Bernard.

It is very clear that Gen 2 is a significant improvement over Gen 1, as it should be, however it seems it may be quite difficult for many investors to get a sense of where the program is, relative to where it needs to be.

I have read a couple of the news reports that have more information than appears. I have included copies of parts of the published reports and I have extracted and outlined this information here. 

Copied from the Gen 1 final report. Nov 2017

Tests confirmed that the Si production yield of the Gen 1 PUREVAPtm played an important role on the final purity of the Si produce, as its maximum production yield was limited to below 10%.

Theoretical calculations, assuming a 100% production yield, estimating the ultimate purity for a series of key tests were calculated based on actual impurity removal efficiency for each test. Overall the result shows that purity of the Si produced under various conditions could range from 3N (99.984 % Si) to 4N (99.996 % Si) for low purity feedstock, to purity close to 5N (99.998 % Si) when using high purity feedstock.

The ability to operate semi-continuously may achieve a maximum production yield of 90%, as typically obtained in industrial scale reactors.

Copied from the Gen 2 published report

Gen 2 PUREVAPTM is achieving significantly higher production yield 5.7 times more

My Comments:

Thus the Gen 2 Production Yield is 5.7 times better than below 10% = below 57%

The above information from published news releases (by simple calculation) states that the production yield of the Gen 2 reactor is less than 57%, and that it may be possible to achieve 90% (which is 10% less than the production yield used to calculate the ultimate estimated purity).

This indicates that the improvement in Gen 2 still required to reach 90% production yield is a factor above 1.57

Is This Correct Bernard?