Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[fhasson] 04/11/2017 19:47

Interesting that after 30 mins going live on Friday's Primary. Bid website money sorted for fundraiser . Have holdings in IQE and OXB which are future-proof investments IMHO Now tempted to further research into Nanene and Manchester Uni so as to decide if it is a world leader. Nobel prize winning Graphene guy must be involved somewhere which would sell it to me.

[luckyorange] 04/11/2017 19:31

I take this as a reference to the new x10 machinery

'We don't have to wait for the oven, we have the recipe, we've cooked the cake in the oven and tasted it already :)'

[luckyorange] 04/11/2017 19:27

from 17 minutes.

[shavian] 04/11/2017 17:54

I have noticed that several of our star posters here have holdings in both VRS and IQE, which in my view are by far the most exciting UK tech companies, and not just in their respective fields. There are many similarities between the quality of leadership and management in VRS with the earlier days of IQE, except that the glory days for VRS seem to be arriving after fewer years in the wilderness than IQE had to endure as they built the expertise to become the global leader in photonics wafers. Both firms are now on the threshold of global greatness and recognition; IQE because of its contribution to the iPhoneX ( but much more besides) and VRS because of its first major collaborative deal with IAI.

I'm proud that they are now my biggest (VRS) and 3rd biggest (IQE) holdings. Much, much more to come our way very soon.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 16:26

The key is VRS have graphene, knew there was a load of junk out there, knew they would have to prove it up to gain recognition and then to avoid tarring with the same brush called it Nanene to separate it from the junk called graphene out there.

It's all about a reliable brand and Nanene may well become that.

Rather than dance around making big claims from the off they put the work in to have the evidence to hand to back up claims.

So once the customers know Nanene works with links to the NGI and Cambridge they will also have confidence in VRS and their products RGO, GO, graphene ink, Boron Nitride and CVD graphene.

VRS have done it the right way around because you can't build a solid business on lies and deceit, at some point when the tide goes out you would be found out and dumped in the gutter.

Great products with a great team tends to equal success.

The evidence of that is IAI not only collaborating but allowing VRS to name them.

There will be many more big names to come Imo.

[phoenixs] 04/11/2017 16:14

Just about sums it all up Superg. VRS is the go to company when graphene, as recognised by ISO and NGA, is needed. That is worldwide not just the U.K. Or Europe.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 16:13

The intense research and reading what scientists say is why I followed VRS and out the hours in to see if their graphene met the standard.

The CEO will readily tell you that until they got it tested they did not know if it would work or not. They thought it would but until it's tried there was no guarantee.

They knew under 10 layer was not the only factor there are various factors. That's why it has been so difficult for many to even get to under 10 layer let alone get all the other characteristics right too.

It's been a long road trying to explain that and we have had a good smattering of idiots deliberately trying to mislead others on the topic.

My advice to anyone looking into graphene companies is to treat all claims as false BS until such point independent testing in products by recognised independent experts is verified. Not claims and comments it has been done, comments for the experts that tested it. EG UOM and NGI or other similar well recognised graphene experts.

As you can see form the NGI and NPL comments a number of companies have been had over buying graphene that doesn't work because it wasn't graphene.

Imo the fault there also lies with the purchaser. If they'd put the effort in I have then they would have known to steer clear of many 'graphenes' for sale out there.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 16:01

To back that up further the National Graphene institute and National Physical Laboratory have just released a codes of practise on the topic.

This is from them not me. It's what I've been reading about and investigating for some years.

I now hear that some in the US are teddy throwing as their graphene businesses are now no longer graphene businesses as they can't meet the standards. It's not about meeting a standard its about something that doesn't work v something that does so it's quite right that the fraudsters out there are now getting kicked in the teeth.

Anyway here is the NGI/NPL comment on the topic.

However, at the same time I also see that there are barriers to commercialisation that are impeding the progress of graphene-enabled products, which need to be overcome. One of these crucial barriers is answering the question “What is my material?”. I have heard many stories of companies trying to use graphene, to find what they have received is not really graphene at all. Similarly, we cannot develop innovative products when we do not know why different initial materials are leading to either positive or negative outcomes. Therefore, the actual material properties of the graphene supplied must be well-characterised. Furthermore, without a standardised way of measuring the properties of graphene that the whole industry can follow, end-users cannot reliably compare material data sheets for the numerous types of ‘graphene̵7; material that are now commercially available.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 15:55

Anley

There was a lot of time wasted on posts challenging others who kept going on about other graphene producers.

The response was in near all cases that it was not graphene and won't work. In other words many companies using the graphene hype to set up as a public company and mislead the market. Others private doing the same.

Like a nice piece of willow middling the red leather ball, that argument has been knocked out of the ground for 6. Many refused to listen even when a mass of science papers and expert opinion was provided.

In many cases for some posters it's simply been about trying to stir things up with lies and misinformation which unfortunately is typical on ADVFN and other such sites.

It puts investors off and worse they may end up buying into the hype junk companies.

The first point is the vast majority of companies claiming to produce graphene are not. It's simply multi-layer graphite, it won't work.

Then for those that can do under 10 layers some can't do bulk levels.

Then comes in other factors like defect ratios , folding, crumpling, edge defects, lateral sizes, purity and so on any of which can mean no matter that you have got under 10 layers it still may not work.

VRS have under 10 layers, they can scale up and bulk produce it BUT the key point is that it works.

The quicker investors put the effort in to understand that then the less likely they are going to back dud companies.

Then they will understand why so many big companies are talking to and doing deals with VRS

The above is why there are 25000 papers per year on graphene but just a handful of examples (mostly VRS) showing that their graphene works.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 15:24

Ax

The lightning strike part is to do with wing edges.

Currently they include copper mesh in the composites to conduct the electricity. That adds weight and cost.

It's been mentioned by a few in the sector.

Graphene composites in wings are way off obviously being a critical part but likely some day.

Don't forget with companies like IAI they do defence too and their is plenty about re graphene and armour.

[luckyorange] 04/11/2017 14:20

Just so you are aware anley, "real" posts cannot be made until there is take up by various companies otherwise the poster usually gets berated as a ramper, dreamer or trying to get the share price elevated.

When it is proven and in production that is when extrapolation is acceptable is it not?

[dr andrewd] 04/11/2017 14:06

Just google "graphene planes and lightning strikes" and loads of examples come up. Eg. This one:

[axotyl] 04/11/2017 13:38

"I have also seen info claiming graphene will protect the aircraft from lightning strikes due to the electrical conductivity".

I'd be interested in seeing any ref., Dr A..... I can't see it would prevent strikes; maybe lessen the potential damage?

[dr andrewd] 04/11/2017 13:24

SG1 yes you are right. This one covers water resistant properties which keeps water uptake and therefore weight of the aircraft down among other benefits such as thermal conductivity for de-icing:



I have also seen info claiming graphene will protect the aircraft from lightening strikes due to the electrical conductivity.

So lots of potential benefits to exploit for aerospace in addition to making better and therefore lighter CFRP structures for planes.

[grabster] 04/11/2017 13:12

Having reread the fundraising rns, it looks that the shares being offered are a specific total number (6.67m), split between institutional and private buyers, but with the proportion of the split not stated. Presumably with a numeric maximum via PBid known to PB, otherwise the offer couldn't have reached it and closed.

"... The fundraising comprises an institutional placing by WH Ireland (the "Placing") in conjunction with an offer via PrimaryBid (the "Offer") (together the "Fundraising"). .."

To me, that word 'together' means that the PB sales and the institutional uptake together make up the 6.67m shares (x £0.18 = the £1.2m fundraising).

I see no info on whether it was a 50/50 split, or 5/95%, or 95/5% or whatever.

[wr63] 04/11/2017 13:11

Ax and Super
I think it is £1.2 million total. I assume institutions had a percentage and the rest went via primary bid. The RNS states an extra 6.67 million share will be issued which at 18 pence totals the above figure.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 13:02

Dr Andrew D

Perhaps there is another factor to take into account.

At the AGM the CEO talked about less water uptake when adding Nanene. I did look up that issue, while carbon fibre has no water uptake the resin does. So in wet conditions the resin absorbs water which adds weight.

Just another factor to consider for the carbon fibre market.

[superg1] 04/11/2017 12:40

Ax

I took it as £1.2 mill via instis then open doors for PIs to get involved.

I hope they took a good slug from PIs to end the funding debate for a while. Nice to see it was about 30% higher than the recent lows.

[phoenixs] 04/11/2017 12:40

at 23p VRS has a value of £33m approx. With the addition of the capital equipment allowing them to x10 production of graphene to meet current demand the valuation seems absurdly low. (5 kilos/week at £10/gram say comes to £50k of revenue with the vast majority of that profit) As more companies do deals with VRS for graphene(nanene) and boron nitride as well as with the other products made by VRS the growth of VRS has only just begun. All IMHO.

Looking forward to the interims, statement etc as well as further new.

[anley] 04/11/2017 11:02

Thank you for your interesting post DR ANDREW.

This is the first "real" post this BB has had for some while and for those who like the P/L account then pencils at the ready.

I wonder if the brokers have or will be producing a report on what may be their most intersting share in there client list?

[the stigologist] 04/11/2017 10:57

I think this video which Neill Ricketts tweeted shows how graphene can be used in cancer treatment

[axotyl] 04/11/2017 10:57

Could someone explain what NR's comment yesterday meant?

"We are delighted with the support we have already received from both existing and new institutional investors for this fundraising, and, as previously, to have the opportunity to allow private shareholders to participate on the same terms as the institutions through PrimaryBid".

Were institutional investors scrambling for their debit cards like the rest of us? Or were they dealt with separately?

Also one or two replies to NR's Twitter feed imply they know what they got in the allocation - is that BS or just alternative facts?

No big deal, just curious.

[dr andrewd] 04/11/2017 10:23

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

[jointer13] 04/11/2017 09:18

i've only just seen the news this morning...it sold out quick.

what I like is..

we are at the forefront of graphene and are pushing ahead strongly

scaling up

I wonder what's coming next