|I have said all I want to say in response to superg's views on Haydale over on the Versarien thread
If superg does wish to continue with repetitive trolling on this thread I will respond again on his Versarien thread.
I should thank escapetohome for drawing my attention to superg's past record on ADVFN
If I do need to respond again to trolling, I suspect this list will prove to be quite useful.
Hopefully we can now draw a line under all of this and look forward to a successful year for both Haydale and Versarian.|
Ok, if you want to carry on with this, would you mind if I respond to you a bit later on then, over on your Versarien thread, using a nice big size 16 font (or shall I use size 24) just to reinforce my points?|
Your thread and if your are happy for readers to think all GNPs need functionalisation then that's up to you.
Threads are for info sharing and I'be told you VRS say they have not need to functionalise graphene in recent uses.
That does not mean all procedures do not need to functionalise. It could be their product is poor and needs adjustment to get it performing better.
Neither will I say that no GNPs need functionalisation even when high quality to start as they may need adjustment to suit a particular resin.
What I'm saying is in the carbon fibre example, PEEK and others samples in the VRS case no functionalisation was needed. That is obviously at odds with what you believe and Haydale profess as general comment about the GNP market.|
I liked Haydale a lot when I first read about them but the more I read the more desperate and BS like they become.
Initially I thought Haydale would be the lead and now I know why you sound nervous. It's because the whole AIM admission document is about all GNPs will need functionlisation that's what the business was based on and the sell of it. In other words everyone that can't functionalise would have to go through companies like them. It's untrue but obviously you may think otherwise.
Going through the admission document I spotted 3D labs and the graphene supermarket where Haydale have product listed on sale.
Here is the problem with that
Note the <50nm and 20m2 per gram. That puts it around the 125 layer mark.
It's not graphene at all it's graphite.
There is no way 125 layer GNPs will help with mechanical strength. The problem is some may buy it for that and find there is no gain at all, so they may consider Haydale products to be junk and in networking at events or otherwise say steer clear of Haydale. False info is no way to advertise yourself.
I'm all ears on what performance improvement (verified data) there is with 125 layer nano graphite which they call graphene.
That would be unjustified as few layer would do the trick.
That's Haydales problem not anyone else. They are the ones allowing their product to be advertised as such.
They have chucked in some cheap nano graphite in and called it graphene then claim it will help with mechanical strength.
3D and their own patent. They comment on many layer graphene.
"thick GNPs provide little advantage over other inexpensive carbon-based fillers, such as extended graphite."
It's Haydale that are doing this not me. They are doing the deals and recording false information NOT ME. It's for them to sort out NOT ME.
I was an interested investor but it seems they have too much misleading information around. That them throws doubt on claims that can't be verified. The AIM is full of companies making things up so when you find things that are untrue it is a red flag for me.
They need to sort their act out and get all the misleading info removed. FFS do they have anyone that checks what they record, some of it is false.
BTW I found a minor typo on the VRS site which could be misleading, I let them know. Within hours it was changed.
No doubt the CEO reads here and the claims on the front page of the website still sit there. It's only a phone call to get it sorted, but then sorting that is at odds with the admission document.
I hope he reads this and reads this and clean up the junk claims out there before it becomes brand beware issue.|
This is coming very repetitive, we obviously disagree, I will let you have the last word and then can we drop it please.|
|I'v been reading the AIM admission document to try and understand where confusion may have come from.
First point why did investors think Haydale produce GNPs?
Because that's what it seems to suggest in the admission document
"Haydale’s split plasma technology treats organic mined fine powder graphite producing high quality GNPs using a dry, low-energy process and avoiding the need to use potentially harsh ‘wet’ chemicals or acids used by many other producers"
"Analysis of the processed product shows single, double, triple and multiple layers of exfoliated graphene
together with layers of graphene sheets loosely held together by Van de Waals forces and known as GNPs."
So it sound like you bung in milled graphite powder and graphene comes out the other side.
No quibbling there it's seems obvious Haydale were claiming to be a producer and hinted at the benefit compared to other producers.
I don't quite know how anyone could read that any other way, so it's their own fault on the confusion there as THEY stated they produced GNPs.
Later on they did add this single line though
Haydale is not a producer of the raw material nor an end user.|
|Think What you like Timbo VRS said no functionalisation needed. It was your AGM question not mine. Ray said he couldn't answer
If you are a scientists why can't you understand that simple point.
In the early days investors thought HayD made GNPs. Ray to his credit has repeatedly pointed out that they don't.
There is market for functionalised GNPs but suggesting all needs functionlising is untrue which is the very point you tried to cover at the AGM.
Your point was about USP. I take it with a view that many producers need Haydale and can't operate without such tech, Haydale the enabler etc.
They can operate fine without Haydale in many cases. In the case of VRS recent performance results in Carbon fibre, PEEK etc and products displayed. None of the GNPs needed functionalisation in those products.
You asked the specific question, Ray didn't answer it. I know the answer as I asked the same question reversed to VRS and their scientists. I noted your unanswered question on here but it seems you don't want to believe it or accept it and are happy to simply speculate on the topic.
It's as if you think it's critically important to the survival of Haydale that all GNPs need functionalisation in some way.
THEY DON'T and I don't see that as fatal to HayD. They just have a reduced market compared to producers that can make and disperse GNPs.
After all Hayd have to buy their GNPs, so if Hayd do well so do the companies supplying them.
This is far too long an exchange over a simple question and simple answer.
NOT ALL GNPS NEED FUNCTIONALISATION TO USE IN PRODUCTS END OF.
If they did how was everyone coping before HayD arrived?
BTW I liked the look of Hayd hence the hard work to understand them but I don't like false BS by any company.
Sorry to be that way but the AIM has more BS merchants than honest folk by a considerable margin, they will tell you want they think you want to hear avoiding the truth.|
From Haydale's response to my questions at the AGM, I think that their view is that all GNPs are functionalized to some extent at the terminal ends, even the so called pristine GNPs and that some degree of functionalization is required to optimize the use of GNPs for most of the main industrial applications, furthermore the level and type of functionalization is likely to influence the suitability of the GNPs for each purpose. The Haydale process provides a method to have very tight controls on the type and levels of functionalization and that is presumably why Huntsman have opted to go with Haydale in preference to other suppliers.
I am not sure why you seem so hung up about this if you are not invested in Haydale. I am invested in Haydale and I am at ease with all their statements on their web site. My views remain unaltered, despite your protestations, so I think we may have reached the point again where we will have to agree to disagree.
(Edit: thanks trader trev, I've just spotted your reply)|
|Timbo, several of us know who you are having seen you in action at many meetings and know you to be scientist. The anonymous Superg has just popped up out of nowhere with an apparent commercial or financial interest in talking Haydale down - or maybe it's just personal against Ray Gibbs. Whatever, most on here can assess the objectivity of the two of you.
Personally I find the logic of bonding GNPs into host materials as a composite through functionalisation compelling.
Irrespective of Superg or indeed VRS's views, I am confident that the graphene-containing car I will be driving in the future will have materials that designers/engineers have tested exhaustively, comparing the various processes for optimal properties and cost efficiency. No-one can say yet which process or graphene suppliers will be used, simply because the work hasn't been done yet.|
|Just a point
My answers came directly from scientists and engineers involved in the sector some occasions from within the UOM/NGI who actually work with GNPs and graphene, it's all they do. Some questions on the topic were put by another scientist, so I'm quite happy with the answers. If they are wrong then it's NGI/UOM wrong.
I'm assuming your answers came from the CEO whose expertise is finance related.|
|There is no need to ask a question when I know the answer.
You asked the question and Haydale didn't answer.
Equally it's a fair question to ask Versarien if they functionalised the GNPs in the tests or products they did. That was done on the open day. The basis of the question is the same of yours, did they need Haydale tech or similar tech before inclusion in the composites. The answer was no.
Haydales comment is
In order to utilise graphene in any application it must first be appropriately functionalised so that the end product can take full advantage of its superior properties.
Now as Versarien were working with the NGI on that and both were looking for the best possible outcome then I'm sure they considered all options. In fact post results there was a demand for VRS GNPs. As said before not all GNPs are the same but the VRS method ends up with high purity and high quality GNPs. They used few layer in those tests which would be under 5 layer average. VRS are probably the world lead on few layer at this time.
So know I'm not asking Haydale I know the answer.
Your question was
If other suppliers can use their own non-modified Graphene for most industrial applications, they should be able to provide it at a lower cost, assuming this is the case, where does this leave Haydale?
That suggest you already accept functionlisation by Haydale is not required but you do you use the word modified.
Some just produce them in such good quality that they don't need any treatment pre inclusion in many products. I don't know about the other company, perhaps they have poor GNPs and all need functionalising first|
You cannot expect Haydale to respond to speculative opinions expressed by an anonymous avatar on a public bulletin board.
If you are still bothered by that Haydale statement, why not put the subject to bed once and for all and email Haydale directly to ask about the evidence they have to substantiate the statement. At least that way you are likely to get a formal response|
I would not go so far to say that Haydale have misleading information on their web site, although a couple of the statements could probably be better worded.
I think you expressed an objection to this particular statement earlier:
In order to utilise graphene in any application it must first be appropriately functionalised so that the end product can take full advantage of its superior properties. The key to realising the full potential of graphene is homogeneous dispersion and chemical bonding with the resin or polymer matrix.
I assume Haydale have based this statement on evidence. For example if they had tested GNP samples sourced from a number of different suppliers and then tested the samples before and after functionalisation and they had found that in all cases functionalisation resulted in superior processing properties, or superior end product properties, then they would be justified in making that statement.
If someone were to come up with evidence to show unambiguously that this was not the case, I am sure they would modify the statement.
If you still have real problems with it, why don't you get in contact with Haydale and ask them for brief details of the evidence available to substantiate the statement and present them with evidence to the contrary, if it's available.
Alternatively sign up to the forthcoming ShareSoc investment seminar where Haydale will be putting their investment case to a group of critical private investors, you would then be able to ask the question directly, in person. (I think Haydale are scheduled for one of the April 12th slots)|
It doesn't matter which share you look at in this sector as they are all very low volume. Due to low volume the Hayd share price has that seller issue which has been in play since week 3 of October and hasn't shown signs of stopping. VRS worked through 2 sellers and now a 3rd with perhaps more to go from that particular seller. I'm not sure the funds known about graphene in VRS though as it was not a feature when they bought in.
AGM seems relatively tight on shares hence it moves with any volume. Personally I think AGM will go nowhere on it's current tech and as time goes on it those being mugged will realise that. Just my opinion of course.
I'm not too impressed with HayD misleading info on their website which for me then throws doubt on what they say in news or elsewhere. Best keep it clean and factual IMO not content designed to impress which turns out to be false.
Meaningful news equating to orders/revenue is the key now to show who is walking instead of worthless talking.
That brings me onto Talga whose CEO once again via an event bleats on about figures. IE that they are targeting markets worth £500 billion.
He really needs to stop the constant BS and just get on with the job of creating a business if it's viable. That's the trouble with BS merchants they soon stand out as such and only results will get them backing.|
|This exchange maybe interesting ans what does ACMC bring to the table, Hayd should tell us in a news item. Back at the ranch I am reposting my post before this started.
"It appears that Haydale is practically a subsidiary co of Huntsman Advanced Materials. If not then very reliant. A great step for Haydale but what does it do to the share. The company chugs along with no ambition for dividend. Never very dynamic with news or progress we'll just keep steady in a £1.60 to £2.00 range.
A similar history in price is PRSM which I hold and has jumped recently like Hayd did.
But its future is much more dynamic.
Now I'm out and put part of profits in PRSM.|
I just can't make the link where of where it fits in to the stated jigsaw other than it being a US company. It doesn't seem to open doors to a graphene type products.
Then with 50% being a Japanese customer it doesn't fully stack up.
Another main point is US exports have been hit for a while by the strength of the dollar.
I haven't looked up the Asia one yet perhaps that's is a better fit, but I see nothing at all coming from the US acquisition it's such an embedded sector and no apparent need for Haydale tech applied to it.|
I'm inclined to take what RG says on Geographical expansion at face value. It can be notoriously difficult for foreign companies to set up in the US and get a foothold, so acquiring an existing compatible business which has potential for synergy seems like a reasonable route to take to me.
I think as an investor (or potential investor), you have to take a bit of a leap of faith. There is no way that they are ever going to reveal the entire road map, much of which will be commercially sensitive.|
|I listened to the Ray Gibbs video re that and he refers to such acquisitions as adding massive shareholder value.
Now such a claim doesn't fit with what ACM are about, as said they are breaking even and not exactly flying with $4 mill of sales in what is a well known and established market.
I don't get it, it's not an advanced company and has been around for 37 years with silicon carbide having been around for over 100 years.
There is no mention of graphene crossover, it's just a company doing what it does.
Without further comment from Haydale it just seems to be some sort of way to add revenue to the figures but not profit.
Now if they had gone for something connected with graphene in the US it would make sense.
Seems to be a bit more of Ray BS to me re adding massive shareholder value.
That just drops him into the usual AIM CEO junk status with lines like that. So they think PIs are stupid and won't check out the company. I know funds and analysts are muppets, it's easy to con them I suppose.|
What do you make of the ACM acquisition. The CEO seems to suggest it's a geographic step rather than product sales.
I don't quite get the silicon Carbide acquisition other than the geographic reason stated. But then a geographic position for what???
I note the profits question re that but AMC is break even but then on the geographical point for the US 50% of the revenue is from a Japanese company. That's probably the same Japanese company that sold ACM in 2006.
I can't see quite what that is all about it's a long standing sector for the likes of ceramic coatings.
Any idea what the plan is there. As it stands I don't see a lot of revenue from that company.|
(that is one of the reasons why I am here too, it is one of the added bonuses of investing in these sorts of companies)
Basic in nature in the context of the AGM report means alkali (i.e. not acidic), so the Haydale GNPs will effectively be polyfunctional amines.
Epoxyresins, require a hardner to initiate the polymerisation reaction. I suspect the exact nature of the various hardners available are shrouded in trade secrets and there certainly seem to be many different hardners for different applications
The Wikipedia entry gives some insight into the chemistry of the different types of hardners currently in use
I'm guesssing that the polyamine hardners actually covalently bind to the resin, in which case the Haydale functinalised GNPs may also be covalently bound to the Epoxyresin.
Intuitively, you might expect a cured resin in which the GNPs are covalently bound within the matrix to have improved properties compared to a cured resin in which they are present as a physical mix (for example one which used non-functionalised GNPs)|
I am here to learn and share info not do battle of the companies, there is room for all. If this was AGM then I'd have a very dim view and suggest the company will fail in it's current form and progress.
The only GNPs suitable for use with Epoxy resins are basic in nature and these can be produced using Haydale’s proprietary cold plasma method.
I know those are your notes but as far as I'm aware that is a bit misleading. As VRS used no functionlisation in their process for carbon fibre which involves resin I take it that covers the 'basic in nature' line, IE straight out of the tin with no adjustment needed.
Then it says thee can be produced by Haydale etc.
Well Haydale don't produce GNPs which we all know, but then why put them through the plasma process when it's not needed.
The only reason I could imagine is when dealing with an inferior contaminated source product, so to avoid that you add GNPs that are high purity in the first place.
Does that suggest then that Huntsman resins need no functionalisation of the GNPs.
I had been head scratching over that one. Why does one company functionalise it and another doesn't.
A question to ask perhaps.|
|I like the info you share.
All I am doing is quoting facts not opinion.
In any case why worry if others do or do not functionalise GNPs as Haydale have gone exclusive with Huntsman both ways it's probably excluded a few from Haydale.
The verbatim bit is form the Haydale site which suggests all GNPs need functionalisation before they can be used. My point it that is completely untrue.
You asked questions that the CEO didn't answer so all I have done is fill in gaps.
BTW going exclusive imo is a poor decision I have yet to see a company again from that. Normally big players do that to block and frustrate the small companies. A bit strange too that Hayd have to buy the resin. Then where are they going to get few layer high quality GNPs from to go in resins?? Some are too busy with their own orders to supply HayD|
|I think you mis-spelled "IAmATit"|