the share price to define as a buy or sell

why they don't pull the buy/sell data field from the records of the broker transacting has baffled me. Is there some GDPR reason or the extra cost of extracting that extra field

Clearly AI generated, (clearly not given this site is all but unchanged for about a couple of decades)

sometimes it doesn’t exist so they have to make it up.

Couldn't the regulator or LSE force trading platforms to include the buy/sell field in the files (do they mean this LSE or the other LSE because this one has absolutely zero leverage to do so)

I’m hoping Ade will clarify (to say that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence would be understating matters!)

Well, what's its website address...?

Doesn't matter to me but some of the half-assed questions on this thread just make me wonder if users might get confused. It is a site that is specifically for investors looking for UK stock prices and data that is called LSE - and you think that's a coincidence?!

I do wonder if some users think that LSE is affiliated to the actual London Stock Exchange. Quite how they've been able to use those intitials without the actual LSE objecting is a mystery to me. Passing off...

This site is:

a) free

b) not subject to any form of regulation

c) barely changed since the internet came into common usage

d) largely used for bickering to fill the day, so not a serious investment tool

e) apparently almost totally unmonitored by its operators

but some people think they should be able to rely on it for 100% up to date and accurate information...

Nothing but positives to take from director buys.

Last time it happened the price shot up and helped to facilitate the fund raise. The share options subsequently granted protected JW & KB from dilution. Some people on here (not me) did say that was part of the rationale for t e purchases then - who knows? - but clearly there is no prospect of an imminent placing now so no place for that, perhaps well founded, cynicism.

Very glad that the rot has been stopped but no chance of getting giddy because the share price is nearly up to 10p!

To be fair, Testudo, the fuel cell science was proven some time ago. That's not why it failed - it failed on commercials

So, why, TTGB do you think it has gone down since Helikon did make a substatntial reduction to their short position. Quite apart from the obvious buying necessary I would have hoped for sentiment to have helped.

Doesn't sound like ours

ABB’s fuel cell solution is a modular power supply system developed for marine use. The system is based on the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells.

And by 'mystery partner' you presumably mean the S&P 500 company? ABB isn't in the S&P500.

Do you recall JW's response when the current relationship with ABB was raised at the last presentation? Either you're wrong or he has the greatest deadpan face in history. Place your bets...

Going green is the only way. Blocking out the silly noise from CN makes the world a better place