I too am intrigued by rolling's post, and he is mixing up two...

I too am intrigued by rolling's post, and he is mixing up two things.

Regarding performance varies matrix to matrix - well that's a given?!!!!! Performance of different matrices will vary even WITHOUT Edencrete!
It's not like you're just adding a constant % of strength to any mix by just adding EC, that's preposterous . The strength gain would be somewhat linear I would imagine, with a dose of variance.

And yes, it may not work for some mixes, and work for others, and work even better for others still. That's the nature of the game, how does that make it a failure? It means MORE TRIALS (guess what... thats what they're doing).

You don't wear a jacket in the summer, you dont put snow tires on gravel. Each has its place. Seems to me the view being put forward is if the product isn't UNIVERSALLY perfect, and produces variance and is only applicable in certain areas, it's a failure. Really??


Regarding variance in the SAME matrix, you never expect to replicate identical results in any real-world test, that's just common sense 101, there are too many unknown variables. Testing always gets you a distribution of results with a particular variance / standard deviation. Without going into more stats, just because the matrix is the same on paper doesn't mean real-world variances don't arise. As a result, compressive strength is usually specified as a MINIMUM, which the contractor has to meet. This is no different to how GDOT is playing it out; EDE clearly says in their announcements that it is being used by the contractor to fulfil GDOT's upgraded specs.

And the fact is Edencrete raises the minimum bar constantly, but the amount by which it does has a variance. There is nothing scary about that, but the aim is always to lower the variance as much as possible, obviously.

The other stuff about Disallowed hopefuls is definitely true, this is a small caps stock and that high risk high reward status is a given.

The only point rolling makes which is of merit IMO is that the company needs less lawyer and more engineer in its ranks. I don't see technical professionalism in their publications, be it announcements or general investor relations. To me it looks like people who don't understand the technology are running the show (lawyers and spruikers that have bought rights to the tech), and are afloat because the technology works and is somewhat selling.

Have a look around ASX, plenty of dead-beat small-cap stocks filled with ACTUAL empty promises, no sales on worthless products. Then come back and compare with EDE.

All IMO.