@downsyde ???? Your post is all over the place like a mad woman...

@downsyde ????

Your post is all over the place like a mad woman throwing eggs. Loose cannon springs to mind. Where you run out of argument you disparage. At least no "garbage" this time.

Unburdening personal issues regarding other acquaintences aren't normally the use of HC. All I could read between the lines was anger and frustration...couldn't work out if you were trying to say the Vortex was rubbish or the inventor was, or both.

I agree on several points

1. FGR should investigate greater purity
2. other issues such as mining to sort out first
3.horses for courses should be a key element of tailoring FGR own graphene for clients to give clients uniqueness

disagree

1. silicates are not sufficiently diferent density to graphene to separate from graphene.
2. silicates at dimensions close to graphene or even many times larger are unlikely to be sieved out
3. to run material through the Vortex unit, they would have been through the exfoliator first hence significant washing action would have taken place, some solution effect but also arasion t dislodge.

Graphene is hydrophobic and water/toluene mix has been tried already and not continued with (Damn good idea not to - forget the cost its the health issue.

Nobody suggests FGR should fnish up in concrete, unless as a coating on the rio for use in high salt water applications.

Grapene does have a potentally good future in anodes. (Try reading the link I provided earlier).

As for impurity in the graphene matrix -it won't matter unless it has some effect overall on the matrix. The time impurity matters is when its on the surface - especially 1-3 layer situation.

Asbestos is string like? Really? Most scientific reports say they are fibrous crystals.

Anything else you need to know?

As final general comment - you need to be careful when you start slandering others about stealing.

P.S I have said some good things about FGR - just not the hype you believe in.
.