So the company that has a net shareholder deficit of $464k at...

So the company that has a net shareholder deficit of $464k at the end of December, and would be higher now with more spending, is recommencing work in one area, trying to come up with a design and uses, sorry, I'll use their words...
"The Company has been focusing on delivering a small limited range of products and applications"

"A small limited range", hmm, I wonder what the difference is between a small range, a limited range, and a "small limited range"??

Does a small limited range mean more limited than a 'small range' or smaller than a 'limited range'?

Perhaps the small range is very limited? Or then again perhaps the limited range are small units?

Perhaps we all wish that companies would get someone else to proof read a statement before they released it to the market, just a small, limited group mind you.

Perhaps a shareholder could ask someone from the company what was wrong with the Bluemist unit that was close to commercialization 3 years ago?? That was just waiting on final design and packaging back in late 2017. For a company that has used up all it's capital and now in debt, getting something redesigned again seems like just delaying any attempt to get any product to market.

To me the current Mcap of around $40m for a company with no sales, no products, 'working' on a glorified ozone generator, with no cash, debt of ~$464k and rising, seems to be a tad high.

Being generous, say they have a product produced and for sale in 12 months time, under the Purifloh name as OEMs have rejected it, with sales through the net direct from the company. How many thousands of units would need to be sold to break even, given the debt by then would be ~$6.5m given the 6 month spending to December?

However I would expect that they would have to spend a lot on marketing to make people aware of the product. Then there would need to be lots of spending on endorsements from people saying it's the best thing since sliced cheese etc, etc. It's all more cash spend before sales.

Everything clearly is pointing to a large cap raise sometime soon. Then there is the terrible current structure of the company to deal with. If the 2 largest shareholders put in a lot of cash, then 2 people basically run the company, which would scare off any potential institutional investment.

However if they failed to retain their ownership, by passing on the raise themselves, having only the other shareholders or outsiders contributing to the raise, they are unlikely to raise much as everyone would think lack of further investment by the largest 2 shareholders who have held/hold BOD positions, indicated they didn't think much of the company's prospects.

It's nice to have dreams of riches from our investments, but sometimes we need to look at the reality of the situation. I hope all shareholders 'other' investments are currently performing well..