Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[diversification] 28/8/2018 07:59

WUZY

hxxps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180823113613.htm

[alchemy] 28/8/2018 07:58

Never watch level2 in formation. Or if you do don't act on it until opening.Just a rule I've come to over the years.Bigger than Uber oh yes. Easy.

[festario] 28/8/2018 07:57

...I reckon that NR has stipulated that all collaborations must now be named ones.

[club sandwich] 28/8/2018 07:57

It's molecules of carbon - so what do you mean by 'degradable'? Degrade to what?

[festario] 28/8/2018 07:56

I've been thinking, which is not like me...

[ewads] 28/8/2018 07:53

Just guessing but I would expect graphene to be degradable, but the problem might be what it's formulated with. If mixed with say poly ethylene or resin, may become part of the problem.

[wuzy] 28/8/2018 07:47

Morning all,one for super or anyone that knows, is graphene degradable, I.e if it were put into plastic can it be easily recycled, just one that I've been wondering about.cheers,let's hope for another good week.

[festario] 28/8/2018 07:44

What? No news? Its a blackout... we are being starved... ha ha

[ellissj] 28/8/2018 07:42

Re china, the noise is good ; 'the right deal'and'zero risk' equals great market approval and share price reward, as company is geared for long term success. With so many world globals in so many sectors, vrs is not beholden and can wait for the firms that wish for win/win relationships. And grow the company that way. Aimo. Best ellis

[lovat scout] 28/8/2018 07:37

Lucky orange - never any danger of chapeau flambé 😀. Small print says proof required !

[spike_1] 28/8/2018 07:36

Actually at least one other viable graphene producer is not necessarily bad news. Why - because companies hate having to rely on only one source for their raw materials for all the obvious reasons.

Having said that, if VRS put actual nanene production facilities within the user company's domain, which is the intention of the Jinan deal, then whilst that can throw up some problems, it lessens others.

Certainly getting in as quickly as possible to as many companies as possible is the smart strategy. Given that producing few layer (and properly characterised) graphene is very much a specialised art/science, once a company has a guaranteed supply of the real stuff, they will likely be reluctant to risk moving on without there being a considerable benefit for them.

And over time, as competition intensifies, VRS can very probably lower it's profit margin to stay competitive.

Best wishes - Spike

[superg1] 28/8/2018 07:35

1teepee.

That's the whole problem producing graphene is not easy. That's why there are 100's claiming they produce graphene but only few that can.

Then then when you get the that point, few layer retaining the right lateral sizes and few defects is key.

[1teepee] 28/8/2018 07:31

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2B8OBpY0OsGlad it not like this anymore. I can sit on my sofa without the level of social anxiety that environment would cause me. And make cash :)

[1teepee] 28/8/2018 07:25

For others in the profession, not me personally

[1teepee] 28/8/2018 07:25

Producing Graphene is easy. It just producing it at a good price, which is the tricky part

[runthejoules] 28/8/2018 07:22

Luckyorange, I'v ejust edited my post to put IF in CAPS! ;-) But seriously, GNPs could be in EVERYTHING - Uber, however, has no moat other than brand really if everyone is working on self-driving cars and will be undercutting each other as, without staff, they can. I'd rather stick to the picks & shovels, & graphene will literally be going into picks and shovels, as well as metaphorically!

[luckyorange] 28/8/2018 07:22

No hat for lovat today, however he didn't read the small print 😁

[luckyorange] 28/8/2018 07:19

A tad far fetched that rtj, one step at a time! 🌞

Amazing twitter information if the right question is asked, China looks very close in some form.

[runthejoules] 28/8/2018 07:01

If we retain our lead we could be worth more than Uber. IF. I personally think it will need a fundraising, a golden share or some of that patient capital / EU money to expand quickly enough and do enough R&D to stay ahead of a million universities working on GNPs and CVD. I also think Uber's margin is someone else's opportunity - Tesla perhaps, though I'm not investing there because Musk is unhinged, though who knows, his removal might see an share price bounce! Too unpredictable!

[club sandwich] 28/8/2018 06:52

Dafad - dunno, but far higher than we are ;-)

[dafad] 28/8/2018 06:49

What value for us if Uber is worth $72 billlion,

Japanese carmaker Toyota is to invest $500m (£387m) in Uber and expand a partnership to jointly develop self-driving cars.

The firm said this would involve the "mass-production" of autonomous vehicles that would be deployed on Uber's ride sharing network.

It is being viewed as a way for both firms to catch up with rivals in the competitive driverless car market.

The deal also values Uber at some $72bn, despite its mounting losses.

[festario] 27/8/2018 23:14

If been playing darts nearly all day and night.... and now, it's time..... to.... GET THAT STOCK MARKET OPEN!!

[iain dick] 27/8/2018 22:36

RNS 20.07
August is coming to a close !! GEIC soon ?

Dr Martin Kemp is Chairman of the Nanomaterials Committee of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3). Of particular note, Dr Kemp has written the new standard for graphene flakes (British Standard Institution BSI PAS 1201:2018 'Properties of Graphene Flakes - Guide') which was sponsored by InnovateUK and will be published in August 2018.

[spike_1] 27/8/2018 22:14

shehzi_= I very much doubt if this 'research' will tell us anything very useful for us at VRS. Most research companies are simply half a dozen people (if that) trawling through published papers and guessing the time frame and direction of travel. They are unlikely (IMO) to have any specialist knowledge as they cover many different industries / sectors.

Whilst they may get it right generally, it is actually of little consequence to us. Why - because we make the raw material companies need, it is up to the companies to assess the speed and direction they wish to travel, not us. 'All' we need to do is give them the right material at a commercially acceptable price and in the quantity they need, they do the rest.

Having said that, probably one of the most knowledgeable people for an overall view of direction and progress so far just happens to be our very own Neill Ricketts. Why - because the people who wish to progress with graphene (other than single layer very high value for chips - which VRS can do - but it is very expensive and so can others) have come to VRS to make that progress.

What we can do, and I believe we do through our Uni' teams, is progress those areas most likely to benefit and provide the initial proof of how well - or not - it works. And the GEIC will shortly also be all about doing exactly that.

Best wishes - Spike

[superg1] 27/8/2018 21:57

Ash did you see that line in that reach report

Interestingly the Graphene REACH registration consortia defines the substances as ones with thickness of less than 300 nm, thus covering all substances which are thinner than the substances as defined by the graphite consortia (> 350 nm).

How bad is that nano qualifiers are anything under 100nm not 300nm.

100nm in graphene terms is 300 layers.

So in theory that report is talking graphene with layers under 900 and graphite over 1050 layers.

As we known that is not graphene its graphite and it's not even nano graphite either.