PPT did not make "graphene", they incorporated graphene into a carrier/solvent. They didn’t have a graphene formula, they had a formula for a carrier/binder used in the contact enhancer. They would have bought the graphene. Judicial use under the label .... sure, that is why the mat is pretty flat on the label side?? You would have had better luck claiming it was on the other side, where it was a flat but a bit bubbly on the first one, but flatter but grittier on the "upgrade". There are a ton of proper EMI absorbing mats on the market that use graphite, and ferrous particles depending on operation method. I will give you 3 reasons why they don’t use graphene and cost and too difficult to manufacture are not it.
@audio2design Here, let me give you a demonstration for how to post without the condescension. I suppose you enjoy the fights you cause on every thread, but if you really do want people to listen to you, simply saying the same things without the insults will be a lot more effective.
"As you know, the primary invention of PPT was to create a carrier/solvent formula that allowed graphene to be easily applied to other surfaces. I have my doubts, however, that this is being done on the mats, as one would expect the surface to be a lot more "uneven" if covered in a graphene paste before label application. Even if it is applied to the mats as suggested, I don’t believe this would make them more effective EMI absorbers. There are three reasons why commercial manufacturers of EMI absorbing mats don’t use graphene in this way. 1. xxxx. 2. xxxx. 3. xxxx."
As is your actual points get lost in the noise.