What the heck is “NanoCrystal Electricity?” Will it “Magically Power Everything” and “pay out 78 times your money?”

Checking out the latest wireless electricity teaser from Michael Robinson's Nova-X Report

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, January 17, 2018

Michael Robinson this week is pitching his Nova-X Report with a promise that “we’re about to witness one of the most massive rollouts in history” as a new “magic electricity” ends the days of wires and plugs and dead batteries and makes us all filthy, stinkin’ rich.

So what the heck is he talking about? The promise is large and glorious, and designed, of course, to get you to hurry up and subscribe to Nova-X Report (which is his “entry level” report, $39/year currently) … and that promise incites daydreaming, with thoughts of cars that charge wirelessly, without big bulky high-voltage plugs… blenders that make you margaritas on the beach… coffeemakers that work inside your car.

That’s all in the service of picturing a world in which you own (a piece of) the core technology that makes wireless charging possible… which feels glorious and exciting. So let’s sample a few clues from the ad and see if we can name this stock for you, shall we? Here’s some of Robinson’s pitch:

“Now is the time to take this new energy VERY SERIOUSLY.

“As we speak, this tiny Silicon Valley firm is rushing to get their NanoCrystal Electricity technology fully adopted.

“They already have the three biggest multi-national manufacturer of electronics and chips on notice…

“Including Dialog Semiconductor, which has ponied up $25 million as a partner.

“If that isn’t a promise that this is going to happen any day now, nothing is.

“But it gets even more exciting.

“The company just announced they are currently working on integrating their remarkable technology with 56 other tech firms.

“This is just the beginning of a massive roll-out.”

Sounds pretty exciting… and with the Consumer Electronics Show getting lots of headlines, we can all imagine the cool new things that could be powered by wireless electricity. More clues?

“This tiny firm is about to have a sales bonanza!

“I added up the cash major industries are targeting for NanoCrystal Electricity. This includes electronic devices, electric cars, medical, military, and retail.

“I then estimated that this company locks-in a minimum of 20% of it all…

“For over $5 billion in revenue potential over the next couple years.

“Since this company is only three years old with only $4 million in sales so far, that translates into a 125,091% increase in revenues…”

That’s hooey, of course — anyone who starts out with a massive number for sales in a major industry and then says, “if this tiny company takes ‘just’ 20% of that market, the numbers will be astronomical!” is just using shock-and-awe math. Taking even 1% of a giant industry with a new technology is a gargantuan accomplishment, so take that with a huge grain of salt.

But, of course, “downplay” isn’t in Robinson’s vocabulary:

“We know they’re the leader in a revolutionary new technology…

“They should trade at a giant premium…

“They should have high operating margins (own the IP, outsources the heavy lifting)…

“Reasonably, half the company profits should drop into the stock price…

“Meaning this stock could pay out 78 times your money.

“And not over the next decade – over the next two to three years.”

So that’s the bold, headline promise: $1,000 to $78,000 in three years. Something to keep track of when we come back and look at this teaser in the future.

Why is all of this supposed to be happening now? What’s the urgency? Robinson says there’s an imminent catalyst:

“A green light on their NanoCrystal Electricity is expected any day now from the FCC.”

OK, so I’ll spare you my look at all the rest of the clues… because I need to jump in here and say that’s a little disingenuous. This ad just started running (as far as we can tell, at least) this week… and the ad is dated “January 2018” … but Energous (WATT) actually got their first FCC approval for an over-the-air transmitter at the end of December.

So yes, the Thinkolator identified that Robinson here is touting Energous (WATT), the wireless charging startup that’s been the subject of wildly overpromising hype-filled newsletter ads since it showed off its first prototype “over the air” charging system at the Consumer Electronics Show three years ago.

And there’s a reason for the excitement, of course — by all accounts, the technology is real, and consumers really do want to be able to charge their devices without plugging them in. After those two basic realities are covered, though, the actual investment prospect and product development timelines become radically more complicated.

Partly that’s because the company has a well-documented history over overpromising on its development timeline… and pundits and newsletters have loaded up on that overpromising, magnifying the impact on the stock price. The last time I had anything to do with Energous stock I was short the shares for a little while in the Summer of 2016, when a couple newsletters were loudly promising that Apple was on the verge of announcing that they would use Energous’ WattUp wireless charging in the iPhone 7 (which was, of course, a patently ridiculous claim).

Now, of course, the story has changed a little bit, because Energous has gotten perhaps the first really good news they’ve had since they made the partnership deal with Dialog semiconductor back in 2016 and added to it last Summer. They announced in late December that the FCC has certified its first “over the air” charging transmitter. Here’s part of that press release:

“The company’s WattUp Mid Field transmitter can deliver power via radio frequency (RF) energy to WattUp-enabled electronic devices at a distance of up to three feet. As the only technology that can do both contact-based and non-contact-based wireless charging, as well as charge multiple devices at once, WattUp is highly scalable and automatically charges devices, as needed, until they are topped off. While older charging technologies allow for only contact-based charging, Energous is the only company to achieve Wireless Charging 2.0 to-date, which is the ability to charge devices both at contact (including fast charging large battery devices such as smartphones and tablets), as well as power-at-a-distance. Similar to WiFi, the WattUp ecosystem ensures interoperability between receivers and transmitters, regardless of the manufacturer, making the entire ecosystem flexible and accessible for consumers and manufacturing partners….

“This represents the first time FCC equipment certification has been awarded to any device that charges wirelessly at a distance, and operates under Part 18 of the FCC’s rules. The FCC’s Part 18 rules permit higher-power operations than are permitted under the Part 15 rules that have been used to approve other at a distance charging devices.”

I haven’t seen what Energous was presenting at the CES this year, but they were reportedly there (and the CEO got some press, including this video interview) and they have talked up the release of the first WattUp-enabled products, including some new hearing aids and Myant’s SKIIN smart clothing line… both of those are still using the existing “near field” charger, which is essentially a contact charger that requires you to be within a centimeter or so of the charger, much like the current Qi standard chargers (such as Apple has adopted for their first iPhones that use wireless charging, or for the Apple Watch), but the promise is that although these are contact chargers, they use the same technology as Energous’ Mid Field and eventual Far Field transmitters and will be able to receive power from those future transmitters as well. So your $80 smart underwear will be backward-compatible.

The current forecast for availability of those distance transmitters is “late this year, early in 2019,” according to the CEO in that interview, and they say they’re “more comfortable” with those projections now that the chips have been produced and they have some over-the-air certification. I’m probably a little too cynical about Energous, given the several waves of massive hype I’ve seen from and about the company… I love the idea of “charging at a distance,” and Energous certainly gets most of the press in that space (though there are other technologies, including Powercast, which also uses RF power transmission, and Ossia’s Cota), but clearly there are technical or consumer challenges or this fantastical stuff we’ve been hearing about for years would be everywhere by now.

What are the analysts expecting? Well, some of them have probably been burned before, too, from the years of “a product is right around the corner” talk, but Oppenheimer’s analyst reportedly has an estimate for $3.9 million in revenue for 2018 and “material” growth in 2019, with a “bull case scenario” of maybe generating close to $400 million in revenue by 2021. That’s a pretty different scenario than Michael Robinson’s, both envision “20% market share” but Robinson calls it a $25 billion market (with $5 billion in revenue for Energous) and the Oppenheimer analyst apparently foresees a $2 billion market (with $400 million in revenue for Energous).

On the flip side, of course, there’s also still a lot of pessimism from the short sellers — Andrew Left, in particular, has been vocal in his criticism of Energous, but there are others as well… though the FCC approval may well have generated a “short squeeze” a couple weeks ago (short data that I see is usually pretty old, shortsqueeze.com says about a third of the stock is still sold short).

I think Energous’s WattUp is still a possible technology advance in search of a breakthrough product. Rosy scenarios for WattUp require that it get some kind of critical mass building, which very likely means that at least one high-profile and high-volume product is needed, and I have no insight into what product that might be or when it might happen. I expect we’ll probably see Apple rumors for WATT again this year, too, though I think anyone expecting Apple to be the first adopter of WattUp is likely to be disappointed. Apple hasn’t been much of a risk-taker on that front, they tend to prefer to perfect proven and established technologies.

The good thing is that they are very small, with a market cap of $400 million or so, so even though their finances are rickety and they keep selling equity every time they have good news that drives the shares up (as most cash-burning companies do, wisely), and even though the insiders are steady sellers (as is typical of tech startups, where stock is a major part of compensation), there’s almost always an optimistic scenario lurking under the surface if you’re willing to take the chance on the technology and the management team.

WATT is not particularly appealing to me, and I think Michael Robinson is way out in left field with his projections in this ad, since the meaningful technology won’t even be available for purchase within a year, let alone taking 20% of the market in three years (and is a long way away from being ready for high-power applications like car charging… with even cell phones arguably being a little bit of a stretch at this point), but stock speculators are hopeful and optimistic folks… maybe this one will work out.

And Robinson throws a few extra “bonus” recommendations on the pile that are secondary plays on the huge gains he sees for Energous and for wireless charging in general, including some chipmakers and such, so he’s very likely also recommending Dialog Semiconductor (DLG in Eurpe, DLGNF OTC in the US), which fell 30% in the past month on bad news about Apple orders, and perhaps Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), to whom they’ve also been linked in the past… WATT will not have a material impact on either of those companies’ income statements over the next year, though there is potential that Dialog will eventually get a boost, as the chip manufacturer, if Energous actually builds a very large business someday.

Sound like your cuppa tea? Excited about the possibilities? Exhausted by the hype? Let us know with a comment below.

Disclosure: I own shares of Apple, but am not invested in any of the other companies mentioned above. I will not trade in any covered stock for at least three days, per Stock Gumshoe’s trading rules.


Are you getting our free Daily Update "reveal" emails?
If not, just click here...



Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

Share your thoughts...

276 Comments on "What the heck is “NanoCrystal Electricity?” Will it “Magically Power Everything” and “pay out 78 times your money?”"

Notify of
avatar

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Hapsam
Guest
0

Just wondering if a world full of mid-field and long-field charging radio waves will end up causing cancers, cognitive disorders or just cooking my organs much like a microwave over without shields. If it causes no harm this will be an awesome development, but I think the health hiccups will take some time to resolve. (I am assuming that the charging radio waves will have a lot more energy than the radio wave spectrum cell phones use).

Investor Clouseau
Irregular
102

I often theorize about this, I’m not anti-cell phone paranoid, but I do avoid blutooth and extra, unnecessary proximity to things of that nature when possible. I’ve decided it’ll already be too late when the real feeback on the health issues shake out, and that technology is just too darn good for quality of life at this point.

Stuart
Guest
0

Quite agree, but a bit of a worry as I might have a few years left to realise the impact. Hopefully other lifestyle choices well compensate

fanfare
Member
27
Forget about radio waves causing cancer. The wavelengths are too long to even damage/violate skin cells, let alone cause cancer. Consider that radio waves are longer (and therefore carry less energy) than visible light. Even visible light waves do not cause cancer, … it takes at least a wave as short as an Ultra Violet … and THAT can only cause cellular damage on the skin. In other words, one would have to be able to get lung cancer from spending too much time on the beach (irrespective of a metastasized skin cancer) …. before we could even begin to… Read more »
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
senior111
Guest
0

thanks for clarifying up the RF and health issues. Are there any concerns with eating microwave cooked food?

Paul
Guest
0
Electromagnetic waves (photons) interact with matter in different ways depending on wavelength. And wavelengths longer than ultraviolet can certainly damage tissues. That’s why it’s not a good idea to dry a cat in a microwave. Ultraviolet photons individually have enough energy to knock out electrons from organic molecules (e.g. skin DNA). Microwave photons sort of shake molecules to wiggle and thus heat up tissue. (The food doesn’t care how the molecules are shaken, so microwave food is no different from food heated by other methods: heat is wiggling molecules). Radiowave and microwave photons individually carry less energy than e.g. ultraviolet… Read more »
Add a Topic
1340
Investor Clouseau
Irregular
102

Any input on microwaves’ supposed negative interaction with many plastics used to re-heat said food?

enviropurelight
Guest
0

Yes, two different issues, microwaves heat the plastic, and many plastics will give off a vapor known as BPA, bisphenol which has been said to be potential danger to our health as foods will absorb this chemical and then you eat it, not good.

mharawira
Irregular
4

So heating in glass instead of plastic sounds like a good option. Glad I saw this one.

frank_n_steyn
Irregular
117

maybe not the food, but when I use a microwave I immediately leave the room it’s in.

Rennet Namron
Guest
0

Yes. It destroys the enzymes, making it less easy to digest and less nutritious, not to mention the emc waves that have an deleterious effect on your eyes and whatever. Notice how many younger kids wear glasses in this generation?

BJI
Guest
0

I’m 79 and I’ve had to wear glasses since age of 12, LONG BEFORE microwave ovens!!! I have sunglasses that are 35 years old and my vision IS STILL 20/20 when wearing them and I’ve used several microwave ovens over the same 35 years!

4lllls
Guest
0

Yes and especially cooked in plastic.

barry729
Irregular
8
THERE is NO BPA in any of the plastics you might put in a microwave or an oven – the only real danger is melting the plastic on to your food, which won’t kill you, (think of all the plastic crap you chewed on as a kid like toys and straws) What is bisphenol A? Bisphenol A is a chemical found in polycarbonate plasticand epoxy resins. Polycarbonate plastics are used in certain food and drink packaging and also in compact discs, computers, impact-resistant safety equipment (such as helmets and goggles), and medical devices” Final note: if it weren’t for plastic… Read more »
mosley1234
Irregular
550

fanfare,
knowledge is power

Rusty Brown in Canada
Guest
0
Rusty Brown in Canada

Thank you for the valuable clarification. Now, does this apply as well to the concern that some have expressed about passengers sitting on large banks of rechargeable batteries in electric vehicles, since the batteries are apparently under the floorboards, and might induce genetic damage by induction to those body parts closest to the batteries over a period of time?

Add a Topic
5916
Jay L. Stern
Guest
0
Reading these comments is appalling. You people appear to have zero scientific knowledge. Even a basic, high-school class in chemistry or physics taught by a teacher who uses the “common core” method would would be useful to dispell the sort of “loo-doo” concerns expressed here. The idea of “NanoCrystal” power is intriguing. What it means is that when certain materials are deformed and then spring back, they release the energy they acquired from the initial deformation as electricity. Thus piezoelectric igniters on appliances and lighters. In these applications, single cryrstals are used. By harnessing an array, and finding a way… Read more »
Peter H Dragonas
Guest
0
Finally some common sense..use your simple logic. Physics gurus who develop a template as the first attempt to demonstrate positive generation of a form of energy( in this case using radio waves through a crystal media which has ideal properties) have seen the production of electricity. Now the mission is geared to identify how to deliver the electricity produced directly into.a mechanism that can instantlyuse it without the necessity for an intermediary conduit. Light wave,all the same length directed through a tube, filter by a crystal or other media and brought to a sharp point at the end of that… Read more »
Add a Topic
5029
catherine
Irregular
119

# needlessly rude comment $WATT
Jay L. Stern, I see you are a guest, so perhaps you aren’t aware that members of the Gummunity don’t set out to insult each other.

This type of comment can numb people to your following information: “Reading these comments is appalling. You people appear to have zero scientific knowledge. Even a basic, high-school class in chemistry or physics ….”

Paul
Guest
0

He is right people posting garbage on scientific matters.

Sam
Guest
0

Bro, I’m a guest. you are an Irregular… get over it. Jay can say what ever he wants. If you become an Admin or what ever, then I might listen to you. but till then stop bullying a guy who knows more than you do. furthermore stop ‘copy and pasting’ because that is plagiarism (punishable by law).

john
Guest
0

Sir, plagiarism is only punishable by law if you attempt to profit by it.

archives2001
Irregular
71

Spot on comment Catherine!
Couldn’t have said it better myself!!!

Lou Louis
Guest
0

Ham radio operators have long been known (and proven) to have a statistically significant higher incidence of brain cancer. There is also strong association between proximity to broadcast towers and cancer. Why would that be?

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
moskalski
Member
3
I don’t agree with the conclusions offered by fanfare. Radio waves and microwaves do penetrate “bodies” as observed when microwaves are capable of heating food from “the inside out.” MRI’s are an example of the affect of radio waves on tissue. The magnetic field aligns the nuclei of atoms in soft tissue which are then flipped by absorbing radio frequency energy as it sweeps through both tissue and wavelength. The nuclei resonate and return to ground state without (we think) doing any damage. Some higher frequency EM radiation does extensive damage to the skin but doesn’t give the impression of… Read more »
Dan
Guest
0
Microwaves do not cook from the inside out……have you ever eaten food cooked in a microwave? That claim is preposterous. Further, MRI’s act upon water molecules (specifically hydrogen) which occurs in soft tissues and fat, it doesn’t destroy or alter them, hence its safety. Xrays are dangerous because, they, and other ionizing forms of radiation, can break chemical bonds and kill or alter cells. Various wavelengths of visible light, depending upon energy levels can also burn or destroy tissue, so (as someone else said earlier, not you) saying that visible light wavelengths or that wavelengths longer than visible light are… Read more »
Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
718
BobKlahn
Guest
0

Radio waves can penetrate the body and interact inside it. The reason it doesn’t at broadcast levels is the power is very very small at your location.

Running you car will be thousands of watts going into the box you are riding in. That energy would be distributed throughout the whole area, as nobody is going to aim it at your car specifically. Even more, not at your power receptor of your car.

Lou Louis
Guest
0

You are wise to wonder. One might think the FCC would consider the health impact, but this particular iteration of it may not.

Peter H Dragonas M D
Guest
0

There is no way an application for production of. Electricity can escape the Federal and world class scientific academic institutions. They have an excellent reputation for testing both safe application cost effectiveness and all the possible side effects known to Electrical Engineers, manufacturing safety and need. We Americans are naive in that we are willing to discuss our original ideas in the global press. There are many countries who competed and put our ideas and inventions into the. Marketplace, untested. Those are the places to keep away from.i trust our tried & true scientists 100%. You shall see. Invest.

Lyryn
Guest
0

Then, add 5G and smart (kill) meters = major increase in morbidity/mortality rates…

Add a Topic
6265
Sheila Dale
Guest
0

And we know being exposed to the lower frequency with cell phones does cause considerable health issues over time

Arialbomb
Guest
0
As with studying engineering, but it’s been a long time, I can say that the electromagnetic wave spectrum is sort of large. Radio waves are on the lower end, the kind you get with radios (unharmful). The wave itself is large like you may have heard in an article somewhere, like the length of a football field or something and get shorter with the more powerful rays. Then as you go up the line, you get microwaves, infrared, visible (light/prisim), ultraviolet, xray, gamma. As you can see, they get more dangerous as you go up the line, even ‘visible’ can… Read more »
bstew
Irregular
19

I won’t be buying the charger.

Brian Hale
Guest
0

Yes you would be cooked, thats the idea with the 5g cell towers too

Add a Topic
6265
dennis
Guest
0

Tesla had a project of the same ideas but JPMorgan, his backer, couldn’t come up with a way to make money from it like the power companies do so he shelved it! It was all about the money so how are the power companies going to make a cent from this except from the power to use it to make the RF waves??

hullevad
Irregular
24

No wonder there are no fairy tale writers anymore. There are a lot more money in writing “teasers”.

enviropurelight
Guest
0

Exactly, hype sells, always has, always will.

stockie12
Guest
0

Fairy tales will last as fairy tales, teasers purporting to be predictors of the future will fail when the future reveals their hype, no?

Sam
Guest
0

well said… well said

archives2001
Irregular
71

Not necessarily. To wit, prognosticators like ‘Broken Clock Harry’ Dent who continue to be dead wrong for several years. But folks continue to follow his drivel. Reminds me of Lucy cajoling Charlie Brown to kick the football every Fall.

Add a Topic
3368
tinonadine66
Member
2

Thank you Travis!
Whenever I see teasers from Michael R., etc. I look to your site for additional information and FACTS.

enviropurelight
Guest
0

Hype indeed, articles were full of it, and charging batteries is hardly producing electricity from air which is what it sounded like from the hype. Big deal, charging batteries without contacts, sure, there is a market, but at what profit level.

valuequestor
Guest
0

anybody buying at this point, or is it just too early ?

Ed Moore
Guest
0

Cogent level-headed article. Yes, the tediously wordy Robinson sales pitch to get you to spend $39 was absurd.
Robinson is now the poster boy for internet marketing gone crazy.

copacetic98
Irregular
17
As far as I can tell, this company is a total fraud. Everything other than contact charging that they’ve promised has been either a violation of the laws of physics or a violation of FCC rules. The FCC approval was actually for a testing method, not for a product, but it did open a pathway to a product for the first time. Unfortunately, the max power permitted would maybe be enough to charge something like a hearing aid battery in 24-48 hours, if you attached a receiver with a 20 cm antenna. Tons of comment about this one in Seeking… Read more »
Add a Topic
1340
Add a Topic
1614
Add a Topic
3551
Sam
Guest
0

this device still has many kinks and problems. but I believe that before the WATT comes out on the market the whole thing will be perfectly safe and a bit more than enough to power a hearing aid.

thomaskuttyja
Member
0

how about UBEAM

portpals
Guest
0
I doubt that there is enough energy in radio waves to do large scale charging. The physics for wave energy is E=h x mu where h is Planck’s constant and mu is the frequency. When you charge a car battery for instance, you have to generate 10 amps or so to do it in any useful time. Look at the huge area of photo cells needed for generating domestic electricity from high energy sun radiation……I don’t think radio frequencies can generate enough amps to charge an electric car…Robinson is a charlatan in my book..”disingenuous” is putting it mildly.
Add a Topic
1614
saint stephen
Irregular
253

I’ll pass on this technology pitch, but Robinson’s marijuana reports are worth a read.

Add a Topic
4091
ginridge
Member
13

Perhaps he was using the product pitched in those reports when he wrote this one.

BDwolfhound
Guest
0
As portpals pointed out, the energy of electromagnetic radiation is directly proportional to the frequency, which is why we try to keep away from gamma radiation and keep even much lower energy microwave radiation inside Faraday cages.Yes, we can produce loud music and images from radio and TV transmissions that are low energy in themselves, but we do that with amplifiers fed from batteries or line power. The notion that significant energy density can be provided by long wave (i.e., low frequency) radio transmission does not compute. There is also the matter of the inverse square law for signal strength… Read more »
Add a Topic
1614
Add a Topic
1614
enviropurelight
Guest
0

My thoughts exactly, no way to pump up the amps enough to transmit on any frequency without toasting anyone who ventures to cross the path of these signal waves. Almost funny, but then I think of Tesla, not the current day Tesla.

RockyBaloo
Irregular
13
I am an investor in Energous and have followed it closely for the past 2 years. One thing I want to correct is this thought of them charging a car. They have said many times over the years that they are focused on small IoT up to cell phones and possibly tablets. Witricity is a private company that is focusing on charging cars with a more laser based tech I believe. Their real differentiator from what I have gathered is that Energous’ tech is “pocket forming” and shuts down or decreases power transmission if there is a risk to humans… Read more »
Add a Topic
1340