Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[superg1] 28/8/2017 21:15

I thought I'd go on the hunt for graphene silicon batteries at Cambridge and came across this for graphene ink and solar cells.

Abstract
We present a stable inkjet printable graphene ink, formulated in isopropyl alcohol via liquid phase exfoliation of chemically pristine graphite with a polymer stabilizer. The rheology and low deposition temperature of the ink allow uniform printing. We use the graphene ink to fabricate counter electrodes (CE) for natural and ruthenium-based dye-sensitized solar cells (DSSCs). The repeatability of the printing process for the CEs is demonstrated through an array of inkjet-printed graphene electrodes, with ∼5% standard deviation in the sheet resistance. As photosensitizers, we investigate natural tropical dye extracts from Pennisetum glaucum, Hibiscus sabdariffa and Caesalpinia pulcherrima. Among the three natural dyes, we find extracts from C. pulcherrima exhibit the best performance, with ∼0.9% conversion efficiency using a printed graphene CE and a comparable ∼1.1% efficiency using a platinum (Pt) CE. When used with N719 dye, the inkjet-printed graphene CE shows a ∼3.0% conversion efficiency, compared to ∼4.4% obtained using Pt CEs. Our results show that inkjet printable graphene inks, without any chemical functionalization, offers a flexible and scalable fabrication route, with a material cost of only ∼2.7% of the equivalent solution processed Pt-based electrodes.

[superg1] 28/8/2017 20:48

BTW

The graphene flagship managers/directors (3 listed) include Prof Ferrari who through the VRS Cambridge graphene acquisition is probably a VRS shareholder as the ink was his baby.

[superg1] 28/8/2017 20:40

Voted down for digging post holes on a hot day. I entirely agree it's stupid thing to do.

[superg1] 28/8/2017 20:38

Just listening to the Vox interview again.

I forget who said it but yes they did mention batteries as a near term plan going with carbon fibre, plastics/polymers and batteries.

He then says they have research and commercial arrangements in place with all of those.

I did say they had a battery room at Cambridge and I did ask questions on them as there were a pile off button type batteries in the room. The guy said they were silicon graphene batteries, WMG also got a mention when I asked questions and they are in collaboration with VRS on batteries.

Clearly things went well at Continental. IY is explained that he never dreamed he could be sat in such of such majors which in this case was the global CTO.

I forget who mocked talking to big names saying talking to a local engineer is low key. They are not talking to people way down the food chain, that's what he travels so much. It's big meetings with top brass.

To quote the talk was about using VRS graphene in almost all of their products (have a listen). It sounds like an NDA is being sorted.

Right on that point he them talks about he downside of being in graphene is that there is so much hype and misinformation out there. As that though triggered while discussing the meeting I take that it was a topic in the meeting.

Off to see some of the worlds largest companies in California.

As mentioned before they have had some innovate grants but don't like to release news unless it's genuinely material.

That last bit fits with what I said. If some are thinking VRS will release news on big names to say we are talking to XY and Z they are mistaken as VRS think NDAs carry no value until they turn into a deal of some type. So by the time you hear of a big name via news it will be material.

For me which won't mean much to any of you there was a clear mention (excuse the pun) of graphene and glass. :-)

[superg1] 28/8/2017 20:05

Sorry digging post holes in this lovely heat distracted me.

hxxps://www.uk-cpi.com/login/resources/tenders/676-nanomaterials-and-composite-materials-1.pdf

[luckyorange] 28/8/2017 18:33

superg, you didn't list the tender!

[shavian] 28/8/2017 15:34

Humanoid: Graphene Flagship has associates in Sweden, Turkey and Israel, so I don't think Brexit will inhibit VRS's participation.

They are hosting Graphene Week in Athens from 25 Sept. PRof Andrea Ferrari is one of the hosts, as is Prof Nevosolov. I note they have not yet updated their associate list to include VRS.



Fest: Technicological Inexactiude I fear. I have merely booked the sale and purchase online for execution tomorrow. I shall try to be more precise in future you old nit-picker! ;0)

[humanoid] 28/8/2017 12:26

Superg1, any thoughts as to what impact Brexit will have on the funding of the graphene flagship? and hence to VRS

[superg1] 28/8/2017 10:55

Now the tender deadline has passed I'll list the tender.

Note the criteria to be met in each case which more or less wipes out 95% plus of producers with the price not being the main interest. Quality is the key.

Quite a few that VRS can hit there and at first glance I can't think of anyone else that can match layer level and lateral sizes. Oh and who does graphene by a liquid method, Cambridge perhaps.

I half wonder re Boron Nitride too. On Cambridge day Ferrari said the method can be used for various products in the process and it is in the rns on that topic.
I mention that as Ferrari mentioned perhaps adding Borin Nitride to the graphene ink to enhance it further.

Some may remember that, I think it was the morning session.

[superg1] 28/8/2017 10:49

Shavian

I heard the word glass but I'll say no more on that.

The graphene flagship now down the line is hard to get into for graphene producers.

In the words of VRS they had to jump through a lot of hoops to get in there even with Prof Ferrari (Cambridge ink) as a lead within the flagship.

I understand the flagship is to get 1 billion funding per year for 10 years.

[festario] 28/8/2017 10:39

Shavian, you did well to sell and buy today sir, with the market being SHUT!

[warwick69] 28/8/2017 10:38

Great posts Superg That really will help people distinguish the good from the ugly I too have met with Neil and I find him honest down to earth hard working and has big skin in the game Glad to be back in this at below placing price never thought that would occur !! Very much a bargain I believe

[superg1] 28/8/2017 10:19

Stevedev

So having explained graphene so many times here you choose to ignore graphene basics and go on about the many doing graphene.

If you do that and invest in companies based on their graphene capacity claims you are going to get stung badly.

If such a company has mass buyers and the share price flies you may get lucky if you sell on the highs.

I repeat many call it graphene as the qualifier is nano. Nano = under 100 nm.
100 nm in graphene terms is 300 layers.

The NGI/UOM and NPL are working together to create graphene standards and you will see (if you look) they go on about under 10 layers.

I was told anything over 10 layers sees a large drop in performance.

I don't do being told I want evidence.

So I hunted for evidence and found many science papers with tests and exact data not just showing lack of enhancement for multi-layer but lack of performance on lateral sizes. They didn't just not perform they actually severely weakened the composites they went into.

You need as few layers as possible while trying to maintain good lateral sizes. It's that combination which is essential. But then it also has to have a low defect ratios.

Often many methods simply smash the platelets to bits which means small lateral sizes and higher defect ratios.

So I heard Thomas Swan have a harsh method and now I have found a paper using their product in tests showing lateral sizes to be very small. Those sizes in another paper are said to be no good for enhancing composites.

[shavian] 28/8/2017 09:34

Just listened again to the Vox podcast with NR. A wonderfully comforting experience which has led me to top-slice one of my long-term winners to top up VRS by yet another tranche. Silly not to at this price. Two points I had missed at the first listening:
* VRS has at last become a member of the Graphene Flagship, the EU-funded research network in all things graphene. Last time I looked in there I could not understand why VRS was not listed as one their associated companies. Glad to see that is now corrected.

* When asked by Justin to list his priorites for Nanene, NR quoted aerospace, automotive and BATTERIES. We have not talked much about battery tech on this board, but it's a HUGE area of tech development worldwide. VRS's known links with the WMG at Warwick University, JLR etc must be significant here.

Roll on the AGM - just sorry I'll be in France that week.

[luckyorange] 28/8/2017 07:52

Watch out for the 's' curve steved.

So now I can't even quote Thomas Swan as the main competitor in the UK superg? You are a pain in the arriss :-) .

At the moment some of the big companies could buy VRS with part of their R&D budget if they wanted to slow the momentum , just a thought!

[sandbag] 27/8/2017 23:21

"Cream floats to the top."

Careful sg1, so does scum. LOL!

[stevedevuk] 27/8/2017 22:03

I watched the video and noticed there are a few others on YouTube, some of which are more recent. I also did a bit of research and noted there are other companies doing graphene work - even MIT for example. VRS are not alone in this area, so the question is will they find a niche to occupy before some other company gets there. I think they have a good chance with the composites and fortunately that seems to be one of their goals. I will invest although I believe it will be a few years before any huge commercialisation.

[superg1] 27/8/2017 20:57

BTW

The paper came out just a few months back.

So I have found papers on many on the majors now with big claims and that Angstrong material has got to be the thickest GNPs I have noted yet. Some of it doesn't even even fit the nano definition of under 100 nm (300 layers)

I have not found one paper yet to show anything of real note re gains.

That recent paper also goes on about there are many aspects of graphene that need to be present.

It's a reason why VRS have gone for the prove it first route as they know there are countless others out there with junk that doesn't work who call it graphene.

They didn't know if theirs would work until they tested it, once they knew it worked they launched it under the name Nanene. They aren't saying it works, the NGI and leading scientists that tested it are.

`That's obviously why Mclaren turned up at the NGI and were told use this one, which turned out to be Nanene. It works as tested and stated by Mclaren's supplier of the carbon fibre NTPT.

As always DYOR. Cream floats to the top.

[superg1] 27/8/2017 20:39

This may as well be in Swahili for some but for me it's an exciting find.

I haven't had the time to do anything for weeks but have had a look at Thomas Swan material and due to that came across another making big claims (Angstrong)

The truth of it all comes out when you find someone using the material in tests which is then written up in a science paper.

But before that I found a document that suggests the only material Thomas Swan do under 10 layer is called premium grade. That would mean other grades are multi-layer and this is shown by the increase in lateral size.

TS for premium grade show 1um on the lateral.

Then I found a science paper testing TS graphene and Angstrong (who make big claims). The tests were for conductivity for ink and on reading the results were not good.

However the paper says the GNPs for Angstrong were much thicker than TS. So there you go Angstrong material is multi-layer and the report shows it's no good for what they were doing.

I say multi-layer but the tests showed layer levels of 50nm, 100nm and as high as 200 nm. Which in layer terms is 150 layers to 600 layers. That isn't graphene that is graphite.

Moving on. TS material had far fewer layers and can be called under 10 layer. BUT then there is a problem and that is the lateral size. The tests show the lateral sizes for the bulk of the material to range from 100nm to 200 nm.

That by anything I have seen is very poor. That's a factor in synthetic graphene where in another paper they show that poor lateral sizes affect performance just like multi-layer does on thickness.

So the TS graphene looks far too small on lateral when they get to under 10 layer and Angstrong calling what they sent graphene is just a con, it was 100's of layers thick graphite.

It is easy to produce many layer graphite and call it graphene but it simply does not work.

The paper goes on to state that point saying there are many differences between graphene out there.

They then go on to say that graphene comparisons are DESPERATELY needed to enable the graphene market.

In other words they got 2 lots of graphene there which were a country mile different but neither worked well. One because it was multi-layer graphite and the other probably due to the poor lateral sizes.

So for many you either take the time to understand it and look or just chase anyone that says they have graphene like a headless chicken.

I can assure you VRS could produce 10's of tonnes of 100's of layers of graphene no problem, but it's junk. It's still 2000 times thinner than a human hair but it's junk.

I imagine Angstrong sent their best product just like TS did.

[superg1] 27/8/2017 11:19

Perhaps those that follow lithium may understand this better. IF they know what technical and battery grade is.

Technical grade is far lower in value in battery grade. The difference in purity for such a big change is about .5%.

Quebec Lithium RB could not get to battery grade which was a big part of their downfall. small margins can be very big in various industries.

In the true graphene world if you don't have few layer, low defect ratios and a good range of lateral sizes then it won't perform in the full range of graphene properties.
Often it will destroy the strength of the original composite.

In the case of Lithium some can get to battery grade and some can't yet they all do lithium.

[superg1] 27/8/2017 11:11

For an example I did a quick search which reminds me to warn of something else.

The advert

"Multi-Layer Graphene (5-10 layers) 90% MIN Guaranteed"

The actual on the same page

"Multi-Layer Graphene, with average thickness 4 – 6 nm."

Don't confuse layers with nm.

In nm terms 1nm = 3 layers of graphene.

So 4-6nm is 12 to 18 layers.

Yet the 'guarantee' is 5-10 layers.

If you didn't know you'd think its better than 5-10 as it's shown as 4-6.

The multi-layer stuff VRS have is called waste material.

[superg1] 27/8/2017 10:41

On the topic off graphene I did see we had a new arrival asking about graphene.

Well to that person and those that may nit know it. If you are talking the full benefits to be gained form graphene then ignore multi-layer.

As mentioned by the CEO in the interview there is a a lot of false stuff about.

That derives from the definition of nano which is anything under 100 nm. 100nm in graphene terms is 300 layers.

300 layers in graphene terms is absolute junk and using that would severely diminish the strength of and composite it went into.

However there are a host of companies claiming to produce graphene as the definition and standards have yet to be established but they are working on it.

EG the UOM and NGI with various others have graphene as anything with under 10 layers average. I and a couple of other guys who are experts have looked through various science papers. One had already determined the reason for the weakness and it was confirmed by some papers.

The conclusions were that when you get to many layer it's the bond between those layers that creates the weakness when added to a composite but because of their movement it does improve elasticity.

We are not talking 100's of layers to see the diminishing effect, once you get over 10 the gains start to fall of a cliff and it quickly turns to material weaknesses created.

One I found used about 15-30 layer graphene and the more they added the weaker the composite became, 80% weaker.

There are companies out there claiming bulk graphene at 50 layers and 100 layers plus. It is junk and that is why few layer is so sought after and highly priced.

Now think of few layer. It has been cycled many times to get to that in a lot of cases and some layers will simply not give up their bond to each other. In others words you have hit a strong bond section of the graphite between the layers.

If you just do multi layer graphene there are billions of platelets at multilayer with billions of weak points.

In few layer you have more or less exhausted all the weak points and at the same time created multiples of the GNPs by weight that exist in many layer cases. So you have stronger GNPs spread at higher rates closer together.

It's not just about layers. For strength the lateral sizes have to have a good range too. Then there is purity and defect ratios.

Then having got to that, does it work, it may not.

NOTE

In all caes I have found data on synthetic GNPs the laterals sizes are very small compared to graphite based GNPs.

EG one has an average of 300 nm for lateral sizes and the graphite guys can be 30 times the size of that and higher with few layer.

Again on synthetic some producers talk of crumpling and folding of GNPs in production. A science paper using them suggest the crumpling is the probable reduction in performance for what they tried and they noted the surface area was the main issue.

Some graphene companies suggest low lateral size are of no use for strength in composites. I put that down to the very small lateral surface level being able to bond with the composite.

In that case if you think of a postage stamp stuck to an envelope then think of it 1mm by 1mm and smaller.

How well do you think it would stick to the envelope with the same glue. In the majority of cases the stamp is going to come off with minimal contact.

So for the news guys I hope that explains graphene a bit.

DYOR