Versarien Share Discussion Threads

[schmally] 11/11/2019 20:36

Well let’s assume Nanoexplore’s Graphene black was as good as VRS in the arch application. Well your right, I wouldn’t like it. But then again Aecom would love it and no doubt they would have done some due diligence in relation to suppliers and their quality of product. I can only assume the reason Aecom chose VRS was because (and you won’t like this), the NanoExplores product is inferior. Unless of course you think Aecom are unable to assess their supplier options diligently and effectively. A major infrastructure consultancy firm that can’t undertake diligent and comprehensive procurement??? Really? Your arguments are getting very weak now.

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 20:28

Yet these guys are not ordering are they? Didn't you notice there are no substantial sales. Again why?

Hockey stick growth doesn't flat line for years.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 20:26

Headphones first, phone cases next. Nice little niche products that help increase consumer awareness. Nothing wrong with that. If the airline thought it beneficial to retrofit their fleet with the interior parts, then this suggests significant safety benefits and/or cost efficiencies. One airline can then lead to more undertaking the same exercise. A decent market with potential to expand for use in other aircraft interior parts. Drilling contract. Clear cost benefits to the first adopter. If benefits clearly proven, Other drilling companies will be looking to follow suit. Yet more market awareness and customers who will look at what other applications that Graphene can benefit. Excellent real world applications in massive industries and these are just the niche areas VRS are focusing on. The big 5 are massively bigger, so nothing like a sledge at all. Plus, let’s not forget the sports apparel which has been produced (yes some of us have seen it). Another potential quick product to market in a multi billion dollar industry always looking at the next tech developments. Just like a sledge you say. Hmmmm!

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 20:26

So what if (and I know you won't like this) NanoXplore's GrapheneBlack is just as good or better for an AECOM arch at say $9/kg as Nanene? How long before AECOM ask VRS to price match or just use it? BTW NanoXplore are world leaders in graphene enhancement of polymers.

Doesn't that destroy the 165m valuation vs NanoXplore at about 50m ?

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 20:15

Don't be such a baby. I'm not misquoting you. I keep asking you to explain the reason for no sales. You keep waffling. Surely you can just concisely say why? Here are some concise answers.

1. Production doesn't scale.
2. Production cost too high.
3. Materials used in production have bad eco credentials.
4. Product too expensive.
6. Claims of sales interest over exaggerated and really very early stage.
7. Clients want to take 5 years+ evaluating (why is this not disclosed?).
8. Other suppliers cheaper/better for intended application.
9. Product doesn't work for intended application.

You see it really isn't hard

[schmally] 11/11/2019 20:14

And yet again🤦‍;♂️ Who said there’s only one real Graphene. Aqua clearly stated there are multiple types of Graphene. There are clearly potential markets for the full range of Graphene quality. The point is simply that VRS seem to be perusing a higher value market than the bulk lower quality Graphene producers. You either can’t read, or you are deliberately misquoting to mislead. Or potentially a bit of both

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 20:10

Remind me what's the dollar revenue of the graphene sold in either of those "products"?

I don't think you could really call them a commercial application. More like the sledge really.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 20:10

Well if you persist in misquoting me, then you’re fair game for challenging your intelligence and reading ability. It’s not hard to read and quite someone accurately is it?

[festario] 11/11/2019 20:08

Lest we forget....was soon forgotten.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 19:53

Aqua, that’s way too many word for Loggy. He can’t even quote simple sentences accurately and his attention span is very limited. You have to spoon feed info to him in small chunks but even then he spews it back up as something very different.

[aquaesulis01] 11/11/2019 19:49

loglorry, First off, there are many types of graphene (even though this is disputed, the general consensus within the industry is now that there are a family of graphenes). Secondly, there are different methods to producing graphene, which leads to very different outcomes. Thirdly, the graphene that is actually usable in a product is different to the raw manufactured product.

So, looking at the first point. There are many different types of graphene, and all of them are good in their own way—some of the higher-layered numbers (but less than 10) are cheaper and are better as an additive, whilst single-layer graphene is more useful for electronics. Unfortunately, the education of graphene to people outside of the graphene industry is not great—be it end-user markets or large corporations in general—and most people who are looking to use it, don’t know what they are buying. So, whilst there may well be a perfectly good type of graphene out there for someone’s application, they may not necessarily choose the right type, and this leads to poor results and a decrease in the market confidence. More effort is being done is this area to better educate decision makers and more end-user products are now being realised, which is starting to increase the confidence in graphene again.

Moving on to the different methods. There are two main methods of producing graphene commercially—chemical vapour deposition (CVD) and exfoliation from graphite. CVD is a bottom-up approach that creates a single layer of graphene on a substrate. Whilst this is arguably the ‘highest-quality’ graphene because it is a single-layer, it is also generally more expensive and can (currently) only be produced in smaller amounts. There are also other issues with removing graphene from the substrate that it forms on, meaning that it often has to be deposited on a customer’s substrate of interest in-house. Therefore, it is not the most scalable, but is ideal for some applications, such as electronics. On the other hand, you have exfoliation methods. These methods cleave graphite into graphene. However, because harsh chemicals, mechanical stress, solar rays, or high temperatures are used to break down the intermolecular bonds in the graphite, the process is a lot more uncontrollable. This often results in products which have a distribution of layers from batch to batch. This is often seen as a lower-quality type of graphene; however, it is much cheaper, can be produced in much greater quantities and is still suitable as an additive in various types of composites/products.

The next point to consider is how graphene is used in a product. Before it is used as an additive, it needs to be functionalised so that it stays stable within the composite matrix. This means that the properties of the usable graphene are different to that of the raw product, so in many ways, the so-called “quality”; is not always relevant (because the properties change anyway) and is why the exfoliated graphene has become more usable recently. The same applies for other graphene derivatives such as graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide which are already partially functionalised.
Reminder that Nanene Layers ≤5 60% Raman Spectroscopy
Layers ≤10 90% Raman Spectroscopy
Layers >10 10% Raman Spectroscopy
Defect ratio 0.3 Av. ID/IG Raman Spectroscopy

This high quality graphene is scalable at commercial levels i.e a controllable exfoliation process which differentiates it from the variable layer lower grade graphene supplied by the other companies such as NanoXplore

[schmally] 11/11/2019 19:44

I fully embrace the companies you mention having success getting their products to market. That can only help with wider market adoption. Only an idiot would suggest VRS will be the only successful player in the market. However, it’s clear there are multiple markets for multiple types and quality of Graphene. It’s experts in the field who are quoted as stating how important it is to be accredited and for companies to work with experts in the field and who have used VRS accreditation as an example of quality assurance. Feel free to argue with Leading members of the Graphene council if you don’t agree.

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 19:42

You see you assume they can "rush a product to market" but again that's just opinion. Other than a micro deal with a tiny company which sells on Ebay and nearly went bust there's no evidence that they can get any sort of product to market.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 19:33

Log, genuine question, are you dyslexic by any chance. I only ask because irrespective of what I post you seem to quote me as saying something totally different. Sorry, but I don’t recall saying ‘we need to wait a little longer’. They could no doubt rush some products to market, but its highly debatable whether a focus on the ‘gimmicky products’ such a tennis rackets and golf balls is the best use of resources when there are far bigger markets to target. The headphones were quick and simple and worth the marketing benefits to raise awareness, but I’d prefer the focus to be on the bigger opportunities

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 19:31

No idea on GW Pharma.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. It's called Occam's razor.

There are far more companies struggling to sell their product because buyers dont want it or can get it better/cheaper elsewhere than ones who are "taking their time" or "spending years with clients to perfect it".

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 19:28

Oh I've just noticed another excuse you've given for no sales. This one is a Corker. Apparently VRS have special knowhow so want to work with companies for a long time to make sure they get it right. Except the accounts don't reflect this. VRS spend tiny amounts on R&D. Staff numbers in Graphene are tiny. They don't even have a CTO last time I looked.

One wonders why all this effort they are putting in doesn't result in anything. The Warwick collaboration has gone nowhere unless they are being shy about it.

I'm sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation though that they haven't sold anything much. Perhaps is cos nobody wants their product rather than that they are too busy getting it perfect.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 19:23

Well done for your overly simplistic analysis. And there was me hoping for a sensible intelligent debate on the facts and info I presented. What’s your view of GW Pharma for example? Two drugs, limited global market, Mar Cap driven by Cannibinoid hype?? Massive losses, massive market cap. Shame I sold out just before they relisted on Nasdaq.

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 19:16

@schmally oh we are back to the reason VRS has sold almost nothing is that we need to wait longer.

VRS has been hinting they are about to sell lots of their product for years.

Nobody can counter that argument anyway. Tomorrow never comes so it's always true that sales will be tomorrow even if they never happen.

[loglorry1] 11/11/2019 19:12

Oh dear Schmally you were almost getting somewhere then. Yea I'm sure there are lots of companies claiming to sell / make graphene which isn't as good as VRS.

So what? There are plenty of companies that do make great graphene which is being sold in large quantities. XGs and NanoXplore with Ford, Sixth Elements to Huawei. VRS has no IP moat.

As for the Chinese only wanting to work with VRS. You are being a clown. A) They've shown no real commitment have they other than a lot if talk b) companies like Tungshu ARE working with many other graphene companies they are even tier 1 members of GEIC fwiw. C) Sixth elements a v large graphene producer IS Chinese d) how long would this IP remain protected once in mainland china anyway and please dont be naive.

There's nothing special about VRS graphene production. Others can and already do produce more successful GnP. It's a commodity market with commodity pricing.

[schmally] 11/11/2019 19:05

Log, if you can’t be bothered to read my rationale for significant sales taking longer than ‘some’ anticipated, that’s not my fault I’m afraid. Yet another example of your laziness