Hi
@tukebay ..."1.
I'd find it very hard to believe that in 2 years, from both internal testing and in response to OEM input/demands, that the technology hasn't evolved."
Yes I do think it has evolved, they have added the 'neutralizer' that wasn't there 2 years ago. It may have evolved in other ways as well, but they have not informed the market about this if it has. They have also not informed the market about any new patent applications to my knowledge in that time.
@tukebay ..."
2. Is it possible that a neutralizer exists yet hasn't been described intentionally?
The fact is that between PM & AS, they'd have the scientific & engineering wherewithal to overcome any challenge the technology could throw at them.
To me, it's compelling that someone of Alex sava's credentials would agree to be involved with PO3"
"
Hasn't been described intentionally"?? I'm afraid this doesn't make any sense given continuous disclosure rules for listed companies, and the fact that they have given out all the patent details about the FRG unit, that the company has described as 'unique', or 'disruptive technology'.
Why would they keep the 'neutralizer' secret??
"
The fact is that between PM & AS, they'd have the scientific & engineering wherewithal to overcome any challenge the technology could throw at them."
You are making the assumption that the problem could be overcome. It is possible that the problem is insurmountable.
It is also possible that they do indeed have a first that no-one else has come up with before. I have stated several times that if they overcome the problem of 'neutralizing' all of the outputs (not just excess ozone) that they could indeed have something unique and very valuable. It could be used on everyone else's ozone generator. In fact it would make the 'neutralizer' the valuable tech.
The simple fact is that they have not been promoting this wonderful 'neutralizer' at all, describing all the u-beaut value of it, how it works etc, tends to discount this. Also the ending of direct relations with OEMs would also seem to discount this possibility of something unique in the 'neutralizer'.
"
To me, it's compelling that someone of Alex sava's credentials would agree to be involved with PO3"
Exactly the same was stated about BPs involvement and his 'teams' research and DD prior to him investing and joining the board. The fact that BP decided to leave right around the rejection from the OEM is very telling by itself. There is something about his leaving that we don't know about, but I doubt he would leave that quickly to 'retire' if he thought the tech was revolutionary in any way after being involved for 2 years.
BTW
@tukebay thanks for the civil conversation. There is nowhere near enough on these forums. It is not a competition sport, we are all on the same side as investors, so need to discuss stocks both good and bad attributes in detail to help each others investing.
None of us get it correct 100% of the time and our judgement can be clouded when in a position. Mine was when I held here, I just didn't want to look in detail at this 'disruptive technology' as stated by the company. Nearly 7 years since Purifloh gained the rights to the tech, and still no products for sale is very telling by itself.
