Zenyatta Free Speech Board Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Zenyatta Free Speech Board

ZEN 77.48

0.0%

Nov 21 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: NuclearCrystals	1/25/2016 12:05:02 AM
	Read Replies (1) of 22811

Steakhouse, let's break down what Chahar said. "Dr. Bharat Chahar, VP of Market Development for Zenyatta stated, “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. Compared to natural flake graphite supplied to the industry from China, no extra treatment and no dangerous hydrofluoric acid purification process were required to generate our material. No extensive milling was needed to prepare the Zenyatta graphite with minor loss of material occurring during the shaping process.” " "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" simply reflects that to get the samples purified through the SGS process the material was already pulverized to the micron sizes generally used for LIB applications so more pulverization wasn't needed by those accepting the samples as feed for further manipulation to actually convert the sample into LIB input material. In order to do that part of the work, the labs took that feed material that came from SGS and classified it which dropped out a huge portion of the material as useless fines. So they then take the coarse fraction and blast it through the mechano-fusion equipment (shaping) and they lose some more material as fines. "with minor loss of material occurring during the shaping process" Chahar was calling the drop in yield through mechan-fusion as minimal. The yield was 81.5%, that's what Chahar referred to as minimal and I guess that is accurate in comparison to what takes place with other flake graphites that lose much more during shaping. Chahar never mentions in the statement the losses from classification with fines being discarded so there is nothing fraudulent or inaccurate with his stating minimal losses during shaping but the statement doesn't allow an investor to understand that classification drops out a huge portion of the sample and if that is considered along with the losses during shaping, then Zennanites would get that what they have concluded was completely wrong based on what Chahar actually said. That's how I see it. Why do you see it any different?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next