Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 27/10/2018 12:16

@squire true but they've also put money in along the way to grow it.

The Chairman if FGR put in a lot of real cash.

The point surely is that having paid £4000 for shares and now owning £28m of shares and options it's reasonable to assume he's want to sell shares soon.

Of course he can't say so beforehand.

[forestfred] 27/10/2018 12:09

Who do you want to believe.
These couple of characters are taking the ...

facts for discussion

China and their president has shown massive interest in graphene and the uni of Manchester so have global companies , and American graphene council asking Nr to be involved .
This is countries we’re talking here .

The uk goverment not involved for the hell of it.
The university’s of Manchester -Cambridge.

They are top ranked global uni,s with top graphene experts .
Indeed the home of graphene .

Ongoing
Some of the worlds top Global companies in collaboration from different sectors with Vrs .
I have still missed loads haven’t I .

Let’s have a chat about the positives if were taking about both sides and have a balanced chat .

The positives massively out number the negitives .
So on balance and track history .

I’m the above
Anyone !
Ff

[lovat scout] 27/10/2018 12:09

What NR paid for his stake is irrelevant. No one criticised Bill Gates, Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos initial costs in their garage start ups. I know nothing and care less about EVRH - caveat emptor.

Fair value is not an exact science and clearly PB raise for Gnanomat acquisition and funding on balance sheet does not correlate to market valuations. I don’t need help there but thanks for the offer and that maybe where you’re going wrong?

The m/c is the market risk/reward view on future prospects, which at the moment don’t include a survival fund raise. This may be expensive in some people’s eyes but look at the size of the end market.

AIMHO and I don’t regard VRS as a slam dunk, just a very healthy prospect!

[squire007] 27/10/2018 12:02

Log, the founder of almost every company going paid fekk all for his shares, your just not being logical ! Yet you claim to invest in many with the same set up !!! Grow up or ferk off

[spid81] 27/10/2018 11:58

I just had a good laugh SG1,

So XG science H Grade graphene has a surface area of 50-80m2,
Single layer graphene is 2630 m2

2630 divided by 50m2 = 53 layers
2630 divided by 80m2 = 33 layers,

Did you know if you run this same calculation on Nanene you get the following

2630 divided by 45m2 = 58 layers.

The maths don't lie.

Source for the surface area of Nanene




___________________________________________________________

MY RESPONSE

You clearly don't get it. First the maths then the analogy to explain the difference.

H grade 50-80 divide that into 2630 and you get 33-53 layers.

VRS use a more accurate more accurate way of surface layer dispersion. That's why VRS are seeing interest they say it as it is with no BS.

[loglorry1] 27/10/2018 11:55

@ff Is it possible people could be being paid to continuously posts POSITIVE posts on this board?

It's happened before.

[forestfred] 27/10/2018 11:50

Is it possible people could be being paid to continuously posts negitive posts on this board .
Because it is constant and relentless by certain parties .
They will never agree to any positives and only spout as much negitive as they can
With their own or their employers interests at the heart of their posts .

No person in their right mind can fail to see the progress that has been made and global , yes global interest in this company .
Ff

[spid81] 27/10/2018 11:50

Oh dear SuperG1,

You certainly know how to mislead,

FGR has provided the references to the process on the Product Information sheet,

If you read page 2 on the link below you will see
• Multi-layer graphenenanoplatelets confirmed by Raman spectroscopy5

5 is referenced at the bottom of the page,
REFERENCES 5 Ferrari, A. C. et al. Raman spectrum of graphene and graphene layers.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 187401, (2006)

Would you like me to add a photo and have someone else upload it onto this thread so you can see ?

[loglorry1] 27/10/2018 11:44

SuperG I'm a bit confused by your posts you use mm (millimetres) when I think you mean nm (nanometres).

As you know VRS use Ramman Spec too to measure distribution of layer numbers. Are you saying that VRS do it properly but FGR are not performing the tests correctly and giving false figures to the market? Are you acussing them.of fraud?

[loglorry1] 27/10/2018 11:38

@lovat good post.

"For management to cash in lumps of shares they have to deliver a sustainably profitable company (or engineer a takeover). No sensible investor will buy lumps of shares from management before that happens."

Alas on AIM that's simply not true. A recent example is EVRH. Don't forget NR paid £4000 for his c£28million of shares.

"Selling small amounts for charitable purposes is an exception to the rule and as long as the board don’t start giving themselves huge pay rises, shareholders should take comfort from their incentives."

The donation is still pending but should happen. We don't know how much of the share sale proceeds are being given away.

"As for valuation differences between the various nanotechnology companies, why is anyone surprised that those with enough cash in the bank to see their strategy through to fruition trade at a significant premium to those that will soon need any sort of funding they can get?"

If you think a £4m raise justifies a £150m premium I can't help you. It is a positive. Other companies have had no problem raising in recent rounds eg XGS FGR. I'd agree others like Haydale I think are in trouble at £8M market cap.

-----

[luckyorange] 27/10/2018 11:32

Short term squire , you know that!

[squire007] 27/10/2018 11:18

I an just glad my mates on a small start up investment are a penny down where I am 30p down on lots .... :-0

[1teepee] 27/10/2018 11:10

Have you seen the pictures of the puregraph compared with nanene? Smashed up it looks like to me

[superg1] 27/10/2018 11:06

I think NR mentioned some measuring points on Twitter. I didn't read the twitter stuff that much but think I saw that.

That can be another area for BS and I had to find some old data as I recalled reading it.

FGR method on their current data sheet which lacks layers levels and other important factors yet it's comprehensive apparently.

Method used by FGR


2 Raman spectroscopy analysis using a large area remote sampling probe.

I'd have to dig further to understand what that type is. Serratia, any clue?

But on the Raman spectroscopy way it can include lasers, whether probe is/means laser I don't know at the time of typing, I'll have to look it up.

My point is even if probe = laser then the typical laser beam diameter for Raman Spectrometers is 3-5 um. So they can't possible give accurate information on anything below 100’s of layers as the laser is too thick to measure them

My point is it could also be so easy for the BS baffles brains technique for any company in this space, just by sticking Raman in a data sheet.

Which Raman what sized laser, which is the most accurate one.

Perhaps the Raman probe method doesn't do layer levels hence it's not on the FGR data sheet, Why exclude it, it's one of the most impotent factors for the full gains for graphene GNP use.

A 3um laser is 1/250th of a mm wide and it's 9000 times to thick to measure a .34 nm platelet which is what a single layer graphene is.

I'd have to do some work on it. The point is not all uses of the word Raman are the same which is probably the point NR was raising.

[johnveals] 27/10/2018 11:04

Yet more sophistry from the resident idiot I see. He does try hard, I’ll give him that, but his duplicitous nature always shines through.

[jointer13] 27/10/2018 11:04

I agree...the pair of them are trying to mislead.

[lovat scout] 27/10/2018 10:58

For what’s it’s worth (and it’s very important to me)I think VRS management and shareholders are in economic alignment.

For management to cash in lumps of shares they have to deliver a sustainably profitable company (or engineer a takeover). No sensible investor will buy lumps of shares from management before that happens.

Selling small amounts for charitable purposes is an exception to the rule and as long as the board don’t start giving themselves huge pay rises, shareholders should take comfort from their incentives.

As for valuation differences between the various nanotechnology companies, why is anyone surprised that those with enough cash in the bank to see their strategy through to fruition trade at a significant premium to those that will soon need any sort of funding they can get?

[luckyorange] 27/10/2018 10:56

They are just misunderstood superg 😊

I think Tim is actually in love with NR but like a petulant child trying to impress him, if only once , just once Neill could tell Tim he is right all would be well.

Can you imagine what it is like to be wrong ALL of the time and in front of everybody, he is trying to impress bless him yet STILL gets it wrong even when he is given clues and pointers.

[loglorry1] 27/10/2018 10:50

",I think he deliberately misleads people"

@Ricky can you give me an example of that. I'm more than happy to correct this if it is true.

A lot of posts today from SuperG which I'll respond to. I would argue he is misleading you as follows.

In not one post does SG address the valuation mismatch. Further he himself says out if 200 Graphene producers 95% were not producing Graphene. So by his own admission there are 10 that do. From the ones I've looked at there are some doing it at the 100mt/yr level.

Further some have better properties including that of lateral size.

He has not once addressed the key point which is what justifies the £150m premium for VRS.

SuperG also admits some larger flake size and higher level numbers, with certain functionalization work better in some applications. This would suggest Nanene would not be suitable in these areas vs competition. What niche therefore is Nanene suitable for?

SuperG says any other FLG producers have such tiny lateral size that they are rendered obsolete. Again not so. PureGRAPH has huge lateral size compared to Nanene and similar layer numbers. There are other examples. His statements about XGS are just wrong and he didn't provide links to papers he claims support them.

This link is interesting as it also disputes SuperGs claims



SuperG says those with small layer numbers are "smashed" up so have bad lateral size properties. However Nanene min lateral size is only 0.1um. VRS have admitted a fundamental change in the Nanene tech sheet where the minimum lateral size was reduced by a factor of 5 and no average given. Is the pot calling the kettle black here?

Lastly SuperG notes that Ray Gibbs states that out of 230 samples tested all were not up to scratch. What he fails to mention as pointed out by @spid above this INCLUDES Nanene!

[superg1] 27/10/2018 10:41

Dear all read the below


FFS Spid

You clearly have no frigging clue what you are talking about and your point has been covered many times. That explains why you are sucked in by the FGR BS.

Try studying a graphene a bit instead of baffling for BS provided by others. I spent many months with others (some experts) trying to get my head around the layer level point.

I have you filtered I posted that but on a thread search for something unfortunately it brings up this that are filtered in the list.

You are misleading investors.

YOUR POST points

Hi Superg1, I posted this earlier, I am still yet to see your reply.

Can you please explain the following as I find it really hard to understand why you think FGR are BS their investors,

Single layer graphene having a surface area of 2630m2 / g

XG science's Grade H is 15nm in thickness (44 layers)has a surface area of 50-80m2/g - this is very similar to the nanene surface area.

XG Science's Grade C ( the closest product to nanene)is few layer graphene, with a average platelet of 2um, can be ordered with surface areas of 300, 500 & 750 m2/g

Why does Nanene few layer graphene only have a surface area of 45m2 /g Vs XG sciences 300-750m2 ?


MY RESPONSE

You clearly don't get it. First the maths then the analogy to explain the difference.

H grade 50-80 divide that into 2630 and you get 33-53 layers.

VRS use a more accurate more accurate way of surface layer dispersion. That's why VRS are seeing interest they say it as it is with no BS.

Grab a pack of cards and they form a disorderly pile with just about all over-lapping each other some significantly. This is what happens when GNPs are mixed into products they overlap.

VRS guidance is based on the reality of overlapping rather than the impossibility of the plates all nicely sitting side by side in all directions edge to edge in perfect dispersion.

You have just shown that either you have no clue what you are talking about OR you are DELIBERATELY trying to mislead others.

Now I believe you have nothing to do with The TW gang out to lie however if you want to keep it up I'll happily include as one of the crooks.

[rickyl1] 27/10/2018 10:29

I think it's more about thinking for yourself and working stuff out,hence my decision to buy while we're down here. Don't get me wrong,I think he deliberately misleads people but it's up to you to see through it.I'm even more resolute thanks to Loglorry.

[compoundup] 27/10/2018 10:28

At the AGM, I recall Neill expressing a pleasant surprise that not a single vote was registered against any of the motions.So there were around 150 in attendance, all supporters. At least any detractors would have been a tiny minority and well advised to keep their heads down.How many manufacturers get a greater number of people attending their AGM than they have employees?I don't think a few scurrilous posts from individuals with some odd agenda is going to sway the demonstrated strength of support for Neill and the team. Filter the lot of them. You won't be missing anything.