Member Info for RealityChap

A visit would hardly be in the same category as a commercial deployment would it! Your repeated assertion that this CERTAINLY involves AFC is a lie, a falsehood, fantasy, nonsense, made up, fabricated. No such CERTAINTY exists.

It doesn't and it is 99.9% inconceivable that it has. We had an IM presentation barely a week ago that didn't even mention Niftylift. Nobody, bar one person, thinks this is the crystallisation of the vague deal signed with NL last year and even he doesn't really believe that is the case or he wouldn't have asked the question as to whether it was on the LinkedIn post.

You have said, not for the first time, that there are certainly AFC cells in Niftylift kit. You know nothing of the sort. You are a liar and you are making things up. Again.

Is it negative to say that of course they're not ours! How could they possibly be ours without an announcement? Utterly delusional

And as expected you can't point to anything I've posted that is wrong. I'll help you out. Below, I have cut and pasted my most substantive comment from today and I'll ask you again - how is that an unsubstantiated bash? Strikes me as quite positive but with valid concerns and points for debate

If we really are 90% cheaper than other crackers at scale then that absolutely blows them out of the water - which is great, obviously, as long as the capital cost isn't prohibitive, as is currently the case with the fuel cell based generators (confirmed by the CEO last week). I'm not aware of any clear knowledge that we have on that point.

But they are not the only competitors - the competition clearly comes from the processes mentioned in the article and that price differential is considerably smaller and will doubtless vary, either in our favour or not.

In the presentation from Mike Rendall over three months ago we were told that systems were available then and he advised that several serious players had visited the site and left impressed. He added that they could make cracker units at the right scale, speed and quality - but didn't mention price which is clearly crucial.

MR said he was talking to a number of potential partners/customers and the priority was to find places where the tech could be validated in real world applications. The fact that last week's presentation said Hyamtec was a priority suggest that progress is still being made, but until news of a deployment comes along and then delivers commerciality it's all just hope, not least because fuel cells were deployed for use with multiple Tier one companies and nothing has come of them.

He added that they could make cracker units at the right scale, speed and quality - but didn't mention price which is clearly crucial.

Why ae you here meggies? You debate nothing., post nothing useful, just slate people who try to have a debate. And like your mate you can't point out anything that you can actually dispute when asked to do so.

Go on, I'll try again. Point out something I've said that isn't accurate or worthy of debate.

Nope, never said that. Making stuff up again.

Well, as he's accused me of being Garonne multiple times (nonsense) and never posts anything that constitutes analysis of facts/developments/prospects etc. I'm perfectly comfortable in calling him out.

If you mean me, Meggies, please point to a 'bash' in this thread. Do you not think the points are relevant?

I hope you are right jgbb. Piddling single unit trials have been a disaster so far. We need a proper partner with some clout.

If negotiations aren't under way and reasonably advances then last November's presentation would mark a new high level for bull.

I'll ask you yet again - point out a lie.

If we really are 90% cheaper than other crackers at scale then that absolutely blows them out of the water - which is great, obviously, as long as the capital cost isn't prohibitive, as is currently the case with the fuel cell based generators (confirmed by the CEO last week). I'm not aware of any clear knowledge that we have on that point.

But they are not the only competitors - the competition clearly comes from the processes mentioned in the article and that price differential is considerably smaller and will doubtless vary, either in our favour or not.

In the presentation from Mike Rendall over three months ago we were told that systems were available then and he advised that several serious players had visited the site and left impressed. He added that they could make cracker units at the right scale, speed and quality - but didn't mention price which is clearly crucial.

MR said he was talking to a number of potential partners/customers and the priority was to find places where the tech could be validated in real world applications. The fact that last week's presentation said Hyamtec was a priority suggest that progress is still being made, but until news of a deployment comes along and then delivers commerciality it's all just hope, not least because fuel cells were deployed for use with multiple Tier one companies and nothing has come of them.

He added that they could make cracker units at the right scale, speed and quality - but didn't mention price which is clearly crucial.

I'm guessing not Daz, which is why I'm asking. The usual unquestioning halfwits will interpret it as negative, no change there, but I'd actually quite like to know. It seems to be established ta the cracker is a leap forward in efficiency and cost - we need a partner to back it now. If we are relying on test deployments/sales of single units, like fuel cells, then it will go nowhere in the foreseeable future but if we can get Air Products, or similar, on board then perhaps we have a chance.

I keep reading we're 90% cheaper (mainly in Trotter posts in his unpaid, self-appointed AFC sales/PR role) but this says less than 30%?

What I have done, CN, is analyse the situation realistically. Just putting links to everything hydrogen doesn't contribute much and neither does digging up old quotes and old news that have ,shall we say, diminished credibility. As I have said you do find useful and interesting links but we're in serious wheat from chaff territory here.

I have asked you numerous times to actually disagree with anything I have said, rather than just rubbish it. You responded once and I pointed out how everything you said in that response was wrong/very questionable. And then you went quiet,. How odd.

No game here - I am a long standing/suffering substantial shareholder (since the very early Abramovich days) but I am not blind, as you appear to be, to the company's myriad failings over many years.

After the IM last week the only sensible approach was to give the new guys a clean sheet and time to sort out what they had inherited - but every day since you've just been citing news stories from the ancien regime who, indisputably, delivered very little in commercial terms. Citing last year's increase in income for the zillionth time doesn't mean anything now and most certainly isn't useful research!

But you've nailed the problem jgbb. CN posts the same things many times despite so many of the things he posts not being backed up by actual reality - but he second anyone points that out they're a shorter/have an agenda/need to get a life etc. Now, maybe I react to those sorts of accusations more than I should but I'm only human. In your own case with your opinion that I disagreed with many posters pointed out perfectly civilly why they believed it to be mistaken but you went on the attack.

Let's not go back there. If you want have sensible and civilised debates then I'm all for it. CN just won't unfortunately and I don't expect that to change so probably not worth engaging at all. it's a shame because he does post some interesting info among all the repetitive stuff

This board could be very useful if people engage in debate

I don't disagree jgbb. They have to be given a clean sheet which is why I wish CN etc. would stop banging on about the imminency of developments about which the only news we have is from the old regime, in most cases is extremely dusty and very clearly open to question for many well documented reasons.

The hopes and dreams that this company will suddenly take off and make all shareholders wealthy beyond our wildest dreams have very clearly been dashed. We might do OK in time but the private island and the yacht will have to be funded from elsewhere.

The thing is, Meggies, is that all logic says that here have been many, many more negatives than positives so simple rationality says that the negatives get more airspace.

Despite the increasingly deluded rantings of one poster, who seems to accept everything Bond said over a long period as pure unalloyed fact despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary we, at present, do not have any firm knowledge of a single long-term commercial arrangement being in place, or being imminent, not one.

The deniers can argue about that all they want and deride anyone who points it out and wants to discuss it, but it is clearly a fact.

A summary of the Tamgo situation

1. Exclusive MENA distribution agreement signed in September 2023

2. First order for one unit is ordered in November 2024. This is for piloting (aka demo) purposes to demonstrate capabilities to Tamgo customers. It is unclear whether this is a single unit, possibly more, but the announcement says it is 'an agreement to deploy', rather than a deployment - is there a unit that Tamgo are currently using for demo purposes. I may have missed something but I don't know.

https://hydrogen-central.com/afc-energy-plc-tamgo-orders-first-45kva-h-power-system/

3. Tamgo visit Dunsfold this week to, presumably among other things, look at the new 200kw unit.

So, what do we know?

1. The relationship is alive and well - this is good

2. No meaningful orders have been made - but here still could be

3. Whether a unit is out there showing off its capabilities to potential users is unknown - would be interested to know

4. Is it possible that there is more interest in the new unit than the smaller ones? - Possible but we don't know. If that is the case then we have another case on our hands where a lot of time and effort has been spent on a model that is unlikely to bring commercial success.