Haydale Graphene Industr... Share Discussion Threads

[timbo003] 28/12/2016 23:45

>>>>Superg

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

[timbo003] 28/12/2016 14:48

>>>>superg

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)

[superg1] 28/12/2016 13:16

Petewy

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.

YAWN ...

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.

[petewy] 28/12/2016 12:20

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.
IMO DYOR

Now I'm out and put part of profits in PRSM.

[superg1] 24/12/2016 12:34

Thanks

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.

[timbo003] 24/12/2016 10:25

>>>>superg

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.

[superg1] 23/12/2016 18:08

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.

[superg1] 23/12/2016 17:53

Timbo

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.

[timbo003] 23/12/2016 09:20

>>>>superg

(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)

[superg1] 23/12/2016 07:50

Timbo

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.

RE

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.

[superg1] 22/12/2016 07:12

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

[the stigologist] 21/12/2016 22:58

I think you mis-spelled "IAmATit"

[timbo003] 21/12/2016 22:08

>>>>>superg

You are quoting my report as if it was a verbatim account, I have stated that it is not, so you do not know exactly what was or wasn't said at the AGM.

You seem to think Haydale have nothing much to offer, I happen to disagree with you, and so it seems do Haydale's numerous development partners, including industrial behemoths Huntsman and Amiantit.

Our views on Haydale are unlikely to converge, so why don't we just agree to disagree.

[superg1] 21/12/2016 21:58

Timbo

I don't think much of Talga. Someone asked me about them so I looked up their history which was just a game of chasing the next hot thing with no delivery.

EG Gold mines to Copper to iron ore to Graphite mines and now graphene. They have raised 10's of millions along the way and now call what they spent it on as non core which produced no revenue.

They love to quote markets they are looking at in the billions and trillions so I'm waiting to see if they actually deliver anything at all as everything else they jumped up and down about failed.

Just 6 years in the market to go through all those ideas. They are serial BS folk at this time so delivery will be the only thing that catches my attention. EG verified 3rd party data and tests on products, not wild claims

Not so long back they claimed they had an off-take for 1000 tonnes of graphene and would deliver on it.

Well GNPs can sell in the hundreds per gram at this time. At just £10 per gram that would be.................

Well that equates to an order of $10 billion. At £1 per gram they would have achieved global adulation and countless markets would be disrupted and still that would be $1 billion revenue for them

If they could do 1000 tonnes of the true meaning of GNPs then the there are still 1000's of tonnes left in the future market but right now Talga if that was true would have buyers falling over themselves to buy their product.

So when Talga speak keep cut a vat of salt handy.

[superg1] 21/12/2016 21:31

Timbo

You can tell Hayd this next time you have comms. I don't know about others but VRS have not had to functionalise anything they have done in any product or results given.

That may well be down to their 99%+ purity and quality of their GNPs though. For few layer they are probably the world lead but the Hayd CEO would know that.

So he may want to remove that claim form his website which is untrue and as an investor you should ignore that comment on their website.

Specifically

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.

That is untrue and misleading. It suggests all GNPs need functionalisation and therefore all GNPs need treatment by HayD type processes. It is a misleading and untrue statement.

That's not trashing of Hayd Tech it's just covering the question you raised at the AGM.

This is not an easy sector to understand. In the early days many thought Hayd produced graphene which they don't. Sharing info imo is good as it serves to help those interested understand the sector and each business involved.

[timbo003] 20/12/2016 20:32

>>>>>sugerg1

Haydale should be commended for maintaining confidentiality between themselves and their collaboration partners. From what you are saying, it sounds like your chap at Versarien might have a bit of a loose tongue.

The potential market for GNPs is huge and there is likely to be plenty of room for several specialized suppliers/service providers such as Versarien, Haydale and Directa Plus.

Reagrding Haydale's core IP, I think you may have been misinformed. Their core IP covers the equipment and the processes, not just the equipment. It's also worth mentioning that it is not just confined to Graphene/GNPs, it covers other nano particulates.

Agreed, identifying reliable sources of Graphene GNPs is likely to be critical for any technology provider like Haydale (or end user), which is presumably why Haydale have collaborative projects with the likes of Talga Resources and Versarien.

[superg1] 20/12/2016 19:19

BTW

While the Hayd CEO won't answer the VRS question the VRS CEO probably will and then you will have your question answered

[superg1] 20/12/2016 19:10

Timbo

Have you asked the scientists involved

re

I think what is required, is GNPs which give highly reproducible performance for the high value/high margin applications, such as aerospace applications. For these sort of applications the GNP will probably need considerable refining and processing. Digging graphite (edited) out of the ground, milling it and washing with a bit of dilute acid is unlikely to produce suitable material


Yes it can be that simple once you know how to do it.


EG as VRS have been mentioned they stated at a recent event that none of the samples shown required functionalisation.

High quality high purity GNPs are just that without anything done to them.

In the case of strength high quality and very few layers (under 5) will give the best performance. Next comes dispersion which is key.

There are dozens of different potential composites and yes some may be more suited to some sort of adaptation to the host product by functionalisation.

I've asked those questions too in case a producer is reliant on tech like Haydale and the answer was a resounding NO.

It's Haydle that have the issue which is sourcing high quality GNPs as they have no method to produce their own.

Others can produce them, disperse them into products and in some cases produce their own products with no need for Haydale tech.

Also I was told it's Haydale's machines that are protected not the process.

When mentioning aerospace add 10 years for the regulated parts.

Haydale are a middle man where there may be no need for one in many cases.

[timbo003] 20/12/2016 08:22

Yes, indeed knownowt, I will amend

[knownowt] 20/12/2016 08:09

Timbo, I think that you mean 'digging graphite'

[timbo003] 20/12/2016 07:40

>>>>>superg

I think what is required, is GNPs which give highly reproducible performance for the high value/high margin applications, such as aerospace applications. For these sort of applications the GNP will probably need considerable refining and processing. Digging graphite (edited) out of the ground, milling it and washing with a bit of dilute acid is unlikely to produce suitable material, the Directa Plus process sounds as if it is as complex as Haydales.

Haydale's tie up with Huntsman gives some assurance that their material is likely to meet the necessary criteria for high tech/high margin applications.

[superg1] 20/12/2016 06:58

Timbo

A bit of kidology on the functionlisation question with probably thrown in a few times.

The short answer is NO GNPs do not need functionalistion for many process and indeed some have not had to functionalise any for recent uses.

No doubt there are some cases where such treatment is required, dispersion is a different topic.

[timbo003] 19/12/2016 05:33

Read the last line Stig.

Ever tried asking all the questions at an AGM, making notes at the same time and then writing them up an impartial account of the event for the benefit of others who could not attend?

Thought not.


(I've saved a screen shot of that Stig classic for prosperity, just in case it gets accidently deleted)