is there anybody out there?, page-13

@Bolesta13 ..."You can also ask the company for the patent if you want a good read!"

Can you please provide a link to the part of the patent where the neutralizer is described?

So far there has been no information about it at all from any company announcement.

As you failed to provide any links, I assume you couldn't find any prior to 2020. Lots of comments in bigger and bolder letters, with a variety of colours does not make your arguments more compelling.
Please provide a link to what you "quote" from the company.

The diagram you highlighted (BTW thanks for that), clearly shows ambient air entering the FRG device, and clearly shows "clean air" coming out, without any mention of any type of 'optional' neutralizer, so it backs up my points entirely.

https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=02043541

@Bolesta13 ..."The company was probably asked about Ozone being released into the air so they made it clear again, NO harmful emissions!"

Again?? where did they first mention any type of neutralizer before 2020?? Please provide a link!!

You now admit that it is not unique, despite what the company claimed a couple of years ago. That's a start, but including nice motherhood statements like "but disruptive for the ability do it better, and cheaper" are nothing but statements.

Because there are no products, no pricing, comparisons of energy use etc between the final FRG product and others, there is NO basis for comparison.

I can remember a different company from a few years ago that continually led investors down the garden path with promises of a great clean, cheap, gas fuel cell generator, that ended up costing 10 times the early estimates, which completely destroyed the purpose of the device in consumers minds. The company went bust, but there were many posters on this forum that kept supporting the company buying every cap raise as the SP became cheaper and cheaper until the company went bust and was delisted.

The expensive part of a new product still lies ahead for Purifloh. It is production, development and marketing which will make prior spending look minor in comparison.

The company went down the route of OEM to help stop a lot of that expenditure, but was REJECTED, probably because it was NOT unique, or perhaps too difficult or too expensive. We don't know the full reasons.

We do know that BP left the building right around the time of rejection from OEMs, IMHO there was NO coincidence about this!!

The Mcap of $42M is way overpriced for a company without anything unique and having no products for sale, no manufacturing set up, no sales infrastructure set up, no marketing program, with huge costs ahead, and of course, no cash to do any of the above.

Please provide links for your evidence, so far there have been none showing that anything you claim is true!!