Member Info for nojhead

Daz, personally i see the use of the word "potentially" as simply a butt covering exercise as inherently we do need additional metrics to know the true value of the system (energy input vs that used for the other crackers for example) 99.9% is world leading output - but one could potentially sue for damages if they lose revenue based on a statement of fact opening those making the statement up for possible litigation, virtually no publisher would take that risk (bearing in mind its very difficult to find full specs on any ammonia crackers at the moment).

the use of that one word removes that risk and means the time to publish news is dropped significantly due to not having to look into the specs of every system going.

there is much more here than pass or fail, yes if we failed we wouldnt have a cracker based product, but not only did we pass we hit a homerun and knocked it clean out the park, its not a pass, its setting the standard.

an ammonia cracker isn't quite "niche" its a field of massively growing interest with masses of academic study's recently published on the subject, you mention big players - Siemens Energy is working on a prototype in newcastle (believe they started work in 2022, with no information i can find on the reaction efficiency its safe to say its unlikely to be worth bragging about- or they would have)

Daz you are confusing financial analysts with technical i assume? if your comment was a dig at peel hunt?

unless you have a problem with UK's National Physical Laboratory?

in any case 99.9% hydrogen output is indeed world leading given to date previous best efficiency's i can find cited are typically circa 76%, a few examples that list a 70-90% range. 99.9% is phenomenal.

have your gripes with AB all you like, as i said before you have every right to be annoyed there, be annoyed about the extended timeline to what was expected. but don't let bitterness blind you to reality, this is big.

And your short is hence down. just like your braincells :) isn't that right Mr. liar?

ADE is still in desperate liar phase with an open short position

Daz - the testing is for the tech and to prove reliability of the process. every single one produced will not need to be tested to the same extent just whatever QA procedure is deemed suitable. the RNS states that the tech is modular and scalable. meaning it is entirely dependent upon the output needed but the solution will with with either a larger reactor or multiple smaller ones .

Its ok mate just call your friend Eddie to console you, but maybe he is too busy closing a deal to sell the company for the third time to get back to you again? if that's the case i recommend you listen to music, don't get a pet its unfair to inflict others with your desperation

Laughing at some of the comments below clearly people haven't read it, or just dont understand?

“To be honest I already thought the tech worked” – it does, this is results from independent testing which show 99.9% purity after a single reactor testing – meaning the process is extremely efficient 100% is impossible in these types of test so we get a perfect score.

It showed that limits of remaining ammonia in the hydrogen produced were below those needed to meet Iso standards for hydrogen fuel in both vehicular and stationary fuel cells– meaning it can actually be used as a fuel on its own.

pure hydrogen production to me this means two very obvious possibility's :

1)alternative revenue streams to the generators

2)possible all AFC multi fuel stations with ammonia used to charge EV’s through the fuel cell generators and possibly fuel Hydrogen based vehicles directly, as this negates the high cost of shipping hydrogen if it can be produced on site.

John- I wouldn’t disagree with that figure my only point is that salaries and by extension R&D are not the reason for the majority of the cash spending. (Reason being R&D will be mostly lead using existing test equipment from various models over the years and the salaries already paid for)

Therefore I suggest the majority of the circa 19m spending is on production of product.

Admittedly some speculation is used here but it’s far less speculative than to say all 19m is being used for anything but production given the info we had in the RNS releases also.

The only thing tragic here ADE is your lack of effort or even attention to the comments based on your post you didn’t actually read anything as always.

I think the novice here is you, amateur at everything apart from your many bragged about imaginary friends, and your transparent lies.

Even started only posting here late at night hoping no one is awake to shut you down with no effort at all.

Apart from the units they are making for the JV you mean?

More info against your point , You know the interesting thing about generators is you buy one when you want one now not in 4 months time. When you need to hire them you typically do so 1-2 weeks out from the start date (and that is a long notice window for these things typically speaking)

It’s called building stock. This isn’t like ordering an F35 jet where you pay years ahead.

They announced in the rns that they have ordered components to build the 50kw systems.

Again plenty of things point to the fact that it isn’t getting burned on salaries given I think it still has less than 100 employees, they would have to pay circa £200k a year average salary to manage that.

The cash burn isn’t on people or salaries it’s manufacturing products for the sale of products, why do you assume the cash burn is all R&D

Right - have you never looked at any generators ever? they are all rated at peak output but never are they expected to produce that peak 100% of the time.

if you are ever hiring a generator (which i do frequently for powering large equipment) you always spec a generator 20%higher capacity than your base need (for a single piece of equipment that is) for living quarters/welfare you need to factor much more than that as if everyone decides to throw a kettle on at the same time thats a huge surge, and that is also where the battery comes into play, to "shave the peaks"

Git -

your first point makes no sense firstly because you posting negative things in no way proves the company is only spreading ambiguity, it is impossible to form a causal link with that statement, at all. and many of the negative things you have posted i have disputed with evidence so the only point hidden in that first paragraph is wrong.

for your second point again i repeat to you that the evidence is in the specs of the certified power tower. 4 x 2.5kw cells equals a 10kw output - the fact they are certified at that, proves that claim. what dont you understand about that? or do you think the different certifying bodies are corrupt and lie about it?

Git - to "waste a load of time lifting the veil of unbridled ill placed optimism" you would actually have to back up your claims with some form of evidence to actually achieve this - which unfortunately you never seem to do, and i say this with sincerity if you have evidence - post it.

anyone can, and should ask questions but you routinely make statements based on pure speculation (e.g your trickle charger remark, which again isnt true based on reading any amount of information on the product at all) .

your idea that "Surely it’s got to be cheaper and more efficient to have a battery array on the back of a lorry " is clearly displaying you dont know this sector enough to comment on it in a technical capacity or have any knowlage of the costings involved. i haven't done any electrical engineering in some 13 years but was able to demonstrate clearly with brain fog and a fever from illness that your plan had bigger holes in it commercially and practically than the titanic (after the iceberg to be clear).

while i enjoyed the joke, and if you did have had a successful carrier fair play to you, however impossible to prove claims on the internet aside - power requirements for model planes are vastly different to those required in larger industries. and success selling model planes doesn't mean you know how to run a business like this at all - if true it essentially proves you can sell, which is one small part of the picture for companies this size.

Daz that was the final stage of the 3 year commercialization path many years ago now but (assuming it wasnt reworded at any point that i am not aware of happening and i can not find any evidence right now to say the point was changed to what you stated) then you are missing the full context of the point seemingly to strengthen your argument in a strawman, in full the point you are referencing stated:

• Long term goal of 1GW capacity installed or under development by 2020.

(key point is OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT) - its a goal not a promise if you took it as a promise then I'm afraid that's on you. but the point of under development is indeed true even at time of reading that I more or less dismissed that goal was even 1 watt production installed is developing on that goal, even the system at Stade counted towards that goal as it was "installed capacity".

My read of the RNS data can see that cash reserve is good and reserve cash in bank is enough to maintain current cash burn for multiple years.

RNS 21 april - Strong balance sheet with £40.2m (2021: £55.4m) of cash as at period end.

yes clearly we spent a lot vs income received. but this isn't a fully set up commercial enterprise yet, its an emerging commercial venture on the back of R&D. if you are expecting that we should multiply revenues by 1000 X overnight then you are lying to yourself.

i agree bonds statements at time of reading were optimistic, however if they weren't optimistic people would have also been blabbing how he doesn't believe in the product or the tech (at the end of the day the job of a CEO is to support the company on its way to long term success not to appease shareholders in the short term, remember he is a shareholder, he will inherently want the shares to do well in the long term)

31 july - · Award (post period end) of up to £4.3m of matched grant funding from UK Government to support transition from diesel generators at UK construction, mining and quarrying sites

-Initial commitment by joint venture of £2m in new H-Power Generators

things are clearly ramping up both in terms of interest and income,

i know of few company's in the early stages of commercialization with cash reserves to maintain 3+years, and given the progressively ramping up interest, partnerships with big names and receipts of government grants its a clear indication things are changing for the better. even the fact cash burn is increasing is a good sign as there hasnt been a significant uptake in new hires so its a clear sign that manufacturing is ramping up. if this were 2018-19 still i might agree with the doom and gloom approach but right now all signs are that things are actively improving, as that continues it will eventually reflect in the SP. remember most of us holding bought in at the pure R&D stage because we believed in the IP, any R&D investment is inherently high risk. as this goes to commercial stages investors ultimately look more to the financials, its going to take time for those to look appealing for a MCap of £100m, But it would take even longer if cash burn wasn't high - as you cant charge for product you haven't even started to make yet.

simply put the high cash burn at the moment = manufacturing is happening = potential revenue increasing = improved financial statements down the line.

Heath his followers are imaginary, like his friend Eddie who he imagined was selling the company for a second time in two years . ADE you get even more sad, transparent and desperate by the day.

Musky - No not like its a badge of honor - like i have immune compromised people close to me so i want to play it safe

Possibly - its the first time i have tested positive, but i was wiped out by something prior to any tests being available so who knows

Bumble, - i blasted that out on my phone last night from under several blankets while i deal with covid so I'm surprised there weren't more errors - especially with my dyslexia on top hahah, thanks for correcting though, if i ever make a statement which is incorrect or misleading (even if based on typing error) i am happy to be corrected so thanks.

Git - regarding the multiple accounts, you can see when my profile was created to only start posting recently i would be playing a very long game there indeed. im too impatient for that.

Though assuming bumble is the same person who was posting here in 2015-18 displaying a good understanding of the technology in the R&D phase and educating people on it, those are the type of posts i want more of here, and far less of the attempts to dismiss things with insults. it has always been my stance that the first one to respond with an insult loses the debate.

one think i do respectfully disagree with bumble on is that you wont catch me standing up for AB, frankly i agree with others that his historical statements upon reading at the time sounded like much more progress was being made than it was. that said i think that largely could be put down to dealing with an emerging tech and heart ruling head a little i dont think he is inherently bad, and i think in recent years with some of the new hires around him to support him this has improved. and support rather than replacement was in my opinion the right call rather than replacing him. i don't think its smart to have a mutiny 5 mins before the ship arrives.