Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 29/10/2018 17:37

@grabster if VRS goes the way of the dodo will you feel proud of all your ill informed ramping?

How about you make a positive contribution and tell me why VRS justifies a £150m premium valuation over it's peer group?

[ewads] 29/10/2018 17:35

timbo (filtered for shouting)

[grabster] 29/10/2018 17:29

loglorry/Tim Kempster - when you look back, later in life, at what you've done in your limited time on this planet, are you going to feel pride in whatever damage you've managed to inflict?

[loglorry1] 29/10/2018 17:07

@billwave my last post discussed a change in the spec of Nanene with respect to chemical composition. That to my knowledge has never been discussed here.

Whereas ellis just posted some out date RNS from July and made some unsubstantiated comment about VRS battery tech being fantastic.

And I'm the one that's repetitive. What are you on about?

[billwave] 29/10/2018 16:52

Log, why are you still here? Surely the purpose of the board is to debate the merits, both for and against, of VRS. The purpose of this is to ultimately decide wether to invest in the company or not? All of your questions and points raised have been sensibly addressed and answered many times. Regurgitating the same points and questions over and over again with ever increasing frequency only serves to bring clarity to your position here and diminish any last trace of credence that anyone on here gave you. Your desperation is becoming ever more tangible. I worry for you.

[club sandwich] 29/10/2018 16:13

RTJ - "I still don't like the Tories, but he's better than Osborne" absolutely no doubt about that.

Of course, if the gov realised that VRS valuation was a stumbling block to a China deal, they could always guide some of that funding the company's way and boost the company's valuation...

[runthejoules] 29/10/2018 16:09

£1.6bn from Spreadsheet Phil for investment in technology... 'Britain is open for business'. I still don't like the Tories, but he's better than Osborne.

[clint fleecewood] 29/10/2018 16:07

Congrats Timbo. My first ever filter on here. I personally don't mind opposing views, though the board has become very repetitive, but the attention-seeking html code snippets are too much.

[ellissj] 29/10/2018 15:54

+nanene seems to have performed rather well here in batteries. And in tests with gnanomat per poddy advice from neill. Dyor. Best ellis

Edit: and the chinese test sample was well received wasn't it per agm ? Best ellis

"Versarien has been working with WMG (Warwick Manufacturing Group) and their partner companies and scientists at the universities of Warwick and Cambridge to collaborate on the production of power storage devices such as batteries and supercapacitors using Versarien's proprietary Nanene graphene nano platelets.  Significant advances have been made through incorporating the Company's high quality graphene into these devices and the Company looks forward to commercial products becoming available in due course."

[loglorry1] 29/10/2018 15:54

@johnveals true as flouride in small quantities it is quite harmless e.g. in toothpaste, water etc, that's why I said "in Some states". If you are going to slag me off and try to put me down can you at least make a better job of it?

Flourine gas in high enough concentrations is highly poisonous. I didn't say that was the case here. I expect it is benign in this case.

[johnveals] 29/10/2018 15:52

And personally I couldn't give a FF about the surface area of a pack of cards stacked, fanned or spread out on the floor.

[johnveals] 29/10/2018 15:48

I see one of the usual idiots now thinks fluorine is poisonous in some states. In this it is probably a bit like chlorine, breath it and you have a bit of a problem, yet combined it with sodium and it is found everywhere, even foodstuffs. Fluoridation of water has probably also passed them by.

They never miss an opportunity to drip their bile.

[grabster] 29/10/2018 15:44

".. I think you’ll find I have never felt more confident"

Versarien's ceo Neill Ricketts today.

[ellissj] 29/10/2018 15:38

Spot on grabster. Desperate is the word alright imo ! Best ellis

[loglorry1] 29/10/2018 15:36

@timbo how do you explain the very low surface area of 45m2/g reported for Nanene?

Pure 1 layer graphene is 2630 m2/g.

Using SuperG's (probably flawed) method to deduce number of layers

2630/45 = 58 layers on average. (Edit was wrongly 35)

Good spot on the Fluorine. I see Oxygen now quoted too. I think flourine is poisonous in some states. Food packaging concerns?

[vasilis] 29/10/2018 15:35

Hi Tim

I think it's best to use this complete data sheet which covers Nanene, Graphene powders,Graphene Oxide and my own personal favourite - Graphinks -


Purpose of use is, as you point out crucial, and the data sheets are merely an indication of potential benefit and not a substitute for composite testing.

So it clearly depends on actual use as to what graphene version to go for - and the market will determine whether 'what it says on the tin' works in practice and to scale as I'm sure you will agree. So far I have every confidence that Versarien will deliver.

[grabster] 29/10/2018 15:32

Desperate detractors behaving so predictably - doing exactly what I said they would be doing this week (post 44237). Going mad with their highlighter pens, frames, whatever they think might grab attention ;-)

[grabster] 29/10/2018 15:31

Desperate detractors doing their damnedest ;-)

[grabster] 29/10/2018 15:29

ellisj - nice link. A fascinating revolution is under way. It's good to be in on it. ;-)

[timbo003] 29/10/2018 15:24

>>>>Loglorry

Yes indeed, I have just compared the Nanene spec sheet from last year, to the latest one (see below), I now note that there is also a large difference in the results from the elemental analysis. The Spec now states that Nanene can contain up to 1% fluorine.

Whilst I have been aware since February 2017 that Nanene is in fact functionalised, I was surprised to see such a high level of fluorine reported in the latest spec. It did not appear in the earlier version.

The presence of Flourine is particularly surprising, as I would expect this to significantly detract from the electrical conductivity (see reference below) and this must raise a question mark over whether Nanene (in its present form) would be suitable for use in batteries or for Airplane construction

[timbo003] 29/10/2018 15:18

>>>grabster

Indeed. For example I wouldn't expect it to be best in class as far as electrical conductivity is concerned, see my next post to loglorry

[ellissj] 29/10/2018 15:17

Plenty to go at ! Best ellis.

'The super materials that could trump graphene'

"A wave of innovative flat materials is following in the wake of graphene — but the most exciting applications could come from stacking them into 3D devices.

Elizabeth Gibney
17 June 2015"

[timbo003] 29/10/2018 15:16

>>>>>serratia

Re concrete

I would expect the mixing time and mixing conditions to be absolutely crucial for concrete. I suspect there will be very large sheer forces in industrial sized mixers, so what ever you start with regarding platelet size and layer number may not be what you end up with! I also suspect you will get very different results on scale up compared to lab scale (due to the large change in sheer forces during mixing)

Having said that, I think Eden Innovations (ASX) are quite advanced in their work using Carbon Nanotubes for this purpose.

[serratia] 29/10/2018 14:35

I have a fair number of posters filtered so miss a some of the posts. I was sent an e-mail re a concrete posting which I had reviewed so thought I'd better correct that poster. The post mentioned adding Graphene at 1% so it wouldn't be worthwhile. The paper which I related to and I posted on said optimal 0.07 % and a lot of the benefits were shown at 0.04%. Apparently the poster was willing to be corrected. There seems to be a tactic here - Post a false statement with apology if wrong. ie get the false statement out there for all to read. Quite sneaky.

I went on to suggest a Graphene price which I also posted. That price was without other additives which are often used so they could be halved. Also it didn't include transport which could also be halved as half the concrete would be needed for the same strength. These would both allow Graphene to be sold above my rough guide price.