Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[john henry] 10/4/2017 09:36

Some pretty sizeable delayed sells going through today.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 08:59

Cambridge Nanosytems (don't confuse that with Cambridge graphene).

Imo they have serious issue with their GNPs as a general performance enhancer across the range for composites and the like.

Others when the lateral size is low up to 1um suggest they are good for Displays, sensors and device R&D.

1-3um for Conductive inks, conductive coatings, energy storage, thermal management.

So the problem for Cambridge is the lateral size of their GNPs which they show as a range of 150nm to 500nm with an average of 300nm.

Now that makes it seem like (After many hours of reading and looking at data from others) that Cambridge nano product is only suitable for Displays, sensors and device R&D as quoted by a food company in the market.

But then it gets worse as Cambridge nano describe their GNPs as crumpled and folded which limits the surface area further.

Why mention it. Well the first point is in my mind that puts the Cambridge nano Gnps as very poor they are the poorest lateral size I have found but a key interest is their method.

Cambridge use the bottom up synthetic process of cracking gas or similar to create graphene. While it seems to have been a great idea it's starting to look like top down severely lacks it lateral sizes needed by some way.

Now when these ideas came about companies the reality of will Gnps work or not wasn't fully understood but big gains are being made in the understanding now which includes the recognition of larger lateral sizes needed for the full range of gains in many uses but also under 10 layer.

Under 10 layer plus retaining large lateral sizes seems to be a problem for many just to get below 10 layer alone retaining a good lateral size range.

So that leads me onto AGM with Imo some sensible things Pis should review on them.

The first point is they appear to have not mastered the tech in any case re production. Then secondly they use the top down process, so does that process like Cambridge nano have the same lateral issue they have. If so that could be a big negative for AGM.

DYOR.

I'm only just getting to grips with lateral but in doing so it's made me realise why some GNPs work like Nanene and others just don't in composites even if they are under 10 layer.

I can find no data for AGM product, I understand some have tried and failed to get samples.

Only mentioned re AGM due to finding the lateral info and the Cambrdigenano issue re that (top down process).

So for me that wipes Cambridge nano systems off the map for composites and many other uses unless they can increase their Gnps in lateral size. If AGM have the same issue you can scrub them off the map for many uses too.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 08:15

Lateral size of GNPs.


No doubt at all after many hours of reading that lateral size is important too. For the full range of gains in composites you need Gnps of good lateral size.

Having been through many data sheets including Gnps of 100's of layers there is an obvious trend which may well be what sets VRS Nanene high on the performance scale.

EG

If you look at Gnps 100's of layers thick which is no good for composite full performance gains they have a high lateral/diameter size. As the layer levels come down for all so does the lateral size. Some companies to get to lower layer levels start to lose the diameter size to a level making them unsuitable for performance gains in composites.

EG the paper I looked at used lateral GNPs of 5um, but one company I'm looking at can't seem to do lateral sizes above 2 um who going to lower layers so potentially it doesn't perform for composites.

Then another lists 5um lateral as the one suitable for gains in composites.

So far (excluding VRS) I've only managed to find 1 product that seems to be under 10 layer and has a lateral size up to 5um but possibly that is the max size not the average as it looks like 1-5um range.

[superg1] 09/4/2017 21:06

Dr Andrew

Thanks for the lateral issue points raised, due to that info and a lot of digging I now know why one calls some apparently similar GNPs electrical grade and others material grade. It's all to do with the lateral size of the GNPs. materials being a bigger size.

So those details throw up an apparent problem for Cambridge nanosystems which use the synthetic approach bottom up process.

Their data suggests the average lateral size for them is 300nm with a range of 150nm-500nm. The paper on the topic used lateral GNPs 16 times the size of those.

That it seems limits the use of such Gnps and they appear not to be suitable for the full performance range in composites as they lack the necessary larger diameters needed.

Obviously with AGM using a similar method I'm now curious if they have the same issue even if they crack the tech.

A long slog but worth getting to grips with it.

[sikhthetech] 09/4/2017 20:48

IISc designs a novel graphene electrical conductor

[superg1] 09/4/2017 11:28

GNPS lateral sizes.

It does seem having read a bit since Dr Andrew D raised it that lateral size is important too.

EG

One paper says a lower lateral size is good for some aspects and the larger lateral size for other gains. So if you load with just smaller lateral GNP you have gains in some areas and the same goes for larger lateral sizes. So it seems the ideal mix is Gnps of a good range of lateral size as they add different performances to a composite.

So under 10 layers with a good lateral size range appears to be the best for the gains in composites.

Then of course you need them to be of a good structure with little damage in the process.

I'm going to have to dig in and read some more re lateral sizes as it seems to be of equal importance when looking for the full performance gains. That may explain why some may not work. Lateral ranges appear to help with thermal gains too.

Interesting I found the lateral size for one we don't don't mention often to be much smaller than others.From what I'm reading it's perhaps not so good for composite performance gains looking at the lateral size range they give. Now I'm wondering if someone else that uses a similar method has the same issue.

[technogeek] 09/4/2017 10:53

hxxps://www.rt.com/viral/383930-scientists-nanotechnology-breakthrough-touchscreen/


Nanotechnology has occupied the pages of sci-fi novels for decades, but now a major new breakthrough could bring the super advanced tech into the average household.

Researchers at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, have created two-dimensional nanomaterials, only a few billionths of a meter thick, making it possible to turn almost any surface into a screen or a computer.

Using standard printing techniques, scientists combined graphene nanosheets, an ultra-thin form of carbon just one atom thick, with two other nanomaterials named tungsten diselenide and boron nitride.
The research published in the journal Science could have wide-ranging implications from the mundane to the extraordinary.

Futuristic uses could include a touchscreen pad superimposed onto your skin, reading an electronic newspaper that could be rolled up or folded to be placed neatly inside a jacket pocket or even receiving an alert message saying the milk in the fridge is about to go sour.

The technology could also enhance security capabilities of valuable items, allowing for the encoding of biometric data on passports and the marking of banknotes to make them virtually impossible to forge.

This technology could also have advantages for solar power, one day making it possible to turn a variety of materials into solar cells, making it cheaper to harness energy from the sun, theoretically reducing our collective dependence on oil and gas.

“In the future, printed devices will be incorporated into even the most mundane objects such as labels, posters and packaging,” senior author of the paper Jonathan Coleman, professor of chemical physics at Trinity College said in a statement.

“Printed electronic circuitry (constructed from the devices we have created) will allow consumer products to gather, process, display and transmit information: for example, milk cartons could send messages to your phone warning that the milk is about to go out-of-date.”

“We believe that 2D nanomaterials can compete with the materials currently used for printed electronics. Compared to other materials employed in this field, our 2D nanomaterials have the capability to yield more cost effective and higher performance printed devices,” he added.

[superg1] 09/4/2017 10:25

On topic

The header has been there long enough now so I'll switch it to VRS websites for their difference business and collaborations.

[superg1] 09/4/2017 10:24

Yes Sandbag Barder is a lying toad and they did it all again with those MED results which took the share price flying an caught spike chasers high up.

The factory isn't flooded lol. I found the factory on the non public product name lable (EPIC) and it was under about 12 foot of water. BTW that flood disrupted the product shelf life tests but FUM never announced that. No problem with Durex/reckitt benckiser either if you listened to them but a court document in India under the name of Landbridge holdings v TTK was actually RB/Durex/CSD500 v TTK and it clearly showed it the deal was going to fail. FUM news 8 months late on that screw up.

Don't start me off.

[superg1] 08/4/2017 18:12

SN

So for VRS sales have to be sorted within weeks snd months but for others 5 years of nowt is fine.

Take AGM they have been claiming pristine graphene for 3 years now and from 1 tonne to 1.6 tonnes capacity. Sales for the 3 years or so combined are less than the one virtually immediate order VRS had yet they have a senior team of about 25.

Just a quick comparison in the sector and it's not about demand but capability on the tech.

Give them a chance and as you know generally for large sales the first part of the process is an NDA, if they are large sales then it's likely to repeat with generally months of negotiation first.

I know all about failing sales having studied FUM who should have launched the first product in 2006 which is when they said they would, 11 years later and still very little revenue.

Do you know that one ;-)

[superg1] 08/4/2017 16:32

As I said in the header and many times since. It's not just about getting under 10 layers there are many other aspects.

Having recently read some more on it it gets even more complicated and there are a number of factors that need to be considered.

Also the scientists themselves haven't fully finished off woking out why some work and some don't and there are probably 100's or 1000's of combinations to be tested as graphene goes forward.

It's very clear there are a number of different types of GNPs be it layer levels, lateral, GNPs GO and RGO then the chemically added ones.

Even if I find few layer elsewhere unless the producer has carried out independent tests I'm not going to know if they work the same way as others.

The key point is there are a few companies that can do under 10 layer in any quantity and I include Thomas Swan and XG sciences in that along with VRS. Now I don't know the full tests done by those companies but what matters to me is that I do know VRS have.
They did that via the NGI (professor Robert Young) and the results were very good as in the news.

The future market is estimated at 1000's of tonnes and we are bickering over the grams and Kgs.

There is room in this market for many companies and eventually 1000's of tonnes will appear in the future.

VRS are up there with the best and have the tech to expand to whatever level of supply is needed and cost effectively. As for the ink based on all the drying times I've read, Goldman Sachs, Cambridge Uni and that new document I've found seem to indicate the conductive ink VRS now have may well be a world lead in the sector.

It looks like GNPS, RGO and GO in the future will be in many 1000's of different products and applications and will transform industries.

Personally I think some are well placed at the start of the move VRS being one of them.

Manchester, Cambridge and the NGI are seen as world leads in the sector and the VRS tech has come out of the 2 universities. I won't be surprised if more appears on the VRS plate as time goes on.

[dr andrewd] 08/4/2017 11:34

I have had a look to see if there is any info out there on the affect of platelet size on properties and found this:



Which says large area GNPs improve stiffness, whereas small area GNPs improve strength. The data appears to be for 5-10nm thick GNPs, which should be for 15-30 layer material. Clearly thicker than VRS GNPs.

So basically, size (area) appears to matter, but looking at the public info on VRS GNPs in epoxy, they achieve an improvement in both stiffness (longitudinal modulus) and strength (both UTS and shear strength) which may relate to the actual area, how well it sticks to the epoxy, or the few layer nature of their GNPs. Naneen may just be in a sweet spot for improving composites. The test data can be found here:



Whatever it is, Naneen appears to be a good quality product that gives significant improvements to epoxy and CFRPs and we know it can be mass produced. :-)

[dr andrewd] 08/4/2017 08:47

In terms of thickness, the launch of Naneen rns states:

"Nanene is manufactured using Versarien's patent protected, mechanised exfoliation process. This process uses high shearing forces to separate the layers of graphite to sheets of graphene which are less than ten atoms thick, with the majority being less than five atoms thick, ensuring the properties of Nanene are superior to materials already established as the industry norm."

As the majority are less than 5 atoms thick, the median must be 4 or less, so the median is probably 4, so less than Thomas Swan.

In terms of platelet size, that isn't published as far as I am aware. I did however discuss the properties with Neill a while back and have seen some of the VRS data which showed the size of the GNPs which were used in the CFRP and epoxy test results that are published. Unfortunately you will have to take my word for it that they are bigger than the Thomas Swan GNPs but this has me thinking as to how important platelet area might be.

If your process smashed up the graphene into tiny pieces, hardly any wider than the thickness, then to my mind, they would not bond to much plastic and would be unable to support much of the force on the plastic as there would be lots of plastic between the GNPs that has to support the force and very little overlap of the GNPs. I expect that bigger platelets bond to more plastic and are therefore able to support a larger proportion of the force through the plastic and over larger distances. With big platelets, they would overlap a lot more and transfer the load into the next GNP more effectively, hence in my opinion this may be why VRS GNPs have been shown to significantly improve strength and stiffness of the epoxy/plastic and those results are published. I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense to me and could give Naneen a significant advantage.

[superg1] 08/4/2017 08:01

From the document in the opening part.

They call it a transformative tech.

It then lists all the gains we know about, strength, electrical, elasticity, thermal and so on.

BUT and this is the important bit.

They say the characteristics of graphene as listed have only been achieved by the high quality product.

They go on about how it would be of great interest in someone could produce mass high quality.

They quote the the size of the GNP is material and different GNPs needed for some applications.

They also says there is very limited information out there and they seem to be going on about information or data sheets with supplied graphene.

Just read it all and I love it. It will sort the wheat from the chaff. If not already done VRS need to get onto them and declare what they have.

[superg1] 08/4/2017 07:37

See that's what I love stumbling across what I consider important documents and information.

Feel free to argue away on what is and isn't good graphene, you can't win an argument with these guys. Well actually I think they have missed one bit so hope to sort that. I'll mention some bits from it as it may answer questions for some that don't understand graphene.

[superg1] 08/4/2017 07:31

:-)

I found what looks like an important document last night but didn't have time to review it.


Just had a quick scan and will read it a few times, it only came out recently and backs up entirely what I have been going on about for some time. The 'author' is in highly important and regulated sector although the applications they talk of are worldwide. Not a sector that I'd even thought of, but it's a very serious subject with a plan to research Gnps and graphene thoroughly.

It seems they have already worked out the importance of high quality few layer and lateral sizes BTW having engaged with the NGI and UOM.

They list a claim of several producers but suggest that is wrong and that only a few can do high quality.

Interestingly they also list ink and note a breakthrough by Cambridge University but don't lis Versarien probably because the report was completed just before the acquisition.

The whole report has put a big fat smile on my face.

It's the sort of thing I and VRS would welcome (just sent them the document).

When they have finished in theory VRS will stand out with it's GNPs and ink and I'm looking forward to it.

[superg1] 08/4/2017 06:48

Dr Andrew

The last I was told re VRS GNPs was 2-5 layer but they do have single layer within that. I assume it covers variables per batch.

I have also heard that lateral dimensions are important but haven't discussed why.

For others. Why am I compiling data?

So I have said I will hunt out all the data sheets I can find and put them on a spreadsheet, which will include thickness, lateral, purity and so on, plus prices here I can find then then with links to data sheets and some new pdfs that I think they are currently unaware of.

On occasions I have learned from VRS that I turn up the odd useful data sheet or document. EG the scientists report where they carve up a head tennis racquet where XG sciences supplied GNPs. So I have said I will hunt out all the data sheets I can find and put them on a spreadsheet, which will include thickness, lateral, purity and so on, plus prices I can find. Then with links to data sheets and some new pdfs that I think they are currently unaware of.

[supernumerary] 08/4/2017 01:01

DrAD - can you provide links for the 'seen some evidence that the BRS GNPs are larger in surface area', and also the 'independent data on the VRS website'?

I've no idea where to look for the evidence about GNP surface area, and can't find anything on either the vrs or the 2dtech site that addresses stiffness.

I must say, the various vrs sites have lots of pretty pictures, but very little in the way of hard information.

[bobd29] 08/4/2017 00:03

Hi
Just a thought, without heavy tech backup, but if. I read all recent comments correctly there are very few companies that can economically supply <5 layer graphene and potential usage is so wide that supply ultimately will struggle to match demand? If this scenario applies then it's a win win for all involved including VSR, or am I missing something basic?

[dr andrewd] 07/4/2017 23:59

Timbo, you seem to be wrong with how you interpret your "evidence" with the Thomas Swan data. The mean is 6.6 as shown on the chart and stated below the chart.

The median is however 5, not under 5 layers as you claim. The scale is in %, so if you add up the 1,2,3 and 4 layer percentages you get 42-43%. Add in the 5 layer GNPs, and you get 52-53%, so the median (the middle sample) is in the 5 layer bin, not <5 layers as you claim.

I hope that clarifies the situation for you on average number of layers for the Thomas Swan product.

I have also seen some evidence that VRS has fewer number of layers of carbon in its GNPs, but would like to see the same graph for VRS GNPs to prove that the majority are 1-3 layer which would mean the median is 3 or less. I look forward to seeing that evidence in the future. [Edit - I should have said the majority are 1-4 layer with median of 4. See my next post.]

I have however seen evidence that the VRS GNPs are larger in surface area than the Thomas Swan GNPs which to my mind should mean for structural applications that they bond to more plastic and hence result in the significant improvement in stiffness of plastics and CFRP stiffness as proven by the independent data on the VRS website.

For me this helps explain why VRS GNPs have a significant advantage over most if not all of the competition which will hopefully be further demonstrated as evidence becomes available. If you have data for better GNPs I would love to se it.

Andrew

[supernumerary] 07/4/2017 23:40

sg - timbo is right. Note that 'Median = middle number = average' is incorrect - the Median is not the Mean! In fact the median is pretty obviously 5, somewhat less than the mean because of the long tail, and as timbo says, most of the plates will therefore have 5 gnps or less, and many (about a third) will be 1, 2, or 3.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, have they sold any yet? I mean real commercial sales, not just sample quantities?