sorry for long post, and in no particular order as a response to...

sorry for long post, and in no particular order as a response to above,

no anger or frustration from me with whathisface, possibly a brew or two too many, but knowing how these things go at academic institutions, I wouldn't put much hope in it, hence my suggestion to forget ttf and vfd at the moment as they are nothing but a distraction. The use of water based solutions would be in line with that researchers field, being green chemistry, another idea from that lab for instance are solvent-less reactions. so I wanted to qualify that forgetting about it wasn't based on some whimsical fancy it could probably be read as disparaging, but it is what it is.

fibres, strings, chains, what's in a name? I neglected the 3d silicates. Fibrous crystals? the fibres are bunches of chains held together by cations like Ca, K etc, in my mind I just see strings as this is how I learnt to draw them at the atomic level stings of Si with an O between tetrahedral geometry about the Si atom. Obviously if they are same size hard to sieve, just wouldn't have thought they would be, and if they are, like I said just spitballin as it's not my field, but if you flocculate the silicates they would become quite a bit larger no? and generally then sink yes? this idea came to me after recalling treating dam water in a dam that was built on basically kaolinite, whereas you could float the graphene over this and scoop it off. I don't even recall what the host rock is let alone its' structure nor amenability to such a treatment, let alone what effect a flocculant would have on the graphene, nor how host rock would look if disintegrated to micron scale particles. perhaps a geo could tell us and we could postulate further what the likely dimensions are, I do recall reading somewhere that host rock can be purified from SL vein via physical means because it's not embedded nor wrapped in the graphite during processing.

I didn't think the exfoliation 'was a lot of washing'. I've only seen mention of collecting overflow and collecting fractions, this isn't washing.

FGR first sent material to a drilling fluids co for testing so drilling fluid/concrete/whatever, FGR production for use as an additive has been bandied about and in such cases what matter these 0.01% impurities, notwithstanding that these are from the ttf results.

I must have read the wrong link about anode doping I saw something on elcora page about using spheronised material? had a few graphs or something.

I can't be bothered reading about elcora's results, other than being a peer and folks notion that peer anaylsis is meaningful i dont see how they are utterly relevant, perhaps something to aim towards for FGR? or ideas on how to go about it? but material tests on what FGR are producing I'd certainly be interested in reading. Problem is FGR aren't releasing any results from third party testing. There are no reports good or bad about how these are going or went, from what potential issues the end user had or how to produce a better material for them or anything. We are completely in the dark as far as that goes, and so what to make of it? I'd have thought if they release info that they have third parties testing and folks buy in, would they not be obligated to tell us if the tests yielded nothing, surely this is information they must release under the continuous disclosure obligations? are the tests ongoing at these third party sites? Nevermind nasa will tell us this is all part of the plan.

So would you suggest that the surface of graphene has no potential to interact with the stuff around it? Impurities held in the matrix aren't restricted to being between layers of 2-3 layer material - the surface is part of the matrix, perhaps the most important part in some cases, and I don't understand how you talk of issues in supercaps of impurities and how they effect spacing and side reactions but then impurities within the layers don't matter? I must be missing something there, moreover in the results released from FGR that you quoted about levels of impurities, so how do we know where they are? perhaps they are between the layers and by your logic don't matter? I'm sure I must be missing something. One further thought on impurities, is that some impurities are indeed intractable, assuming a similar geology at elcora it's already been shown that vein graphite starting at 92-99% can be made extremely pure. Nothing in the ppm range except Chlorine at 10 (well except there may be traces of such things as B, Be, Li). Chlorine is interesting, should look up chlorine behaviour on graphene surfaces. maybe there is relevance to elcora results after all.

and finally what hype am I following? that FGR must concentrate all its' energy on superduper sensors that they can produce millions of each containing a smidge of graphene cause if they did I'd make a motza and this is the only thing graphene will be good for? IoT is all the rage after all. I'll agree it's one avenue, I just don't think it is the only one. My blue-sky potential for fgr lies not in producing anything really, but just vein graphite, selling it as exfoliated maybe and HOPG maybe again. The uplift in the value of FGR really comes when or if it can be shown that this is the method of choice for bulk and quality graphene (assuming graphene comes of age of course). Then the land bank comes in to play, then having multiple mines comes in to play, then forward valuations get really outrageous. So really FGR can do whatever so long as they find veins, they still haven't found a vein that they assure me is over a meter in one dimension.

possibly something above makes sense, to someone, otherwise its all gibberish and should be treated as such.