People on /biz/ are shilling this company called HydroGraph. They are claiming to be able to rapidly produce high purity graphene. The reactors to do this are just oxygen and acetylene, that is ignited with a spark. I think it is a scam. Pic related is a scientific paper co written by their chief science officer. Any views on this? Here is the full paper:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/nano.202100305
OP is a shill for a meme penny stock
>>16766831>2 H2C2 (g) + 5 O2 (g) --> 4 CO2 (g) + 2 H2O (g)No.
>>16766847I just checked and it balances, so what do you mean?
>>16766872Oh I'm dumb. You think that is the only equation. Likely not at 2000 c.
>>16766885>Likely not at 2000 c.Also the ratios matter. According to wikipedia in welding with the stuff the ratios don't have to be chemically neutral.
>>16766847>STPChamber detonation influences the reaction pathway. 2 C2H2 (g) + O2 (g) -> 2 C (s, graphene) + H2 (g) + 2 CO (g)
>>16766831i like this paper a lot because i lived in manhattan and i do research in condensed matter on 2D materials.it is very big. graphene won a nobel prize in 2010. people say that it will be good becasue graphene is really strong but that only is applicable if we can get a sheet many meters long. this company cant get sheets like that. more like some sort of gel or powder. very far from individual sheets. at least thats what i understand i dont do research in manufacturing.still it is a start. a bulk material also has neat properties. not only is graphene the strongest material we can make (even though for application you need) but you can do cool quantum stuff like dirac cones and topological insulators. i think you might see thius company more involved in electronic component manufacture.i am very biased though i dont do anything structual i just study electronic properties. but yeah this is big and could become huge.
>>16766831https://stocktwits.com/symbol/HGRAF
>I work in research I just have no technical input whatsoever>can't balance a fucking equationliterally not one person itt has any clue what they're talking about, what a joke of a board
>>16766925The research paper used very small reactors. They are making much bigger ones to scale it up. I guess I'm trying for confirmation bias. I think it is a scam, but I want proof it is. I'm not even sure if the company did any third party testing.
>>16766988>I think it is a scam,Why do you think that?You can see the graphene they made on twitter. The patent is also held by a university and simply licensed by the company.Do you think they aren't even capable of producing graphene?
>>16766997Casava science managed to get to phase 3 clinical research going through tons on regulations and rules of clinical testing. Turns out the research papers were all lies. Here you got very little oversight and it is hard to trust anyone without proper third party verification. Any remember EESTOR? They resisted that heavily, cause it was fake.
>>16767005https://x.com/BambroughKevin/status/1959299932088582197Okay but the product literally exists. Yeah, Bambrough is a midwit, but this video clearly shows the kind of air-gel that Sorensen talks about in his videos. Sorensen himself is also an actual scientist with decades of experience.HGRAF didn't invent the technology. Sorensen did.
>>16767018Well I don't know if that is graphene, which is why testing from an unrelated third party is critical. And that x comment also can't be trusted, because as we see in the scientific paper soot is also produced along with graphene. If that is true, but assuming it is. They should be consistent with their own truths.
Christopher Sorensen is 77 years old. He could be exit scamming like John Goodenough, saying he made something revolutionary before he dies.
>>16767022>an unrelated third partyLike the University of Manchester?https://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/geic/They're listed as a GEIC partner which would not be the case if they were lying when they said the GEIC verified their shit as real.I'm curious if you actually did any research on this or if you just assumed it was a scam because you can't think of any other reason a pre-revenue Canadian pink slip would be under a billion dollar market cap.
>>16767022I’ve never seen clumps of soot behave like a gel. They claim their machines produce “fractal graphene” where 50nm diameter platelets of graphene are stacked approximately 7-8 layers thick. These stacks are attracted to each other and form larger flakes. The unique thing seems to be the flakes do not grow axially, they are attracted only at the edges not the faces, to own another. So they combine in a fractal-like configuration to form large planar structures, like snowflakes. As opposed to large columnar structures.
>>16767042>pre-revenue Canadian pink slip would be under a billion dollar market capWell clearly they have a lot to prove and I've lost money on other companies promising less with more data.
>>16767048I'm not saying it is all soot. I'm saying their own research papers say there is soot in there with the graphene.
>>167670560.2%
>>16767048Do you know if the graphene being fractal has any significance? Does it even matter after it's been mixed into concrete or plastic?
>>16767068This is closer to the right question. I believe they can make graphene. I question the industry demand in the near term, and the value of their fractal graphene platelets. This would seem to be the least desirable form of graphene, the most desirable being a large sheet.
>>16767152Their target market seems to be people who want to mix the graphene into other stuff. If you put it in concrete it makes the concrete better. If you put it in plastic it makes the plastic better.I'm just curious if the fact it's fractal matters for this application at all.
>>16767155If you put it into graphene does it make the graphene better?
>>16766831Of course it's a scam.All these "tech" companies doing chemistry and chemeng are scams, because without fail the "technology" they are peddling is between 50 and 100 years old and there either is a very good reason why it's not used or it already is widely used and perfectly normal.This reminds me of that tech company that wants to synthesize butter from waste gases in the air.
>>16767152>This would seem to be the least desirable form of graphene, the most desirable being a large sheet.The issue is that making macroscopic graphene sheets is nobel-prize levels of difficult.
>>16766831wasn't there some process of making graphene with graphite and a cd burning laser or some such thing
>>16766831>People on biz tries to make money
>>16767493Plus an electric arc into coffee grinds. Guess there is a lot of dumb ways to do it.
>>16766831The more economical way is to make graphene oxide by stirring graphite in milk protein.
>>16767300>old technologies cant be improvedgot it libtard
>>16767300sorensen says he discovered it in the 90's and perfected it in the 00's before patenting it in the 10's
>>16766831> study from 4 years ago tho
>>16767433someone should develop nanobots that build the graphene sheets
