Here is the press release.
Another link to the story.
Here's the link to the PRNewswire release.
Here is a related and humorous Treehugger Article.
Tyler Hamilton's take.
Also, many people are trying to figure out what the significance of this press release is for interested parties. Among the other signficances discovered in this press release, let's not forget that it did already cause a moderate earthquake in Los Angeles, home to all those future electric vehicles.
Also, many people are trying to figure out what the significance of this press release is for interested parties. Among the other signficances discovered in this press release, let's not forget that it did already cause a moderate earthquake in Los Angeles, home to all those future electric vehicles.
78 comments:
HA First!
I think this states that they are closer to reaching the needed permitivity, but that word was absent from the press release. Will someone who is closer to the science please provide their take on this?
If this is their next "milestone" announcement, then they are still weaving invisible cloth out of the "permittivity of powders" - which is nowhere near testing the bt material's dielectric saturation at high voltages and temps.
But ZNN will go up (after some massive and mysterious buys last week)
I posted this on the previous thread, but it is more appropriate here:
Sheesh.
I just don't understand this. I've been following this story for a bit now, and this press release seems (without studying it) sooo similar to previous releases. I thought they had previous 'certification of the powders.'
"One of the technical advantages indicated is assisting in providing polarization of the ultra capacitors. Polarization along with other proprietary processing steps provides the potential of a
polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor, Inc." - come on! This tells us absolutely nothing, except they're asking us to have faith in the POTENTIAL of their proprietary methods.
Why even publish this? Who is the audience? Are they reaching for more private funding? Does it need to be published to meet additional funding milestones?
And Steve: why do you get so bent out of shape when anyone expresses skepticism? Seems only logical to be very skeptical given the scant clues towards a working prototype. If the strongest evidence is the quote from Lockheed, that leaves very little to go on no matter how brilliant/creative/clever Liebman is.
Dudes that earth quake was not fun.
Sentences with the word "potential" in them.
"Achieving these levels of purification are additional major factors in allowing EEStor, Inc. the potential to reach its target working voltage."
"This provides the potential for excellent protection from voltage breakdown."
"EEStor, Inc. published patent, application number 5812758, indicates the flexible matrix concept that could provide the potential of multiple technical and production advantages."
"Polarization along with other proprietary processing steps provides the potential of a polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor, Inc."
"Buying ZENN stock has the potential to make you rich or the potential to financially insolvent."
Ok, that last one was mine. ;)
Stephen
Marcus,
what earthquake?
check out CNN
Well, they must have felt that it was an important quality control improvement, and there was a comment that they were upgrading the line instrumentation and that was part of this announcement.
I had been reviewing previous official projections last night and this must have slipped past me before, but In interview part 3, Weir is quoted as saying early 2009 for production, whereas Ian is on record as saying commercial in 2008. Is this an unofficial change in outlook?
Ok I quess this is the next major milestone of certification mentioned in the press release in the January 2007 milestone announcment..
"With these milestones completed, EEStor, Inc. is now in the process of producing on its
automated production line, composition-modified barium titanate powders and is moving
toward completing its next major milestone of powder certification."
Marcus,
that earthquake was just a few miles from disneyland.
I hope everyone is fine in your neck of the woods
"These key certified production milestones of particle crystallization, size, purity, and polarization are expected to assist EEStor in providing not only present and future energy storage requirements but also production consistency."
This is consistent with their latest patents in which they are critical of commercial powders due to particle size inhomogeneity and purity.
johng once asked why they don't just use commercially available powders. I guess this is their justification.
This is most be the distinction, that eestor can now produce the modified BT on a production line instead of just BT that they announced in january 2007.
It would be good to get confirmation from those in the know that their specs for this powder are indeed better than what is commercially available.
Perhaps the enhanced purity and consistency allows them to meet an unpublished military specification. This news may have been for the particular benefit of LM.
Certainly this is good news from a manufacturing point of view. Now if we had a rumor of Cedar park folk high fiving then this would reinforce the hypothesis that eestor is full steam production and damning the torpedoes.
Anyone here hang out in the same bars as the manufacturing engineers at eestor?
I think it's curious that the press release quotes the director of Texas Research International as certifying that EESTOR's "test equipment, procedures, and techniques are capable of providing the EEStor, Inc. required testing accuracy for EEStor's chemicals and powder production processing analyses" rather than certifying the purity of the material itself. This basically says that EESTOR has the capability to determine whether its powder meets its specifications--not that it actually has met those specs. The fact that the company doesn't state that an independent third party has tested the material itself and verified it's purity and particle size leaves one to wonder why not?
From anoynomous on clean break(tyler hamilton) I can say this: while we're all disappointed about the lack of an announcement about permittivity... those dielectric breakdown numbers are freaking huge. Typical plastics are about 30V/um. When I build a Wimshurst machine, I used HDPE because it got around 50V/um. The thinner your layers, the better the dielectric breakdown strength; the best I've heard of was around 120V/um for 2 mil LDPE. But 1,100? Yow! Shows the importance of tiny layers and high purity powders, ne?
What I'd like to know is whether dielectric strength is related to the ability of layering to enable high-K materials to outperform their typical linear scaling of capacitance with voltage. I've run into papers before that talked about how layering high-K materials with dielectrics can lead to improved capacitance. If that is the case, and it's the dielectric strength that matters in this regard, then this is a significant milestone.
Of course, like everyone else, I'm wanting most of all to hear back on permittivity testing.
Well Weir did say after the next announcment EEstor would be open to more discussion about their technology. and the press release did have a new email address for such a thing info@EESTOR.US perhaps we will hear more soner then later
Thanks, Jay. So, it appears that this is powder certification. Well, it should be REALLY certified now. I hereby certify it also. Hopefully, the FDA doesn't have to certify it too, or we'll be here for a while. All the "potential(s)" were lawyer talk and that doesn't bother me. As long as the venture firm is in, they have something. When their funds pull out, we know they have failed. And, you know their backers aren't reading these releases, they are visiting directly with Eestor. If the funding goes away, that's the key. While the funding is in place, there is hope.
--from the story - "has certified that EEStor, Inc. test equipment, procedures, and
techniques are capable of providing the EEStor, Inc. required testing accuracy
for EEStor's chemicals and powder production processing analyses."
Ok I'm not an idiot and I take this to mean that they have the CAPABILITY to supply testing accuracy... No more no less. So the F what? Pretty weak....
dan,
Is that the key difference between the January 2007 PR and this one?
The powder vs. the ability to test / monitor it?
I'm still scratching my head, too.
I assume testing of powders to be critical to the manufacture of the ultimate product. The testing equipment will be a critical step on the production line, and certification of the equipment is necessary.
However, I continue to not understand the target audience of the press release. Given the proclivity for secrecy, why not share the certification with investors and remain mum in public? Looking for additional private capital? I assume there are several here who would invest if eestor was publicly traded, but the company has historically looked for funding from different sources.
Is ZNN being shorted by an "anonymous" entity?
Earlier today I made a post about
the ZNN short interested having tripled from 185000 to 464800 in the last few days.
http://www.shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=znnmf&submit=Short+Quote%99
I also pointed out that the Level 2 action was very strange, with large blocks of shares being sold by "anonymous" into strong buying pressure.
ANONYMOUS was at it again at the close, sitting on ZNN, providing shares to the marketplace and keeping the ask down...
http://www.shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=znnmf&submit=Short+Quote%99
See a screenshot of the Level 2 action at the close here
http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zemmeestorlj9.jpg
Looks like somebody was hell bent om stopping the rally...
What about the 1,100 volts/micron figure?? If the rest of the press release is sort of cagy and cautious and not new...then...why would the press release (carelessly???) include that surpassingly high number?
I use the word "surpassingly" in the context of the much lower 350 volts/micron "voltage breakdown" target?
or inconspicuously dumping shares on news
ackk said (twice):
And Steve: why do you get so bent out of shape when anyone expresses skepticism?
Don't know why you see the need to cross post this here, but as you did I'll answer it again.
I don't get bent out of shape at "honest" skepticism, just bullshit that makes itself appear to be honest. At this point, the person I was arguing with doesn't appear to me to be giving honest skepticism.
That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it express it and I will defend it.
If you have a problem with anything I've written, just quote it and we can discuss word for word. Will be here all night.
Batter up...
Remember B's "EEstor Beyond Permittivity" post that said 3rd party permittivity certification would be released with new Patent info and the launch of the web site.
This press release does not appear to be part of that triple play.
Well you're full of sh#$(*t Steve.
johng, Y_Po, myself and I bet quite a few others agree that the wording of LL's answer to that question:
“Do they have something that they’ve tested that you’ve seen which makes you want to work with them?”
“We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year”
is ambiguous at best. They very fact that you disagree with our interpretation proves that it is ambiguous. CapicitorMan on the Volt blog specifically brings up this exchange as well pointing out that the question wasn't answered.
Are so crazy that you think we are all in some conspiracy together or something?
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS A MAJOR REVEAL
This level of crystallization
provides the path for the possibility of EEStor, Inc. providing the published energy storage for present products and major advancements in energy storage for future products.
EEstor has gone out of the way to differentiate between PRESENT PRODUCTS and "future products."
They've just told the world, in a press release, that they have a "present product".
I would expect we will see that present product soon. This is a big step for them. Never before have they said, "We have a product." Now they have.
It appears that the above statement means the level of crystallization made it possible for EEstor to create its present products featuring major advancements in energy storage.
By the way did you notice that it is EESTOR's prototypes that they would be testing this year? Not some top secret weapon as you erroneously suggest earlier! On top of that what about your BS earlier regarding the patent process? Years of scrutiny by scientsts? My arss*& You never owned up to that. If its anyone around here that is BulShting it is you Steve. You've already had to backtrack how many times on BS comments?
Steve, EESTOR should be paying you for this. What a load of craaa##%p.
Marcus,
To me, and I assume, to somebody with the level of expertise and education and professional experience as Lionel Liebman (Lockheed Martin), and to any reasonable interpretation of English... the words
"their prototypes"
would mean just that, THEY HAVE PROTOTYPES.
their = possessive
prototypes = prototypes
But it doesn't really matter now since EEstor says they have "present products" and a product is certainly better than a prototype.
Also, as long as I'm on the other side of your twisted logic, I feel like I'm on the right side of the EEstory.
And why don't you try speaking for yourself and let everybody else speak for themselves. It's a sign of cowardice when you feel that your own words don't carry enough weight by themselves.
I only speak for myself. It's sad you can't do the same.
I mentioned the others because it proves my point. If it was just me then it may well be my "twisted logic".
Now what about all your other BS comments? Some have been withdrawn. What about the others?
Marcus, if you don't provide quotes, I can't address your issues.
However, if you can't admit that Liebman, engineer, patent expert, inventor and current product manager and liason for Lockheed Martin to EEstor, said "their prototypes" and play fair as to that quote, how can we have a serious discussion?
They have revealed a few tasty tidbits.
1) pure aluminum oxide (AlO3) coating of the pure 1 micron powdered composition-modified barium titanate (CMBT) allow "the **potential** to reach its target working voltage. " The 2 "sentences after that indicate that purity is needed for resistance to breakdown (catastrophic leakage).
2) the AlO3 coating and the closely-sized 1 micron CMBT "assists" in "meeting the energy storage stabilization over the temperature range"
3) the plastic PET matrix is key to physically turning the particles in a strong electric field to get the best polarization. Polarizing BT in a strong electric field while the material is still hot during manufacturing is standard practice, much the same way magnets are created by using a magnetic field while the metal is very hot. "Polarization along with other proprietary processing steps provides the **potential** of a polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor." The plastic matrix is unique and this may be the explanation I have been looking for. I believe i had guessed here before that better polarization was the reason for the PET.
to better explain polarization: the CMBT crystals work best when oriented in a certain way. That orientation is forced up the crystal by a very strong electric field as the last stage in manufacturing. However, it's not completely effective when the crystal are "bumping" against each other. This causes some "domains" (localized volumes) of the BT to be better oriented than others. However, using the plastic PET keeps the particles seperate so that they can achieve perfect polarization if the plastic is melted during the manufacturing polarization, with each 1 micron particle having a homogeneous single domain. The plastic also allows the domains to expand/contract more during use which allows more energy to be stored so that energy saturation is not reached. Being perfectly aligned also helps for greater expansion/contraction.
HOWEVER,
The press release states very clearly that either they DO NOT have any prototypes ... or ... DO NOT KNOW if they can achieve production of a high energy capacitor described in the patents by their use of the word "potential" in the following sentence:
"Polarization along with other proprietary processing steps provides the potential of a polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor."
"polarization saturation voltage required" means "energy storage" (high permittivity saturation) as the crystal is polarized during use and not to be confused with the polarization step during manufacturing which is the meaning of "polarization" in the first part of the sentence.
1,100 V/micron applies only to the AlO3 and not to the BT which is 350 V/micron. And "breakdown voltage" does not mean energy storage or maintaining high permittivity.
zawy,
The press release states very clearly that either they DO NOT have any prototypes
First, to say this press release says anything "clearly" is quite a stretch of the imagination. :)
Second, the press release mentions "present products" and "future producsts".
Discuss.
Thanks zawy.
Steve, so you've also now deleted your erroneous rant on patents as well. So that's now three points you've ranted on adnausium about that you've had to backtrack on. How many more will it be before EESOR comes out of the closet?
As far as testing prototypes your interpretation relies on a belief you have on what LL has done without him saying it. You may be right but you could also be wrong. Your beliefs do not constitute fact, simple as that.
"their prototypes" refers to a belief, however weakly or strongly held, that they have prototypes. If Weir had simply said they have prototypes to him, this could be the basis for the remark. The fact that his answer was negative as far as seeing such a prototype suggests to me and others that he didn't see one.
Here is another quote suggesting the same.
What have you seen from EEStor in terms of their technology?
We’ve visited their facility. We were very impressed. They are taking an approach that lends itself to a very quick ramp-up in production. We’ve seen a lot of their testing and efforts to measure the purity of the powders that they use, and the chemistry. Well be working with them very closely this year to develop prototypes in certain pursuits.
Note again no mention of seeing a prototype.
Again, your interpretation Steve relies on your belief in what LL has done but not stated. Its possible but so are other interpretations. Simply the fact that others read this differently to you proves its ambiguity.
So what you are saying here zawy is that you see a potential mechanism that may have significant effects on dielectric saturation. Is having such perfect polarization really a very new thing?
zawy can you calculate on theoretical grounds, much the way you did previously with Y_Po, that having the particles perfectly polarized will give the required energy storage?
Word wraps removed (sorry for 2x post).
While considering solid state electrical energy storage device's (capacitor's) ability to store energy, maximal upper bound for volumetric energy density (energy per unit of volume) can be obtained knowing only operating device's dielectric's permittivity and (operating) electrical field strength. If we allow dielectric's material density (mass per unit of volume) to be known, we have one more energy storage characteristic: gravimetric energy density (energy per unit of volume).
So, formulae for both type of characteristics are:
volumetric: Uv = ε*E^2/2,
gravimetric: Ug = Uv/ρ = (ε*E^2/2)/ρ,
where
U - Energy density,
ε - actual permittivity of substance,,
E - Electric field,
ρ - material density.
ε and E can be calculated: E based on article and ε based on information known before. ρ can be obtained by encyclopedia lookup and making some assumptions. ε = εr*ε0 where εr (or k) is relative (to free space) permittivity of dielectric and ε0 permittivity of free space or the electric constant. Then take the voltage and divide it by the distance it was applied over (over dielectric's thickness) and you get E (E = U/l).
Now we can get computable formulae for a given dielectric considering source data available to us:
volumetric: Uv = εr*ε0*(U/l)^2/2,
gravimetric: Ug = Uv/ρ = (εr*ε0*(U/l)^2/2)/ρ.
I must emphasise we are considering only maximal bounds based on given numbers (not it's production feasibility) about dielectric. To ceramic capacitors, this bound depends only on dielectric's characteristics.
Let's get now source data. U = 350 V and l = 1 µm we take from the article. εr = ~18k has been stated before. For barium titanate, ρ = 6.02 g/cm^3 can be taken from Wikipedia, but we make a wild assumption here, that the actual material has the same density as barium titanate. ε0 can taken from any table of physical constants (ε0 = ~8.85 * 10^(-12) F/m).
Filling formulae with data and letting google's compute engine step into play, we have:
volumetric: Uv = ~2700 Wh/l
gravimetric: Ug = ~450 Wh/kg
(Verify:
Uv – http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENXX252&q=18000*8.85*10^-12F%2Fm*(350V%2Fmicrometer)^2%2F2+to+Wh%2Fl&btnG=Search
Ug – http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENXX252&q=(18000*8.85*10^-12F%2Fm*(350V%2Fmicrometer)^2%2F2)%2F(6.02g%2Fcm^3)+to+Wh%2Fkg&btnG=Search )
:
To put these numbers into perspective, consider enerergy density of current production lithium-ion energy storage: Uv = 270 Wh/l and Ug = 160 Wh/kg.
The key point to make such numbers available is EEStor's proprietary technology achieving dielectric material with outstanding properties, namely: Electrical field E = 350 V/µm (at production level) while maintaining permittivity εr (or k) = ~18k. At field 350 V/µm, one has to watch for two types of breakdowns: electrical and permittivity. 1st one occurs if dielectric (insulator) becomes conductor due to field's strength, 2nd one is the natural property (until EEStor proves wrong?) of high-k (high relative permittivity) dielectrics to loose their permittivity in high field strengths (orders of magnitude below 350 V/µm). I suspect the 1.1 kV/µm stated in the article is the lower one of the two.
This remains the point over which scientific community remains sceptical. EEStor seems to have resolved this problem some time ago and seems to deal with production issues.
To get some clue how these hypothetical maximum bounds relate to real world, one has to take into account that ceramic capacitors need also conductive plates sandwiched between dielectric layers. This makes Uv and Ug smaller, because you have to take plate material into account, which does not store energy. There are also packaging and structural materials, electronics, etc... They also use fields 350 V/µm instead of 1.1 kV/µm (as stated in the article) because of manufacturing process' mistakes and impurities in some points of dielectric material, which brings the electric field value for the two (possible) breakdowns down.
Imagine, if you can enhance the manufacturing process and rise operating electric field from 350 V/µm to somewhere higher? You get a nice boost in energy density, as it is quadratically (as seen from the formulae) proportional to electric field.
From the PR:
This level of crystallization provides the path for the possibility of EEStor, Inc. providing the published energy storage for present products and major advancements in energy storage for future products.
I think this means that certifying "this level of crystallization" made it possible for them to previously publish "major energy advancements in energy storage" as to their "present products".
It may also mean that the same certification makes it possible for "further advancement" in "future products".
There's a definite distinction here between "present" and "future" products.
Later in the PR when they say:
achieving these levels of purification are additional major factors in allowing EEStor, Inc. the potential to reach its target working voltage
Is it possible that "potential" refers to the target voltage of "future products" but that they have a "present product" which kicks ass but is not at their final target?
the target working voltage of EEStor's chemical processes is at 350 volts per micron
Is it possible that they've achieved something not quite as good as 350 volts per micron already in the "present products"
and that 350 is their ultimate target for "future products"?
looks like my previous comment came a little late.
Marcus said,
Its possible but so are other interpretations.
Agreed.
Fair enough. I hadn't seen you previously acknowledge that "their prototypes" might actually mean Liebman saw a prototype.
Mrjerry,
Yeah, anonymous over at Tyler's blog seems very impressed:
I've run into papers before that talked about how layering high-K materials with dielectrics can lead to improved capacitance. If that is the case, and it's the dielectric strength that matters in this regard, then this is a significant milestone.
Don't know if it's the same "anonymous" who people here think is that Randall dude.
Well I think its about time we got some commentary from Prof Randall. Any luck b?
Steve:
I stand behind my previous posts, and I appreciate your tenacity. But, Liebman's statement that Lockheed has not tested "their prototypes" does not answer the question in question.
I put my doubts out here because I want to believe. I really want to believe that this thing is real. Many of my fears for my daughter’s future will be lessened if Eestor is right. I am hoping.
This press release has not helped. To me, it sounds like bullshit babble; like another page in a scam. My question though remains: they are scamming whom? Why is this an important release? It is targeted to whom?!!! Probably going to send Zenn’s price up, but why do that? Why would these respected (from what I’ve gathered) businesspeople try/want to do that!!??
Why the hell release such an unimportant press release when you only release a couple per year?
~AC
Is EEstor fooling this guy too?
Paul Mesburis of Mavrix Fund Management, a 4 star rated fund, just issued a BUY recomendation for ZNN... just two hours ago.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/tradingdesk/archive/2008/07/29/aecon-and-zenn-mesburis-manager-picks.aspx
Their "Sierra Equity Fund" includes ZNN as the
7th largest holding...
http://www.mavrixfunds.com/mavdev/en/products/funds/M_Sierra.aspx
ackk said:
Why the hell release such an unimportant press release when you only release a couple per year?
It's obviously an important press release. It mentions "present products" in the same sentence as "future products".
You don't find any intrigue in that?
Steve:
I do find it intriguing, but still mostly meaningless.
Current products: what we are currently trying to produce (patent app?). Future products: what might be possibly be possible (energy weapons et al.)
Why why why distribute this press release???????
AC
who is the target audience?
Its important to me for the reasons Zawy went over. This quote in particular:
"Polarization along with other proprietary processing steps provides the potential of a polarization saturation voltage required by EEStor."
This is a direct acknowledgment of the k problem and hints at how they are addressing it. Unfortunately it is qualified by the word "potential". What we need is more technical opinions on their claims, in particular the importance of much better polarization than previously obtained in enabling high k at high voltage.
Marcus,
That is my point!!!!!
If they have a scientific problem, why are they even acknowledging it?
It seems they are trying to convince somebody, but I can't figure out whom they are trying to convince. Why do they care???
AC
Ackk said:
Current products: what we are currently trying to produce (patent app?).
They said "present products", not "current", but Im not going to argue the semantics with you...
It's not a "current product" if they are "trying to produce it", that would be the definition of a "future product".
Had they not also made reference to "future products" in the same sentence as "present products", I'd give more weight to your analogy, but they were careful to draw a distinction.
Seems the plain meaning of the words used are more likely to indicate they have graduated away form the prototype stage and that they have a "present product" ready to launch.
I can't be sure, but I believe it's a reasonable possibility based upon their chosen wording.
I feel that Weir is giving a tip off to people who believe in him and that he is a man of his word.
My reading between the lines makes me feel like they are ready to launch a product very soon.
If they have a scientific problem, why are they even acknowledging it?
That's hilarious. I don't see the word "problem" in the PR. I see the words "present product". Their reference to "potential" could be limited to "future products".
It doesn't acknowledge any "problem."
"This level of crystallization provides the path for the possibility of EEStor, Inc. providing the published energy storage for present products.."
Hate to say it again but this looks ambiguous to me!
Again,
"The path for the possibility for EESTor to provide the published energy storage for present products"???
There can only be a lawyer behind that wording!
Steve:
'present progect' or 'current progects' really means nothing. I still think this is a bullshit announcement (and I don't care who you are.)
I still hold on to my question of 'whom this is targeted towards.'
We can read between the lines of the document for a long time, and develop a myriad of interpretations, but why????
Why put this out there??? What are they trying to do.
WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT?????
I want to understand....
AC
if true, what are they protecting themselves against?
I guess it just means this is an enabler but not a guarantee?
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??
AC
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??
AC
more likely just a required step but not sufficient for the final specs.
I gave up trying to calculate a theoretical max energy density. It is interesting that eestor used the same phrasing as ypo when refering to energy density.
What is their agenda? Probably the message that zawy got. In other words something to convince a few more people that this is for real. Perhaps Steve is right on this one?
Although I wouldn't use the words "believe in him". In fact I would say this is for people hovering on the fence.
So zawy, the release was meant for Y_Po! LOL.
It would be interesting to hear from Y_Po right about now...
The promise of this technology is so exciting people are willing to go to extremes to believe in it.
From a different perspective. This could look like desperation before someone blows the whistle on a giant scam.
Don't waste my time with certification of process control test equipment. If they really have something. They can facilitate 3rd party testing on a prototype black box with positive and negative terminals. It can be done easily without releasing any propriety information.
BTW. If they wanted to keep the performance specifications away from their competitors they should have kept their mouths shut in the first place.
They should also be releasing a credible product development and manufacturing roadmap. Most companies would do so once the viability of their technology is proven at proto stage.
Maybe Kleiner, Lockheed and Zenn are getting more leery of Eestor. Just as I am. They are risking serious egg on face and would surely be pressing Eestor to release information.
Disclosure: No financial interest. I just hate seeing people pissed with.
thank you redken and tom villars.
This is the conversation that I see as important. If we're going to find clues, I think this is the place.
What do you say Steve?
AC
tom villars:
If eestore is 'spilling the beans' to increase the value of the company, why are they spilling some really worthless shit of a press release?
Continuing to wonder,
AC
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.
Dan
P.S. - disregard previous calculation. The derived load resistance from the patent should have been 112 ohms. Duh.
yes,
but why release it publicly?
sorry dan-o, posted mine before seeing yours.
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.
...
What about that "100% crystallized" measurement???
How often does that sensitive device find "zero" non-crystallized bits in a sample?
"The percent of the constituents crystallized in the CMBT powders ranged from 99.57% to 100% with the average being 99.92%"
Would EEStor engineers like to find a more sensitive device? - or is everyone satisfied that indeed perfection was achieved in that batch?
If a hypothetical manufacturer [not EEStor, of course] were to lose focus and make and sell a capacitor using a poorly-crystallized batch, then are we talking fire? or explosion?..or maybe just lower energy-storage performance?
So zawy, the release was meant for Y_Po! LOL.
It would be interesting to hear from Y_Po right about now...
Ha-ha, well If Weir reads me, then I would really like to hear his opinion about placing bets. Me and him, and since he is so sure he is going to win it should something like 1 to 100 :)
Am I the only one on the blog right now? Where the heck are all the other night owls? Heh heh.
Listen folks: while we're all desperately trying to squeeze semantic juice out of the dried up fruits of our web searches, and debating about how many EESU-powered angels can dance on the head of a pin, I thought I'd take a different tack. Since I had nothing to do during afternoon coffee break on Friday at the lab (aka "ninth plane of hell"), I figured I'd offer something you might find topical and interesting. Be warned: this will not slake your insatiable thirst for answers and certainty on the EEStor issue in any way, shape or form.
I decided to build an EESU. More specifically, build one up to the level of "first level array" as described in the WIPO patent. Now, just so everyone understands, I'm using commercially available parts (including copper sheet cut to size by the base's sheet metal shop - thanks guys). Although what I built is a real, functioning "electrostatic energy storage array", it obviously won't have the specs as described in the patent. At least I hope that's obvious...
Anyway, let's begin. R. Weir & Co. had to go through many steps to get their basic "component". All I had to do was dig around in my parts box and come up with a similarly construced one. Five identical ones, actually.
Just to be clear, this is the smallest capacitive element as described in the patent. The layers, or "interleaved plates", are not capacitors themselves, just as one blade does not make a fan. Previous posts asserting 31,351,000 tiny capacitors per EESU" is incorrect. So, based on a thousand staggered layers per component (the patent rightly states that this number is arbitrary, depending on what final specs the manufacturer is tailoring it for), we get a component size of about 1cm x 1cm x0.5cm, not including "end caps". The closest I had available was a cubic form just under 1cm per side, so from the front it should look fairly close to the drawings in the patent.
I should add that this component is constructed identically to the EEStor patent example (by morphology, not process). It is called a "stacked plate" capacitor, and the multiple "fingers" or "aluminum electrodes" of each terminal are arranged exactly as in the patent. The "end caps" are also similar, and are also bonded with a conductive epoxy by the manufacturer, the same as the patent process. Here it is (pay no attention to the man behind the thumb):
component
The end caps (capacitor terminals) are on the top and bottom. The interleaved plates are viewed edge on from the front and extend up from the bottom terminal and down from the top. This capacitor has no casing, so you can actually see inside, through the thin protective plastic layer covering the front, back, left and right sides. The bright area on top near the back is where I eased the leads off with a razor blade. The drawing of the single component in the patent labeled "figure 2" is improperly oriented with the other figures and with my picture. Rotate it 90 degrees in your head. In the picture, notice the thick, slightly brighter horizontal band across the front. That's the region where the plates overlap. Again, the plates are oriented parallel to the sides, so your looking at them edge-on. Since there are twice the number of metal plate ends in this region, it will appear brighter.
That's one component. We need five, so here they are:
five components
five components angle view
Now we have to assemble them into what the patent refers to as a "single layer array". In comes the "silver filled epoxy resin" again. Here's a picture of the stuff:
conductive silver ink
It's more or less the same stuff as described in the patent. It uses a fine silver powder with an epoxy binder in a solvent. In this case I think the solvent is toluene. The next view shows the silver powder has fallen out of suspension and collected on the bottom:
silver powder
After mixing thoroughly, we end up with this:
conductive ink on applicator
Now we assemble our "single-layer array" (not to be confused with the "layers" inside the single components themselves). Here's a picture of it half assembled, with the bottom complete, and the ink applied to the top terminals (end caps), ready for the other power rail or "copper conducting sheet" in patent parlance:
single-layer array half complete
After adding the other copper conducting sheet to the top (not the "anode" in this case, because the capacitors I'm using are non-polarized), we get the completed "single-layer array" as shown in patent figure 3:
single-layer array complete
And two more to show scale:
single-layer array again
single-layer array top view
Finally, through the awesome power of a $29.95 shareware image editor, a "double-layer array" as shown in patent figure 4:
double-layer array top view
And there you have it. Throw a whole bunch of these in an aluminum box the size of a coffee table, add some very high voltage, very high current bidirectional control electronics (gotta look into that), and Bob's yer uncle.
It was an interesting exercise, and filled up the coffee break, but I believe the actual production EESU (if it ever happens) will look somewhat different. Component size may be different, the spacing may be different depending on ESR (equivalent series resistance - determines internal heat generation), cooling methods, packaging constraints, assembly line economics, etc. Also, don't look for any final product smaller than a breadbox for quite some time - the price and size of the EXTREMELY esoteric control electronics (yeah, really gotta look into that) will dictate the practicality and lower size limit of EESU's. Unless it's vapourware, then it won't matter.
Have a good weekend, and to my fellow Canucks: have a good LONG weekend! :-p
Dan
daniel_r_plante@hotmail.com
Post a Comment