para 1 and 2. Elcora are not ramping up to 18ktpa of graphene,...

para 1 and 2. Elcora are not ramping up to 18ktpa of graphene, we all know this, but if your intention is to either poke those that know or scare the ones that don't perhaps you succeeded. and 2. I'd imagine you have not much of an idea of how their process works.

Manganese solubility. I guess I should also point out it's not just solubility in water, its solubility from the graphene matrix, and if you look it up manganese is a contaminant in GO produced by Hummer's method. solubilty in water of manganese is not as meaningful, context is what you need. Anyone could go and look up solubility of manganese and say it's not an issue.

And yes all over the place, one minute can't make it pure the next some tafe guys could do it (cause none of the folks FGR liaise with could?) then it's worry about patents, but what patents are you even referring to with respect to purification? Or is it just a blanket statement that should worry some folks. It doesnt concern me, if it needs purifying this can be done and folks that FGR do business with will either have that expertise or know someone that does, it's a non issue. FGR and Elcora essentially have the same starting material. Only there have been some interesting results put out on the ALK18 material that I havent seen previously for graphite.


Yes persitence, will it wash out, or sieve out. Silicate minerals exist either as sheets or strings, asbestos being an example of string like, and, just spitballing here, but if its silicates, can't you just flocculate these? Are they not signifcantly more dense than graphene, and so can be removed by gravity? And yes the mining and sorting are critical in this regard.

As an additive to concrete will impurities matter? and in doping an anode? i'm all for purity and high end stuff but still horses for courses, and moreover if it's required I still don't see why it is that you believe that FGR can't achieve this. At present I'd be happier if they could get it out and convert it in bulk. Sure if they have a user that requires purer, then work on that, it's not the thing that is holding this back at the moment, there are more immediate concerns.

Results from ppm were from the "Turbo Thin Film" oh really! and what pray tell is the utility of the Turbo Thin Film device? does it purify the sample? No, the purity you put in is pretty much the purity you get out. They produced what they thought may have been carbon nanotube type material. I've complety forgotten/ignored the ttf and vortex fluidic device, these were tried out as a possible means to yield single layer. The guys that invented/developed these is known to me, moreover his grad students are known to me. I used to catch the bus home from work with Colin. Colin caught the bus as he was commuting from South Yunderup, I was on the bus cause I'm poor. In the time that I've known him, I only ever saw one decent postgrad in his lab, who is now an ARC future fellow, and it certainly wasnt the postgrad that helped partially unboil an egg. The funny thing about Colin is that the guy who holds the purse strings for him (treasurer of SA) is the son of one of his ex postgrads that has a very strong dislike for him on account of having usurped, as supervisors do, his IP.

In a lather cause look how many posts on this topic just rambling on, hitting as many points as you can but only seeing half the picture IMO. I can appreciate that you want to get all the possible negatives together and work through them, but you can't completely ignore the positives, or the potentials, that FGR have developed.