RE:RE:RE:RE:Bernard didn t know of anybody producing plasma sipatience123 wrote: Breizh1 wrote: Hello King of DD, you are still poking your head in the sand.
But ou can easily find that TEKNA is playing seriously in silicon battery field:
«
Batteries of the future expected to contain nano-silicon produced by Tekna»
This is copied from the Tekna presentation.
Have a look at this presentation:
you might learn something if you read it.
It certainly shows that HPQ is on the right track but not alone and not 5 years ahead.
Tekna presentation This has been discussed many times.
Tekna is no where near..not even close. Pyrogenesis NexGen 25kg/hr for starters is a distant dream for Tekna. Let's not even mention about the spherical uniformity quality of the powders....not even close again!
Hence why HPQ and PYR are well position w PUREVAP QRR / PUREVAP NSIR as they publicly stated numerous times they are confident they will be scale this more economical than anyone and are 5-6 years ahead of everyone trying.
See @midtownguy more comprehensive writeup https://ceo.ca/pyr?5d7fb9fc5be7
ummmmm thats the size of their powder producing apparatus???? Their gonna need one the size of a building if their going to produce mass quantities man. Or are they going to scale that 8ft unit up to a 10MT year plant??? Good luck with that. Guess their gonna make their own silicon too???. Cmon
[/quote]
Thanks patience123..here is post explaining once again :
@MidtownGuy I had posted this prior on SH about Tekna:
There are indeed other companies around the world that use plasma to make metal powders. The demand is expected to be so great that a multitude of suppliers will be needed. For various reasons, these suppliers differ in the extent of their competitiveness.
The key difference is in technology and feedstock, but also includes volume potential and price potential.
TECHNOLOGY
Tekna, for instance, uses a plasma technology called "inductively coupled plasma" (ICP), which requires electro-magnets to help create the arc.
PYR uses a reverse polarity plasma torch based on a technology called "DC non-transferred plasma".
While there are pros and cons to each technology, the DC non-transferred technology is generally considered more readily available at higher powers, offers more stable operation, less "flicker", and better control.
FEEDSTOCK
Tekna's nano-powder process seems to require that they start with existing higher purity metal powders (or create the base powder first), which is more expensive right out of the gate, before then conducting another process to make the spherical or nano-powders.
PYR's process allows them to use a cheaper and lower-purity product, raw metal wire -- then bypassing the entire step of first having to convert it to base powder. PYR goes right from raw wire to high-purity spherical or nano-powder.
PRICE AND VOLUME
Theoretically, the expectation of the PYR Purevap process is that it should significantly reduce the cost of making powders simply because it uses cheaper raw material. If all goes as expected, Tekna can't appear to compete on the raw material cost.
As for volume, again because of the use of lower cost raw wire, the avoidance of the additional step, and PYR's stated ability to replicate the process by creating additional reactor towers as needed, it appears they can eventually surpass the volume of most if not all nano-powder creators.