Several differences that I can see from the CCB data and the ZEN data.

1. BET surface area

Synthetic 2.77 to 19.38 m2/g

Albany (ZEN) app. 8 m2/g

Millar (CCB) 2.227 m2/g

That means that ZEN graphite has almost 4 times the surface area as measured by BET and it is much more comparable to synthetic graphite.

2. Density

Syntheticsup to 2.28 g/cc (Timcal spec sheet)

ZEN 2.25 g/cc (increased)

CCB2.12 g/cc

The higher the density the better the graphite and ZEN is 98% of the maximum value for synthetic whereas CCB is only 93% as dense as synthetic.

3. Resistivity

Synthetic 0.002 ohm x centimeters

Graphite all sources 0.003 to 0.060 ohm centimeters

ZEN0.0034 ohm x centimeters

CCBnot disclosed

The lower the resistivity the better the electrical properties which is important for many graphite uses including batteries and refractories.

4. SEM micrographs

In my opinion (for what its worth) the ZEN graphite demonstrates much cleaner lines and better definition to the edges, perfect almost. This compares to rounded edges on the CCB material and much less definition. ZEN even looks cleaner than synthetic.

Reinforced hexagonal crystalinity

5. Particle Size distribution

ZENMean 18 microns

Battery grade synthetic10 to 40 microns

CCBNot disclosed

In my books the CCB press release just serves to show how much better ZEN graphite is than anyone elses, including CCB.

Purity

ZEN 99.95% vs 99.9% for the Other without RTU thermal upgrading

Boron

(important for nuclear applications because it quenches nuclear fission)

ZEN 0.919 ppm (less than 1 ppm) vs Other 1.2 to 2.6 ppm

(common standard is below 5ppm for nuclear use)

Resource

ZEN 1.418 million tons - the Other ????

All in all just more good news IMO for ZEN.

TP