NexOptic Technology Corp: A Revolutionary Flat Lens System

In less than 60 days, we are about to witness the unveiling of a revolutionary flat lens system that threatens the very basic concepts of physics. Here is another look at one of our favourite technology plays and what to expect.

In less than 60 days, a new technology will be revealed that could potentially change an entire industry worth billions of dollars.

In fact, this technology could forever rewrite thousands of years of collective knowledge.

It’s so disruptive that I bet some of the world’s biggest companies – the Apples and Googles of the world – will be jumping at the chance to acquire this patent-pending technology when it’s revealed.

I believe this technological discovery could even one day place its inventors in line for a shot at winning the coveted Millennium Technology Prize and maybe even the Nobel Prize for Physics.

What I am saying may sound like an exaggeration, but I promise you it’s not.

This discovery is a radical change in not just engineering and basic concepts, but a change in the way we understand physics.

We Don’t Know, What We Don’t Know

From DSLR to iPhone cameras, to the world’s largest telescopes capable of zooming in on stars beyond our galaxy, all of these technologies revolve around a simple concept: gathering, bending, and focusing light.

For nearly 400 years, we have understood that in order to gather and focus light to retain an image, we had to use curved lenses or curved mirrors.

Take your smartphone, for instance.

If you look closely at the camera lens inside, you will see that it’s curved. And if you take it apart, you will see that it’s actually a combination of stacked curved lenses.

source: Apple Inc.

But because space is a limiting factor in smartphones, enhancing and improving the camera within it becomes very challenging.

In other words, smartphone makers have been handcuffed by the limitations of physics that they currently understand.

Take, for example, Apple’s latest iPhone.

In order to take better pictures capable of better magnification, Apple has incorporated two separate lenses into their iPhone 7 Plus: a wide angle lens and a second telephoto lens.

I said Apple would do this last July before the iPhone 7 was released:

“…Apple’s new iPhone 7 is now rumoured to have a two-camera lens system, after a recent patent application was published in January. The patent outlines a dual-camera system that consists of one standard wide-angle lens similar to what’s in the iPhone today and a second telephoto lens capable of capturing zoomed-in video and photos.”

It’s clear that despite all of the improvements smartphone makers have made, the biggest hurdle they have is making a smartphone capable of taking pictures with better magnification.

That’s because no matter the improvements in software, such as higher megapixels or better image processing, the image can only be as good as the source capturing it: the lens system.

Now the basic concept of lens physics revolves around using curved lenses. It tells us that if we want to see further, we need to go longer because the light has to converge into a focus point.

That’s why Apple had to add a second lens system to accommodate those who want to capture pictures from far away.

But what if we are wrong?

What if a curved lens or curved mirrors are not the only way to gather and focus light to retain an image?

What if there was another way?

Today, I am going to introduce you to a Company whose founders have broken the basic fundamental of optics: that apertures need to be curved and circular.

The implications for this discovery are startling.

And it all begins with…

CONTENT LOCKED

Enter your email to get instant access (it's free!)
to this special content post:

*By entering your email, you are agreeing to our privacy policy and ļ»æterms of useļ»æ. You will also receive a free weekly subscription to the Equedia Letter, one of Canada's largest private investment newsletters. Don't worry, it's free and you can cancel at anytime.

NexOptic Technology Corp

(TSX Venture: NXO)

(OTC: NXOPF) (Frankfurt: E3O) (Berlin: E3O)

NexOptic Technology Corp. has an option to acquire 100% of Spectrum Optix, a Company developing technologies relating to imagery and light concentration applications. The full details of this deal can be found by CLICKING HERE.

Spectrum’s core technology, the patent-pending Blade Opticsā„¢, contains flat lenses and aims to disrupt conventional lens and image capture-based systems.

This includes everything from telescopes to cameras and mobile devices, by creating a lens system that reduces the depth (relative to aperture size) currently required in many traditional curved lens stacks.

Just take a look at how the Blade Optics technology compares to a traditional telescope.

Below is what a 5″ aperture traditional telescope looks like when compared to a 5″ aperture Blade Opticsā„¢ telescope:

Traditional Telescope vs. Blade Optics Telescope. Design Rendering. Actual prototype and applications may vary.

This may sound familiar if you’ve been reading the Equedia Letter for some time.

That’s because I first introduced this Company to you last year when the stock was trading at just C$0.34.

If you haven’t read my report, you should do that first by CLICKING HERE.

“This Technology Could Change the Way We See the World”

And if you want a simplified version of the story, take a look at this video:

If you already know this story, you can jump to “Just the Beginning” below.

Otherwise, here is an excerpt that explains the technology:

“…In optics, an aperture is a hole or an opening through which light travels.

Generally, the bigger the aperture, the more light it captures.

Via How Stuff Works:

“A telescope’s ability to collect light is directly related to the diameter of the lens or mirror – the aperture – that is used to gather light. Generally, the larger the aperture, the more light the telescope collects and brings to focus, and the brighter the final image.”

But Blade Opticsā„¢ doesn’t have a diameter because it doesn’t have a circular aperture.

That means many of the formulas and equations, including aperture, have to be redefined when using Blade Opticsā„¢ technology.

For example, to determine aperture area, we use the following, via Wikipedia:

“The amount of light captured by a lens is proportional to the area of the aperture, equal to:

Where the two equivalent forms are related via the f-number N = f / D, with focal length f and aperture diameter D.”

A diameter relates to a circle; Blade Opticsā„¢ uses a square aperture.

So how does that equation apply? It doesn’t.

And neither does the F-Stop* equation that many photographers use.

(*In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’s focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil)

Why is this significant?

Well aside from eliciting the response of “breaking the laws of physics” by a senior executive from a global defense leader, it also allows more light to be gathered.

When you use a camera, the lens is circular. It gathers and focuses the image to a chip, which is square.

As you can see in the picture on the right, you lose a lot of light when using a camera lens because that circular lens projects the image onto a smaller, square microchip.

But since Blade Opticsā„¢ has a square aperture (can we even call it an aperture?), it naturally gathers more light.

Not only can Blade Opticsā„¢ gather more light relative to aperture size, it significantly reduces depth size when compared to traditional telescopes.

Imagine what this could mean for entire industries.

Imagine the Possibilities

Size is crucial. Much of our current optics rely on reflective or refractive telescope fundamentals.

That means in order to see further, we need bigger apertures and thus, even longer devices to house the separation.

Size has been a limiting factor for many industries including drones, space, cameras, telescopes, and others.

If Blade Opticsā„¢ can significantly reduce the length of the optical instruments used in these different applications, it could usher in a new wave of technological advances.

That’s just the beginning.

What about binoculars and scopes that fit in your pocket?

What about pocket-sized microscopes?

What about the future of cameras?

What about the defense sector, such as drone surveillance?

What about a smart phone capable of incredible zoom?

The possibilities are endless.

…In fact, Blade Opticsā„¢ technology uses conventional image sensors, which potential customers find very attractive because they don’t need to develop entirely new image sensors to use Blade Opticsā„¢.

Furthermore, the technology also uses conventional materials so clients have options in their supply-chain.”

I strongly suggest you read my original report if you haven’t already.

Just the Beginning

Today, NexOptic is getting closer to unveiling their prototype – one that could take the industry by storm.

In fact, on November 29, 2016, the Company told us that a public and media exhibit of the proof of concept prototype is being planned for the first quarter of 2017.

(I have 5 exclusive VIP tickets for our readers to this event which will made available by random draw once the Company announces the date. The event will be held in Vancouver, BC. I’ll have more details in the coming weeks. If you’re interested in attending, reply to this email with the subject line “NXO Launch” and we’ll put you down for an early draw to win a ticket.)

Most importantly, NexOptic subtlety announced that the prototype works.

Via NexOptic:

“NexOptic Technology Corp. and Spectrum Optix Inc. of Calgary, Canada, and together with NexOptic (the “Companies”), are pleased to report that Spectrum has successfully completed the first set of optical tests for the patent pending Blade Opticsā„¢ portion of the lens stack for its proof of concept prototype (“POC”) telescope.

The Companies are satisfied with the performance metrics of Blade Opticsā„¢ on an optical bench, and expect it to enable the unprecedented form factor benefits (as described in the Companies’ joint news release from November 1, 2016) after incorporating the remaining optical elements of the POC.

“These tests indicate that our patent pending Blade Opticsā„¢ lens technology works as our prototype design and engineering simulations showed,” said Paul McKenzie, CEO of NexOptic and Director of Spectrum.

“I am proud of how far we’ve come with the technology that forms the foundation of our Companies and look forward to revealing our highly anticipated POC prototype in the near future.”

In conjunction with its primary prototype development contractor Ruda Cardinal Inc. (“Ruda”), a world leader in optical prototype development and construction, testing of the Blade Opticsā„¢ portion of the POC was completed in the visible spectrum at 486nm (nanometre), 589 nm, and 656nm wavelengths with a 10nm band. Key reference factors for Spectrum’s patent pending Blade Opticsā„¢ technology, such as spot size and aberrations, were tested and conformed to performance specifications identified in the simulations phase of development.

The diffraction limit of the nominal system is approximately 17um (micrometers) while still maintaining the approximate five-inch depth of the overall POC device.

This demonstrates the potential for excellent image quality from the POC within the form factor enabled by Blade Opticsā„¢.”

Here is another video with a first look at the NexOptic prototype.

As a result of the announcement, NexOptic is now trading at C$1.25 – nearly 270% higher than when I first introduced it.

It’s now up more than 50% from last week when I told you that I expected more to come from NexOptic in my 2017 Investment Outlook.

I believe a big part of the recent jump in share price this week was the announcement that Stephen Petranek has joined the board of NexOptic.

Many of you may know him as the widely-recognized technology futurist and award-winning author that you saw on Ted Talks.

He is also Co-Executive Producer of the National Geographic mini-series “MARS”, which is based on, and inspired by, his book, “How We’ll Live on Mars,” published by Simon and Shuster and the TED Conferences.

If you haven’t seen this series, I suggest you do. It’s absolutely incredible.

You can find it by visiting: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/mars/.

Petranek’s critically acclaimed book was partly a result of extensive conversations and interviews with Elon Musk, CEO of Space-X, and senior management and leading scientists at NASA.

But that’s not all.

Petranek is the former editor-in-chief of the world’s largest scientific magazine, Discover, and was the senior editor for sciences at Life Magazine.

He was also a recipient of the prestigious John Hancock Award for Business and Financial Writing, considered by many to be the Pulitzer of financial writing.

Why is this important and why do I believe it had such a big impact on the stock?

Because Petranek is widely connected in the scientific community. He knows a lot of people and has many connections, and I am sure he is telling people about NexOptic.

Here’s what Petranek had to say about joining the board:

“I am honored and excited to be joining such an innovative company at the cutting edge of a technological revolution.

The team at NexOptic is energetic, dedicated and determined to succeed and I believe that the Blade Optics technology has the potential to completely alter our current concept of how we think of lenses and what they can do. I look forward to being part of a potential disruptive shift in how we observe the world around us.”

I wouldn’t be surprised if his followers are now buying the stock.

So yes, while the recent near 50% increase in share price last week is quite the jump, I really believe that this is just the beginning.

First of all, the prototype hasn’t even been revealed – that’s when the story really begins. It’s like we’ve seen the trailer, but the movie hasn’t opened.

Second, how do you value something that could potentially change or reinvent the way we think about lenses and cameras?

What could this be worth to camera makers such as Canon or Nikon?

What could this be worth to telescope and binocular makers such as Bushnell or Leopold?

What could this be worth to the booming drones and surveillance sector?

What could this be worth to all of the smartphone makers, such as Apple, Google, or Samsung, who are constantly battling for the number one spot by touting they have the best camera?

When you take a step back to see how lenses have become an integral part of modern life, you’ll begin to see what this opportunity truly represents.

I am happy that many of the readers who invested in NexOptic are up significantly on their investment – a multibagger is nothing to sneeze at.

But despite the run up in share price in recent months, NexOptic is still only valued at just over C$60 million.

Would it be unreasonable to say that it should be worth much more than that?

I don’t think so.

Would it be unreasonable to think that Apple or Google, or any major tech giant, would pay much more for the exclusive license to the tech?

I don’t think so.

But the valuation is yours to make because there are always risks.

No Risk, No Reward

There are always risks to investing.

Earlier last year, the biggest risk for NexOptic was the question of “does the technology work?”

The Company has already announced that its prototype works – it just hasn’t been revealed to the world.

So that means the tech has already been significantly de-risked from that standpoint.

The next most obvious risk in my opinion is patent risk.

NexOptic has already been granted a design patent in Europe and filed a full patent application last year.

In February, its secret technology will be revealed to the world. Given how disruptive it could be, there is a chance someone will challenge it. Challenges to patents are a very normal occurrence for the patent process.

NexOptic has very high-powered patent attorneys on its side and its management is confident they can protect the patent. But until a patent is granted, the risk remains.

There is also a risk that someone may come up with a better technology. There are metamaterials that are currently being used that also contain flat lenses, but are quite far away from being used as a replacement for current lenses.

Lastly, the stock has had a run and profit takers at current price levels are only logical. But again, you have to decide if the Company is undervalued at today’s prices.

I certainly believe it is.

Conclusion

Throughout the years, I have introduced many stocks that have been multibaggers – stocks that give returns that are several times their costs.

But no other stock has me more excited than NexOptic.

It’s not just because their technology could change the world or redefine physics.

And it’s not just because it represents one of my biggest investment positions.

I am excited because I was one of the first investors of this technology when it was just a scientific theory.

When I told people about this tech – even some of the smartest investors – they didn’t get it.

But how could I blame them? Even some of the world’s smartest optical engineers didn’t believe it.

This Company has been very close to me since its inception and it’s amazing to see how far it has come.

I know the guys behind the scenes have worked very diligently making this all happen. The people involved are some of the hardest working and smartest people I have met.

This is what happens when good people do great things:

I can’t wait to see their technology unveiled to the world, and I can’t wait for five lucky readers to join me (more on this in future Letters).

That’s when the NexOptic story truly begins.

NexOptic Technology Corp.

Canadian Trading Symbol: TSX-V: NXO

US Trading Symbol: OTCQB: NXOPF

German Trading Symbols: Frankfurt: E301 Berlin: E301

Seek the truth,

Ivan Lo

The Equedia Letter

www.equedia.com

Disclosure:

We’re biased towards NexOptic because the Company is an advertiser. We currently own shares NexOptic and have participated in every private placement. You can do the math. Our reputation is built upon the companies we feature. That is why we invest in every company we feature in our Equedia Special Report Editions. It’s your money to invest and we don’t share in your profits or your losses, so please take responsibility for doing your own due diligence. Remember, past performance is not indicative of future performance. Just because many of the companies in our previous Equedia Reports have done well, doesn’t mean they all will. Furthermore, the Companies mentioned and their management have no control over our editorial content and any opinions expressed are those of our own. We’re not obligated to write a report on any of our advertisers and we’re not obligated to talk about them just because they advertise with us.

Total
0
Shares
Comments 34
  1. Hello Mr Lo,
    Many thanks for the early word on Nexoptics. I’ve traded the stock 8 or 9 times since I first owned it in the mid .50’s. The last time trade was a buy at 1.15 on Friday after the pullback from 1.32. I had sold at 1.28 earlier and gathered my profits again from this great stock.
    I believe it’s time to start accumulating a greater share of my position as a long-term investment and just trade 25% or so. Is this a good idea?
    Thanks as well for ICG and ML.V. (will Millenium come back to life?)
    All the best,
    Dave in Toronto

    1. Sorry for the late reply Dave. I cannot comment on how you should trade or invest but I can tell you that I am a long term believer in their technology. I have met the guys behind the project and they are an amazing group of extremely hardworking, talented, and friendly people. I believe in them in very much.

      I do, however, always suggest to take risk off the table as necessary – especially if you’re in the money. Perhaps I should take my own advice here, but its hard to when I truly believe they are changing the world. I own a very large position.

      Thanks for being a loyal reader.

    2. The Agenda is transparent. NEXOPTICS, INC.

      California Secretary Of State Business Registration Ā· Updated 1/12/2017

      Nexoptics, Inc. is a California Domestic Corporation filed on September 2, 2005 . The company’s filing status is listed as Suspended and its File Number is C2802764.

      The Registered Agent on file for this company is Kyong Chan Lim and is located at 13110 Sunstone Pointe, San Diego, CA 92130. The company’s mailing address is 13110 Sunstone Pointe, San Diego, CA 92130.

      The company has 1 principal on record. The principal is Kyong Chan Lim from San Diego CA.

  2. I have a question, maybe someone more knowledgable than me can answer:
    The article – or actually the pr – stated that “the diffraction limit of the nominal system is approximately 17um (micrometers) while still maintaining the approximate five-inch depth of the overall POC device.”

    Can anyone help me: To me it seems that 17um is a really bad value, especially for an aperture opening that wide? Todays consumer camera sensors have a pixel size of somewhere between 2 to 8 um (depending on sensor size and megapixels). The POC scope has a c-mount camera attached. Typical image circle on that mount is 20mm. A camera with a square 20mm x 20mm sensor and 17um pixel pitch would have a whopping 1,3 Megapixels (1176×1176 pixels). That is just not enough for todays standards, and possibly much less than the human eye could resolve, if an eyepiece were attached to the c-mount instead of a camera sensor. The image would be just not sharp.
    Now, that size is still very impressive. But it means that the technology still has a long way to go before it can compete with todays optics in terms of performance.
    Where am I wrong?

  3. Hello Michael,
    The diffraction limit is a clarity measurement – relating to light “spreading” that is only a function of the optics definitely not related to pixels in the sensor. .I suspect you are mismatching image clarity, pixelation concepts, lens aberration and brightness concepts… Any sensor available now, or in the future will fit with blade optics technology, and into a smaller space. A key problem in quantifying image clarity is that flat lens sometimes do not fit into circular formulas (i.e. f-stop) … the proof of concept could have been made to completely utilize all of the light captured in a blade optic lens for any rectangular ratio for any sensor such as 16:9 or 4:3, etc. However, a circular lens must waste some of its circular inbound light while reshaping to fit a rectangular sensor shape (see earlier video). No lens, whether flat or curved, directly cause pixelation issues, but yes the circular lenses constrain pixelation of the sensor according to the amount of useful light captured. Typically more light is preferable for long distances, improving HDR and contrast, and to improving the sensor processing speed and/or getting more pixels per square inch. Thus I personally anticipate that blade lenses will allow more pixels than circular lenses. I personally expect because of blade lenses we may in the near future see less single sensor technology because it will allow dual, or quad sensors configurations into a more compact form. My understanding is that the ~4 inchx4 inch POC is reportedly good compared to a 5 inch x 39-inch telescope Likewise any electronic sensor (CMOS or other) can fit into the production models if desired. I will be going to the unveiling of the POC. You may find information to improve your understanding by googling “Abbe number”, or look at http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/imaging/diffraction-limit/, and especially refer to the Nexoptic powerpoint for more details. Cheers, Mark .

    1. Thank you Mark for the detailed and superb explanation. The more information we have for the people, the better.

      When you create something that people say can’t be done, you make history.

      That’s precisely what I believe the team at NexOptic are doing. Up until the prototype launch, skeptics will remain skeptics.

      It certainly helps to have educated and thoughtful answers to difficult questions.

      Thank you.

  4. Hello Ivan,
    I am a long time subscriber to your letter, and I do appreciate your letter, and I have profited from your advice in the past.
    I actually once sent you an email, and you were kind enough to answer me.
    I have been following your comments regarding Nexoptic, and have purchased shares a while ago, and then again, more recently based on your good advice.
    I have also passed on this suggestion to a lot of my friends.
    I am now beginning to panic a little, as this stock now has become a very sizable percentage of my portfolio.
    As well, Mr.Armstrong has just sold 90,000 shares this past week. As an insider, why would he sell now, if he believed that the stock would shortly go up very significantly, why would he not wait to sell a little later?
    Could you please reassure me that from your vantage point, things are progressing properly. Maybe another update in your weekly letter would be an important help to a lot of us?
    Thanking you in advance,
    Aaron Weinberg

    1. Sorry for the late reply Aaron.

      While I can’t tell you how to invest, I do understand and appreciate your concern.

      What I can tell you is that people – mostly on billboards or stock message boards – get carried away when they’re not sure what’s happening. They speculate so much that their speculation turns into paranoia.

      Perhaps that’s normal for speculative investments – after all, the bigger the risk, the bigger the reward if things work out.

      As for Armstrong’s position, I can’t for sure tell you why he sold as I have not spoken to him. My belief is that he is selling to excercise some early warrants that will expire in a few months. If I am right, his sales are normal, natural, and will contribute to funding the Company. Lastly, his sales are quite small considering he is one of the Company’s largest shareholders and likely owns millions of shares.

      If he decided to sell millions of shares, then perhaps it may cause me to wonder. At the same time, we all invest to make money, which means we all have to eventually sell if we want to reap the rewards.

      Lastly, if Armstrong knew something that we did not – such as potential issues with the prototype – and he sold, he would be selling based on insider information. That would be illegal. Given Armstrong runs a very prominent law practice, I highly doubt he would let that happen over such a small amount of stock sale.

      I hope this helps. Don’t hesistate to call the Company direct with your concerns – they are great people and they value every one of their shareholders.

  5. Hi Ivan,
    Would it be possible to write a little follow up tomorrow as to what is happening at NXO. We are all a little jittery considering the speed of the upward move.Should we be holding or selling.Do you have anymore news as to when they are going to make their announcement?Do you have any idea if there will be a delay, or if things are still on the original schedule, We could really use some direction. Thanks for your help.

    1. Hi AW,

      Thanks for your comment. While I can’t comment on what you should do with your stock due to legalities, I do believe the Company’s guidance hasn’t changed as far as I am aware.

      I still believe they will unveil the launch of their prototype sometime in Q1 – which would mean anytime between now and the end of March.

      I’ve been a shareholder for more than a couple of years now, so I certainly share your excitement.

      I, too, cannot wait for the launch.

      Hope this helps,
      Ivan

  6. You said in less than 60 days the world will know do you know when the exact date is when this news will be revealed to the world ? thanks BIGMAN

  7. I’m holding on to this to the end….
    I’ts all the savings I had so my heart races every time the
    stock goes down….although going up was nice….

    LET US SEE THIS THING “Working” .

    I’t not just the stock ……it’s having and being part of this thing…

    Thanks Ivan for everything.

    Just a particle of space wanting to belong.

  8. New subscriber. Great article. I got in at .18 then doubled up at .32. Would really like to attend the launch April 4th

  9. wht’s the easiest way to buy into this? exciting, even though i’m not a stock player. I like the story so far…..

    1. Hi Brad,

      The Company trades on the Canadian stock exchange TSX Venture under the symbol NXO and on in the US under the symbol NXOPF.

      Hope this helps.

      1. Why would NOX and NXOPF values differ from each other when they are the same company? Also would it be possible for one of the stocks but not the other to skyrocket?

        Thank

        MA

  10. Hi,
    I just looked at your upper 4.13 minute video which contains 6 minor videos.
    One of them is about an ultra thin flat lens developed by a University of Utah profesor
    Rajesh Menon.
    What is this? Is it the same lens? Is it a competitor? Are there other similar
    developments advacing simultaneasly?
    Thanks for the info.
    Best
    MF

  11. You should give me the best telescope you can produce for free, I have given so much and have nothing… i assure you it will be put to good use and a more than fair evaluation given…. Thanks… btw the unified field for gravitation and electormagnetism is r = 2Ghv/c(log) where v = 0. And space itself is programming time by generating a frequency… Had Galileo been poor, would you have given him a telescope?

  12. I am curious why so many articles as of late about this whole thing being a scam? There are some big red flags showing up in these articles such as the picture of the tree in the back yard being copied from a back yard blog and the involvement of the folks from Pinnacle research (another investment newsletter) shared office with NXO. Lack of photos made available to the public? Caltech flat lense which sounds like the same thing? Most of the directors of the company come from the mining industry and have affiliations with many other mining companies, many of which have history on the venture exchange? The biggest red flag is insiders selling just before the big unveiling event. The recent negative articles state many facts that unless proven otherwise will erode any investor confidence, certainly eroding mine! I have been a reader of Equedia for many years and have seen mixed results from companies promoted. I would like to think we are getting the real deal?

    1. Hi Rick,

      As I recently mentioned in the latest newsletter, these reports are collaborated by short sellers. There is a reason they are written under Pseudonyms, and written in a way where there is no positivity.

      For example, the picture of a tree was just that, a stock photo. We use many stock photos to illustrate our story – we never said the picture was a picture from John’s backyard. See how easily people can skew words into something negative?

      Furthermore, people share offices all the time. That doesn’t mean its a negative thing.

      Lack of photos: I believe the Company will release more. But they know the tech works, and are advancing it. They’re not here to take pictures – that’s not their business.

      Caltech flat lens: completely different. Caltech uses metasurfaces, which is far from conventional. Please see the original report.

      As far as insiders selling – it’s really only been ONE insider who has sold stock before the event and it was a small position considering how much stock he owns.

      Lastly, our performance has been quite good. The article, in order to paint a negative picture, failed to mention all of our wins – including NMI which was bought out for over $5, which we introduced at $0.82 a year before. It failed to mention many, many other of our wins.

      I can’t tell you what the Company should be worth in terms of valuation, but the tech is the real deal.

      I hope you can see how one-sided the short reports were and why they are all released in relative succession.

      Again, the shorts want people to sell stock so they can buy it back – they release negative reports and nothing positive comes from it.

      For example, the whole thing on aberrations is simply stupid. EVERY lens has them, including curved. It’s how people correct them that makes them work.

      Take a look at this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkBOsTVfpdA&t=321s

      I believe the shorts will continue to attack the share price – but we should look at it from a positive light. It gives others an opportunity to buy stock at cheaper prices if they feel the tech is undervalued.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prev
Drill Program Expanded To Include Third Drill Site at Pastos Grandes

Drill Program Expanded To Include Third Drill Site at Pastos Grandes

Millennial Lithium Corp

Next
How to Invest in Lithium: Millennial Lithium Update

How to Invest in Lithium: Millennial Lithium Update

You can invest in Tesla, or you can invest in the fuel that powers every

You May Also Like