||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Haydale Share Discussion Threads
Showing 351 to 372 of 375 messages
|It isn't that. I have supported Haydale from 80p. Big believer in Nanotech. A complacent management is my gripe. Now all companies except for VRS are stagnant or going down. Something is wrong.|
|Childish possibly, but accurate definitely. You don't need to sledge Haydale to promote Versarien - or maybe you do?|
|>>>>>Good luck with your investment in Versarien pete.
I will not respond in any depth to your the comment regarding Haydale being a subsidiary co of Huntsman as it's obviously complete and utter b*ll*cks|
|Thanks for sharing your wise investment tips with us. Very kind.|
|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 nor dividend. Never very dynamic with news or progress we'll just keep steady in a £1.60 to £2.00 range.
I wrote this awhile ago And sold out. A pity because Nano is a future.
I switched my money in VRS Versarien which is now 28% up on my initial investment.
It has changed to a company who knows what nano potential is about.|
|Coming back to the subscription price of 1.70 as is so often the case in these funding issuences. However, I don't imagine the recent subscriber has any intention of selling any time soon and this looks like the thin end of the wedge for a complete takeover by somebody.|
|Anybody got an explanation for today's drop.MW|
|Directors talk interview with Ray Gibbs (from Friday) on the collaboration agreement with Everpower, sounds good to me:
As an aside and not wishing to debate this with superg (or anyone else for that matter), I am not unduly concerned with the Chinese involvement, they only have observer status for BOD meetings (which is quite normal for any strategic investor with a substantial stake in a company). Should the Chinese wish to find out about Haydale's (or any other company's) IP, the easiest way for them to do it is to look at the published patents and patent applications, all of which are in the public domain.|
FFS don't get into bed with the Chinese they will steal the IP and kill you off. Don't be a mug this is what they do.
Not here for a spat Timbo I know he reads here and that's it from me on this thread.|
|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|