RE:RE:RE:RE:talked to the CEO and guess whatgraphiteguy93 wrote: Chief,
This is what I have been trying to do for the last two years... Show people that this is nothing but a house of cards to which an income is provided for a CEO. They have not done one thing since he has come on board to create a meaningful revenue stream for the company and its shareholders. All this hype over applying for patents and a bag of dirt is going to be the downfall of the company. Not to mention a CRA investigation into the Flow-through. Hard times are ahead for SJL in my humble opinion and that does not bode well for its shareholders...
Thats how companies like this operate. They never produce data, thats the golden rule. Never, Never produce actual tests and results. Make vagaries ie. So and So says its the best he has seen!
Or use knowns that applies to everyone. "Stable above 3000C!" or 99.9999999999999999999998% pure. Using as many 9's when there is no test for that accuracy, is impressive and probably accurate.
When you produce single layer graphene it does not take a nuclear scientist to figure out impurities cannot cling to that single surface. So the odds of calling a bunch of 9's is accurate.
But, it gives the impression that its been tested to that level and you are the only one to achieve it.
So in an effort to boost totally unadulterated crud Graphite, which at the best of times can barely meet specs for a grease gun, you make graphene out of it! Or at least imply you have by theoretically assuming all graphite can be made into graphene. Then in the same sentence where you are not sure whether I am talking about Graphite or Graphene I then use 99.999999998%
So you then hope that the deception of using graphite and graphene in the same sentence that people assume your graphite is 99.9999999999999998% making it the best product in the world.
You then talk to a Scientist and say, assuming this was true and that was true, would it be true for another application? The Scientist then says, yes if all of the above are true, then the product would be that good. You then state that you are "capable" of producing this new poduct and quote the scientist.
Its all in the wordology and how to make some one assume on their own, that the data if any you have just been given actually applies to something else, its called spin and these guys are marvels at it!!