Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[spid81] 19/10/2018 11:18

Hi Ellis, this was drafted prior to the ISO release,
If you read through the document it details the different types of graphene ranging from Very few layer graphene,Few Layer Graphene, Multi Layered Graphene and GNP.

Under the draft ISO both VRS and FGR will produce GNP. there is no definition for vFLG, FLG or MLG.


"1.2 Product Description and Quality"

"A number of different scientific tools and methods are used to assess graphene product quality,
which can vary enormously from one facility to the next. Strictly speaking, graphene is defined as being from 1 to 10 layers in thickness. Once this range is exceeded it becomes graphene nanoplatelets, being from 11 to 150 layers thick. End users may find that a true graphene product is necessary, but others may find that they are happy to utilise less specific graphene nanoplatelet or micro-graphite products to achieve the results they seek, particularly where there is an advantageous cost/benefit compromise.

Analysis by Raman spectroscopy and other techniques has shown that FGR’s graphene is high quality with low defect levels. This is the direct result of our high grade feedstock and the elegant electrochemical exfoliation production method that is almost chemical free, using only dilute sulphuric acid and electricity in the process.

The industry is working with The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to develop the standardised nomenclature needed to develop a universal specification sheet (ISO/TS 80004-13). There continues to be discussion regarding what parameters are the most important, withdifferent applications needing specific properties. Table 1 provides information on FGR graphenefrom independent university testing facilities"

[spike_1] 19/10/2018 11:14

spid: A simple straight forward question:

If FRG graphene is superior to VRS graphene (+Nanene) WHY has the US Graphene Council asked VRS to be the launch client for their Verified Graphene Producer Programme? (see details below)

I would submit - for the same reason the UK Centre for Process Innovation chose VRS (through world wide competitive tender) (see details below).


07/06/2018 Graphene Council Verified Graphene Producer Programme

The Company is pleased to announce that it has been selected to be The Graphene Council's launch client for their 'Verified Graphene Producer' programme, which will independently verify that the Company's Nanene graphene nano platelets meet their demanding standards.

The US-headquartered Graphene Council is the leading platform for people and companies that are interested in the research, development and application of graphene world-wide. Founded in September 2013, more than 4,700 researchers, scientists, students and graphene commercial professionals have already joined. The Graphene Council is the USNC Technical Advisory Group to IEC TC 113, Nano-Electrotechnologies.

Neill: "I am also very pleased that The Graphene Council has selected Versarien to be the launch client of its 'Verified Graphene Producer' programme. Accreditation from The Graphene Council will provide our customers with the assurance that Versarien's graphene is of the highest quality and meets relevant standards.


19/92017 Significant Tender Win

Versarien plc (AIM: VRS), the advanced materials engineering group, is very pleased to announce that it has won a single supplier competitive tender for the ongoing supply of nanomaterials, including the Company's graphene, to the Centre for Process Innovation Limited ("CPI"). The evaluation of the tender was based principally on the quality and specification of the graphene to be supplied with additional marks awarded for price and delivery.

Neill Ricketts, CEO of Versarien, commented: "We are very pleased to have been successful in all the tenders we entered into to supply the CPI with our nanomaterials after a competitive process. This provides further significant independent validation of the quality of the materials we are able to supply and we are now moving from supplying graphene in quantities of a few grams to kilogram sized orders.

[superg1] 19/10/2018 11:12

Been out. First to fix noeces car seat (7.30am groan) then off to a mate gor some quality steak. Golf next (thumbs up from squire).

For those looking at competitors, have fun.

Spid I have pointed put FGRs complete BS and lies which are vlear for all to see with impossible claims.

The claim re the most comprehensive data sheet put there is also a lie.

It’s a factor I go on about. Once you spot outright BS and lies move on as you can be sure other uncontestable claims have lies in them.

I warned many re AGM, same re PRG.

I have been doing the same for years at FUM. FUM CEO needs prosecuting for fraud imo but that’s up to affected PIs to sort not me. Should be an easy win if they did.

[loglorry1] 19/10/2018 11:12

Now 15p below placing price. Where are all these shorts desparate to cover.

Another pump and dump by SuperG and his gang?

[pshevlin] 19/10/2018 11:11

Considering some of the late trade sizes it is almost certainly a fund that is downsizing. Probably Herald but could also be Miton with the current market jitters.

[loglorry1] 19/10/2018 11:11

@spid81 absolutely destroying the bull thesis that VRS have a superior product. Why then should investors pay 10x as much for the shares.

[mryl] 19/10/2018 11:04

Then it's beyond me how you make a point of comparing the different graphene businesses?

Revenue 2017 or 2018:
FGR: $7,180 !!!
AGM: £77,000 (2017: £97,000)
VRS: £9,020,000 (2017: 5,930,000)

That's the thing nobody ever talks about, Versarien is already a well functioning and growing group even without taking into account the 2D material side of the business.
So loglorry, Tim, rainbow, spid, how can you say these different companies should have the same valuation?

[adejuk] 19/10/2018 11:02

my conviction has not wavered
however, it's obvious we need customers or they are shooting at an open goal

[tini5] 19/10/2018 10:52

They've been shorting since 60p

[edit] although some will have shorted from recent highs certainly.

[adejuk] 19/10/2018 10:50

it's irrelevant. if they opened their shorts higher up they are making a lot of money.

[tini5] 19/10/2018 10:46

"There seems to be a correlation between share price action and some people trying to trash via BB postings.

#Fact"


Little gang of shorters trying ever so hard to dig themselves out of their hole. You can tell by the increased activity, you've got some trying to go all out on the "dazzle you with numbers" which is quickly debunked (thanks mryl), to the inane comments on Twitter by Mike E Smith et al.

This activity also co-incides with dips in market so that it appears that their "arguments" have validity when in fact it's more likely a combo of supply from a fund as superg had indicated, with the market factor that's impacting the share price

[spid81] 19/10/2018 10:41

Hi Guys.

Have at nanene's SEM image on page 2 of the TD sheet,you can see the size of the graphene platelets yourself. Nanene graphene platelets are 0.01 - 10um.

Do you honestly think UoM would enter a supply agreement with FGR if they didn't produce graphene.

The Graphite feed FGR use is 97% carbon,

.
Specifications of FGR Graphene
Parameter Measurement
Description Light grey powder
Process Electrochemical exfoliation
Carbon Content > 99%
Ash Content < 1%
Particle Size 40 µm average
Surface Area > 500m2
/g
Layers 1-7
Graphene Resistance < 100 Ω
Electrical conductivity Extremely high
Table 1: Specifications of FGR Graphene

This specification was developed prior to FGR developing the Puregraph Range,


Source page 6-7
hxxps://firstgraphene.com.au/investor-relations/asx-announcements?task=document.viewdoc&id=278


The following presentation details that Nanene average platelet size is 2um, (page 18)

hxxp://www.versarien.com/files/2615/3244/5080/Vesarien_Presentation_July_2018.pdf

Nanene Aspect ration is still lower that FGR's Puregraph5,

Nanene
2000/(5 x 0.35nm) = 2000/1.75 = 1142

[ashehzi] 19/10/2018 10:40

There seems to be a correlation between share price action and some people trying to trash via BB postings.

#Fact

[belo horizonte] 19/10/2018 10:38

Versarien is just a hype machine driven by tweets and ramping. The RNS's and half yearly 's tell the real story, since the CFO won't lie. No board worth talking about, no institutional investors, no analyst cover, constant changing of nomads - I wonder why. Knock that 1 off the beginning of the present share price and you will be lucky to see the remainder in 18 months time. And still the mugs think they are buying a bargain. Anyone want to buy London Bridge?

[mryl] 19/10/2018 10:31

spid, interesting calculations.
So for some reason you assume an average flake size of 500 nm for Nanene when the range is 100 nm to 10,000 nm. Here is your first "mistake".
Second you assume 10 layers for Puregraph when if you look closely nowhere do they state that their product is <10 layers.
Then I don't see any mention of the Carbon content of Puregraph. Nanene is 98%.

[ellissj] 19/10/2018 10:02

Spid. No mention of layers in that blurb. Therefore likely multi layer graphite, ie outside iso graphene defn. I await uk national Physical labaratory testing (NPL) results of graphene products, hopefully asap and before geic opens. Good luck in your fg investment. Goodbye. All in my laymens opinion. Dyor. Best ellis

[spid81] 19/10/2018 10:00

Hi Hoverflyman and Grabster

Fully aware that VRS has more than one graphene product. they appear to have 2 conductive inks, is there any more ?

I will compare the Aspect ratio of VRS nanene vs FGR,

Aspect ratio is the ratio of X-Y lateral size to thickness layers.
The larger the aspect ratio the better it is, subject to dispensability.

Versarien Nanene, is a small sized <500nm X-Y size; few layers graphene
platelet. Let’s assume it has 5 layers as the product information sheet states it is 60% 5 layers of less.

Aspect ratio calculation 500/(5 x 0.35nm) =
500/1.75 = 285.7

First Graphene Product
Using FGR's smallest product Puregraph5, which is 5μm average (5,000nm) X-Y size; and <10 layers = MLG
Aspect ratio calculation 5,000/(10 x .35nm) =

5,000/3.5 = 1428

FGR has a significant higher Aspect Ration 1428 Vs VRS 285.


@rogerbridge - If VRS method was scaleable, how come it is take them until 2019 to produce 2.7t of graphene ?

Source - Page 7
hxxp://www.versarien.com/files/2615/3244/5080/Vesarien_Presentation_July_2018.pdf

[squire007] 19/10/2018 09:57

Three more of my friends have joined the VRS family today ......... :-)

[woodpeckers] 19/10/2018 09:55

:-) Suits him nicely!

[club sandwich] 19/10/2018 09:46

Woody - 'Lord Ricketts of Graphenshire' has a nice ring to it, don't you think? ;-)

[woodpeckers] 19/10/2018 09:44

compoundup, re that comment Neill made in the latest podcast about the 'potential customer' - I commented after the AGM that something I had missed off my notes was that what came across from the meeting is that Neill is such a genuine guy with an incredibly charismatic personality who is so obviously unbelievably excited about the future of graphene and the opportunities that lie ahead of VRS. A couple of people here poo pooed my comment saying that they really weren't interested in how charismatic he is ....Well the fact that that potential customer he got the email from was initially sceptical and wasn't interested but said "you know, we kinda like you Neill..." proves my point.

Graphene has had an understandably slow start so we need a personality like Neill's at the helm to convince the world that it really can do what the scientists say it can and that it is happening NOW and anyone who wants to be a part of it has a fantastic opportunity thanks to our resident morons.