“That doesn’t change anything regarding Canatu’s thesis.” Well, it could be that way, nothing else, I see it a bit differently.
I read Inderes’ excellent initiation of coverage report,
things always get updated, we get more information, it might be slightly different in the next one, or not.
In the autumn 2024 report
“Both companies have ongoing development projects with the industry research institute IMEC to develop carbon nanotube-based pellicle films using a wet dispersion method. Mitsui Chemicals is completing a production facility for these by the end of 2025.”
it is possible that a dry-side solution will emerge
“Mitsui Chemicals’ revenue is approximately 11 billion euros, and LINTEC’s is 1.7 billion euros. The profitability of both, measured by EBITDA, is around 10%. For these companies, the manufacturing of carbon nanotube-based pellicle films is therefore just one small product area among others. In our view, this creates a competitive advantage for Canatu, which focuses solely on carbon nanotubes, due to better focus.”
The defense industry is mentioned in the release - one must try to ride this wave too
The point highlighted is that Canatu’s technology lends itself to many demanding applications. As a deal, this is not big, but this basic message is clearly a positive thing.
Cana’s AGM announcement; two new members to the board, Bernhard and Dino. Backgrounds NXP, Infenion, Intel, Magna, Denso… Significant customer industries are now more robustly represented, which is a good thing even if it incurs additional costs. Was there any discussion about this at the meeting? And why an 8-person board? Sounds unnecessarily large for a small company.
No offense, but you constantly bring up erroneous perspectives on Canatu’s technology and, moreover, seemingly bearishly (?).
If someone wants to make through-silicon vias or other conductors between different layers in semiconductor chips, then of course the goal is to grow such a “forest” of CNTs. But such a CNT forest absorbs all light (a material comparable to so-called black silicon), and thus cannot be used, for example, in pellicles. What you are talking about is a so-called CNT-yarn (https://www.nisenet.org/catalog/scientific-image-multiwalled-carbon-nanotube-yarn)
In pellicles, the goal is to have as thin and EUV-transparent a film as possible, which is also mechanically durable and remains functional in the device’s operating environment.
I have worked with nanotechnology and at least I understand the difference between Canatu’s product vs. a CNT film made with a wet process. Regarding taking Finnish technology to the world, I would be more concerned that Canatu sells reactors and their recipients would end up making those high-margin products. That is, once again, world-changing technology would have been developed in Finland, but Finland would remain a raw material manufacturer.
If you don’t properly understand the technology, it’s best to refrain from commenting on it. And even AI doesn’t understand these things unless you know how to prompt it properly from a technical perspective.
Perhaps I should add that, to my eye, a 10-person management team and board is quite large for a company of this size.
But if the problem is that quintessential Finnish problem, namely selling the product, then that might be just the right way to take the technology to the world.
As someone working in and familiar with the industry, have you possibly encountered products from Canatu or its competitors? What thoughts has that raised?
I will not comment on the comparison of Canatu’s products vs. those of potential competitors.
I can only comment that Canatu’s public documents are accurate (as they must be, because it is a real company, with real business, and real technology). So it is certainly not a scam. Canatu’s material has also been widely verified in academic literature.
It is, however, a unique product in that they are able to produce high-quality carbon nanotube networks cost-effectively at that scale. But the valuation is, of course, also commensurate with that.
@Real
Enough already. Your messages are factually incorrect, so you are needlessly slandering Canatu’s technology.
Such “criticism” of a company based on lies/continuously incorrect points might even be on the grey area of the law.
Since you clearly don’t understand what you’re copy-pasting here, generated by AI, you should refrain from writing it altogether.
Let’s answer anyway. The fact that someone in an academic article in 2001 once made oriented CNT films is quite far from its productization. Were the CNTs 100% oriented, or only 55%? Was the orientation achieved only over a distance of 1-100 um, or for example in a 30x30 cm or even larger “macro” scale? And how long did the orientation take, and was it even commercially viable?
If it was only done on a small scale, it might certainly work for some transistors, but not for Canatu’s applications.
Then there’s the patent protection. Canatu owns the patent for that Dry Deposition process, which is necessary for the cost-effective manufacturing of high-quality CNT film. And Canatu also owns a huge number of other patents (https://patents.justia.com/assignee/canatu-oy), where, for example, the manufacturing of pellicles with HARM structures is protected. The topmost one there seems critical to prevent the film from bending.
If you would bother to read through Canatu’s peer-reviewed scientific articles on CNT material with an open mind, you would not end up with similar claims.
You could also benefit from knowledge in physics, chemistry, semiconductor technology, nanotechnology, and electrochemistry.
P.S. I don’t even own Canatu myself, but I follow this with interest. The valuation is too acidic for me at the moment.
I discussed with a manufacturer of the PE-CVD method last week at an expert meeting; in the PE-CVD (Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition) method, an electric field is used, but plasma has its own challenges, so the interest is in FC-CVD, where an electric field is used in controlling the growth of carbon nanotubes, or rather, it’s more than just interest.
One should forget about PE in Canatu’s case. If plasma is included, then volumes and size are quite limited. The effective range of that plasma is quite limited because the plasma’s uniformity (evenness) must be well controlled. The larger the chamber, the more problems with uniformity.
Canatu has chosen the FC method, and that’s what they’re going with. There’s no point arguing about these anymore; it also feels like the discussion is stuck. Moderators could perhaps check whether the above-mentioned texts add value to the discussion.
At a quick glance, it appears that things are also moving in the right direction in medical diagnostics.
They have managed to create a very sensitive DNA sensor and make it work even in plasma without plasma dilutions. However, it’s still a long way to the clinically required concentration (1-10 copy number per sample), meaning that as it is, amplification would certainly be needed.
To my eye, the most important takeaway from the article is the comparison of Canatu’s CNT vs. another manufacturer’s CNT, which strongly supports what Canatu has stated.
Did someone get offended after this episode? A big owner was even named there, even though Canatus wasn’t mentioned. The stock price has been in freefall all June.
