Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 23/5/2017 14:53

Research

I've now linked up with a guy in the US who has been researching graphene and public companies and other sectors for some years with public releases.

I have already helped correct some information on some companies. We are talking companies worldwide, not the small window we talk about here.

Quite nice really that although he has been looking at them he had no real idea of the layer issue. He likes evidence which I have provided. Nice to know that someone questions comments and actually bothers to read the evidence provided then instead of arguing with world experts and posting trash reads and digest it.

Interestingly without prompting he mentioned a non UK 'graphene' company that he thought was hype trash. I'd already binned that one some time ago and could help with detail to confirm his suspicions.

He now has the XG documents and it's been a bit of an eye opener for him.

Interestingly he then suggested one or two recent arrivals (a name some of us know) looked like complete hype trash companies. A name that others are bullish on. I haven't looked too deeply into the one he mentioned. I have done a bit but will look more. I didn't do much on it as the first look made them sound like a a lying bunch of hype merchants. I have a feeling that's exactly what they will turn out to be.

So for me he clearly has his head screwed on about those that initially look like junk and others he has down as junk have been confirmed by some documents I have.

[theklf] 23/5/2017 14:40

Is it possible to gain some clarity or colour on the nature of these cold calls and qualify the credibility of the counterparties?

"VRS said many of those names have cold called them and in discussion with the CEO he said its virtually unheard of in the businesses he has been in. The cold calls have continued BTW since the Cambridge event."

I'd imagine the R&D departments of big companies often have lots of different teams working on different projects. I doubt often the left hand knows what the right is doing. What scares some people is lack of focus on the part of VRS where they are so spoilt for choice in who to work with they end up falling between two stools or chasing the big names rather than sticking to their knitting.

I would much prefer that VRS rather than trumpeting how good they are actually deliver and in the absence of delivery give us some comfort on the strategy they have to qualify their pipeline. For instance as a basic requirement I would suggest no resource be wasted on a specultive cold call from some low level engineer at say Sony unless it was backed up by Board/Senior Management to Board engagement as well so you have a top down and bottom up commitment from the counterparty to pushing the project

This all seems basic but you often find with blue sky tech stories they get so obsessed with playing to the gallery about how great they are and how rubbish their competitors are they seem to drop the ball on normal commonsense business practices

[superg1] 23/5/2017 13:30

Ha fell for it got the blues registered votes down I wanted. :-)

[superg1] 23/5/2017 12:02

More to come but first O/T

If you recall I said got legal threats on one share and was right but the idiot didn't listen and gave me legal threats.

EG

Graham,
I repeat my statement made to you privately earlier today. (that was the legal threat)

Regards,
David

I see DAVID did return to ADVFN and is pumping a few having bought in. I could have smashed any legal threat as I had the evidence but it was a lot of pain for absolutely no gain.

Are you viewing here David. Have you become one of the stalkers. Now where is my apology?

Next time listen. I gave you the facts, had nothing to gain and the reward was legal threats.

Sorry guys just stumbled across the poster who I thought had abandoned ship on ADVFN some time ago.

Rant over.

[phoenixs] 23/5/2017 09:46

really good posts again superg.

[superg1] 23/5/2017 09:29

So it seems to me the graphene world is starting to move from the junk hype companies that have caused damage to the understanding of graphene and it's properties to genuine companies that do have product that can transform other materials and open up new technology.

Thinking logically the market after 12 years should be full of genuine performance data from recognised authorities like the UOM/NGI but the fact is they don't. The UOM/NGI and others talk under 10 layer as 1000's of pairs will have passed their way showing under 10 is the key. The NGI and NPL re working together to standardise graphene,. They have launched a website to certify graphene. I understand funding is in play to test the graphene of some officially which may prove to seriously undermine some companies who don't carry out or provide test results.

If companies had carried out tests with good results then it would enhance the prospects of company and likely success when talking to end users. I suspect demand for such data will become the norm by end users who have been conned so far

As listed in the header. Hexcel for years heard lot's of promise claims on various materials have said they won't speak to anyone unless they can provided verified independent data, they simply don't want to hear about it anymore. However as stated by them if someone has something that works they will seek to take it to market as fast as possible. That's what they have said.

Under 10 layers is the emerging go to graphene for strength and that aspect has a huge market available. I say under 10 layers but there are other relevant factors like purity, lateral size, and defect ratio etc etc. The defect ratio is the damage/faults/holes within individual flakes, often created during the manufacturing process.

So as far as I'm concerned the companies to look at are the under 10 layer guys but then it needs to be proven to work not claims about how great graphene is, which is what 90% plus of them do.

[superg1] 23/5/2017 08:44

So having having buried my head deep into other companies the words of the CEO at VRS are now ringing in my ears. A representation of what he said over time.

"Don't brother looking or performance data there is very little about"

"Don't bother looking at multi-layer suppliers it does not work for strength, the UOM tells me it doesn't, there are a lot of studies around showing that"

"We want to separate ourselves from the false hype, on paper our few layer should have increased strength, but I am an engineer, on paper often doesn't work in reality"

"We were not prepared to push graphene sales until we had evidence that it worked. Until the UOM released the data we had no idea our graphene would work"

"That's why we have called it Nanene to separate it from the graphene out there that doesn't work"

So the evidence is well and truly starting to appear now that multi-layer does not work for strength in composites.

Why chase the few layer graphene if multi-layer works. Multi-layer is relatively easy to produce and cheaply. The nano scale is the issue. Don't forget graphene 100 layers thick is still 10,000 times thinner than a human hair.

Multi-layer does not work for strength. If you see multi-layer about with wild claims that can be then it's a lie. Unless they have independent verifiable data to show it does work. However 12 years on and the evidence shows few layer is the key. Pretenders on multi-layer are getting found out.

Hence the one XG the 'world lead' and early mover Imo as it stands is headed for the bin. I take the DOW senior loan as a way to tie up the patents and anything else XG have.

A cheap way to block Samsung, Posco and others out who have provided cash via debt to XG.

[superg1] 23/5/2017 08:27

I was just reading a recent article post a graphed event in Spain. He is an expert and was a speaker at the event.

What he is more or less saying is hype over reality starting to kick in. He goes on about all graphenes not being the same with a multitude of different uses for various graphenes.

One of the first movers in the industry was XG sciences a private company in the US. I have repeatedly over time mentioned multi-layer graphene being an issue for strength enhancement in composites. Strength is a large part of the graphene hype. However if you put multi-layer into composite it significantly reduces the strength of the raw material. Equally some have proved that adding few layer (under 10 layers) can materially increase the strength. Other aspects need to be considered like lateral size defect ratios purity and so on. It's not a simple process to say all few layer works, it has to be tested for proof.

So we had XG arrive and some big companies between them chucked about $40 mill their way in various forms.

As evidenced in an IPO attempts the circumstances of XG are dire.

The science papers I found shortly after they were formed suggested their GNPs do not work for strength. In 2016 the UOM tested their M grade and they materially lowered the strength of resin. There are a number of papers with various universities with a similar result.

They stuck their head up with big claims, they were one of a few about in graphene so for the last few years some have been testing it. The UOM paper was a 4 year study.

XG stuck their heads up made some big claims, they were a first mover and indeed big players got involved and no doubt have been very disappointed about 'graphene' and the claims by XG.

So back to the article. It has a graph in it showing various graphene companies and the indicator is based on lateral size and thickness.

It is Idtechex who have created the chart. Idtechex have placed XG as 15th out of 16 companies on thickness and slot them into an area putting their GNPs as over 10nm and over. 10nm in late terms is 30 layers.

Such layer levels as mentioned many times and since proven are detrimental on strength to composites.

SO XG with all their aims and hype unfortunately let the market down and some became sceptical. However evidence is now appearing with genuine few layer which does work and the cycle will move on with the pretenders eventually being found out and dumped into the gutter which is already happening in some cases.

I can see another US company on similar hype which I believe is doomed and quite a few others. The difference between walking the walk and talking the talk.

[superg1] 22/5/2017 21:03

A new type of Qdot out of Cambridge. Is this a pontential competitor to Nanoco?

I don't know enough on that topic I just noted the Cambridge news.

[luckyorange] 22/5/2017 21:03

What’s Up with Graphene Stocks? Remember Graphene?

Worth a look and some honest facts on there, although they do mention Perpetuus, which by all accounts no longer exists?

[luckyorange] 22/5/2017 20:33

Guardian podcast, well worth listening to

[superg1] 22/5/2017 17:46

Who are they???

Now you know ;-)

[shavian] 22/5/2017 14:37

Last mention of AGM, hopefully. Just takin' the mick.... :))

[superg1] 22/5/2017 08:16

About what ;-)

[shavian] 22/5/2017 08:16

That's a relief,SG. ;0)

[superg1] 21/5/2017 21:28

That's an interesting paragraph by McLaren talking of lap times. Boullier said in the watch laugh they were going to use it in Carbon fibre and also hinted at thermal but he did say F1 is paranoid and would say no more.

For news rivals the GNPs in that watch and what he is talking about is Nanene.

Perhaps a hint of the interest is the fact that Johnathan Neale seems to now have a decent grip re few layer.

This is what Johnathan Neale said about the performance gain at the time and it's on the Mclaren website. It would be interesting if F1 ever did use it as the gains would get some significant free advertising.

“We think the properties of graphene are pretty mind-blowing: some of the mechanical properties of graphene-enhanced composites can be improved by double-digit percentages compared to regular carbon-fibre composites. In engineering, we often talk about improvements in terms of fractions of a per cent; to suddenly introduce improvements of this order is incredible, but it gives you a very clear perspective on just how much we’re discovering about the properties of graphene, and just how much it’s re-defining our existing understanding of materials science.”

[shavian] 21/5/2017 08:18

And...
'Graphene’s phenomenal strength and lightness is its USP – 200 times stronger than the toughest stainless steel. But what use is a material that only comes in microscopically thin sheets when it comes to building watch cases? As some were chuckling to themselves at SIHH in January “Richard Mille has taken a thin material and turned it back into a thick chunk”. Not exactly. Speaking to McLaren Technology’s chief operating officer and CEO of McLaren Racing, Jonathan Neale, we asked how graphene is used in the real world.

“Our interest in materials, including the graphene that went into this watch, is something that we can turn into lap times. The graphene itself doesn’t have bulk properties – if you make a block of it, that would in itself not be very strong. The material properties come into their own when its 3-5 atomic layers thick. At that point you can dope other structures; if you take a carbon fibre resin system like this watch has, you dope it with small platelets of graphene and you get much better bonding and structural integrity between the layers. Suddenly you have a stronger, lighter, more efficient material thanks to the graphene. The guys in Manchester refer to it as platelet reinforcement.”;

Join the dots to prove the links from VRS to F1, via MacLaren and possibly other teams. ;0)

[jointer13] 21/5/2017 06:28

I know we are familiar with this....slightly different take

"Same carbon-fibre layering that we’ve got used to since the introduction of North Thin Ply Technology a couple of years ago. But this case has been doped with graphene, taking it to the next level in terms of structural rigidity, strength to weight ratio, tensile strength and torsional resilience. In layman’s terms, it’s practically magic."

[superg1] 21/5/2017 06:16

Well put Roger

No problem with exclusive as long as it has whooping payment for exclusivity up front with a get out clause of not paid.

Anything other than that then tell them to sod off Imo.

As stated in the 7 years I've been looking at the Aim I've not known an exclusive deal to come to anything material but can give examples where the bigger company just uses up time and does nothing.

One I cam recall with an up front payment was Plethora for a PE cream $15 mill form a Japanese company. That didvl;t go anywhere either but at least they go the $15 mill, which Imo is more than they would ever get for the product.

THE CEO and CFO are not fools even though I did more or less call the CEO that for taking on 2D tech. That was when I didn't understand it fully.

[jointer13] 21/5/2017 05:55

graphene technology day 25th may, Cambridge.

vrs...production and composites

[rogerbridge] 20/5/2017 18:26

SG.Very interesting interview with Prof Geim. Graphene, is a disruptive technology, just what the world economy needs for the next growth surge.
You can see why the major companies want a slice.
Some of the big boys have been led down blind alleys, so you can understand why they are cautious about believing what possible suppliers tell them. VRS have proven and quality products to offer, but having been once bitten there is still caution. Now NDA's have been signed and research finalised for specific products, testing can take place and eventually I believe orders will come, slow at first but then I suspect in increasing numbers. Resistance is futile! But please no exclusive agreements.