Re: Why did Agoracom agree that my link was worthy of a violation?
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 28, 2016 11:49PM
Hydrothermal Graphite Deposit Ammenable for Commercial Graphene Applications
You are comparing apples and oranges to some degree and here is why: If you look at the focus document, they admit they only used their fine particle graphite which they describe as 200 mess size and they pushed their purity to 99.98% for these test results. We don't have ZEN's purity of their sample or their mesh size so hard to know what we are comparing here. Also, both graphites were coated but no coating description anywhere and coating qualities vary greatly. However, there was a nice table in the Focus document with 2 synthetic references:
Table 1 - Comparison of Two Commercial Fine Grades of Synthetic Graphite with Focus's Fine Grade of Carbon Coated Spherical Graphite (SPG)
Focus Graphite Coin Cell Test Samples | Reversible Capacity (Ah/Kg) | Irreversible Capacity 1st Cycle Loss (%) | Capacity After 1st Cycle Loss (Ah/Kg) | ||
Focus Li Ion Fine Grade of Coated SPG | 0.65% | ||||
D50= 21.44um,Tap Density = 0.93 g/cc | 366.0 | (99.35% efficient) | 363.6 | ||
Surface Area= 0.44m2/g, | |||||
Commercial Li Ion Synthetic Grade # 1 | 6.45% | 324.8 | |||
D50=15.8 um,Tap Density = 0.88 g/cc | 347.2 | (93.55% efficient) | (10.7% lower) | ||
Surface Area (SA) = 0.97 m2/g | |||||
Commercial Li Ion Synthetic Grade # 2 | 3.46% | 333.4 | |||
D50=20.6um,Tap Density = 0.97 g/cc | 345.4 | (96.54% efficient) | (8.3% lower) | ||
Surface Area = 1.15 m2/g |
As you can see, ZEN had a better reversible Capacity than both these synthetic, commercially used samples. It is also important to note what ZEN's goal was in doing this testing as per their NR:
The goal of these initial samples was to screen Albany graphite for suitable applications while gathering feedback from the end-users and testing facilities to improve the overall properties for high value applications. The Company is now starting to receive feedback from several end-users and independent labs, some of which received repeat samples. Information from this initial test program will be used to further define the Company’s product and market strategy and set the stage for next steps in development.
Also from the same NR:
Since the purity and particle size of the material provided by SGS processing was already in the range needed for LIB application, no further milling or purification was needed.
Could ZEN have pushed their graphite to get better performance by milling it further or purifying it further, yes. At what cost and how much better, no way to know. However the goal here was not to see how good we could push it but simply if we were in the ball park. Using the synthetic comparators that Focus used, we can clearly see that ZEN is in the ball park which is all we needed to know.
As an extra comment, I asked Dr. Chahar at the PDAC why we have not had any news releases from ZEN discussing LiBs lately and he gave me a funny look and said: "We already proved that, there is nothing more to say."
May look at Syrah another night but fully expect it is another apples and oranges situation with no data on coating.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It was reassuring to see the synthetic comparators from Focus and how ZEN performed against them.
Glorieux