Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 10/4/2017 13:37

SN

Come on that's a bit of daft comment isn't it.

"nor do I know much about the sector. I don't think capability is the issue, I think buyers is the issue. On this we obviously disagree."

Well if you know very little about the sector how can you have a viable opinion.

I form my opinions on 100's of hours of research.

Note I say viable opinion as an opinion needs no knowledge at all of a topic.
I thought the same, did a lot of research and know the opposite now. Ask the CEO about my first VRS email when they acquired 2D tech it wasn't pleasant and was sent to the PR company not VRS but the CEO replied..... doh. Good reply though.

So we disagree as you don't research and I do.

[brucie5] 10/4/2017 13:25

Bought in again. And hope we are nearing the end of this retrace.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 13:13

I agree re sales and orders but big orders are generally not for research so end up going down the NDA route.

That said so do small orders as I found myself caught up in an NDA exchange. That's the trouble with digging and asking around.

As for small orders the nomad then won't allow an rns. So if no rns then surely we the company can chat openly about them but wouldn't want them on here as the Nomad would then feel forced to rns it. So why isn't it an rns in the first place.


That's nomads for you.... and you know my thoughts on them.

But on small orders the price per gram is much higher. So you could have various orders of 1 grams 10 grams and 100 grams none of which would trigger an RNS but could be 2-4 fold of the value of say a 1kg order that they may rns.

All I know is they have spent a long time underpinning their GNPs with facts, that they have a large amount of interest (I'm not guessing) and now the sales team recently established has just started the road to sales.

If I sit here waiting for an RNS of 1-5kgs to be announced as that's what it may need to trigger an rns then I'm not getting them at this price in theory.

I agree as they move into the news business they need sales but they don't need to be this week or next or the next month or two just a growing business as they start to reveal their brand and the gains available.

VRS keep saying they are talking to some very big companies and it's true. The fact they don't name them tells you it's NDA excluded. I know as I get the "I can't comment" when I find some things. The CEO is long enough in the tooth to know the bigger the company generally the longer it takes and I'm sure they will be working at the very low end too hunting for sales on research grade 10 grams here 10 grams there etc. It's a tiered approach right across the range with VRS.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 12:55

re

BTW - thanks for the Prieto reminder - I thought they'd gone belly-up, but apparently not. I shouldn't bother chasing the source of their copper foam if I were you, it's obviously not vrs. There are quite a few potential suppliers of foams, but I suspect Prieto make theirs themselves, at least in the quantities required for prototypes.

Well you'd be wrong on that one then read my post on that. The question I put up is if they did continue then is it VRS copper foam they would use.

What you have missed re the Versarien copper foam is the breakthrough on surface area. Many copper foams have big pores so there is no point generalising on various copper foams being available.

That's why I contacted Prieto some time back as the best gains are due to the higher surface areas and that is what Prieto look for in copper foam.

So I will bother.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 12:50

SN

re

sg - when did I ever say 5 years without sales was fine? You're inventing things again. Naughty.

I'm not biting on that, you keep going on about sales, but seem to overstate the lack of them when VRS have literally in business terms only just started down that road. Other AIMs with MCs sometimes in the 100's of millions haven't sold a damn thing with no or little revenue for many years.

If you chat to VRS which I keep suggesting folk do it was explained they wanted to prove up the GNPs first through tests. Partly because of the junk out there which isn't graphene and for the fact of proving whether it works or not.

The tests VRS had done were by the NGI so no one can argue with that and again if you ask before their GNPs go out it's verified and certified.

I've been through about 50 products so far on the web in the last few days and often there is no data at all, you have no idea what you are buying or whether it works in anything at all.

I did have XG as decent on GNPs but my thoughts are going downhill re them as I churn through various data sheets. Not one mention of tests or proof of performance in what I have found for sale just references to scientific papers where it says GNPs improve on performance.

[axotyl] 10/4/2017 12:33

SuperG, could you help with this one, when you've got a moment?

Here is Level 2 for VRS around 1120gmt this morning:



Basic question: why are the Buy and Sell orders sort of mirror images of each other from the same broker/market-makers?

I interpreted it as at 1152, PLHC was bidding 24p for 10,000 VRS, but over on the Sell side, PLHC, at the same time, is selling 10,000 VRS at 25.50 and so on, with the others.

What does it actually show?

When I bought some VRS last week, what I was willing to pay was less than anything on the Sell side, but it went through OK. Um, why?

[supernumerary] 10/4/2017 11:48

DrAB - there's not much there that's of use to decide between vrs product and any other. Probably not wise to take company statements at face value (which is not a remark that's specifically aimed at vrs) so while it's clear that graphene seems to improve most composites it's added to in most germane respects, there's little that's independent to indicate that vrs has a significant lead.

sg - when did I ever say 5 years without sales was fine? You're inventing things again. Naughty.

Other points:
- I don't know anything (literally) about AGM, so can't respond.
- nor do I know much about the sector. I don't think capability is the issue, I think buyers is the issue. On this we obviously disagree.
- we're not really talking about large orders here (at least I'm not) - just orders that warrant notification - a hundred K to an interesting customer or in an interesting market would do it.
- don't know why you think I was interested in FUM ten years ago. Just to clear it up, I wasn't. Had anyone asked me at the time, I guess I'd have said what I'm saying here - sales and profits are important. FUM does have an important lesson though, which I'm sure you've taken on board - best not to get on board too early ;¬)

Regarding the GO in concrete, if you follow on (I'm sure you'll know how I got here) to look at the patents involved, eg: you can see that the real competition in this area for graphene suppliers is likely to come from China. What they're doing is a long way under the radar for most westerners, but I'm not sure that will be the case when it comes to bulk commercialisation.

BTW - thanks for the Prieto reminder - I thought they'd gone belly-up, but apparently not. I shouldn't bother chasing the source of their copper foam if I were you, it's obviously not vrs. There are quite a few potential suppliers of foams, but I suspect Prieto make theirs themselves, at least in the quantities required for prototypes.

BTW2 - an apology to timbo, a respected scientist you're lucky to have taking an interest here, might be in order, don't you think?

sb - I'm no fan of Barder, so the comparison seems a bit spurious, but can you remind me what Rickett's achieved? Looks like an ordinary Brit middle manager to me - did I miss something significant?

[superg1] 10/4/2017 10:45

On the big company topic I noted this one which included uses I'd not thought of but it's gives figures on packaging too re savings and shelf life.

While P&G and Dyson have already identified several sectors such as domestic appliances, oral and shave care products where graphene composites may enable new products, the near term opportunity lies in packaging, currently at a cost of approximately 5% ($4bn) of P&G's annual turnover. The huge potential for impact is evident from for instance downgauging P packaging by 10% alone could save P&G around £80 million per year. Additional benefits could also be seen in the food industry where increased barrier function could lead to a reduction in food waste. High volume processing of nanocomposites will also be relevant to sectors like the automotive industry and contribute to maintaining the existing manufacturing base in the UK..

[superg1] 10/4/2017 10:38

JH

SPs don't go up in straight line, just like AGM we will have had some graphene hype chasers and no doubt some profit taking. I'm in for the next year or two (or more) to see how it develops based on the research. The MC is well below AGM who have hardly sold anything in 3 years and we know why.

VRS haven't even had time to name the ink and launch it yet and on GNPS only really got the sales office sorted it in the last few weeks.

[ridicule] 10/4/2017 10:27

The tech is interesting but the proof of the pudding is in orders. VRS need to start delivering some newsflow to maintain the current share price range. If the benefits are this great there should be more newsflow via their distributer agreement or their mouldings company, not to mention the inks.

[john henry] 10/4/2017 10:24

Getting kicked hard today compared to other graphene stocks.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 09:54

XG sciences. US company.

They have around for some time and make big claims and do appear to be one of the leaders.

However much of the product they do is multi-layer with only type C seeming to fit for under 10 layers. As I've scanned the web bit by bit I have come across what is obviously their product for sale via other sites.

The under 10 layer on one site gives it as 1nm-5nm which shifts the range to 3 to 15 layers and lateral doesn't seem to climb above a max of 2um. So I'm not convinced at this time that XG have a top product.

Also in claims they use references which are not theirs and statements such as 'can' improve this and 'can' improve that with the references as a disclaimer.

I would expect if they had data to support their product they would list it but they seem happy just to quote science papers as a disclaimer for what they say on product for sale.

[superg1] 10/4/2017 09:42

There have been some big rises John so profit taking is to be expected.

Personally understanding the lateral size issue with many and knowing VRS have already proven theirs to work in composites leaves me realising just how important other factors are for GNPs.

I suspect 99.9% reading about graphene haven't a clue about thickness importance and now lateral to add on top or even what a graphene nano platelet is.

Those finer details are what has some as runners and others a pile of junk. But for most if it days agrees it's graphene as far as they are concerned.

The standards will be good to see and I'm still waiting for you guys to spot something.

[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.