Thursday, July 31, 2008

EEStor Announcement Ultracap Recap

With regard to EEStor's recent announcement of production and purity milestones, here's a little recap post for easy access to the various postings.

1) Links to original press release and coverage
2) Follow on Interview with Richard Weir
3) Interview with Edward Golla, 3rd party reviewer
4) Zenn's subsequent press release
5) Some technical discussions of the release and related topics.
a) reader Mihkel
b) reader Zawy
c) Prof Randall
6) A charity I support

UPDATE: I'm getting emails that the picture in this post is of an EEStor cell that has "mysteriously" appeared on wikipedia. (i just linked to it) I've seen this before though..I dont think it is an EESU because it looks like it was made from powder that was way too impure to produce an EESU. :-)


nomlas said...


Anonymous said...

We can surmise that Eestor's first production line is finally tweaked and is starting to get into an actual normal production cycle for its EESUs since Mr. Weir has become so vocal in the last month.

steve said...

Yes, Weir telling B they got " the holy grail" was a big tip off.

If you're shorting ZNN, this must have been a bitter pill to swallow.
I think shorting this stock is suicide because. I don't think there's really many traders involved, mostly long term investors at this point.

Anonymous said...

Richard Weir has zero credibility. LM has no real credibility either they are a defense contractor look at DARPA and the bullshit they try to push all the time. Military dollar are loose dollars.

Not only that but all LM is doing is offering limited help to EESTOR. Help, which EESTOR can decide it does not need and no one will be the wiser. LM gets something in exchange for being available as an outside consultant. So far EESTOR has not ask for anything.

Lots of people have reviewed the prototypes data in the world patent.

Business and science do not mix you may make it big trading ZENN but it clear to me that people are investing who are no idea what EESTOR has.

According to my sources, EESTOR has prototypes that are bases on new theories that Richard Weir has developed. Frankly the talk around the water cooler is that he is afraid to talk about EESTOR because he afraid that people will laugh at his theory’s, about why he thinks the EESTOR works. I think engineers make poor physicists. You always get them coming up with nutty stuff when they get old and senile.

Also go look at Blacklight and Steorn. Look at who invested in them especially Blacklight big name business people.

Anonymous said...

Even if EESTOR does not work LM may still get something out of the relationship. Powder or something who knows :)

Anonymous said...

Sorry Steve, based upon your constant pumping, I'm dumping my ZNN stock. More for you.

Satya51 said...

Seems to me that those who will invest in Zenn at this time have already reached their comfort level. "credibility" has nothing to do with what did not happen to the stock price. Having a large amount of shorts is a good thing as they are going to be motivated buyers later.

I had thought that R. Weir's early 2009 comment in blogger's interview part 3 was a slip date, but just as I was thinking that and posted it, I read the "holy grail" certification announcement. As excited as R. Weir was about this milestone, I think he was not expecting these results until later. It must have been a tricky, touchy process.

I too am now expecting news of commercial products rolling off the line this year. The question I have is how many lines they will have in operation?

Also, I wonder how many anonymous Maxwell expert's will show up with theories why bees can't fly because their wings are too small?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you say Richard weir has no credibility. Then you give him credibility by stating “According to my sources, EESTOR has prototypes that are bases on new theories that Richard Weir has developed.”
Richard weir also states that he has developed prototypes that have been tested.
They are now in the working on a line to deliver a completed product.

I think Weir has more credibility than you do.


TomBfromLouisiana said...

Hello, I am new to this site. I have been doing some research into EEstor and Zenn since oil started to shoot up crazy earlier this year.

The upside to Zenn and EEstor is so crazy I had to buy 3,000 shares. It is worth the risk in my opinion. Either this thing will work or this Weir fellow gets the Academy Award for Best Actor.

Both EEstor and Zenn are on my Google alerts and as more positive news hopefully follows I will be buying more shares.

I have enjoyed the posts here but I do wish some of you would keep the personal attacks off. It is not necessary to a discussion about such an important topic.


Anonymous said...

Spoken like a true business person. I had a feeling that most people here do not really care about science just making a quick buck. I have to deal with you idiots all day. Maybe you will win maybe you will lose. A lot of people have made good money on bullshit like that guy who sold me the empire state building.

Alright coffer breaks over. It was fun but not real fun :)

Book-em-Dano said...

Christine - In a previous thread you said "I have an opinion". I would very much like to hear it.

Also, how do you feel about the possibility that some of EEStor's claimed energy storage capacity is due to crystal deformation/relaxation, and possibly other mechanisms?

Everyone - ackkk and I started a discussion yesterday about the latest EEStor press release. I think it deserves more commentary, being the most significant thing from EEStor in months. We were discussing the presumed motivation for the an apparent subtext, and its intended audience. ackkk opined that it didn't make sense as a typical "public" press release. I agreed. I would appreciate some input on this, and even some reasoned speculation about what it implies about EEStor's current developmental stage. Here's the comments, with a few added lines of response to ackkk:


ackkk said...

The release was written by EEstore!
They told the entire story! Sure they had a lawyer, but they also have an agenda!!

What is the agenda??



Book-em-Dano said...

Stepping back and looking at the whole document, it seems to me like it's targeted at a specific audience. Sure, it's also a timely public reassurance that "everythings still progressing ok, our backers aren't fools" for ZENN's and KPCB's sakes. But it also seems like there are warnings woven through it - to potential financial backers of competitive startups to not invest in them. More specifically, to the potential backer's SME's.

Put yourself in Weir's shoes. Assuming EEStor is the real deal, you KNOW - not think, that you're going to be richer than God, and more famous in the history books than Ford and Edison put together.

What is the one thing you would be concerned about? You'd be looking over your shoulder as you take the time to get the production line done right.

Scam or not, it still works: to discourage investment in any others that might be biting at his heels. Seems more logical from a "not scam" perspective, though. Just a feeling on my part. I'm 95% confident it's going to work out, 0.1% scam, and 4.9% other stuff.



ackkk said...

But I still can't see this as a message to not invest in others. Wouldn't the news be more substantial.

I will admit that I don't understand the kinds of news that would be important to investors, to either invest or preclude an investment in other co.s.



Well, the news IS substantial - to a Subject Matter Expert (SME). What all this would mean to a SME was best detailed here by Schneibster:

(... although I don't agree about the speculation that the PR was required by some financial backer; that would not require - or even be desirable as - a public release, one that is also quite obtuse and technical for the general public.)

Anyway, it wouldn't be aimed at "investors" per se, but to VC firms THROUGH the SMEs. The DIRECT target audience seems to be SMEs. The INDIRECT target seems to be VC firms that hire the SMEs. The ultimate aim seems to be to throw a wet blanket on possible competitors.

There probably are a number of other nascent startups vying for a slice of this huge potential market. They are working on EESUs that may or may not be able to sidestep EEStor's patents (pending or existing). They know they are behind, so will attempt to focus their efforts in niche/smaller markets that they feel EESTor will not be able to dominate in time. The market is huge and would take years, making factories willy-nilly, to fully cover. In the mean time, manufacturers who haven't been able to get EESUs are losing market share at an incredible rate, to competitors who can get them. Insatiable, years-long world wide demand will ensure that EEStor competitors, left unchecked, could gain 10 to 50% or more of EESTor's potential market before supply finally meets DESPERATE demand. I wonder how many companies have already contacted EEStor asking for exclusive lisencing, or even just supply agreements to hedge their bets, just on the remote chance (in their eyes, at the moment) that an EESU-equiped competitor could bury them in the blink of an eye .... hundreds?

So, to have a chance at many $billions, you need at least a patentable, in-development competing product (doesn't even need to meet EESTor specs), and LOTS of money. An IPO isn't practical in this situation. So you approach VC firms, & probably go through the same sort of vetting that EEStor did with KPCB. The VC firm asks its SME's: how close to mass product is their closest competitor? The SME's do their DD, which includes all pertinent available sector related material, including EESTor's recent "public" PR, complete with independant 3rd party certification, meant partly for them. The SME's will probably conclude something along the line that Schneibster did, and say: "Weeks or months maybe.". The VC then asks "What about this XYZ company?". SME says "2-5 years". VC will weigh this investment risk against investing in ZENN, LMC or eventual EEStor IPO, and say "Sorry, XYZ .... NEXT!".

It doesn't have to go this way in EVERY instance, but for EESTor there's no harm in trying to stem SOME of the tide - and you can bet there are people behind the scenes DESPERATELY trying to catch up, using every scrap of a tech clue they can get (which is one reason why EESTor has to remain as secretive as possible for as long as possible), especially where international patent enforcement is weak.



Satya51 said...

For those who want a prototype driving around, I re-post, Altair Nano has done that. Their problem is not having an assembly line pushing low cost batteries out the door. Seeing the "Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma (ICAP) spectrometer Optima 2100" shows the production line is being put in place. That is the real product.

And, steve, shorts are our friends, they are likely where tomb bought his shares at an affordable un-google like price.

steve said...

Dear B blog readers,

I'm just gonna sit back and watch the spectacle as a lurker from now on. The maxim, "thou doth protest too much" carries alot of weight here.

Final thoughts:

As "disputes" turn to "facts" those who are not interested in truth will never admit to being wrong about a single thing.

For example, the issue of whether EEstor had built and tested prototypes was heavily debated here. Whereas, before Weir told B yesterday that EEstor had built and tested prototypes a long time ago, much of the debate here was whether or not EEstor even had prototypes.

Now that Weir has established that they did build and test prototypes, those same people, instead of admitting they were wrong, are now just blatantly calling Weir a liar.

So now the debate will regress to repetitive defamation of Weir's character from "anonymous" posters who are not anonymous in any way shape or form to anybody who's been reading this board lately.

If that's the way B wants it, that's up to him. I will not grace this bullshit with responses, because no "fact" will ever be acknowledged by people hell bent on spreading FEAR UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT (aka FUD) in order to repress the price of ZNN shares.

Basically, after all that's been said and done, it really comes down to only two options

option 1: EEstor has "the holy grail" of energy storage

This is what Richard Weir has told you they have. This is what the main players have bet on.

option 2: EEstor is a fraudulent conspiracy theory involving Kleiner Perkins, Lockheed Martin, Zenn Motor Cars, Mort Topfer and a coming cast of thousands.

There's no in between, no wiggle room. EEstor is real or it's bullshit.

Weir said "this is not bullshit".

You can bet on Weir or you can bet on anonymous forum trolls whose savior was supposed to be Prof. Clive Randall, but since the Prof has refused to go on record at B's invitation, it's down to Weir vs the trolls.

You can believe Weir or you can believe trolls. Place your bets accordingly. Believe and act upon what is most real to you.

Peace and money,


Satya51 said...

Development of the line has taken R. Weir 7 or 8 years even after he knew it would work. What is it that can be started between now and what looks like imminent commercial operation?

I think the simple point of view is that the real milestone has been reached, and this is its announcement. I think R. Weir was surprised that it was not understood, but that is just because he is a super geek.

Satya51 said...

The shorts are in a crowded theatre smelling smoke, can you imagine their anxiety at the thought of commercial operation announcement at the same time as permattivity?

The other crowd is wanting a a theory of why bees can fly, honey just won't do. (I do sympathize). So they want you to stop talking about its sweet taste.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone truly explored the Dell connection to Eestor? Tom Weir used to work there, and we all know Mort Topfer. And the rumor is that Mr. Dell is a current/future investor. I wonder if there are any current collaborations on the EESU as a laptop battery.

Moomipappa said...

I have what may be a stupid question. Everyone is talking about buying Zenn shares. Why is no-one talking about buying Lockhead shares? Defence is an enormous market and you are less likely to lose all your money with them as they have a good business anyway.

ackkk said...

thought I sent this, but I haven't seen it published:

This blog continues to become more fascinating, and is consuming a lot of people. Where are we since this latest press release?

We have people with some scientific knowledge working hard to figure out how the capacitors might work. We have other knowledgeable people who are convinced it is bullshit. I appreciate the scientific contributions.

We have opinions based on the integrity and reputations of the players involved, and the quality of the players' investments. Some opinions show skepticism and others offer a remarkable faith in everything that has been reported, no matter the source.

I remain interested but skeptical.

When I read optimistic posts based on a number of production lines, or based on a new plant facility, I remember that that news was reported here by somebody who knows somebody who told somebody.

When faith is based on the chatter about working prototypes, I remember that all of the evidence for prototypes is ambiguous, read into statements made by different people without real verification.

And who is Dick Weir? I assume he is a respected engineer, but I really know nothing of him; and haven't been able to discover much about him.

Sure, LM signed on in some capacity; but they can sign on with an insignificant investment that, if it all works out, protects them. Sure Leibman might be a creative genius, but doesn't LM probably have a bunch of genius kooks looking for outrageous/impossible possibilities. It is in the interest of their business, whether the tech works or not.

And I still don't understand the 'milestone' press releases. If the milestones are required for additional investment from existing investors, then why not share them privately? Why put it out there for us to dissect? So the F what if they now have purchased equipment that is capable of measurements that have the possibility of helping them reach their goals; and they have someone on staff who knows how to use it!!

The increased trading of the stock is phenomenal, but there has been plenty of stock available. The price has not changed much. Who is allowing this?

As I see it at this point, the most legitimate player is Mort Topfer, and I'm not certain of his capacity in this whole business. For those who take b and his interviews/interviewees at their word: Who is b?

Nevertheless I remain interested,


Anonymous said...

I hate to hear you won't be posting any more of your ultra-Weirist skewed views on here anymore Steve.

Anonymous Forum Troll

ackkk said...

Sorry Dano, I posted before I read your post.

I appreciate your argument re SMEs, but I still have a hard time understanding how this release can even mean a great deal to even an expert. We seem to have some knowledgeable people here, wouldn't the SME have a knowledge of the science? What would this release mean to that expert.

I assume I could buy an expensive spectrometer, find someone who knows how to use it, and then issue a press release. It seems most everything else in the release are vague possibility statements.

It did report that new powder has been measured by the previous testing authority; but wouldn't the SME be as skeptical of the science as other experts?

How many other similar startups can be out there based on Weir's invention, if we haven't a single expert who understands/believes in what Weir is trying to do?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous Forum Troll,

I hate to hear you haven't bought any Zenn shares (last sale $6.57, up $1.08).

ackkk said...

It seems: to believe we would have to assume that Weir is withholding some critical information, that if revealed, has the possibility of making experts (incl SMEs) rethink their calculations.

But that doesn't explain the press release.

ackkk said...

By the way, it seems the reins are off znn now.

Anonymous said...

After rereading a lot of patents from EEstor, I did some capacitance caculation using various configurations.
The first calculation (simulation) was using the configuration as described in EP1789980A2.pdf (WIPO) patent but with the 10 um completely filled with BT without coating. The result is within 5% of theoretical for one capacitor.
The next calculation was done using the 100 Angstrom coating of Alumina which has a dielectric constant of 10. I made a number of cell consisting of 1 um X 1 um of BT coated by 100 Angstrom of Alumina. Every cell was touching each other.
It is useless to add the plastic coating to this test.
The capacitance was 28 times smaller than with the fully filled BT case. This means, according to this simple calculation, the relative permittivity is also reduce by 28 times which only give a small 25000/28 = 892 dielectric constant (k).
That's all I have to say.

Jonathan said...

I wonder if this is some of the same "insider" trading we saw a few weeks ago?

TomBfromLouisiana said...

Can you break that down into plain English anonymous??

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts:

One possibility re:coyness over 3rd party confirmation of permittivity are the financial implications, e.g. Zenn and/or possibly other are entitled to buy more stock once 3rd party confirmation takes place. Postponing formal announcement leaves them free to engage other partners without triggering these provisions.

Another possibility re:holding back results might be the nature of the agreement with Lockheed, i.e. one of the most interesting applications for the device would be directed energy weapons, ~52KW with extremely high power density, not just energy density, is exactly the requirement for portable, and even space-based, FEL lasers or railguns, ie. In addition to more prosaic field-portable power applications. Weir's comment about "mission-critical applications" may well be an allusion to that issue. Disclosing the capacity might be a problem, at least until available as a commercial device.

The repeated avoidance over time of disclosing specific results could be just a clear desire to have a fully baked, finished product before coming out of stealth mode. It could reflect the normal development process of advances/setbacks, and so the best policy if one has patient capital is to undercommit/overdeliver. Although it's rather nerve racking not hearing much publicly, I'd bail immediately if their PR guy was a blowhard making regular dis-informative zero-content announcements.

Agree with the general sense that at the current price (i.e. including EEStor speculative factor) Zenn is either a 1000-5000% gainer or 80-100% loss - it's a possible latter-day high-tech Bre-X. I'm leaning toward the former due to Topfer and KP involvement. Weir's comment "Prototypes have been built and prototypes have been tested" is the first specific confirmation I've seen that we're not talking about just powder mfg. process development, and is very encouraging.

Lastly, I think the tenor and usefulness of this forum would be tremendously improved if people would refrain from silly fanboy-type comments. When posting, focus on your ratio of fact & net new information vs. repeating what others have said, personal attacks or stock touting comments. Ideally it should be > 2:1. If it's 1:1 or less, don't post.

Satya51 said...

LM and the defense industry are at risk due to the election year radical choices (no flames or flag waving, just facts). I consider LM a bigger risk than Zenn.

I am guessing that the shorts smelled smoke and some skeptical fence sitters are trying to board the train. I am with R. Weir, and am surprised at the one day delay.

ricinro said...

The company was founded in 2001 by Richard D. Weir, Carl Nelson, and Richard S. Weir, who have backgrounds as senior managers in disk-storage technology at such companies as IBM and Xerox PARC. They previously co-founded disk-storage startup Tulip Memory Systems, where they won 16 U.S. patents.

ricinro said...

Satya51 said...
LM and the defense industry are at risk due to the election year radical choices (no flames or flag waving, just facts). I consider LM a bigger risk than Zenn.

I did not think that LM owned any part of eestor. That LM's value could increase because they use some EESUs in some minor part of their arsenal is unlikely.
Also there really is not any radical choices. Both candidates have accepted or stated that there would be a Iraqi drawdown in as little as 16 months if conditions on the ground are prudent.
I am sure that a shift from conservative to moderate would promote the shift from guns to domestic investment in renewable energy, EV, education. LM could participate in this as well.

Marcus said...

Anon, did you see the post regarding mixing BT, alumina and BT near the end of this page?

Satya51 said...

"Agree with the general sense that at the current price (i.e. including EEStor speculative factor) Zenn is either a 1000-5000% gainer or 80-100% loss"

From my point of view, because of the potential 80-100% loss, even with all the announced progress, prudence would say to only invest what one can afford to completely lose.

Also from my point of view, the real outstanding questions are, is the product manufacturable at target prices. Weir is saying the chemistry, even for future (more difficult) applications, is now certified as manufacturable, and that was "the" milestone. I believe the rest of the line mechanics is in the realm of what Eoplex has already done, so I am high 5-ing.

But, I am still not going out mortgaging the homestead, I still consider it a potential 80-100% loss.

OntarioInvestor said...

I really don't understand all the people on here that are speculating about the science working...both for and against. EEstor has repeatly said there are additional patents that hold the key. Again, why release them until you reach please a few day traders that they have no responsibility to.

i am not going to restate why i think the tech works, as i have in previous posts, but i can attest to some institutional buy in today causing the price to go up. I have talked to a few friends at a couple of the "Big 5" Canandian Banks"..and there are a couple of sci&tech funds that have taken positions.........Due to the fact that there aren't really that many shares outstanding, it causes the price to fluxuate up considerably.

What i would encourage is people that are selling the shares, is to sell them at "limit prices" 15c to 25c higher than the current "last price". What institutional investors love to do is wait for people to sell at market price, then they buy in a large volume getting the price to move lower. Trust me you will get your order filled. There really is a very limited number of shares that are out there, and they want to take positions of certain percentages of their funds. The other good thing to note is that mutual/pension funds usually piggy back off one anothers investment choices, so look for continued run-up over the next couple of months.

Y-Po....on Wier being Hitler, grow up. I mean i am all about healthy skepticism, but it is sounding more and more like you are disgruntled that an engineer came along and possibly came up with a great discovery in your field right under your nose. Or the other possiblity, is maybe you work for an oil or car company, and know you will be out of a job in the near future...or the most likely don't work for anyone at all judging by the frequency of your responses, and just like to argue.

I personally am glad Wier is working on building a company, and not trying to satisfy day traders that he really doesn't give a rat's a_ss about to begin with. His investors are reputable company's and engineers, and have stated with their pocketbooks that they believe.

Anonymous said...

I think I have found the reasoning behind the permittivity reduction of 12% due to coating.
A grain of pure BT is cubic.
Each grain is 1 micrometer X 1 micrometer X 1 micrometer.
Each face of that cube is coated with .01 micrometer of Alumina and .01 micrometer of PET for a total of .02 micrometer on each face.
A cube has 6 faces > .02 X 6 = .12
-> (.12/1) X 100 = 12 %
Is this a coïncidence?
If you read all the patents, I think NOT.

Marcus said...

You don't think we should be discussing the science of a potential scientific breakthrough? Believe it or not for many of us there is more to life than increasing one's wealth or even the potential technological spin offs from this thing. After all it is science that is behind this thing if it is real remember!

Marcus said...

anon, did you see the post on this at the end of the page here?

mrjerry said...

B - can you open a blog for this

You chance to talk back - invitation for "professional only" in the materials science engineers field.

Re: Re: Re: EEStor update: Is there a materials engineer in the house?
by Tyler on Wed 30 Jul 2008 08:23 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Seriously, are there any materials science engineers in the group -- from academia or the private sector -- who can chat with me the details in the release? E-mail me at cheers.

ackkk said...

Hey Marcus,

Have you gotten any cogent replies from your

"... did you see the post on this at the end of the page here?"

I am by no means any type of authority on this science and would never pretend to be; but do have some scientific-type background, and have picked up quite a lot following these arguments.

I've recently read Cerireid's comments on the wiki page (from your direction), and find them very compelling. Would love to see this debated.

As for those claiming the science is irrelevant: for me, the #1 basis for skepticism is that experts say the science is wrong. If we can find an expert who can give some legitimacy, other reasons for skepticism start disappearing. Other strange actions by EEstor start to make since.


OntarioInvestor said...

i never said the science didn't matter, what i said is that you are basing your calculations on older patents. It's like you are squeezing oranges, and wondering why you are not getting apple juice. Only Wier has the apples, and has convinced some very prominent firms, LM, Kliener, and some notable engineers that he has newton's apple. That's all I said, but by all means, continue to debate. I guess the results and new patents will speak for themselves. I just didnt' understand the logic.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I read the post at the end of

concerning permittivity. It is not in line with the patents. The first technology they were working on in the last 5-7 years was on coating with Alumina AND glass. This was probably too difficult to control. The NEW technology they are talking about is a coating with Alumina AND PET which seems easy to work with. But the same misconception remains. If the capacitor contains 88% BT, it does not mean it behaves as a dielectric with 88% of the pure BT permittivity.
As for the cubic shape of the grains, I saw some microphotographs in one of the papers and it is sort of cubic.

Anonymous said...

The Wikipedia image for Eestor has been changed to this:

Anybody know where the picture at the top of this post came from?

I had seen it previously on some news sites attachted to Eestor articles, but they never stated that it was an eesu.

Anonymous said...

Nevermind, I found it by the magic of google images:

Anonymous said...

Ornery Link!

1st half:

2nd half:

Anonymous said...

Also here:

Y_Po said...

I think I have found the reasoning behind the permittivity reduction of 12% due to coating.
A grain of pure BT is cubic.
Each grain is 1 micrometer X 1 micrometer X 1 micrometer.
Each face of that cube is coated with .01 micrometer of Alumina and .01 micrometer of PET for a total of .02 micrometer on each face.
A cube has 6 faces > .02 X 6 = .12
-> (.12/1) X 100 = 12 %
Is this a coïncidence?
If you read all the patents, I think NOT

Great find, I think you are absolutely correct here, this is exactly how these idiots got this 12%.

Y_Po said...

That's it EEstor is finished.

Marcus said...


Y_Po said...

so you see, there is no need to explain how they overcome rule of the mixture. They simply did not know that rule :), it is the same story all over again, they did not know about saturation, and calculated energy density, they did not not about rule of mixture and calculated permittivity using their completely wrong and idiotic physics.

Y_Po said...

Anyway, this new find should go to wiki immediately. In is the last nail in their coffin.

Marcus said...

Yes, I understand. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Anonymous said...


What sort of pore space on the alumina are you assuming? The dielectric constant of alumina, like most ceramics, improves with decreased pore space. Likewise, purity plays a role.

Really, I'd like to know a lot more details about your simulation. Heck, how are you getting the capacitance within 5% without layering in a high-K ceramic in the first place?

zawy said...

Anon, i don't know how you got 10 nm for the PET thickness (i never saw EEStor write it anywhere) but it seems correct. According to a calculation they did, PET was 4% by volume, which would be the case of 1 um cubes with 10 nm Al2O3 with another 10 nm of PET. You stated the BT was 88%, but with Al2O3 being 3% (based on 10 nm coating) and PET being 4%, BT should be 93%. In their calculation of BT weight, they used 94%.

I think it's too speculative to try to figure how they got the 12% reduction.

Someone was concerned that there was too much pros and cons of the science and we shouldn't discuss so much. I would agree, except that we can't find anyway that the device is possible. I believe they've done it, but my physics says it's impossible, so that makes it an interesting topic.

Concerning pore space in alumina, the k=10 anon and I are using is for very pure alumina:

I was not able to find a higher k value for Al2O3.

I get k=500, not 800. With the 10 nm PET coating, I get k=440. All a far cry from 18,000 and based only on EEStor description.

zawy said...

PS, I used k=70 for PET

zawy said...

In order to orient the cubes into proper position while polarizing, they would have to start with over 50% PET in a solvent or something and evaporate it off until the PET was a10 nm coating. I believe the evaporation step was mentioned in one of their patents.

zawy said...

As the polarization voltage is increased, the crystals increase in size in the direction of polarization which would squeeze the PET into the side gaps. As the crystals elongate, the gaps on the sides get bigger to help the flow in that direction via suction. So PET will not be on the two faces of the cude where it matters so that capacitance is not reduced by the PET. Maybe even the Al2O3 can be squeezed into the side gaps. Or under enough piezo pressure to merged/transform into the BT.

jam said...

I am the anonymous who is simulating stuff.
I just reread the patent application


at page 18 , the following phrase is written:
"With the assumption of no voids and absolutely smooth surface, for an ideal cubic particle with volume of 1 µm^3 and for a particle coating of 10 nm thickness, the coating volume is 60 X 10^-3 µm^3 or 6.0% that of the particle volume."

zawy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zawy said...

OK, now i see:

1.02^3 - 1^3 = 0.061 um^3

94% Al2O3-BT (in equation they used)
4% PET
2% unknown
6% Al2O3 in the 94%

So BT = 88%

zawy said...

I had used 1.01 but the coating is on both sides so it's 1.02

zawy said...

What is the patent:

CA2434470A1.pdf ?

Is that the same as EP20050812758 aka WO/2006/026136 ?

Satya51 said...

"Maybe even the Al2O3 can be squeezed into the side gaps. Or under enough piezo pressure to merged/transform into the BT."

What kind of coating does the Al2O3 form on the BT grain and how is it formed. Perhaps it is just dust, or is not bonded strongly?

Eestor's first patent used the other ceramics to use lower temperature so that nickel could be used. Al2O3 is not used for that purpose, so will it serve its purpose if it is squeezed into the side? Perhaps that is the purpose of the Al2O3, to modify the resistance of the PET, and the PET is just to get rid of voids?

Good luck on the puzzle!

zawy said...

Yes, PET is to get rid of void. It is screen printed with "surfactant, lubricants, and solvents".

In the first patent, the Al2O3 was calcined into the BT. From what i could find out, turning it into this type of corundum doesn't improve it's permittivity.

Satya51 said...

"In the first patent, the Al2O3 was calcined into the BT."
The first patent I don't think used Al2O3 at all, perhaps I am wrong.

"In order to orient the cubes into proper position while polarizing, they would have to start with over 50% PET in a solvent or something and evaporate it off until the PET was a10 nm coating. I believe the evaporation step was mentioned in one of their patents."

Unfortunately, the polarization step occurs after pressing with heat, no? Perhaps the crystals can rotate without such room, or they can polarize without rotating?

I hope you are not getting too impatient with my stumbling thoughts!

Satya51 said...

Because the Al2O3 is extremely insoluble, maybe it is in a colloidal suspension when the coating is applied to the BT. That would enable a uniform coating and still not be bonded. Then it could move to the side during pressing, as you surmised, where it would not kill the matrix permittivity.

Al2O3's purpose would then be just to modify the PET resistivity that is located interstitially on the side.

jam said...

This is the canadian patent application:
Published in 2003

zawy said...

Can you provide a link to the Canadian patent? I never heard of it.

They say in the world patent app that the dielectric printing is 35% to 6% PET, compared to my wild guess above of 50%.

How they calcine Al2O3 to the CMBT from a different starting aluminum compound in solution and placed into 1000 C is described in the US patent.

It appears Al2O3 has always been in the plans as it helps eliminate some of the inherent drawbacks of BT (in their words). "Energy density" was not one of the drawbacks mentioned.

The also refer to PET and Al2O3 as "comparatively soft" supporting the idea that they can be squeezed to the sides. However, even going from the 50 atoms or so of 10 nm thick down to 10 atoms thick by squeezing may not improve the dielectric. Then again, 10 nm Al2O3 may have a much different dielectric than is found in the bulk material, not to mention being bonded to the CMBT which is implied by their use of the word "corundum".

The 1 um CMBT crystals only need to turn a max of 90 degrees "upward" to be in the optimum direction. But I just thought of something else: they also have to be squared up on the side faces to maximize area of the dielectric and achieve such low voids. But a vertical polarization increase the voids on the sides by piezo so they can be in any position. It would require two polarizations in perpendicular directions, first on the sides, then in the direction of the plates.

jam said...

This is the link

zawy said...

I mean, squeezing down to 10 atoms will improve it by a factor of 5, but that only raises the max permittivity to 2,000 instead of 18,000. It seems that they would have to get it down to 2 or 3 layers of Al2O3 in order to work, assuming k=10 applies at this nano scale. It seems unlikely that they could get Al2O3 that thin. All this squeezing theory depends on the top and bottom being constrained by something as rigid as BT itself.

zawy said...

OK, that's the same as the US patent

Marcus said...

zawy here is a link.

zawy said...

The patents say, in a round-about way, the reason they switched from glass to PET is so that they could do sintering and densification of the CMBT coated particles to each other at a lower temperature. This allowed them to switch from nickel plates to less-expensive and more available aluminum.

I didn't even realize that the old US/canada patent used k=33,000 but the world patent used k=22,000. Both patents say Al2O2 decrease k by only 12%. I wonder if the reduction from 33,000 was reduced to 22,000 was a result of saturation discovered later at high voltage. The 33,000 was apparently just quoted directly from the low-voltage philips patent for the material.

They went from 23,000 layers to 320,00 layers from the 1st to 2nd patents. This is because the area of the plates of the 1st patent's layers were over 10 times smaller. They went from 6.5 to 0.56 cm^2 for the plates.

30 pounds (10%) was saved by going from nickel to aluminum plates. The thickness between plates was reduced by 30% to improve the capacitance in order to make up for the 30% lowered k value.

For the Al2O3 to not ruin the permittivity, it would have to be only 3 angstroms thick (impossible) or it's k would have to be 400 (probably impossible).

How about this for a logically better guess at the reason they said 12% reduction in the permittivity? The total volume of the BT is 88% in both patents. Both patents say k was reduced by 12%. I bet they just subtracted from 100% to get the reduced k factor. This is kind of scary. They're too smart to do that on accident. Is there any way for these 1 um particles to be acting as individual capacitors and by being isolated, we have to treat them as being in PARALLEL instead of in series? My physics says no. My physics says we have to treat them as series capacitors and thereby kill the permittivity because most of the voltage drop will be occurring across the Al2O3 insulation so that not much voltage drop is left to store energy in the CMBT. It's like trying to hook up a capacitor to a voltage supply, but first placing an insulator on your contacts. The Al2O3 makes not sense.

Satya51 said...

re: squeezing
I went back to the original US patent and WIPO patent and conclude that Eestor is stating that the alumina coated CMBT (without the thinning of the Al2O3 layer) has the high permittivity. They even give the reference in the US patent, "Electrical Properties of Perovskite-Type Oxide Thin-Films by RF Sputtering" for their alumina coated CMBT. Further, in the WIPO they give a list of permittivity measurements for 10 batches of the coated powder. What can I say, something must be going on that is not in text book, but maybe that cited paper explains it.

Also, I didn't see a polarization step mentioned in the first patent. Just thought that was interesting.

Finally, I would suggest that going to smaller, but more components was a manufacturing quality control decision.

jam said...

There is another data point given in the WIPO patent which I don't understand. They give a time constant for the capacitor (RC) = 0.11 sec.
This means that R = 112 ohms.
If this is the Equivalent Series Resistance of that capacitor, it looks very high. If they added an external resistance to do the test, it would only increase the time needed to do the test, why? I will try to do an estimate of the ESR for this configuration.

zawy said...

If RC=0.11, then R=0.11/30

Marcus said...

zawy said: "How about this for a logically better guess at the reason they said 12% reduction in the permittivity? The total volume of the BT is 88% in both patents. Both patents say k was reduced by 12%. I bet they just subtracted from 100% to get the reduced k factor. This is kind of scary."

I think this was also implied by anon above when anon said

" But the same misconception remains. If the capacitor contains 88% BT, it does not mean it behaves as a dielectric with 88% of the pure BT permittivity."

Geofree said...

I think you guys are trying to build the cart before the horse :)

What if i Had 1 Capacitor at 1 farad? What would I get?

johng said...


What are you doing?

That picture cannotes you have seen an actual esu.

Come on, you know better!

That is NOT an esu, I think its a custom Super Capacitor

jam said...

If RC=0.11, then R=0.11/30

This was a test for 10 components with a capacitance value of .000979F each.
So R = 112

Geofree said...

It shows The total number of components used in the arrays for the example of this invention was 31,351. The total capacitance of these particular arrays 9 was 30.693 F which will allow 52,220 W»h

Back to that simple math I get

I guess this is capacitance?
per capacitor ( I have no idea where the decimal place goes)
and i think this is watts per capacitor? ( again no idea where the decimal goes)

But I am guessing each capacitor is 979 ( ?.) and each holds 1.8 (?.) watts.

So can a single capacitor do this?

If it can? Isn't it a matter of adding to the point of arcing and then make some sort of solid state switch? Then move on to the next?

I know lots of questions and no answers :)

I just think this science is about ten years old and some one got the idea to put it together. Check out MIT LEES they seem to have lots of answers.

Remember some people never believed man would land on the moon. I was born well after that and I can honestly tell you man has always been able to land on the Moon.