Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 30/5/2017 07:59

Some key questions you should consider.

Data sheet for the product supplied.

Layer thickness and don't forget 1 nm = 3 layers. Looking for under 10 layers
Lateral size
defect ratio.
purity.
Performance when used in products

Verifiable independent evidence and tests in relation to the above.

Amazing really with the above being the significant factor which determines whether graphene is will work that very few supply it.

Hype is the key to keep things spinning and funds still backing you to keep the lucrative salaries going.

[superg1] 30/5/2017 07:52

The FCA and graphene

Read it, the FCA were warning about those setting up on the graphene hype. So as I say DYOR and if you get caught through believing all you read from companies then don't moan when it all goes wrong.

I've done the fine-toothed comb on VRS and I'm very happy with it. In any case the technology os proven to work and so is the product. DYOR

The Financial Conduct Authority is to warn consumers to be wary of dubious investments in graphene offered by unscrupulous brokers aiming to cash in on the excitement generated by the "miracle material".

Graphene, discovered in 2004 at the University of Manchester, is a flexible sheet of carbon that can conduct electricity. It is only one atom thick but 100 times stronger than steel.

Though graphene has myriad potential applications, from flexible electronic devices to the manufacture of lighter aircraft, much research has yet to be done and the FCA said it would be posting a warning on its website on Monday about graphene-related investments.

[superg1] 30/5/2017 07:49

On the topic of Samsung they know how difficult it is to produce graphene. It was Samsung that thought they had a single layer CVD breakthrough back in 2014 scaled up and it failed.

Funny that others re finding out what happens on scale up and that it doesn't work but don't actually bother to tell investors or customers.

As time goes on having now crossed one or two off the producer list I can see why some end users may be sceptical about graphene as some have tried what suppliers call graphene but it isn't graphene that performs mainly due to it being multi-layer and other actors when its under 10 layers. XG sciences is a good example having found various papers to show their product does not work and is detrimental. As they were an early mover with some big names and big claims I suspect they have knocked the belief in graphene.

Imo as before some will disappear, XG being one on the top of my list for that. I also have 3D labs as a likely fail and did see then listed in a article recently in a list of graphene plays to watch.

Funnily enough so was another I'm working on which I think is set to fail (good reason to suspect that).

Don't trust those tip sheets and analysts they don't look deeply into the businesses Imo or understand graphene.

DYOR

[jointer13] 29/5/2017 15:53

10 strangest facts about graphene.

[superg1] 29/5/2017 13:27

He said the same on the ink. He has it as the best worldwide available and most not understanding the variables needed for ink.

He described some as only have 1% yields v 100% on Cambridge ink.

The process to produce such viable ink is clearly the key on performance and cost.

He also talked about ways he knows to improve it further and a potential mix of additives. The process acquired by VRS is not just graphene it can be used with other products.

Last but not least just about everything graphene wise passes through the knowledge base of the UK graphene centres. Hence they make claims based on a catalogue of information available to them.

I found another one yesterday claiming 3-6 layers which turned out to be 3-6nm which is 9-18 layers.

That's the stuff VRS call waste material when talking Nanene.

[hastings] 29/5/2017 09:46

Welcome, glad it has been of interest to other holders.

[jointer13] 29/5/2017 09:39

good work hastings...thanks

[hastings] 29/5/2017 09:20

Superg1yes, he was pretty adamant on that as with Cambridge effectively being the gold standard.Very interesting too that some major names are establishing their own presence at the centre, with VRS included in that.

[superg1] 29/5/2017 09:10

Hastings

I see the 100,000 litres is clearly stated and Ferrari talking about some seriously big names interested.

Nice to get it confirmed separately in that article due to your visit.

[rogerbridge] 29/5/2017 09:05

Thanks Hastings, well done!
Nice to see N.R. in South Korea and with Samsung. Samsung now talking to the real deal!
On to Japan and new NDA's ?

[superg1] 29/5/2017 08:22

All down to Hastings jointer.

PM

Monty you need to grow up.

[hastings] 29/5/2017 08:20

Cheers for posting Superg1.Had to condense it down somewhat, but hopefully the right message conveyed.

[jointer13] 29/5/2017 08:10

post 4328

brilliant link sg

[luckyorange] 29/5/2017 07:43

I hope Samsung doesn't have it's eye too firmly on VRS, place some orders yes but no more than that for the moment?

South Korea are very forward looking and successful as a nation, if they see a viable and profitable opportunity they go for it and develop it, slightly worrying? Would their interest have been fired by the Manchester connection I wonder?

[superg1] 29/5/2017 06:20

Versarien
The UK's leading graphene supplier

I did note the header.

Another also claims that and better but I have found some very interesting information on a company in the last 48 hours. :-)

Perhaps at some point I can reveal it here but not now as it'd destined for higher places.

[superg1] 29/5/2017 06:03

Hastings

I see as on twitter the Versarien/Cambridge ink news item is out as of yesterday. Do you have a copy of the report to share?

EDIT

Got it now. Some nice info in there including some points Professor Ferrari raises on graphene and various claims.



pages 61-63

[superg1] 29/5/2017 05:54

The comment but the DTI for the events.

The UK’s Department for International Trade (DIT) has overall responsibility for promoting UK trade across the world and attracting foreign investment to our economy.

Today’s tech isn’t constrained by national borders and, similarly, we’re seeing that the UK's ambitious tech companies refuse to let their potential markets be constrained either. They’re busy forming trading partnerships with companies and governments the length and breadth of the globe. With a wide range of world-class tech specialisms to choose from, there are huge opportunities for international organisations to take advantage.

Next stop is Japan same reason.

So in short the DTI has show-cased Versarien but as stated Versarien showed an NDA list on Cambridge day with some majors in South Korea listed.

I did say they are well liked and DTI supported, now you can see it for yourself.

[superg1] 29/5/2017 05:50

As posted before and stated by the CEO events the DTI like Versarien and what they are doing. This has been a building relationship for some time. The DTI are keen to demonstrate what VRS have.

They would not support and promote Versarien if they doubted the technology of the company or team. In fact the DTI pay the majority of expenses I believe when in the countries.

Those that attended the Cambridge day have an advantage in understanding certain comments.

The Mega tech list of participants. Nearly all of them are software companies. VRS stands of like a sore thumb as a graphene and engineering company.

[superg1] 29/5/2017 05:35

The KLF

I've been waiting patiently but wasn't quite expecting such good evidence.

Re your post

'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'

I thought the CEO may pop up in Korea and look what has happened.



Neill Ricketts‏ @neillricketts 55 minutes ago
More
Busy day in Seoul @tradegovuk mega technology mission with @Samsung discussing next generation materials #graphene

So is he in Korea talking to some low level cold calling engineer?

[superg1] 27/5/2017 13:48

The votes down make me smile as it's obvious who it is.

I simply filter those that seek to mislead others which is rife on ADVFN.

When I filter them any thread they may have started on other shares are not viewable (try it).

Hence I can no longer see any threads on some companies.

All my serious work now goes on behind the scenes and I must concentrate on that as it will provide far greater benefit for genuine companies like VRS than engaging them here. That work is a far greater level than I have undertaken before and it's bringing out some important information.

If in the fullness of time if my efforts result in serious issues for some companies then tough DYOR. If you don't just accept the pain that goes with choosing to ignore the obvious and not bothering to check the full details behind your investments.

I am not like TW it won't be obvious it will be silent and I won't necessarily know if an axe is due to fall or when.

You can be sure though that when I say I'm doing something, I am. On that front my efforts are going to step up considerably.

EG I'm checking on legal issues for one such case. As in all things I get the facts sorted first.

Such things require limited information here.

As always DYOR and in this sector if you get caught out, tough.

I've run the same principles when reviewing VRS as far as I'm concerned it's a genuine business with an excellent management with potentially huge prospects ahead.

I looked at VRS for 3 years. I've done the same intensity on others recently and found gaping 'holes' within hours.

Right time to crack on. I'll chat re VRS and things that pop up.

Time to crack on in the coming weeks. Moaning post event is no good it takes forever and is full of pain (ask PRG guys).

[luckyorange] 27/5/2017 11:51

Today Manchester continues to serve as a center for graphene innovation. Coined ‘Graphene City,’ the University of Manchester is home to over 250 researchers working on graphene and has over 70 industry partners, including high-profile companies Dyson, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Rolls-Royce, Samsung, Sharp, and Siemens.

“Our vision of Graphene City is a bit like Silicon Valley,” said James Baker, business director of graphene at the University of Manchester. “We are trying to create a hub in Manchester, where at the heart of activity we have the University of Manchester where we have lots of academics and scientists, and then we also have international partnerships. The biggest chance of graphene being a success is through that partnership and collaboration model and this Graphene City concept.”

As part of this initiative, a significant investment has been made in two state-of-the-art facilities. The first, the National Graphene Institute (NGI), houses both academics carrying out fundamental research as well as industrial partners. The goal of the £61-million facility is to foster collaboration between the two and grow early-stage applications of graphene-based products.

The £60m Graphene Engineering Innovation Center (GEIC)—which will open in the second half of 2018—will foster commercialization of those early-stage applications, serving as a facility to scale-up and test graphene-based products.

Both of these facilities will tackle some of the major challenges regarding graphene. While many different companies are creating graphene, how to best use the material in the most efficient and intelligent manner is still unclear.

“The challenge is less now how to produce a material, it is how do you disperse or how do you mix it, how do you go from a 2D material into a 3D product or application, and then how do you get that consistency, and qualification and certainty that it is safe?” said Baker. “We have over 70 industry partners that we are working with to look at those challenges. That will increase and accelerate once the GEIC is completed this year.”

Since it wasn’t discovered until 2004, graphene is still in its “teenage years,” said Baker, and has only been seriously investigated for the past six to seven years. A material that new would typically take decades before significant products were commercialized, he said. Graphene City was created to change that.

“We are looking to accelerate the production of graphene products and applications,” said Baker. “By working in a much more concurrent way, we can hopefully take a new material which typically takes 20 to 30 years to get to the market, and really reduce the time, and get it to market as quickly as possible.”

Applications for graphene

Right now, there are a few simple products utilizing graphene in the marketplace. Most use the material as a composite or coatings, adding it to other materials instead of creating a brand new product with it. Using this technique, graphene has been used to created ‘smarter’ tennis rackets, cycle tires, light bulbs, and inks.

However, the potential of graphene spans far beyond simple composite or coatings. Graphene membranes could be created and used for water desalination, nuclear cleanup, or novel fuel cells. The material also has potential in the aerospace and electrical industries, as well as biomedical applications such as using it to create novel drug delivery systems or artificial skin.

In addition, the discovery of graphene has opened up a new world of potential 2D materials, and researchers are now investigating multiple types of materials that are also isolated to a single atomic layer.

These 2D materials could be stacked together layer by layer to create a multi-functional, ‘smart’ material, said Baker.

“We are now applying a similar science to a whole family of materials, and today we are studying over 100 different 2D materials,” said Baker. “This is huge is terms of its potential. It has the potential to change the world.”

[superg1] 27/5/2017 08:32

Understanding of GNPs

Don't take this the wrong way.

In recent communications with those that are actually in the sector I'm finding many haven't even begun to understand GNPs in the way I have.

That is simply down to me having spare time to go through various science papers. I've been happily doing 8-12 hours per day on it many times. I like digging, I like investigating why and how things work.

I didn't accept being told under 10 layer is the key even by the UOM/NGI. Or rather I did except it but I ways want proof that I can show to others when I say it. I wanted to see the data. The answer was that there are many papers proving it. It has taken me many months to find data, read it and then confirm my findings.

The US guys researching graphene and companies involved had no idea on the layer level issue. Like me they do not accept verbal claims but of course I was able to supply them the data some supported by top UOM guys. So it absolutely shows that multi-layer does not work.

They said, You are what they call a "subject matter expert" having showed then my findings and provided the proof.

The dialogue will continue there and I can see where they have made some mistakes on their some information they have listed which has already been addressed.

So on the full turn of the wheel I am confident the key for all properties is under 10 layers, but then just eating under 10 doesn't mean they work, there are other factors needed like lateral and defect ratios.

I'm now in the process of transferring details I have learned with the data to back it up to some people who are already in the industry and to some that are researching the sector.

So no offence but I don't expect any PI to begin to even get a grip of it unless you read the various links and papers posted very thoroughly, digest it and spend a considerable amount of time looking at it.

For some what it is and what it does is of no interest, the next RNS preferably NOW is what provides the trading opportunity. Crack on, I understand it and the BS of others and I'm in and will be long term.

Ignore any company that does not via recognised independent proof show their product is what they say it is and does perform proved by the independent testing. That same principle applies to volumes too.

"Show me the money" etc.

Why

If you don't do your research you can not recognise news and comments that are completely untrue and proven in various papers and other public documents. Sometimes the truth is in the documents of the company themselves possibly not even known to exist by many employees just certain BOD members.

So time to move on for me and concentrate on facts and helping certain others. So I will spend less time engaging with posters that haven't got the slightest clue and often feel to confuse and misinform others.

[superg1] 27/5/2017 08:02

GNPs

Many times some have said ooh X does graphene and so does Y.

The qualifier is nano. Nano in graphene terms is 300 layers. 300 layers does not work for the major claims of graphene nether does 10's of layers.

The evidence is obvious, few layer is the one being chased and the price climbs many times when you get to few layer over multi-layer. However some try it on with high prices for junk multi-layer.

VRS currently have multi-layer which is the waste from making Nanene. Just 10's of layers thick. It's currently called waste with no use for it. That VRS waste is in some cases many time less layers than some have for sale as viable graphene.

So you get companies that say they can do tonnes of it like XG. The tonnes side is generally the many layer graphene.

Mechanical exfoliation is popular, it works to some extent by repeatedly grinding the graphite over and over gain 10's and 100's of times. But within that are methods and certain additives plus premium conditions that allow the few layer to be produced in viable numbers.

It's easy to produce graphene 10's and 100's of layers thick. As said if I bought some kit I could do it, but I don't have the access to the measuring kit to know what layer level the end product is. In there I may well have one few layer but for me it would be a fraction of 1%.

Not all of it will separate you get to a point where a certain percentage is no longer viable to continue with as the yield level drops so you start the process again with raw feed material.

I know as I've seen graphene being produced and discussed it with those that work on it.

For graphene oxide I'm told it's a very nasty method with lots of chemicals/acids. Just watch someone who has a hands on view screw their face up when they explain it to you.

Start to try to understand GNPs, what works and what doesn't work and you will end up with an instant recognition of BS by many companies and then stop asking questions, instead giving answers to those that may say hey but X does graphene.