Hi Tanon - no need for you to apologise. It was the sustained...

Hi Tanon - no need for you to apologise. It was the sustained aggressive BS of @greenyates and the incessant optimistic nonsense of @treed that I was referring too. I note both have stopped posting now (hopefully for good). A long and (hopefully final) post below as a post-mortem.

The X10 is essentially what I strongly suggested Redflow do several years ago. Combined stacks, standard ICB's as tanks, larger pumps 10x the battery for the same electronics. I didn't just post that here - I engaged directly with their exec team (search my posts). Their refusal meant I didn't invest (I posted that at the time too). They said they knew better because they'd paid an exorbitant amount of money to a US consultant to regurgitate the same story they were telling themselves (and I posted this info). They kept thinking they were engineering a high volume small consumer good than an industrial sized chemical plant. The new guy with the wild hair was has finally set them straight - but far too late. I also rate the sales guy (Mark - ex Primus, the company that won Anaergia then went bust) and clearly the new CFO has called time on the BS has my respect too.

Tim - well, he did make pretty presso's I guess? But ... he then employed moderators paid to exclude all good/probing questions from being asked during those presso's. Instead he'd be fed Dorothy Dixers made up by Ronn then by the guy who replaced Ronn. I can't remember a single RFX presso question being asked verbatim - I can't recall a single other ASX company who does this. This should have been a major red flag to investors (it certainly was to instos and me!).

Re: the tech. Even with a decent X10 type design it was likely to struggle without massive improvement to the stack (that I'm not sure are even theoretically possible). 4hr batteries is where the money has turned out to be. Enables 2 cycles with the duck curve (ie. 2 money earning opportunities per day). RFX's tech struggled at 4hr with very low RTE. If you cycle only once per day, the battery only makes half the revenue (so value of the battery s halved). My exchange with @Treed on this issue was especially comical to me.

I posted years back about the many failure of the ZBM's (testing at the Canberra test program was a complete embarrassment). @sjl posts show they never go on top of these issues. The new CFO called out the complacency and started accruing for the massive warranty issue. Again, the posts of those two up-rampers are comical on this issue - all the way to extrapolating Tim's wildly optimistic comments that what had been accrued was "conservative".

Another fundamental issue with the RFX tech is that it is a hybrid flow battery (not a true flow battery). Hence you have to increase the size of the stack as you increase the size of the energy storage. With true flow (ie. fe or Vn flow) all you do to increase the storage is increase the volume of the tanks/electrolyte! No stack, pump, electronics, any other changes! This again meant RFX had to be competitive in the 4hr market as true flow economics would kill them in longer durations.

Did investor try to understand why all the other ZnBr battery companies went bust? Did investors ask what has Redflow got to succeed when so many others with such similar tech failed to be successful with this 100+ YO chemistry and what 50 YO battery design?

How many red flags did holders washed over? RFX failure to manufacture. RFX failure to get Munich RE cover. RFX failure to ever meet production guidance (except for one single month). RFX failure to deliver of their biggest project in Australia. RFX failure to own up and advise investors of these failures.

My advice to investors is to only invest in what you understand. Otherwise invest with people who you trust and do understand. NEVER place trust in idiot up-rampers - instead listen and study well argued dissenting voices to balance your own enthusiasm.

That said I'm down 90% on one carbon-reducing tech investment from peak (but still in front ~50%), down 95% from peak and down 85% on actual investment from another ... with a third being down 50% from peak ... but still up 400% (plus big divvies) on investment for another. This space is high risk and no-one picks a winner all the time. Then again, according to the poster who doesn't understand year 9 chemistry ... @Greenyates ... I'm a coal loving Abbott supporter!

Good luck holders with your research and future investments. This'll be my last post here (unless I'm drawn back to again refute nonsense from notorious idiots).

Cheers, Simon