Yesterday, you improperly abstracted a reference from a scientific paper, and attempted to use it to discredit the properties of hydrothermal (fluid-derived) graphite. In fact, the paper provided strong evidence of the superiority of hydrothermal graphite over flake (metamorphic) graphite, due to its higher degree of crystallinity. You clearly did not understand the paper. And now, today, you compound the misunderstanding by extrapolating from your false conclusion to an even more absurdly false new set of declarations. It’s clear you research using confirmation bias. Once you think you’ve found what you’re looking for, you stop. You stop thinking. You stop trying to understand.

I could have said more, yesterday, but I was busy and tired. I sought only to refute your obvious errors. Perhaps, had I said more then, we may not be discussing this further, today. But, that said, this is a teaching moment.

You utterly confound two distinct groups of properties of graphite. One set of properties is microscopic in extent (with an exception that I will discuss soon), whereas the other set applies to bulk samples of the graphite. The former are microscopic, whereas the latter are macroscopic, in the simplest dichotomy.

The smallest highly ordered crystalline domain is known as a crystallite. Within the three-dimensional domain of a crystallite, the orderly array of atoms that constitutes the crystal lattice is at or near perfection. At the scale of the crystallite, all graphite is anisotropic. Whether synthetic, flake, or hydrothermal, the graphite crystallite is the anisotropic unit.

There is another unit that is sometimes equivalent to the crystallite, the grain. In contrast, a grain can be composed of a multitude of crystallites. Needle graphite is a grain type, which is composed of a number of crystallite domains. In contrast, large flakes of graphite, if of high quality, can have fully congruent crystallite and grain domains. The grain is one crystallite. Therefore, flake graphite is perfectly anisotropic, as are all crystallites of graphite.

What is meant by isotropy/anisotropy? When we measure a property of a substance, if the property is identical in all directions, then the property is isotropic. That property might be thermal conductance. It may be electrical conductance. It may be the coefficient of thermal expansion. If it is a uniform property of that substance, it is said to be isotropic in that property.
In contrast, if a property differs depending on the orientation of the measurement, then it is anisotropic. The crystallite unit of graphite is anisotropic in a number of variables. If we consider the plane of the graphite to be in the x-y axes, then the layers are stacked in the z-axis. The electrical or thermal conductance, as well as the coefficient of thermal expansion, are profoundly different when comparing x- or y-axis measurements to those in the z-orientation.

Still a little foggy on that? We can do an experiment with a stack of copier paper, and a sharpened pencil. Let’s consider the 8 ½” edge of the stack to be oriented to the x-axis, and the 11” edge of the stack to be aligned with the y-axis. Looking down (or up) at the stack perpendicular to the plane of the sheet is the z-axis. Let’s measure a property that we’ll call “the force required to penetrate the stack of paper with the sharpened pencil by 3 cm”, i.e. forcepen3. So, we first try the x-axis. We push the tip of the pencil against the stack of paper on the 8 ½” face. It penetrates to 3 cm with ease. And we repeat that on the y-axis, with the same result. However, when we orient the pencil perpendicular to the face of the sheets, we find that it does not readily penetrate the stack from that orientation. In fact, with sufficient force, the pencil will be crushed before it can penetrate the stack by 3 cm. So, we conclude that the stack of paper is highly anisotropic in our variable forcepen3.

More discussion will come as I now address your multiple misrepresentations of what you call truth.

You said: “The high purity synthetic graphite which is manufactured to have isotropic properties is the stuff that sells for the very high prices ($10,000 to $35,000/tonne FOB China). “

No, not necessarily. Anisotropic synthetic graphite arc furnace electrodes are priced in that same range, depending on purity. Your use of the word manufactured is important, though. You can’t compare raw material properties to final product properties, even though you do, by inference. Do you have any idea how many separate steps go into the making of high-grade isotropic synthetic graphite?

“However, it has to be manufactured synthetically because natural graphite, whether formed by hydrothermal deposition or by metamorphosis is anisotropic.”

No, that is false. All graphite is anisotropic, at the crystallite scale. What is true is that manufacturing processes can alter the bulk properties of graphite, tending towards either anisotropy or isotropy, as desired.

“This type of graphite cannot be manufactured from natural crystalline graphite of any purity.”

That too, is categorically false. Look up a paper, whose title begins, “Improvement of nuclear grade graphite based on isotropic and highly crystalline natural graphite…”

I’m going to front-run the idea that will be discussed more fully in a moment, but why do you think they “sphericalize” the highly anisotropic flake graphite?

“All you have to do to settle this argument is to post proof that the Zen graphite is isotropic. “

That’s a sophistic argument. The evidence supports a deduction that a bulk sample of ZEN’s graphite will exhibit isotropic electrical or thermal conductance, and coefficient of expansion. There is a well known scientific aphorism, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Without evidence, one can still come to well-reasoned inferences.

“And if it is potato shaped then where is the information that says so?”

Why would anyone want it to be potato-shaped? What is true is that they take the best flake, usually the largest flakes (as purity correlates highly with flake size) and they cut them up into itty-bitty pieces. Why, you ask? To attempt to artificially produce an isotropic bulk material from one that is anything but, those huge grains of flake graphite. They call the product “spherical graphite”, but that is a marketing term. A sphere has three equal sub-radii, but the milling process is rather imprecise, producing the potato shapes to which you refer, i.e. three dissimilar radii.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you recently declare that amorphous graphite is anything with a particle size of less than 80 um (microns)? Well, size d50 spherical graphite is 3-5 um. Did they turn the flakes into amorphous graphite?

If you look at the micrographs in ZEN’s corporate presentation, you will see two things: lots of straight edges on the black bodies (sharp crystallite boundaries of the highly crystalline graphite); and, small particle sizes. It seems to me that ZEN’s graphite is already almost perfect for isotropic applications. We’ll have to wait for proof, of course. But for those with a more analytical view, the probability is already high.

“I can trace such information only to posters on this board who are desparately trying to pump up the price of this stock. Where is the reliable source of the information?”

Blame it all on me. <shrug>

“If you have such proof then post your source instead of trying to attack my credentials.”

I attacked your credibility. I have no idea of your credentials.

“I am neither short nor long on Zen. I have some very small investments in other graphite miners, which represent less than 0.5% of my total portfolio. I have no interest or ulterior motive in promoting any one stock, I am simply stating a few simple truths that should be obvious to anyone who does even the most basic of due diligence.”

You have done only basic DD. And I see no truth. You have attempted to draw conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence. Once your assumptions are shown to be invalid, you conclusions are vacated. Sorry.

Lar