Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 24/10/2018 14:19

Someone posted a claim that XGS's products used as a composite filler did not add strength.

This link disputes this

It's also clear from this article that their xGnP-C-300 product is not inferior to Nanene. 2nm @~ 6 layers.


The second filler was xGnP-C-300, which has a 2 -mm
average particle diameter and a thickness of 2 nm.
xGnP-C-300 has a density of 2.0 g/mL and a surface
area of 300 m2/g.1 Since xGnP-C-300 is smaller and
thinner, more edge groups are present and so they have
more functional groups as compared to xGnP-M-5.

[graphite bot] 24/10/2018 14:17

well worth a look hxxps://www.chemspeceurope.com/2019/assets/2._Versarien_Graphene_scale_up_Hodge.pdf

[forestfred] 24/10/2018 14:16

Scottishfield
Thanks for your reply .

Hopefully others will follow and then we can get back to business and supporting each other and stop the board being clogged up with BS and people who have no interest other that a destructive agenda .
It’s dragging the share price down as well so costing us all money and has a bad vibe to it unitied we stand folks .
People putting seeds of doubt intentionally is not what we’re about here
I bought more but some have sold and lost £1000 as well as a destructive effect on this great little company
Because of these muppets.
Ff

[scottishfield] 24/10/2018 14:12

Yes agreed forestfred, I have them all filtered, not interested in the slightest, waste of my time reading it all.

[2dinvestor] 24/10/2018 14:07

Still holding my shares and not selling any time soon!

I saw this and wondered if anyone else knows more? It would be a shame if Samsung have done this all on their own, but I suspect they will have had some help - if so I wonder who from?

hxxps://www.techspot.com/news/77076-samsung-graphene-batteries-which-can-charge-phone-12.html

[hoverflyman] 24/10/2018 14:00

Bisho4... thanks, more very interesting info. Cheers.

[forestfred] 24/10/2018 13:56

Food for thought .

Guys girls is it best just filtering or indeed just ignore all the posters whose sole intention is to slate Vrs and missiform cause concern to it’s share holders with a view to reduce the share price and Vrs progress for their own gain .
Why bother to converse with them at all as they have a agenda that’s helps no one bar them.
If you feeding them they keep coming back and the board is then diluted with their BS which can only discourage new interested investors and people hoping for constructive view points ?

So it lowers the quality and dynamics of the board which always was not like other boards in content and always constructive it seems to have changed in dynamics of late ?

Thoughts please is this a good option to consider.
Maybe agree a list of these trolls and agree to filter or I ignore and get back to the business of helping each other and any new genuine joiner to this board .
The integrity and support of many on this board is second to none that’s why we are a Vrs fsmily let’s fight back as a family !!

Ff

[jointer13] 24/10/2018 13:55

talk about desperation !!!

[loglorry1] 24/10/2018 13:54

Fair enough @HK I only just read @spids reply now. As you can see it crossed with my post. I think the overriding point though is that XGS are selling their product and have had very large companies like Ford build it into their own products yet are valued at a fraction of #VRS.

It really is horses for courses here. There is no one size fits all solution. That's why the £150M+ premium investors are paying for VRS is daft IMHO.

[herschel k] 24/10/2018 13:45

loglorry1 24 Oct '18 - 13:38 - 43229 of 43230 0 0 0
@HK you can keep on denying the obvious but I'm pretty sure as one of the more intelligent posters here you realize that this was no "typo".

Also I'm pretty sure you are realising that the idea of Nanene being the "best" in order to justify its £150M+ premium is systematically being destroyed.

This all points to Nanene being just another GNP solution out there looking for sales. There is simply no evidence to suggest it has any magic bullet status. In fact not even Versarien themselves claim this although SuperG does obviously.

---------------------------------------------

I haven't made any comment about any other typo, only mine (which you pointed out).

In terms of the idea "systematically being destroyed" - erm.....LOL.....that's your opinion only - I've already had Spid admitting he made a mistake (there's a massive difference between the two of you, at least he appears humble enough to admit when he does), and answered his question clearly and concisely.

So, in short, no it doesn't point to what you say at all.

I'm done now anyway - you can keep posting all you like, because as soon as you actually get a response showing you don't know what you're talking about, you just change the attack angle with generalisations.

H

[loglorry1] 24/10/2018 13:43

In response to the Concrete example given one can see that Adelaide university FGR's partner have had similar results.



Again it all points to the simple fact that Nanene is another but not better GNP solution.

[tini5] 24/10/2018 13:43

Yeah, he's got size issues.

[andymoore07] 24/10/2018 13:40

Hi ChapsBeen away for a few weeks, what's been going on?I see that end of a bell ? Log Lorry is back?!

[herschel k] 24/10/2018 13:39

"XGS are one of the few GnP companies actually selling their product with CONFIRMED sales from Ford Motor Company. They are valued at around £25m based on their last fund raise which was successfully completed recently I believe."

-----------------------------------------------

Yes........if you're referring to the fund raise proposed in Dec 2017, then it also said this:

"XG Sciences, Inc. was incorporated on May 23, 2006. We have not yet demonstrated sales of products at a level capable of covering our fixed expenses.
Since inception, we have not demonstrated the capability to produce sufficient materials to generate the ongoing revenues necessary to sustain our
operations in the long-term. Nor have we demonstrated the ability to generate sufficient sales to sustain the business. There can be no assurance that the
Company will ever produce a profit."

and

"We have no sustainable base of products approved for commercial use by our customers, have never generated significant product revenues and may
never achieve sufficient revenues for profitable operations, which could cause us to cease operations. XG Sciences primarily sells bulk materials or products made with these materials to other companies for incorporation into their products. To date, there has been no significant incorporation of our materials or products into customer products that are released for commercial sale. Because there is no
demonstrated history of commercial success for our products, it is possible that such commercial success may never happen and that we will never
achieve the level of revenues necessary to sustain our business."

and

"We have limited experience manufacturing our products. We have established small-scale commercial or pilot-scale production facilities for our bulk
powders, thermal interface materials (“XG TIM™” or TIM), XG Leaf® and SiG materials, but these facilities do not have the existing production
capacity to produce sufficient quantities of materials for us to reach sustainable sales levels. In order to develop the capacity to produce much higher
volumes, it will be necessary to produce multiples of existing processes or engineer new production processes in some cases. There is no guarantee that
we will be able to economically scale-up our production processes to the levels required. If we are unable to scale-up our production processes and
facilities to support sustainable sales levels, the Company may be forced to curtail or cease operations and you could lose all or a significant part of your
investment."

Just giving the full picture............

H

[loglorry1] 24/10/2018 13:38

@HK you can keep on denying the obvious but I'm pretty sure as one of the more intelligent posters here you realize that this was no "typo".

Also I'm pretty sure you are realising that the idea of Nanene being the "best" in order to justify its £150M+ premium is systematically being destroyed.

This all points to Nanene being just another GNP solution out there looking for sales. There is simply no evidence to suggest it has any magic bullet status. In fact not even Versarien themselves claim this although SuperG does obviously.

[ellissj] 24/10/2018 13:38

 "Exfoliated graphite nanoplatelets (M25), produced by via the sulphuric intercalation of graphite, were obtained from XG Sciences (East Lansing, MI, USA). The M25 nanoplatelets are reported by XG Sciences to have an average thickness of 6–8 nm (∼20 graphene layers) and they were found to have an average diameter of 7.7 μm (see Supplementary Information–Fig. S3). Since the M-grade materials have more than 10 graphene layers they should be termed “graphite nanoplatelets”. They are, however, called “graphene nanoplatelets” by XG Sciences and since this terminology has been used widely in the literature, it will also be adopted in this present study."

[superg1] 24/10/2018 13:37

Bisho

For your info there has been some tests re functionalisation and in some cases it damages the platelets.

In all tests relating to the tests I hear that there it was either detrimental or no gain.

It's a case of going through the processes to see what works. There are other papers about saying functionlisation damages the basal plane.

[superg1] 24/10/2018 13:32

Zagros

His name is Mike Langdon, he falls out with his beloved Wrexham FC guys all the time (unsurprisingly).

[club sandwich] 24/10/2018 13:30

anotherdrink: well you know what the Klingons say - revenge is a dish best served at room temperature...

[p@] 24/10/2018 13:27

Neill Ricketts‏ @neillricketts


Follow Follow @neillricketts

 More

sorry reel of some real evidence, you do know the main reasons for revisions are mistakes and updates, as I said our quality of platelet size has improved, just for you the delivery date for the new plant has moved forward, unless I also made that up :)

[herschel k] 24/10/2018 13:26

loglorry1 24 Oct '18 - 13:15 - 43219 of 43220 0 1 1
@HK the only guarantee VRS can give is that the platelet lateral size is between 0.1 and 10um. They have deleted the average platelet size during a "typo" incident at some point in the past although we don't know when. We have no idea where it sits in that range anymore.

------------------------------------------------------

see, this proves you simply don't know what you're talking about Tim.

I'm talking about particle size, not platelet size.

You say we have no answer to Spid, yet I provided one and he has accepted his mistake - it completely explains the question he asked.

And yes, I did mean 0.1um, it was a typo - difference is, it's clearly a typo and I don't need to try and justify anything by it.

You are simply looking for things to jump on to try and support your case, but it's clear you don't actually really know what you're looking for at all.......

H

[anotherdrink] 24/10/2018 13:26

I am so cosmic ordering right now. Two things - 1) order RNS' and 2)real comeuppance for certain people. Instant karma's not too much to ask for is it? :)