Share
6,926 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 515
clock Created with Sketch. 15/01/16
14:23
Share
Originally posted by sideways
↑
Hows this summary, you are saying they took funds from the general public and didn't say have we have already built the board and tested the technology? emphasis was on the ‘hardware-only’ goal not ‘scalability’ giving the impression, imo, that there was something revolutionary about Peter's patent running on hardware – a NEVER DONE BEFORE GROUND-BREAKING TECHNOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH kind of feel. Much sexier than scalability, which is the real and very risky make or break story of BRN, imo.There are 2 investors. Mums and Dads (general public) and Sophisticated Investors. AZK/BRN has only raised cash from sophisticated investors. Not the general public. If you read page 22, paragraph 5 of the prospectus you will see "testing to date ‘The overhead in programming and peripheral circuitry made me think that there must be a better way. Instead of programming a processor to behave like a digital neuron I came up with the solution to build a digital neuron and synapses from logic gates’ and ‘I don’t believe that computers are the way forward. Their technology is based on fetching instructions and executing them’ ...improving his neuron design in hardware. You have to realise that technology evolves; it doesn’t just pop into existence. Under the hoods of both the model T-Ford of yesteryear and the V8 Ford of today is a combustion engine that essentially is doing the same thing today as it was doing over a hundred years ago, only much much better .Risks in investing in BRN are listed on pages 11, 12,13 and 14 of the prospectus. So he has a video on youtube, pictures of him showing the board, he had the board at investor presentations and they say in the prospectus TESTING TO DATE. I think I get your point and you are wrong in assuming they have A) taken funds from the public and B) not disclosed that they have already built a board and tested it. essential patent design existed pre 2012.The general public have freely invested in AZK/BRN on the open market. BRN hasn't twisted mums and dads arms to give them money. Sophisticated investors bought more shares in the capital raising at 15.7c which was higher than the close at 15c. To me there is less risk investing in a company that has already invented, built and tested the technology compared to a company that is building the first one from scratch. So from that point I don't understand your argument. Now the technical differences between the board from 2012 to 2015 I have no idea what they what they are. Only Peter or Anil can tell us, (which they wont). Suffice to say he needed to develop it further to get it to market and needed funds to do that. I read your posts a few time to understand what you are saying. How did I go? Did I miss anything?
Expand
I guess you can call Neil and ask why they didn't make a bigger song and dance in ASX releases about the board PvdM built in 2011/12. Yes investing in BRN is risky and I can only guess they didn't want to remove the risk from investors minds by making a strong point about the first board. If they did it only would have made the pumps and dumps worse if you ask me.
(20min delay)