Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[shavian] 04/6/2017 19:20

Nice work SG. What a knackering way to spend the weekend. Respect.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 18:57

Ha

I tried some of those papers most of them are nothing to do with strength just junk that no one would be interested in.

However if you do find one that might have something in it then try to look it up, guess what?

You have to pay to see it the paper, but you have no real idea of what you'll be looking at.

So not only have they listed a very unfriendly looking list which you jog on from (I believe that's the intent) but for the idiots like me that think sod it I'll look some up I can't unless I pay for the privilege, which obviously I'm not going to.

I'd be paying to see science papers with no clear explanation of what is in it and XG would get the cash.

What a con they are.

Anyway now folk know why I said forget XG they are junk. Looking more closely today imo just added to their pile of manure status.

Imo that sort of knowledge is useful for any graphene company public or otherwise and I repeat, the world thought XG were the lead in graphene hence the backing from those big names.

Now those big names are looking elsewhere.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 18:37

Email to XG sciences.

Hi

I'm looking into graphene and the companies involved. There seems to be many claims but very few with proof their product actually works. There are various aspects of Gnps which make them suitable or not for various uses.

So on that point do you have any independent test data available to show that your product materially enhances the overall strength of composites, and if so which product.

Answer from the Sales and marketing manager

"We do have data that show our graphene works, and we also have customers who purchase our products and are using them in commercial applications."

"I’m happy to talk with you about your company’s needs to see if we have a material that will work in your applications."

My reply to that

Hi Robert

I like to find independent data and found this today in tests by Manchester University in the UK where graphene was first developed.

For your M grade multi-layer product it gives very poor results in an epoxy resin and the reasons for that are explained in detail. There is plenty of data around that multi-layer is very poor in relation to strength gains and detrimental so what is the M grade suitable for.

There is a similar paper in the US on C grade from a few years ago results were poor there too, I recall the best gains were about 4% in epoxy resin on a 2% loading for C grade. M grade gave similar results to Manchester, very poor. Hence my question as to whether you have advertised viewable independent data.

I don't want to sound harsh but it seems to suggest M grade are useless or more accurately multi-layer Gnps are useless for gains in strength. In fact they cause the UTS of the epoxy resin to drop significantly.

There are some material names on that study for M grade. What can they be used for. Do you have any studies yourself to show Manchester University are wrong. Looking at that paper tends to suggest you are selling junk and calling it graphene. That's what it looks like.



Then take your presentation in 2016 showing you to be dominant. It's graph with no details for what it means just showing XG in the dominant box.

What amounts to dominant. I can't find anything on your site or elsewhere to show they work well. All I have found so far is the complete opposite. If you have independent data to show enhanced performance where is it. Such data would support your claims and be a good advert.

I'm trying to work through the fog of misinformation around on graphene.



I sent it on 17th May

Their reply is depicted in this youtube video.



What a great sales manager, I'm a customer and he hasn't replied. You would think he would jump at the chance to show their performance power. ;-)

By sheer chance the video flips onto another very apt one for the graphene industry so keep watching.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 18:24

BTW

I'm not looking at companies to pick them apart. I look to see who they may be signed up with, how they are doing, sales and so on. Big name interest and ways the bigs names have involved themselves.

I had heard XG were becoming junk status with product that doesn't work but I had no solid evidence. On the face of it the C grade looked ok until I stared finding papers.

Here is an email exchange with XG on the topic I emailed them as a potential customer

First up email them as in the next post.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 18:10

Just dropped on another one Phoenixs re XG. Having been through the IPO the names clicked.

I contacted XG as a customer asking for data sheets saying they have no evidence of performance.

If you recall I mention that they just list science papers on graphene as the gimmick


"A List of Scientific Papers (PDF) Published by MSU Researchers"

Guess who the science papers are by those "MSU researchers" which I missed before?

Click it and you get a list that would put anyone off. No links you have to look them up

EG a sample of the list of 55 papers

1. Lee, S; Cho, D.; and Drzal, L. T.; “Real-time observation of the expansion behavior of intercalated graphite flake”, J. Mater. Sci. 40, 231-234 (2005).
2. Cho, D.; Lee, S.; Yang, G.; Fukushima, H.; Drzal, L. T.; “Dynamic Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Phenylethynl-Terminated Polyimide Composites Reinforced with Expanded Graphite Nanoplatelets”, Macromolec. Matr. Engr. 290, 179-187 (2005).
3. Fukushima, H., Drzal, L. T., Rook, B. P. and Rich, M. J., “Thermal Conductivity of Exfoliated Graphite Nanocomposites”;, J. Thermal Anal Calor, 85 (1) pp 235-238 (2006)

Would you try to look any of them up?

A clue is in the header

"Drzal Group - Michigan State University- xGnP Publications."

Then in the papers repeated many times

Fukushima, H,
Drzal, L. T

Now for the team from their website

HIROYUKI FUKUSHIMA, PHD, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR – INKS, COATINGS AND COMPOSITE PRODUCTS

LAWRENCE T. DRZAL, PHD, CHIEF SCIENTIST

Those two were mates at Michigan Uni and founded the company. All those science papers are theirs. Not an independent one in sight, but who'd notice?

I've found some independent ones including the UOM (2016) which states their M grade GNPs are junk for use in resins on UTS. In all levels of climbing percentage of GNPs it sent the resins into reverse on strength, the more XG M grade they added the weaker the epoxy resin became.

[phoenixs] 04/6/2017 17:23

superg,
If you keep laying waste to these bogus graphene tech companies at the rate you are doing there will shortly not be many left by the time you have finished unearthing all the scnadals,lies etc etc.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 17:16

Before I forget.

April 2016 IPO attempt

"We believe we will be able to recognize approximately $2-4 million of revenue in 2016 and approximately $10-25 million of revenue in 2017."

Actual products sales H1 2016 $142k

The cheeky sods repeat the same revenue forecast in the August 2016 IPO.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 17:01

So with the uni papers found saying showing their product does not work and that looking through that lot it shows what a complete pile of manure the company is.

Flip it the other way and consider if you would invest in it looking at the detail and cash burn.


Just one point of note.

In 2014 they had a sale to one customer of $600k. Product sales fell from 2014 to 2015 from $874k to $164k.

My guess would be that the single customer was Head who created the graphene enhanced tennis racket with XG product.

One such racket was cut up by scientists and I believe they found multi-layer just in the neck area of the racket. I'd have to check.

I mention that as it shows there are customers out there if you have the right product.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 16:05

Phew

The document is over 100 pages long and a right old tangled web re who owns what and where, with seemingly ridiculous amount of cash burn which is probably why some think its a fraud. Then pre IPO attempt the cash sapping founder threw the towel in.

I found another £11 mill in loan notes and that Posco were in dispute on payments over the licensing deal.

It's highly complicated and a sorry mess so no surprise that the IPO failed.

I dread to think how much the founders took out of the company over the years.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 15:15

5 directors over 2 years have made themselves $2.5 mill in salary and payments.

$1.5 mill in options stacked up along with a another $6 mill worth to come.

Edit

This made me smile.

The financial guy seems to have made so much compared to the rest. $700,000 in 2014/2015.

Then just before they wanted to of IPO and the document I'm looking it appears he resigned/retired.

But he was not just the CFO

Michael R. Knox, Former Principal Financial Officer, Former Chief Financial Officer, Former Senior Vice President, Former Secretary, Former Chief Executive Officer.

So he pocketed $700k in 2 years and did a runner pre IPO attempt.

[rogerbridge] 04/6/2017 14:12

You can see why Samsung will now be cautious.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 14:05

XG

Batteries again. They suggest substituting the carbon graphic anode in lithium batteries with graphene silicon anodes which increases the power storage over Carbon/graphite 3-5 times.

In January 2014, we announced an investment by Samsung Ventures in the Company’s secured convertible notes. As part of the investment, we agreed with Samsung Ventures that the two companies would engage in a joint development program to develop anode materials for lithium-ion batteries for use in certain Samsung applications. One Samsung subsidiary, Samsung SDI, is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of lithium-ion batteries. XGS and Samsung SDI entered into an agreement on April 8, 2014 to jointly develop and optimize our SiG for use in SDI’s lithium ion batteries.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 14:00

XG

Not the numbers stuff this post but just picking up on things they said they would be doing and some relevant comments about production.

Over half their intended capital spend was to be on silicon graphene batteries. Those type of batteries is what Cambridge had in the battery room the day we visited.

Then the biggest listed market by far shown for 2018 is carbon fibre.

But I couldn't help notice this bit. When they say gas processes that is the CVD process. That is the process AGM use but not in big sheet form. So that helps explain why AGM are having so much trouble. Just an example of someone else as first movers saying it's not viable.

We believe our proprietary processes have enabled us to be a low cost producer of high quality, graphene nanoplatelets and that we are well positioned to address a wide range of end-use applications. We chose not to pursue a graphene oxide process because it is inherently more costly, produces nanoplatelets with more surface functional groups and higher levels of dislocation (e.g., holes) in the basel planes, both of which tend to degrade electrical and thermal performance. Gas phase processes produce very small particle sizes which make them slightly better for applications where optical purity is a requirement. However, gas phase processes are both costly and difficult to scale, thus we chose not to pursue this technology as well. Expanded graphite is created by swelling natural graphite in a solvent like NMP and then sonicating (the act of applying sound energy to agitate particles) to separate the layers. The process tends to make rather thick material which limits the amount of platelet overlap that can be achieved and therefore degrades properties such as electrical and thermal conductivity. In addition, many applications will not tolerate residual solvent that is difficult and costly to remove.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 13:40

XG

In the failed IPO they wanted to raise $24 million but in that gave some ridiculous multi-million forecasts for expected revenue in 2016/2017.

On top of that with those forecasts they suggested they would need to raise up to $6mill per year for 3 years.

So a 3 year forecast including the IPO of as high as $42 million needed.

BTW

They were going down the drain at the time of the IPO. Production staff had been cut from 27 to 9 2014 to 2015 to keep the lights on. At the end of 2015 they had just $1 mill cash.

[superg1] 04/6/2017 13:22

XG numbers for 2015 with the attempted IPO April 2016.

numbers rounded up/down

Revenue £640k
Costs of goods sold $1.85 mill
R&D $1.5 mill
sales admin expenses etc $5.6 mill
other income expense $9.9 mill

Net loss total $16.7 million.

Just 22 employees.

I can't begin to imagine how they lose so much money other than them being crooked.

Net losses 2014 and 2015 combined $28 million.

Are you there yet why they didn't get IPO support and why they are going bust.

No?

Well you may form an opinion on that when I dig out and post the other bits.

[shavian] 04/6/2017 12:56

I dont think we are talking about the same yachts SG. Th AC50s spend so much time up on their hydofoils they would not have time to leak even if what you say is true. Also, no engines, just human pedal and grinder power.

See for yourselves:

[superg1] 04/6/2017 12:44

Shavian

Did you know those in that sector yachts leak like a sieve and they big engines in them to pump the water out. If the engines fail, down she goes.

[superg1] 03/6/2017 07:43

I didn't;t know you had ever been in IOF hopefully you got out at the right time. A good example of how a poor team can come in and destroy a great idea. Right team back but been a long slog largely created by corrupt companies on Chile. No speculation there as it's the biggest business scandal in Chile.

[john henry] 03/6/2017 06:05

SuperG i havent owned shares in IOF for a few years. Was a very brief holding around 20p

[rogerbridge] 02/6/2017 17:38

Yes SG, Epson in particular caught my eye for the ink side.

Samsung and others spent a great deal of money on one company and ended up in a blind alley. There are some global companies who would be in touch with the NGI and Nanene has been certified and ready to go.

As I have said before, once bitten, twice shy a lot of CTO's have egg on their faces and there will be more than one very unhappy CFO.
CTO's will not want to make the same mistake twice, it's too risky for their career, let alone the company that they work for.

There will be NDA's and a lot of testing and proving to do, but VRS have the genuine article, Nanene or Inks. Why would any company want to go elsewhere?

There have been too many short term investors here and it may be several months before the blue touch paper is lit up. But then, what a beautiful site as VRS share price goes balistic. Well that's what I hope for, we shall see.

[superg1] 02/6/2017 13:20

Epson/Seiko is interesting.

VRS are already collaborating on carbon fibre printer heads, then there is the graphene ink. I imagine Epson would be interested in both.

[superg1] 02/6/2017 13:15

hmmm
typos

I need to give up trying to spin so many plates, on the phone answering emails and trying to post. One reason one I asked for someone to start a new IOF thread.

So what is on the list on the trip.

Samsung, Sony, Seiko/Epson, Inmarsat, LG.

Then on the replies

"new friends at @seikowatches @Epson #Japan"

Bit of a clue there. I know the company they don't say anything unless there is something behind it.

The whole list called new friends.

So who wants short term sales compared to signing something major with one or a few of those plus the others we know of.

BTW that's 5 different names to the ones on the list on Cambridge day.

Not Mr nobody in the UK NDA'd, out there talking to main guys in the far east.

Horses, water etc.

Yes NDAs need to convert and take time but for some of them they will be down the line. If you hook one then you tend to hook some more. The CEO is out to hook a few and he has the etch, product and no BS attitude to do just that. Cambridge Uni, UOM and NGI backed.

You don't need dodgy city brokers if you have backers like that, they have sub divisions or that provide the funding, EG Samsung ventures like you point out Phoenixs.