Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[luckyorange] 15/11/2018 16:59

For those that don't know Dr Andrew Deakin has worked in engineering for years , knows what he is talking about and works for VRS. The research he does is rigorous and checkable, anyone trying to debunk it with no qualifications is a tw@

[mryl] 15/11/2018 16:57

Great post Luckyo / Andrew,
and again, this massive market is just for graphene and just for Aerospace...
🤑🤑🤑

[luckyorange] 15/11/2018 16:40

And this one of course, bet he is getting excited now !

"Now that we have the collaboration agreement in place with Israel Aerospace Industries, I have revisited a post I made back in March #2579 on the business case for graphene in carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) for the aerospace industry. A summary is as follows:

Based on Graphene enhanced CFRP data published by VRS, you might expect a 20% weight saving to be possible for the CFRP that is used in aeroplanes. This is similar to what Dassi have claimed is possible for bike frames containing graphene that are in production (source of graphene unknown).

If you could save 1000kg of weight in an aeroplane, this results in >100 tonnes of fuel saved per year, which is >£40,000. In addition, 1000kg of CFRP is removed saving a further £80,000

Plane life is 20-25 years, but if we said pay back needs to be achieved in 10 years, then £400,000 of fuel is saved plus the saving in CFRP and therefore the graphene could cost up to about £500,000.

To save 1000kg of CFRP, you will replace 5000kg of CFRP with 4000kg of graphene enhanced CFRP.

The CFRP will need approx 3% graphene in the resin, but as a lot of the material is carbon fibre, it will need something like 1.25% of the 4000kg to be graphene, so 50kg or 50,000 grammes of graphene. The graphene therefore needs to cost £10/g or less to make economic sense, a price point which I believe is possible with volume manufacture whilst retaining a reasonable margin.

In addition to graphene in CFRP being economically viable for aerospace, the CO2 savings would be around 2500 tonnes less fuel burnt over the life of the plane from a 1000kg weight saving, so the environmental benefits will clearly be significant.

The aerospace and defence market for CFRP is predicted to be about 70,000tonnes and $7.3bn in 2020, growing at about 10%/yr and and in theory there could be the potential to use 700 tonnes of graphene if there was 1% used in all CFRP. This is a rather large potential market which could use multiple billion dollars worth of graphene in the long term.

If VRS graphene proves to be the graphene of choice for aerospace then the future will be very exciting for all shareholders. The IAI agreement is a big step in the right direction to make it happen.

References to the data sources are in my previous post.

AIMHO"

[ellissj] 15/11/2018 16:39

Lol lucky ! And rocket parts are out of this world ! :-D Atb. Ellis

[fruitpastel] 15/11/2018 16:36

On the cost of graphene I can recall watching a presentation in 2017 showing NR handing a container with half a gram of real graphene around the audience. He quoted the contents were worth £200, so £400 per gram. Obviously this may have changed but at least a real figure at a point in time.
(9min 30sec onwards) worth watching complete presentation
FP

[luckyorange] 15/11/2018 16:36

Just re-visiting Andrews post from this time last year before he joined the company.

"There have been some comments from people on how VRS can make a profit. Here are some thoughts to understand potential shorter term VRS profits from just Nanene.

We can do calculations on the profit from the new machine and come up with a variety of numbers, for example:
- 1kg per day, is that for an 8hr day, if so range is 5kg for a 5 day 9-5 week, but up to 20kg per week running 24/7
- price per gramme, £200 for research has been suggested, £50-100 is what I think Sg1 suggested for initial higher volumes, my aerospace calculations suggest £10 could be supported in the long term (perhaps 5-10 years time?).
- opex is pretty low, with graphite which is cheap and some staff costs etc

If I take my long term price and say 50% margin (likely to be more IMO), so £5 per gram profit and 5kg per week, profit is £1.25 million per year from one machine
If you were more optimistic and said £50 per gram profit and 10kg per week, you get to an incredible £25 million per year from one machine

Neither of those are bad for a £1.2 million target cash raise, a portion of which was for hardware, so costs to buy additional machines could quickly be covered.

The actual profit will clearly depend on whether samples are supplied free of charge, the actual sales price that can be achieved for kg quantities and the quantities being supplied which may take some time to ramp up to full capacity.

I can only guess that somewhere around £10 million, perhaps +/- £5 million profit per machine maybe reasonable in the next 1-3 years assuming the orders come in and that will drop as more machines come online and production ramps up, but that is speculation.

Note, 250kg (50 weeks at 5kg per week) of graphene would be enough for 25 tonnes of CFRP, so not an unreasonable amount to sell in a year.

So the potential could be huge and a couple of highly profitable machines producing Nanene with a rapidly growing business could easily justify a £250 million mcap assuming deals in the pipeline come off and their aren't too many hiccups along the way. Plenty of ifs, buts and maybes to answer to get there, but could be achievable with a world leading product.

AIMO"

Now he is working for the company he will know that 'free' is a four letter word and everything else that he didn't know at the time he will now know!

[adejuk] 15/11/2018 16:35

i have concluded that i will unfilter loglorry
after every one of his posts i will agree with him without reservation and encourage him to short more stock. i will not mention his name again

[richie32] 15/11/2018 16:34

This order is fantastic because we all know that the aircraft have one of the most rigorous regimes there is for testing and proving safety etc.

This has ticked many boxes, not just for the customer but for many others.

[fireball xl5] 15/11/2018 16:29

I have a question. If we put Nanene into Brexit will it simplify the manufactured exit, make it stronger, lighter and safer? It’s got to be better than what’s on offer or even the idea itself.

[compoundup] 15/11/2018 16:27

chumbo - raise you:

[ellissj] 15/11/2018 16:23

Indeed, disruptive to the point it sells itself ! Imo. Best ellis

[willoicc] 15/11/2018 16:18

NR podcast 3 mins in



'enabled us to be able to simplify the manufacturing route which enables the part to actually be cheaper than if it did not contain graphene'

Wow.

[luckyorange] 15/11/2018 16:18

Are aeroplane parts blue sky thinking? 🤔

[bootie64] 15/11/2018 16:16

Added App A link to other post

[chumbo1] 15/11/2018 16:14

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aj0zhXlLA

[bootie64] 15/11/2018 16:08

Toot toot!

[luckyorange] 15/11/2018 16:08

Is that the train coming down the track bootie? 🤔 👍

[ellissj] 15/11/2018 16:02

Excellent research bootie. If partners such as these can collab and reduce costs through vrs 2D products, they have a competitve tender ! Bish, bash, bosh ! Aimo. Best ellis

[jbe81] 15/11/2018 16:00

Great interview

[festario] 15/11/2018 15:58

How come Nanene wasn't mentioned in the RNS?

[bootie64] 15/11/2018 15:57

Ellis,
Both AECOM and PriestmanGoode are mentioned in this report from Sept 2018

HYPERLOOP – OPPORTUNITY FOR UK SUPPLY CHAIN



"It is noted that UK architects and engineers have already started to undertake work on hyperloop. For example, PriestmannGoode has designed the initial concept for HTT. 19 Ryder, an architecture firm based in Newcastle, were involved in the ‘Northern Arc’ Hyperloop One Global Challenge submission, and the London office of AECOM developed concept station designs for the ‘Wales to Scotland’ route, details of which can be
found at Appendix A."

[jointer13] 15/11/2018 15:57

yes ignore the liars