Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[loglorry1] 06/11/2018 14:12

@HK just to add what exactly have VRS invested in their Graphene business in cash terms? They bought the graphene tech for a few hundred K and there's almost nothing capitalised on the balance sheet for R&D. Sure they may have got lucky and just happened to have been given world class IP for a song but that I find extremely unlikely. Companies with strong valuable IP have almost always invested heavily to build it. There is no evidence of that whatsoever at VRS.

[loglorry1] 06/11/2018 14:07

@HK yes it's a serious answer. I've got no problem with growth companies burning cash to develop a foothold in a market. XGS have invested heavily and they have some big clients to show for it. They are ramping up production in the hundreds of tonnes. They have literally hundreds of what VRS call collaborations.

It's possible that they may not make it obviously. I'd say they've got a much much better chance than #VRS.

[grabster] 06/11/2018 14:01

‏

@gnanomat
1h1 hour ago
More
Gnanomat will be attending November 14th-15th the @IDTechExShow in Santa Clara, California. A great opportunity to network with raw material producers, device manufacturers and end-users. Come to join us and @versarien team at booth Z27.#vrsfamily #graphene #EnergyStorage

0 replies 2 retweets 6 likes

[mj10] 06/11/2018 13:53

club
I think the problem is your expections of multiple increases were always far too optimistic partly fuelled by others on here as I have tried to explain in the past.
however you still must have trebled your money,not bad in less than a year.if you have lost confidence take your profit
btw good news for ITM

[herschel k] 06/11/2018 13:49

"@HK XGS are still growing and investing in their production ramp up obviously they'll be loss making for some more quarters. Looks at Tesla or Amazon etc it takes time."

I'm not lying - you seriously call that an answer?!

LMAO!

You mock others for suggesting comparisons to Tesla/Amazon, but do so yourself for XGS (absolutely unreal)

You state that XGS are able to produce and sell multiples of tonnes per year, whereas VRS can only produce a pittance.........yet, when it's pointed out that they are LOSS MAKING and have CLEARLY STATED they don't know if they will ever be able to produce significant commercial volumes of graphene......your answer is "they are still growing"??

Let's revisit in 12 months time and see if they're still needing funding - I notice how "some more quarters" is deliberately opaque, but given their awesome deal with Ford, I'll give you four of them.

[luminoso] 06/11/2018 13:49

The RNS yesterday called the Xingdao agreement a framework agreement. Matt's tweet with a photo of the signing called it a MOU. Are these the same ?
An MOU is surely far more concrete than a LOI ?

[dmorty87] 06/11/2018 13:45

Could I just say that all graphene is not the same,you have got to compare like to like, graphene as i understand it can be in 1000,s of different varieties. Different applications require graphene with a different makeup so trying to give values for how much a ton of graphene is worth is pointless.

[luckyorange] 06/11/2018 13:34

Try not to make any positive comments about the company people otherwise you may be reported 🤣

[club sandwich] 06/11/2018 13:25

for anyone that missed it: Kerr claimed on Twitter it took XG 4 years to sort that deal with Ford. Does rather undermine SG's claim that Ford have bought a pup or that XG is about to go bust. 4 years is plenty of time for Ford to do DD into XG and the product.

Gosh, it's almost as if sometimes SG gets things wrong too. Surely not, he's infallible. Isn't he?

[loglorry1] 06/11/2018 13:23

whereas VRS in the 000's / kilo

@LuckyOrange I believe this is a FUNDAMENTAL AND MONUMENTAL MISTAKE.

I strongly suggest you seek clarification on this. You are about 1000x out on what competitors are selling graphene at now.

As for the "Maclaren" order. I suggest you seek clarification on how much it sold for? What was included in the work? Was the cash ever received.

If it is indeed true that VRS can sell Nanene at 000's per kilo then you are indeed off to the races and VRS justifies the current market cap and more. Unfortunately, all evidence suggests you are plain wrong.

Just as an example to put 1% Nanene into 1 tonne of concrete which costs about $80 it would require 10Kg of Nanene on your figures that would cost thousands of dollars. Similarly for other polymers.

I think the others have it wrong in the price they charge Herschel, on the face of it they only charge in the 000's/tonne if indeed they do sell it by the tonne, whereas VRS in the 000's / kilo, the McLaren one was quite fruitful at around 100k and I think £40k /kilo was mentioned previously or thereabouts for larger amounts, happy to be proved wrong.

[772] 06/11/2018 13:22

This is the Wikipedia definition of a framework agreement.

'In the context of negotiations, a framework agreement is an agreement between two parties that recognizes that the parties have not come to a final agreement on all matters relevant to the relationship between them, but have come to agreement on enough matters to move forward with the relationship, with further details to be agreed to in the future.'

Could it be that the final agreement will involve a whole of China/UK Govt agreement, therefore it can't be fully signed off yet.

Who knows? but we are marching forward albeit not at the pace some want. There are companies with far larger market caps that would give their right arm for these opportunities.

[club sandwich] 06/11/2018 13:21

RTJ - you just made the list. see ya.

[pshevlin] 06/11/2018 13:19

I would really be interested to know who is selling these 25k slabs today. An awful lot gone through.

[chimpandy1] 06/11/2018 13:14

The NGA in America joins Manchester's GEIC as an affiliate partner. This can only help VRS given the already substantial links.http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/11/06/1645795/0/en/National-Graphene-Association-Joins-Manchester-s-Graphene-Engineering-and-Innovation-Centre-GEIC-As-New-Affiliate-Partner.html

[axotyl] 06/11/2018 13:10

The Times (4nov18) had this story:

"UK gives China edge in arms race: Beijing is sending military scientists to British universities to master technology that can be used to build weapons"

about a Chinese military scientist, who had been researching graphene as part of his PhD at Manchester University. He refused offers of work by Western firms and returned to China.

"He is one of an estimated 500 Chinese military scientists who have spent time at UK universities in the past decade".

Can post if of interest.

[cielos] 06/11/2018 13:07

Do you think - Ricketts - sings the song? I'm bored


I'm bored.
I'm the chairman of the board.
I'm a Lincoln monologue,
I'm livin' like a God,
I'm bored, if I don't post on Twitter

video - Iggy Pop - I'm Bored

[luckyorange] 06/11/2018 13:07

I think the others have it wrong in the price they charge Herschel, on the face of it they only charge in the 000's/tonne if indeed they do sell it by the tonne, whereas VRS in the 000's / kilo, the McLaren one was quite fruitful at around 100k and I think £40k /kilo was mentioned previously or thereabouts for larger amounts, happy to be proved wrong.

[runthejoules] 06/11/2018 13:07

Gold star to Serratia for his or her posts this last couple of weeks

Demerits to everyone saying 'don't engage with Club Sandwich'... while engaging with Club Sandwich by doing so. Look, even I'm doing it! Can Superg1 please put a temp ban on those engaging with or responding to CS's posts? You can do me first to set an example!

[loglorry1] 06/11/2018 13:05

"notice my posts to the bears still remain unanswered/unreferenced, as per usual."

Not true @HK I replied. You are lying. Here is my reply in case you missed it.


@HK XGS are still growing and investing in their production ramp up obviously they'll be loss making for some more quarters. Looks at Tesla or Amazon etc it takes time.

We can't tell how much VRS lose on a Mt of Graphene cos they can't produce that much yet let alone sell it.

FGR also lose money right now. So what? You can't expect them to be profitable from day one that's naive.

In any case how does that support your argument if FGR or XGS can't make a profit selling at about $100k/Mt how do you think VRS will manage with only 3mt of production?

[loglorry1] 06/11/2018 13:04

@serratia good post. From the work I've done I would completely agree with this synopsis.

I'm not sure it helps VRS shareholders. Nanene is claimed to be FLG 2-10 layers. As you say for coatings, heat transfer etc. that property doesn't seem to be so important so one ideal use may be as an additive to polymers. Infact NS has said that is the priority.

The problem is that there is a number of research papers out there that suggest over 5um lateral size is optimal and less than that doesn't help. Nanene unfortunately has a range of 0.1um-10um. Looking at the patent for its production it looks like the larger lateral sizes are obtained by less mechanical exfoliation but then you have more layers. PureGRAP claim much larger lateral size and FLG properties so a buyer would go there?

XGS can make FLG but they say they work with their customers to get the right type of graphene for their needs. They worked with Ford to get it right. Talga have had had some success with concrete and batteries again they have the FLG solution if needed.

So the upshot of all this is what? Well I think at best we can conclude that VRS's graphene is no better than the competition. So why the Twitter Multiple of 8x the average peer market cap?

[club sandwich] 06/11/2018 13:02

Fest

"I’d rather he didn’t spend time debating with you, Kempster etc, if I’m honest"

it's even worse than that: when he's not on Twitter he's reading ADVFN! ;-)

[herschel k] 06/11/2018 13:01

yes, but don't forget serratia, VRS are being left behind by all these companies selling their graphene at a loss..........

notice my posts to the bears still remain unanswered/unreferenced, as per usual.

do as I say, not as I do, as per usual.

[scottishfield] 06/11/2018 12:57

excellent post serratia, thank you.

[serratia] 06/11/2018 12:55

Reflections on Graphene quality -



I've read numerous papers on the topic and a number of factors effect quality. Layer number, lateral length, functional groups and structural damage being the main participants.

No papers have been found where one of the above can be studied in isolation. For example a thesis may comment on the effect of layer number but the different materials tested vary with all the other factors. In composites if one test was using a Graphene with few layers but had very short laterals it would perform poorly due to short laterals so nothing could be concluded re layer number. It isn't possible to obtain material which is identical in all variables except say layer number to allow layer number to be examined in isolation.

What we are seeing is for composites very short laterals don't perform. Very long laterals tend to fold during dispersion and unfold when stressed thus reducing the strength. Multi layered material performs poorly as the layers slide over each other under stress. Functional groups added during manufacture should improve dispersion and this happens in most Graphene production processes. The effect of different functional groups on performance hasn't been systematically studied yet but depending on the chemistry of the polymer educated guesses can be made. If you could make Graphene with no functional groups at all would you be able to disperse it in the matrix I would think it would be difficult.

With all the variables there is no single magic cut off number. The implications are that say 5 layer material would give greater benefits than 10 layer and 10 layer better than 15 layer. It looks as though much more than 15 layer reduces performance. Theoretical calculations can be made on the effect of lateral size and these tie in with the poor performance of very short laterals. It's not so easy to predict optimum lateral length as folding during dispersion can override the calculation for an isolated length strength.

What all this implies is that different Graphene's will give different performances. It won't be an all or nothing ie this works this won't within the limits mentioned above. We can say too short or too long laterals will perform badly and 20 layer material will perform badly. Within those limits we should see improvements in performance as we move towards optimum layer number and length.

This all holds for composite strength. If the end use requires other properties such as heat or electrical conductance and strength is not the most important factor then layers/laterals aren't so demanding.



What we are seeing is some customers getting excited by the improvements seen using what might be considered sub optimal Graphene. For example Ford are quite rightly impressed by a 20% strength increase using XG material and are working with it but I would be surprised if more optimal Graphene based on the factors mentioned didn't show a 50% or even 75% improvement. The same goes for tyre strength. Some Chinese tyre producers are showing benefits but they could probably do better.

The 6th element Chinese company have a deal with Huawei in mobile phones for “graphene film cooling technology”. The product profile for heat removal is not as demanding as composite strength Graphene so a material that might be sub optimal for strength could be used in that application. 6th element don't state layer numbers in their data sheets so I can only assume it's multi layer. What if they made the phone casing using a more optimal composite ? They'd get both heat dissipation and strength.

Another 'producer' I looked at said their product contains FLG but when you look at the analysis it's 50% graphite with the rest FLG it's the way you tell them !

My conclusion so far is that yes you will see benefits from sub optimum Graphene's and these will be sufficient to excite the customer but when more optimal Graphene's are tested they will realise that there is a lot more benefit to be achieved.