Ann: Appendix 3B-HZR.AX, page-59

Hi Michael,

As requested, I am copying the material posted inappropriately on the A3D forum, to here, so that we can discuss.

My post there, in response to Stubby, was:

"I think we can rule Hazer out as a possible alternative, (for some time, at least) as their current production gives graphite particles which are approximately 0.01% of the size needed by battery producers (yes, that does mean roughly 10,000 times too small), and which still nonetheless contain ten times as much impurity as the battery makers will tolerate (1% impurity, vs 0.1% as required maximum)."

You responded:

"@Prime1 you are wrong, 100% unequivocally in regards to HZR. Find it very odd that you feel the need to spread absolute misinformation across a range of threads. 99% purity was first pass with further refinement being basic schoolyard chemistry, size is also no barrier as discussed. Suggest that if you want to discuss this with actual facts rather than the misinformed view that you have taken then probably better suited for the Hazer thread??"

I replied:

"Hi Michael, please note that Stubby introduced HZR to this thread, not me, so your comments in that regard should be directed to him.
My statements concerning Hazer graphite properties are taken directly from Hazer announcements, and are therefore completely verifiable. If you believe that those announcements are erroneous, then you should be contacting either the company, or ASIC, or both.

Cheers,

Prime1"

Your post, after that:

"Your comments might be somewhat based on announcements, yes 99% has been proven, yes a single picture has shown a small spherical particle (other company info has stated 200 mesh..). That's where we can agree.

The rest is utter rubbish and should not be preached, saying that roughly refined HZR graphite contains 10 times the allowable impurity is akin to saying that SYR ore contains 720 times the allowable impurity because the raw grade ore is 18%TGC? And you claim that the particles are 10,000 times too small shows severe ignorance in regards to what battery producers require."

OK. Enough of the history, so everybody can see what has gone on before. Let's now continue the discussion in the more appropriate environment.

I see you acknowledge that my statements are, in fact, based entirely on HZR announcement, including the only specifically sized particle from the Hazer process of approximately one micron diameter (as in the micrograph).

You have clearly not understood that my comments on the use of Hazer graphite for battery use related to the product AFTER extensive acid treatment of the raw 86% carbon material, resulting in a product with 99% graphite. This is described as "high-grade".

High-grade? If the stuff is to be used as a refractory, for furnace lining, yes. If it is intended for battery use, then, emphatically, no. Battery-grade spheroidal graphite is required to be 99.9% graphite, 99% just does not cut it. 1.0% impurity is ten times as high as 0.1%, a fact which does not appear to be clearly understood.

Now for the particle size issue, which you dismiss as
"utter rubbish"

In Li-ion batteries,very small spheroids do provide high power, because of their large surface area per kg. The trouble is that they also rapidly build up an impermeable layer on the surface, which stops them working after a few charge-discharge cycles. So the battery makers use spherical graphite with a spheroid diameter of between 15 and 25 microns, as a compromise, depending on the application. If a device will only be charged ten or twenty times in its lifetime, then they use the smaller sizes. If the batteries are for cars, it's a different story. Tesla would be very unhappy if their vehicles littered the sides of the freeway, due to failed batteries, when they were only a month out of the showroom. So electric vehicles use spherical graphite with about 23 micron diameter spheroids. (I have a lot more information about this, but here is not the appropriate place. If you want to know more, just go Googling).

So that is not so far from what Hazer are producing, with their one-micron diameter spheres, right?

Well, no, actually. It's a world apart.

One micron diameter means roughly one cubic micron volume. But 23 microns diameter means 23*23*23 microns volume, or 12167 times the size. In saying "about 10000", I was rounding down, not up. There really is that kind of difference, at least as far as the published material to date tells us.

Please do not try to trivialize this problem, as if it can be overcome with a few days investigation in the lab. Literally hundreds (if not thousands) of workers, around the world, have been beavering away for quite a few years. It's not going to be solved anytime soon.

Michael, that is the basis for my response to Stubby and yourself. I have no quibble with the excellent prospects of the Hazer process as an efficient, low-cost producer of hydrogen. But for battery-grade graphite, there is still a long way to go.

Cheers,

Prime1