Member Info for fatherelmer

PJM, an ERJ145 would probably be a better fit than an ATR72 ( ie 50 vs 80 seats)

Without news of progress with the OAR the only movement I can see is down....especially following the recent borrowing....

If this reflects the introduction of the first ATR then Dodoma and Mtwara would also be good additions to the schedule to keep her busy!

Crackup, was out and about yesterday but off the grid so missed all the fun - a spike on no news imagine what might happen if we actually get some, peoples heads will probably explode!!! IMO if there is any news re China next week it won't be the full final deal, an MOU at best, remember they won't be visiting Jinan.

Personally I think Neilos and Vanillathunder made some good, and valid, points yesterday it's just a shame they received the usual stock response and abuse, all for having a different view. Folks on here need to stop living in their bubble and look into a mirror every once in a while....

LoR, I'll try and not hit you with my handbag! To my questions about 3 past collaborations (and what, if anything that they have produced to date, or may do so in the future - news flow has been pretty quiet / non-existent since they were signed) I can add a couple more absolute Engineering and Scafell Organics (the one with Scafell being concerned with the production of PAEK Plastics) given that all 5 of these are getting on for / or are more than a year old you would've thought there would be some news of progress even if it wasn't related to an order / revenue stream (yet) - but I can't point to any can you??? So my point, in relation to why I believe the SP is over-valued, is that as these first 5 have so far produced nothing / anything of note what's to say the most recent ones (IAI, Dow, etc) are any different? I get that AIM is a little different and valuations are driven by hope rather than hard numbers necessarily, it's just that I think the hope may be a bit overdone and is heavily weighted towards the China news (think what happened to the SP at the end of last year prior to the China news) if this deal isn't completed or the terms aren't favourable the impact upon the SP may be quite large.

Lucky, I understand perfectly what is going on in China and IF they get past the non-binding Letter of Intent stage AND the terms agreed are favourable to VRS then it will / does change things for the company, but this isn't a done deal yet.

Lucky, calling me a ramper that made me laugh as on here I am more usually seen as a troll / deramper - I think you have me confused with somebody else. To prove the point whilst surprised at the stability of the current SP I still feel it is over-valued as it is being supported by nothing more than the hope that all of the recent collaborations, and Chinese news, will lead to an ever increasing stream of revenue, without considering that they may not actually do so. For instance where is the stream of positive news, and revenues, from the 'older' collaborations with Kristan Bromley, CT Engineering or the Warwick Manufacturing Group??? As for sensible and thought provoking discussions having those on this board tends to be a very rare thing and something I welcome when they very occasionally break out.

I agree it has been like banging your head against a brick wall. Not all posts require positive and negative comments I was only stating a factual interpretation of the new standard where Nanene will (likely - as I'm no ISO assessor) meet the standard for GNPs, but NOT the one for Graphene (the difference being one is a single layer molecule 1 atom thick and the other - as you correctly point out - isn't) nothing positive or negative to say just factual.

Apologies, I forgot the rules that you must only drink the VRS will dominate the world and that Nanene can do everything miraculous koolaid to post on here - it'll get as bad as the ADVFN board soon enough....

I give up as you are STILL missing the point of my original post (and the overall point of the ISO), though thankfully you do appear to understand the science of the ISO, which I was beginning to wonder. I'm not trying to bash VRS and their GNP (Nanene) as it clearly has many wonderful properties and I look forward to them (eventually) commercialising them, and any of the other Graphene derivative products that they may also manufacture (eg Ink).

Lucky, Nanene ISN'T graphene but rather IS Graphene Nano Platelets (GNP) which are different things. Graphene Oxide (the one in the water filtration example) is also NOT graphene (nor GNP) it is understanding these differences, and referring to them correctly, that is the point of the ISO standard as currently everyone calls everything Graphene when it clearly ISN'T.

Lucky, read the link where the phrase is used to describe Graphene Oxide (note NOT Graphene OR GNP [Nanene]) which exhibits the properties.

Crackup, I forgot to mention in my last post that resorting to abuse (especially when you are on the wrong side of the argument) says an awful lot more about you than it does me - perhaps you should look in the mirror....

Crackup, never said Nanene didn't meet the ISO standard just that calling it Graphene (as opposed to GNPs) is incorrect, so I think you'll find you are the one who is misleading others. Did you even bother to read the link to the ISO vocab that I posted or are facts too inconvenient??

Given that the University of Manchester themselves say that this is done using a DERIVATIVE of graphene (which isn't Nanene by the way) I think you'll find I'm not the one talking bullocks..... http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/graphenes-love-affair-with-water

Luckyorange, I don't deny that GNPs (ie Nanene) can have transformational effects, my point however is twofold a) that GNP whilst being a form of Graphene are not Graphene in the purest sense and so we shouldn't lazily call them so (this is the main point / rationale for the standard) and b) that GNP may not deliver all the properties that some of the discoveries claim eg Proton transport / artificial photosynthesis, water filtering, etc

Some definitions, from ISO 80004-13:2017, for you all to get your heads around.... https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:80004:-13:ed-1:v1:en

Crackup, I don't have a short, I was just pointing out that the product that everyone here gets so obsessed about isn't Graphene according to the new ISO standard and so folks shouldn't describe it as such, and more importantly in addition assume that all the potential uses / benefits of Graphene, for which links get constantly listed, may not actually apply to anything other than actual Graphene and not Nanene / GNPs. I accept that saying such things is regarded as heresy here, even (especially) if true....

It would help if VRS actually made Graphene (they don't if you see the recently published ISO standard) there is a reason that their product is called Nanene.... https://www.iso.org/standard/64741.html In the ISO standard VRS make Graphene Nano Platelets (GNP) and NOT Graphene as in order for something to actually be (and to quote Tim Kempster from Twitter 'Pure') it has to be a material 1 atom thick, anything else isn't classed as Graphene.....