Ann: Successful OHD Cereal Crop Trials, page-495

I can't believe we are still debating this. It is clear from the Ann that the 300% relates to heads growth, but actual increase is what those heads translate to increased product and on that front the number is not 300% based on the Ann. Yes you can calculate 100% - 160% from the Ann but my problem is that all these results are irrelevant because the real issue is how do the results stack against a competitor product (i.e. the control was no fertiliser in the Ann). In addition the formula around calculating wheat yields from broad acre - google it - is a bit more complicated as well so the next set of results and exactly what happens in the field is really what is needed here. But given the interest from third parties obviously they are interested based on the Ann - no debate there unless you think the interest isn't there and there is nothing in the Ann that suggests otherwise.

So to repeat again, the lab results will not translate to field results but both of you have made no comment whatsoever about the 1/10th cost factor or the fact that OHD if it produces an increase of just 5% in the broad acre field (meaning in the field itself) will in itself be a good result. This is a bunfight over lab results and it is clear @jantimot didn't have a clue about the more sensitive 'liquid oxygen' claim. Anyway rather than blabbering on further I will just repost what I said earlier today and if you have something knowledgable to add please add as I for one am only interested in how the product translates to the field against its competitors and the fact the company is talking about JV/outside interest/canola trials tells me that interest is worth far more than anything else right now. From my pots of today:

""""""""""""""FFS what is done in a lab in agricultural expenses would rarely translate to the same results in the field IMO so this is one bun-fight over lab results. Taking the results of the 21 October 2016 announcement and the February 2017 announcement it is obvious the results are better than the control (albeit there are question marks as to whether the control should have been a plant using alternate fertiliser). Taking the February 2017 announcement the interesting thing for me was it said 300% increase whilst in terms of other products in 21 October 2016 announcement it was 50% (albeit not clear from both announcements whether the same definition of yield was used). I agree with @jantimot on one fact, it is about what you get from the field, rather than the heads growth (i.e. are they smaller heads?). The point for writing this is if cost comes in at 1/10th of competitors and the biostimulant produced from OHD is even on par or produces just 5% more 'product' in the broad acre than competitirs then GPP is on a winner, a real winner. That is why I think there is interest here.

On the concept of liquid oxygen, they use the term but then when talking OHD process they talk about introducing water and oxygen as inputs (not liquid oxygen) in the announcemnets @apmjn put up . The product is heated before been introduced in the main OHD process so no issue. They could have probably written that better in the Anns but no issue here, just semantics around people not understanding the OHD process itself. Read the OHD process and it is pretty clear as to how the process works and that trumps whatever anyone interprets from the GPP announcement. @jantimot, this is your more serious claim and on this aspect you are clearly wrong and you are no chemical engineer like everyone else posting here including me and the board of GPP (i.e. assuming the announcement relating to this aspect have confused readers ). @Panel agree with your thoughts."""""