Friday, July 18, 2008

EEStor Beyond Permittivity

In April of 2008 in Cedar Park, TX, Richard Weir called a meeting together to brief key investors and stakeholders about the progress of EEStor to date, according to sources familiar with the event.  The purpose of the meeting was not to talk about the Permittivity milestone, because "the science" of that milestone had been completed as early as September of 2007.  What Weir wanted to talk about was the next milestone for EEStor Inc, which is the construction of a new facility with 6-7 production lines to join the one that is now either fully completed or nearing completion.   A key difference between the current production line and the future ones is in the instrumentation attached to gather metrics as the EESU's are created.   It should come as no surprise that the confidence in EEStor's ability to pass a 3rd party permittivity test (largely trumpeted by Zenn Motors in the context of their confidence at receiving production EESU's in 2008) has significantly to do with how Weir and team have set up their first production line.  The idea is that they can already run the permittivity tests and know now and for quite some time that the permittivity tests are old news.   So, what's behind the delay in announcing this milestone publicly?


Two things:  (1) Before Weir lays the Permittivity tests on the table which would to some degree subject them to a degree of uncontrollable public attention and more importantly, possible insights for competitors, he wanted to protect his intellectual property by filing an additional 21 patents.  Its this work on patents that has largely been behind the delay in announcing permittivity.  While Zenn Motors is bound by non-disclosure agreements with EEStor, it is also bound by being a public company with a perceived obligation to disclose any material facts about the company such as whether or not there are any issues with passing permittivity.  And according to sources familiar with EEStor's status, Zenn is not announcing that because presumably they know well that things are going well.  With their additional investment, Zenn Motor will own 6.4% of EEStor although it's been reported elsewhere that that figure could go over 10%...which is not likely to happen since Kleiner Perkins and other investors can excercise options for further funding.   It would be highly unusual (although not impossible) for EEStor Inc, to announce permittivity AND not receive a sizeable influx of additional capital capping Zenn's investment at no more than 6.4%.  


In addition, sources have said that Kleiner Perkins would likely exercise all of their options for the next round of funding.  There were rumors that Kleiner even pressured Weir to reduce or take Zenn out of the picture but Weir rebuffed those efforts to stay loyal to his early backers at Zenn.   For their part, Kleiner Perkins clarified what they told me earlier regarding EEStor not being on their website.  Originally, what Bill Joy's secretary said was "if a company is not listed on Kleiner's website, then it is not an investment of Kleiner's."  This week, she clarified by saying, "if an investment is not listed on the website, it is policy not to comment on it. "  Attempts to reach Bill Joy, who presumably manages the EEStor investment failed. Apparently he travels constantly and has no near term public speaking engagements.  


And what about that second reason behind the delay in announcement of Permittivity?  Marketing. Although it does not appear to me to be a carefully crafted set of plans, it does seem fair to say that a key reason for the EEStor's secrecy has been to whip up additional attention.  An idea summed up well by paraphrasing the Toa of Steve, "we're attracted to that which repels us."   While it's true, EEStor has an interest in protecting it's intellectual property properly  and with great care and thus are not foolish enough to share key aspects of their breakthroughs too soon, I have learned from a source within EEStor that the secrecy serves a dual purpose. I even know who claims to be the architect of that strategy but I agreed not to say so in this article.  


There may be at least 5 entities ready to take part in a second round of funding.  Kleiner, Zenn, an investment arm within Lockheed Martin, Mort Topfer and a mystery billionaire in Austin, TX.  One source was bound not to mention the name of the theoretical investor.  A second source flat out said, "the rumor is Michael Dell may be ready to invest at the advise of Mort Topfer."   It's important to note that that piece of information is an unsubstantiated rumor.  Messages left for Mort Topfer have so far been unanswered. 


In addition to the briefing in April, Weir provided an updated tour of the facility he has now.  On one end of the facility, there are raw chemicals. At the other end is a printing facility. They print the capacitors 24inches round and then cut them to spec as at an Integrated Circuit Fabrication Plant.  What Weir is building is a blueprint of a fully integrated, fully automated production line.  This is a "no touch" production line from start to finish.  The idea for expansion is to custom modify the production line for the application in question and license the results.  The production line is mobile in the sense that it could be assembled at the site of the licensee.  For example, at a Toyota Prius or GM Volt assembly line.  One source said that the rumor is Weir removes one thing from the plant floor prior to a tour: the printer heads. 


A source familiar with the April gathering said it was very probable that EEStor would not simply announce permittivity results but would also announce the new patents, turn on the website and start talking to financial analysts and investment banks on a much wider scale.   (A source within EEStor confirms their website design is almost complete)  It would seem logical that as we near delivery of production EESU units for Zenn, EEStor would have a plan to maximize visibility to gain capital to expand rapidly.  Once their business goes into the public arena, one thing that would set them apart from competitors is an enormous infusion of capital.  For now, the Zenn-EEStor-Kleiner stance with regard to publicity is a case study in conflict.  Zenn needs publicity to sell cars.  EEStor needs publicity to drum up additional funding but publicity too soon would enable or simply embolden competitors. For Kleiner, publicity of EEStor means additional competition from other investment sources.  Thus, as you probe around for information, you get alot of different interpretations about what can be revealed and talked about and what can't.  All of this creates problems for traditional journalists attempting to cover the story given their obligation to substantiate facts, another factor in the mystery surrounding EEStor. 


On a related note, I spoke to a person who has attended various meetings with EEStor involving various investment entities.  A sort of pattern seems to have emerged:  NDAs are signed, a large financial firm flies their Subject Matter Expert to Cedar Park and a group of people gather in a conference room. The SME starts firing off questions designed to trip up Weir, catch him on some aspect of the science that he should be aware of.  These meetings often end up being the SME and Weir going back and forth with everyone else having a dumb look on their face.   Then the SME invariably starts to get a smile that he/she can't get rid of and it often stays with them out into the parking lot and all the way to the airport.  And on a related note, I've learned that all of the provisions related to succession are now in place, eg, what if Weir gets hit by a bus, etc.   The IP is protected then on multiple fronts. 


Finally, I'll end with a new application concept:  vacuum cleaners.  A source within EEStor shared with me a possible application of an EESU to illustrate a point.  "Take a vacuum cleaner. Today, you have to drag around a cable and keep plugging/unplugging the unit as you move around the house. With our technology, that would be unnecessary as you would simply charge the unit and be able to vacuum pretty much as much as you wanted with no worries about running out of juice.  That's the kind of technology that would cause housewives to send us Christmas Cards each year. " 

239 comments:

1 – 200 of 239   Newer›   Newest»
Tom Villars said...

First!

Tom Villars said...

Wow, this is really good stuff. I've heard a couple places EEStor had a clever idea for ramping up production but never any details. The concept of licensing the production line is more than clever, it is genius. EEStor can concentrate 100% on what give them a differential advantage and let all the manufactures handle what they do best which is logistics and assembly.

This makes EEStor look more like a software than a hardware company which will do wonders for their margins.

Great stuff!

Manthan said...

umm ok?

marcus said...

Ok, this is the gem of a post I think most of us have been waiting for. Great work. It all makes a lot more sense.

marcus said...

Where's the diagram from by the way? It looks like part of a crystal structure being distorted by a strong electric field...

mrjerry said...

I'm speechless, now that's some news!!!! I need time to digest, how exciting and well written mr blogger...

marcus said...

Could this really be the solution to climate change and peak oil?? I'm actually starting to think so. Wow. Wouldn't that be a bit of relief for our collective anxieties. Roll them out!

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

My blogger you're becoming famous, below confirms yes you are talking to mr. weirs, you get credibility

Tyler Hamilton blog
http://tyler.blogware.com/

"One financial analyst, who has access to EEStor, told me Dick Weir talks to this blogger because, "It amuses him. He gets a kick out of it." There you go."

marcus said...

Well now we know the real reason why he talks to this blogger....

Manthan said...

do you know anything about when these new production facilities will come up. and where they will be located.

i somewhat understand now why EEStor has been secretive but i am cautiosly optimistic...for a pesimist thats pretty good!

RobMtl007 said...

Greetings:

If this is great news as many of you state.

May I ask why Zenn stock went down by 6% today?

marcus said...

I wouldn't recommend shorting it...

Tom Villars said...

marcus,

LOL, you got that right!

short interest was 184,999 shares as of June 30th

whatsyourevidence said...

Still. On the 6% drop today (which basically corresponded to the posting of the latest blog here - I would have thought the reverse would be true) and the slow slide recently from the 6.00+ high. It's something I've been dwelling on lately, and there's no figuring it out for me.

Nothing has changed since the high, nothing. WHY are people SELLING, rather than holding or buying ZNNMF/ZNN.V stock? I could understand if people were profit-taking on a pre-conceived plan upon reaching the high 5's/brief 6.00, but why this slow slide? It doesn't make sense to me.

Are people just nervous at the continuing lack of info? (But it's been that way for a LONG time now). On the brink of doubling my investment here, I am worried about the current trend.

Ideas/discussion?

marcus said...

Not sure. It could be the growing skepticism about permittivity results. First we were led to believe they would be published early July and this was accompianied by a share price rise. Then nothing happened and so I guess it follows that the share price drops. I would guess the market might be closed right now since its late Friday afternoon (I have no clue about buying shares).

I have just one strange observation to make. That is that so many of the questions on the previous post on the "Chance to ask EEStor questions" seem now to be answered. Why get us to ask questions just before so many of them would be answered? The match between questions and provided answers is almost too good to be true...Now there's a conspiracy theory for you!

richterm said...

The volume is nothing. There are no serious moves by people who know anything at these volumes. My guess/hope is just nervous nellies dropping off as the price slowly drifts down.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
richterm said...

B - I second Steve's comments. I wish I could buy you a drink. Great job.

MountainManMike said...

Some very good stuff! Thanks B

I am finding myself less and less afraid to believe that they might actually have something here. (Heck if the unit is one quarter as good as the claims, it's still earth changing!)

As far as the Zenn stock price, there is almost no fresh press about EEStor & Zenn other than some blogging. And I don't think this blog , while it may be very good, is going to appreciably affect the stock price. The stock players that are going to drastically move the stock price are watching the wire services and the financial news, not blogs.

Which kind of brings me to the point that while I am still not totally convinced that everything with EEStor is on the Up & Up, I don't believe that in the event it turns out to be some kind of hoax, it won't turn out to be done to pump up Zenn, heck there are much more effective and better ways to pump up stocks than this.

This suspense is excruciating !

tugboatwilly said...

Oil went down. If oil is cheeper, who needs Battery power I am sure is going through Big Investors feeble minds.
Some people walk right by the end of the rainbow and never even look for the pot of gold. Hart to see out the window of their Bently.

Tom Villars said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
marcus said...

So I guess the next question really is about those 21 patents since according to your story that is really what's holding things up. Perhaps this is the next area to concentrate on in terms of trying to gather information on a likely time frame for their release. How do these things work? Do Weir & Co have any say as to when these get released into the public domain? Is it possible to track their progress somehow?

marcus said...

Actually perhaps one suggestion would be to keep a list of patents associated with Mr Weir. I just found this very recent one. I have not seen this mentioned previously.

Search

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

with the number 20080031796

whatsyourevidence said...

Great post B, thanks for the work. You must've been an investigative reporter in a former life. Or a ferret.

The bit about the succession being secured was an extremely authentic touch - you can't make that up. And it speaks volumes. Loved the anecdote of the SME smiling all the way to the airport.

I am increasingly excited for the world, and for my wallet. And if it all washes out, so be it. Can't afford NOT to have some money down on this. Losing some thousands is something I can get over, missing out -- willfully -- on... "there is literally no ceiling" is something I'd regret forever.

That's why I don't understand these recent ZNN sellers. Cash in your ticket to the Holy Grail at this point? You gotta be kidding me.

Manthan said...

i have been trying to find some patents from him and most are probably pending because they dont have it on the patents website, i have used his name, and eestor as search and only have found 2 so...idk

i hope we can see this come to life...but if it doesnt, it doesnt

mjtimber said...

It's not a matter of having the patents published. In actuality, all you need are a good, dated records and you can put in your patent at any time. Of course, that would be quite messy. My guess is that they are still working on the patents to cover as much of the process as possible without infringing elsewhere. That is, assuming we take this blogger at his word. Here's hoping (from pessimist #1)!

mrjerry said...

To have a patent accepted you need to be assured that what you are patenting is accepted. It's not a one day job, there is a process that is iterative and takes sometime. Remember in the end all you have is the patent to protect yourself.

Remember the blogger who worked at the patent office, he laughed at the patent weirs has for the eesu. He said there was no way this could protect him, it could be easily modify because it was so specific, and someone else could easily make changes and get their own patent. Too much details and they change things here and there, to general and it's not protective enough. Now that there are major players here, the correct patents are being put in place to protect them. 21 patents takes sometime but it seems they are close enough that they feel any time they will release the permiattivity and future plans.

nekote said...

I found US patents to be so generic and over arching as to be of little value to actually understand what the invention was.

I guess that makes those "great" patents - legally protecting intellectual property rights for the inventors, *without* actually revealing what the invention is.

Whata' country!

HOWEVER, the WIPO patent has a helluva' lot more nuts and bolts details. I've tried to get that more widely disseminated / publicized, but have done a lousy job of that.

My current best attempt:
http://nekote2.blogspot.com/2008/07/eestor-wipo-patentdoc.html
and
http://nekote2.blogspot.com/2008/07/impressions-of-eestor-ultra-capacitor.html

nekote said...

That lovely graphic, at the very top of the original post: structure of BaTiO3; the ferroelectric effect is due to the shift of the central atom

At least, according to the bottom of:
http://www.pirellilabs.com/web/material_innovation/materials_device_for_telecommunication/dielectric_ferroelectric_materials/default.page


Hmmm, I wonder ... will Pirelli Labs be the independent 3'rd party verifier of permitivity???

Given the graphic, sure looks like an effect that stores energy by forcing something (an atom of Ba? Ti?), that is strongly trapped inside of a crystal lattice, from one polarized side to the other?

The core "secret" of Barium Titanate? This ferro-electric effect?

MountainManMike said...

Got catch Nekote! I never noticed the link before.

How bout it B, can you comment as to why there is a link to Pirelli Labs at the start of some of your EEStor blogs?

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

I posted a question on your blog earlier today as to whether the image above that B attached might have something to do with the questions you raised at your blog
http://nekote2.blogspot.com/

You posted the following at your blog...

"A critical aspect I’ve not seen noted before is the use of cryogenically cold to processing (-150 °C) of the components for the purpose of making it possible to shatter the embrittled materials to submicron, or near micron, sized particles. The underlying need to do this is to form layers of particles that are very tightly knit, with few, if any, voids."

My comment at your blog was,

"I'm not an engineer, so pardon me if this is a wild guess, but could that image at B's blog associated with blockbuster "EEstor Beyond Permativity" post have something to do with what you're talking about in the quoted passage above?"

Nice work finding the Pirelli Labs image connection. Did my question push you to consider the image in relation to the technical issues raised and to find that Pirelli image. Just curious.

wicker said...

seems like Epod in canada has been working on a similar hybrid battery technology. They've already signed an NDA with BMW of North America and have stated in previous press releases that they're in the late stages of development. They recently took the company private in anticipation for an IPO sometime in 2009. Any news on this? http://www.epodsolar.com

Robw said...

Love the part at the end about the vacuum cleaner...all that i can say is 'wow'...I think that last paragraph sums up how far-reaching the scope of this technology would be, way beyond just a new ICE replacement...lets all pray that it's real....=D

richterm said...

That EPod thing seems to be a hybrid capacitor/battery system. The ultracapacitor in that is probably used to capture more energy in regenerative braking since batteries are not good for this. It will be obsolete is Eestor delivers IMO.

richterm said...

I asked this in another thread..

Could a giant EESU be used to capture energy from lightning?
Lightning in a bottle (couldn't resist).

alanw said...

The problem I have is that the entire manner in which information has been disseminated makes this feel like a hoax or something as anti climactic as Ginger(aka Segway). Granted that in this case we know it's an energy storage unit while in the case of Segway, we were only told it would be a new revolutionary form of transportation that would change the world.

Still, my suspicion is that they might have developed a better battery but that the permittivity results will show that it is only a little better than a current Lithium Ion batteries and that in the end, it will cost more per KWh of storage with the added plus that it doesn't wear down as fast if at all.

I of course want to be wrong.

steve said...

MORE INTERESTING DATA FROM THE PIRELLI LABS SITE

Check it out the pictures and the following descriptions...

Ceramic material samples
a) Ceramic Materials
The ceramic dielectric materials allow the highest electrical insulation (dielectric breakdown) and the highest values of ε r ; for instance, TiO 2 and CaTiO 3 have, respectively, 104 and 175; SrTiO 3 even reach 300.

Innovative and proprietary techniques of synthesis and processing have been set at the Pirelli Labs.

b) Polymeric Composite Materials
Dielectric composite materials have being prepared mixing ceramic powders and polymer pellets, in an extruder, at melt temperature of said polymers.

Dielectric composites maintain mechanical properties of polymers, as plasticity, and their dielectric constant can be controlled by varying ceramic powder loading.


all of this is just above the Ferroelectric Materials stuff including the image at the top of this blog...

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
taa said...

Thank you for your blog which has become more substantive. The whole Eestor / Zenn saga has become almost all-absorbing particularly since 'facts' are so hard to find.
I think the resent surge in the Zenn stock prices had much to do with the Van Praet article stating that the third party testing would be announced within the 'next several' weeks. The stocks shot up the following days. Zenn also put his article on their website. I called their public affairs department and I asked them point blank if they considered the article FACTUAL since it was now on their website. The answer was YES.
I asked for a clarification of what several weeks meant and I was told the words Ian Clifford used in the interview was IMMINENT. Imminents means pretty soon no???

alanw said...

I had the same smile with Ginger and with Cold Fusion.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nekote said...

steve - yes, I did search out where / what context that lovely top of blog graphic came from as a result of a blog comment - yours?.

Pretty easy - it had the full URL to Pirelli Labs. Had to fiddle around for about 5 minutes to nail it down.

Quite pleased to have done so.

I hadn't stumbled over ferro-electric effect, before.

I'd long wondered how 3,500V of charge was being mechanically restrained in place, instead of flying apart. Figured it had to be something atomic / molecular or other clever "Chinese handcuff" physics - not some ordinary mechanical means - way too much power / force, I expect - the reason previous conventional ultra-capacitors maxed out?

steve said...

Nekote,

Yeah, that was my blog comment on your blog. Glad it was useful.

Funny part is, I sat here for a long time thinking, "how the hell did he track the image down to Pirelli Lab?"

Then later in the day I ran my cursor over the image and started cracking up... sometimes it's really so simple.

steve said...

Nekote,

Now, the next BIG question is... who led B to include the image above in this blog and why?

Also, Nekote... did you see the pic and info just above that at the Pirelli Labs page?

Ceramic material samples
a) Ceramic Materials
The ceramic dielectric materials allow the highest electrical insulation (dielectric breakdown) and the highest values of ε r ; for instance, TiO 2 and CaTiO 3 have, respectively, 104 and 175; SrTiO 3 even reach 300.

Scott said...

the picture is a standard perovskite crystal structure such as barium titanate. The movement of the middle atom is only part of the source of the dielectric, but at the energy storage density strengths reported by EEstor, it may be the primary source of energy storage. The atoms (oxygen i believe) above and below the middle atom are the primary source of the dielectric in typical barium titanate. Their spin lines up with the applied field to amplify it. EEStor has replaced the middle atom in a portion of its material (as described in the world patent that references a Phillips Corp patent) with zirconium which increases the permittivity way beyond simple barium titanate (see Phillips patent in the wikipedia EEStor article). Replacing some of the barium with calcium broadens and lowers the operating temperature (Curie Temp) down to a usable 85 C. The piezoelectric effect results from the spin orientation and maybe middle atom movement, but the changing shape of the whole crystal can only account for a small portion of the energy storage before the bonds will be broken from the electric field squeezing the structure beyond its limit.

It has been my guess that the central atom movement (without breaking down) as shown in the picture is key to the amount of energy stored. But i can't do the quantum calculations to prove to myself that it's possible to do what they're saying. I just know the piezelectric and oxygen spin alignments are not enough.

Scott said...

the picture is a standard perovskite crystal structure such as barium titanate. The movement of the middle atom is only part of the source of the dielectric, but at the energy storage density strengths reported by EEstor, it may be the primary source of energy storage. The atoms (oxygen i believe) above and below the middle atom are the primary source of the dielectric in typical barium titanate. Their spin lines up with the applied field to amplify it. EEStor has replaced the middle atom in a portion of its material (as described in the world patent that references a Phillips Corp patent) with zirconium which increases the permittivity way beyond simple barium titanate (see Phillips patent in the wikipedia EEStor article). Replacing some of the barium with calcium broadens and lowers the operating temperature (Curie Temp) down to a usable 85 C. The piezoelectric effect results from the spin orientation and maybe middle atom movement, but the changing shape of the whole crystal can only account for a small portion of the energy storage before the bonds will be broken from the electric field squeezing the structure beyond its limit.

It has been my guess that the central atom movement (without breaking down) as shown in the picture is key to the amount of energy stored. But i can't do the quantum calculations to prove to myself that it's possible to do what they're saying. I just know the piezelectric and oxygen spin alignments are not enough.

Scott said...

the picture is a standard perovskite crystal structure such as barium titanate. The movement of the middle atom is only part of the source of the dielectric, but at the energy storage density strengths reported by EEstor, it may be the primary source of energy storage. The atoms (oxygen i believe) above and below the middle atom are the primary source of the dielectric in typical barium titanate. Their spin lines up with the applied field to amplify it. EEStor has replaced the middle atom in a portion of its material (as described in the world patent that references a Phillips Corp patent) with zirconium which increases the permittivity way beyond simple barium titanate (see Phillips patent in the wikipedia EEStor article). Replacing some of the barium with calcium broadens and lowers the operating temperature (Curie Temp) down to a usable 85 C. The piezoelectric effect results from the spin orientation and maybe middle atom movement, but the changing shape of the whole crystal can only account for a small portion of the energy storage before the bonds will be broken from the electric field squeezing the structure beyond its limit.

It has been my guess that the central atom movement (without breaking down) as shown in the picture is key to the amount of energy stored. But i can't do the quantum calculations to prove to myself that it's possible to do what they're saying. I just know the piezelectric and oxygen spin alignments are not enough.

Scott said...

to be a little less cryptic than my last post: think of the middle atom (titanium or zirconium) as being connected by electrostatic forces to the 6 oxygen atoms that surround it at right angles when there's no electric field. As an electric field is applied, the 6 electrostatic "springs" are stretched and squeezed, storing energy like mechanical springs. You would need quantum mechanics to correctly calculate the difference in energy states, but i believe a classical electrostatic approach can be good for a rough approximation, especially if some quantum results are allowed to sneak in for a little cheating. For example, if someone drew the electron cloud orbitals before and after an applied E field, i could use emag 101 to calculate the energy difference.

For the lessor amount of energy stored via the piezo effect, the whole crystal changes shape up to something like 0.1% before shattering as the field increases. The force required to do such a thing (one of the Young's modulus's) times the distance the shape was changed is a basic force times distance calculation to get energy, but again, you can think of it as energy stored in the "springs" of the electric fields as the charged atoms move closer or further apart.

Barium titanate used as a capacitor goes back to the 1950's at least and maybe wasn't fairly well understood until the 1990's.

nekote said...

Assume EEstor is real.
Not a Ginger (Segway), not Cold Fusion, not a classic pump and dump stock swindle.

If so, tons of basics, such as the 18,000 or better permitivity is probably a long ago given.

What would you do, if you had a "real thing" that actually does, literally, "change everything"?

In essence, this is a way to store electricity as electricity. Rather than as chemicals (aka chemical reactions) in a battery.

The underlying "real thing" aspect is the improvement in electrical energy density per volume or weight. Along with potential charge and discharge rates (power). And presumably at more than competitive prices.

As far as the public will care, it's just a new "battery" technology that further extends the existing concept of "cordless" to more or less everything that already runs on battery power to most every thing that currently uses a cord to reach AC power to the smaller end of 2 cycle and 4 cycle gasoline and diesel engines we're so familiar with, today.

Quite a few, ahem, possibilities for real change!

The initial prototype calculations - 52 KWH in 4,541 cubic inches (19.6 gallons volume) would be 2.65 KWH / "gallon" (of volume). Gasoline (~125,000 BTU(?) / gallon) is 36.6 KWH / gallon at 100% efficiency. Most ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) only net about 1/3 of that - around 12 KWH / "gallon".

Alternatively, 52 KWH in 287 pounds is .18 KWH / pound. Whereas gasoline, at about 6 pounds per gallon, would be about 6.1 KWH / pound (at 100% efficiency, that is).

So gasoline / jet fuel will still be king, but for those applications where weight and / or volume ("energy density") are of paramount importance - aviation, for one example.

nekote said...

ferroelectro - nothing to do with iron - everything to do with polarization and reversal by an applied field - so a conceptual analog to ferromagnetism, thus the use of ferro.

Wikipedia ferroelectric link

Leads to a very, very lovely beginners guide to the ferroelectric effect. Teaching and Learning Package from Cambridge Univ. in UK Genuinely recommended!

Starts with a version of that lovely graphic at the top of this blog article, but with a clearer legend identifying the blog's version - Ba (in the "center" in green, labeled B), Ti (at the cube's corners in red, labeled A) and Oxygen (blue, labeled O) atoms.

Does a very nice job, even has a few Flash animations, of Curie temperature effects and polarization.

Don't miss it, if you're technically minded and unfamiliar.

Jim C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim Calvert said...

Finally something in the way of an intelligent discussion regarding the Eestor/Zenn relationship. Thank you!

Raki said...

It looks like the Japanese are ahead of Eestor in Ultracapictors. Can someone translate this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x65xr6_ultracapacitor-google-nbspvideo_tech

mrjerry said...

After reading several times, funny how the blogger never mentioned actual production of some or even one eesu, you building 6 to 7 production lines, but not one mentioned of one production produced eesu for zenn or anyone including themselves. Why? because you need to do a lot of testing in the real world, to prove to your investors not only can you produce it, but it has been through rigorous testing. Just simply meeting permittivity testing alone will not bring trucks loads of money but sure would bring interest. Why would you stop there, it just does not add up, until we understand this part, you just don't build 7 productions lines without this being solid. It could be, just the blogger is missing this important information.

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

nekote:

if you are talking about planes and how efficient they want to be cost wise and speed wise...

the cost of gas including refueling and how dirty the engine's get, and w/e other expenses included is a lot.

you also have to think about the safety issue on planes, i believe i heard that there is 4-5 fires a year on planes, which planes cost billions. plus the human loss and w/e. it might cost more in the short term but in the long term they would still save money.

just put more EEStor capacitors in the plane and it could potentially work.

and the global warming thing comes in and the noise of planes would be cut, allowing increased places for planes to go.

*all assuming EEStor is legit, im probably one of the biggest skeptics. im 50/50 right now. but im going to buy some ZENN stocks if it goes down some more.

steve said...

Mrjerry said:

"After reading several times, funny how the blogger never mentioned actual production of some or even one eesu..."

Is that statement true? I'm not sure it is. Doesn't it really depend on the correct definition of "eesu"?

Let's compare your allegation with the following from B:

In addition to the briefing in April, Weir provided an updated tour of the facility he has now. On one end of the facility, there are raw chemicals. At the other end is a printing facility. They print the capacitors 24inches round and then cut them to spec as at an Integrated Circuit Fabrication Plant... One source said that the rumor is Weir removes one thing from the plant floor prior to a tour: the printer heads.

And earlier in the post, B writes,

A key difference between the current production line and the future ones is in the instrumentation attached to gather metrics as the EESU's are created.

According to B, the existing production line starts with chemicals then ends with "capacitors" being printed.

It appears, according to a fair interpretation of B's post that the end product of the production line are "capacitors."

The following is present tense, "they print the capacitors". B didn't say they will print capacitors.

So, are the "capacitors" actual EESU's?

It looks like semantical confusion, but I would love B's spin on this issue.

"B", care to comment?

Jay said...

"It looks like the Japanese are ahead of Eestor in Ultracapictors. Can someone translate this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x65xr6_ultracapacitor-google-nbspvideo_tech
"
The Japanese supercapacitor company in this video claims they will revolutionize energy storage with a new supercapacator with an evergy storage capacity of
20 Wh/Kg. Compare that with EEstor with an energy storage capacity of 382.123 Wh/Kg, Not even close.

http://www.jeol.com/NEWSEVENTS/WhatsNew/tabid/85/newsid901/37/JEOL-Announces-Premlis-a-New-Supercapacitor/Default.aspx

mrjerry said...

Steve

Good post, also wonder if they removed the eesu as well as the print heads, if they actually produced them.

Also no one mentioned, if they working on 6-7 production lines, where are they getting the money? Sounds like they would need much more than 5 million at this point?



>>So, are the "capacitors" actual EESU's?

>>It looks like semantical confusion, but I >>would love B's spin on this issue.

nekote said...

Is EEstor going to make and sell and license production use of the machines that make ("print") these ultra-capacitors?

Kinda' like companies that made textile machines and sold them world wide, but didn't make any textiles, themselves, so to speak?

One of the key technology aspects of this EEStor invention is how to use something similar to "silk screening" to "print" an (aluminium) electrode ink / a barium titanate dielectric ink / electrode / insulator in layers that are 1 µm (electrode) and 9.7 µm (dielectric) thick. And to make 100 layers of those pancakes.

Without out any defects sufficient to cause 3,500V to find a path to squeeze out through.

So, you can bet the "print" head is among their most highly kept secrets.

A tray of that 100 layer "cake" is heated and pressed and sliced and diced into 6,000 individual "elements" 1.143 x .508 cm that are the core unit.

Those small, less than postage stamp sized elements are then ganged together - 31,351 for the much discussed 52.2 KWH unit.

nekote said...

manthan,

I suspect aircraft, as we are currently familiar with them, are not candidates for EESUs because jet fuel has substantially greater energy density, by volume and by weight. Very large by volume and by weight aircraft would be needed to carry an equivalent capacity of "fuel" in EESUs. Maybe something more along the lines of blimps could be a possibility? But why bother?

Similarly, but different, for watercraft - ships. The large hydrodynamic drag would make EESUs a weak choice for storing enough "fuel" for longer trips.

Also, in both those cases, neither has any sort of re-generative braking energy re-capture potential - a key additional ability that can further increase the value and utility ("Miles/KWH") of EESUs.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Villars said...

nekote said, "Similarly, but different, for watercraft - ships. The large hydrodynamic drag would make EESUs a weak choice for storing enough "fuel" for longer trips."

I disagree. I think if you work out the extra weight from the EESUs some of it can take the place of existing ballast so you wouldn't see near the increase in weight you'd first expect.

Also the operating cost of freights is dominated by fuel cost. For long hauls like the trans-pacific routes, it may not work but for short hops like in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean it is a no brainer to switch to EESU powered ships.

steve said...

Nekote asked,

"Is EEstor going to make and sell and license production use of the machines that make ("print") these ultra-capacitors?"

According to B's comments, it does appear EESTOR will be creating and licensing entire custom "no touch" production lines specifically engineered for each customer's unique specs:

The idea for expansion is to custom modify the production line for the application in question and license the results. The production line is mobile in the sense that it could be assembled at the site of the licensee. For example, at a Toyota Prius or GM Volt assembly line.

I wonder if your "silk screen" analogy is accurate. Since I'm not an engineer, I'm having trouble visualizing those details but that tech break down you included was interesting, Nekote. Nice post. Thanks.

seslaprime said...

the problem with skeptics has always been the fact that purified barium titanate alone could not handle the stress of the storage capacity EEstor claims. there has always been a search for a dielectric for this purpose and BT has been the best solution for 50 years. unfortuately, no one has been able significally advance the strength of BT up to this point. I have also been following the EEStor saga for about 8 months. I have been a strong believer that Richard Wier is legit and has discovered some way of making this happen that is not included in the original patent. in Scott's post of 7/19, he explains the secret. Wier and his team seem to have altered the Atomic structure of BT. and I quote - "EEStor has replaced the middle atom in a portion of its material (as described in the world patent that references a Phillips Corp patent) with zirconium which increases the permittivity way beyond simple barium titanate (see Phillips patent in the wikipedia EEStor article)." this is how they are able to get the figures they claim. so one more step to understanding this Awesome technology. Way to go Mr. Wier. in the beginning, this tech will be somewhat limited to cars, power grid, and other electronics but in time, as they build on this technology, you will see aircraft, spacecraft and an unlimited spectrum of uses. this tech will eventually completely end the use of petroleum based fuels altogether. it is earth shattering.

Jay said...

Interesting description of the Tecnology from a Technology showcase in 2004. This is very interesting im reading this again after a very long time.

Present tense statements
"The initial ceramic battery
can store 52.22 kW*hrs of electrical energy"

Reference to a military prototype 3 years before the lockhead deal??

"400 pound commercial unit and a 200 pound military
unit."

EEStor, Inc.
EEStor, Inc. has developed a ceramic battery
technology that is based on composition-modified
barium titanate powder, unique production
techniques, an ultracapacitor configuration, buck
control circuits with output drivers to supply electrical
energy to the load, along with boost circuits
for rapid recharging, and integrated circuit packaging
concepts. There are two patents pending of these processes. The initial ceramic battery
can store 52.22 kW*hrs of electrical energy in a
400 pound commercial unit and a 200 pound military
unit. The size of the EESU can be easily tailored
to meet the customer's requirements. The
cost of EESU devices in high volume is about
35% less than a lead acid battery and has about
1/10 their weight/volume and can be fully deep
cycled indefinitely. Along with this the EESU
device can be charged and electrical energy
delivered to the load at electronic speeds. The
EEStor, Inc. technology has the capability to
replace the internal combustion engine in all
applications.
Contact Information
Name: Richard D. Weir
Title: President
1404 Wesson Cove
Cedar Park, TX 78613
512-258-5669
dick_weir@eestor.us

http://www.alliance.rice.edu/Images/alliance/PDF/Technology%20Company%20ShowcaseFINAL.pdf

Jay said...

Another small find, Betty Weir thats richards wife purchasing some tubing, interesting we can only speculate on what she may use that tubing for.
http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Cherokee.Rubber.Co.973-584-3733

Black Neoprene TUBING, Duro 60, 7/32"ID x 1/32"Wall
(50ft.) E-mail: betty_weir@eestor.us


Betty Weir, Purchasing Dept., April 17, 2008

Mark said...

From the website, it seems that she is selling not buying and it doesn't seem to meaning anything related to eestor. Interesting though that she use eestor email address betty_weir@eestor.us.

Manthan said...

nekote:

i believe their is a military version which is more expensive that holds the same amount and is half the size.

Jonathan said...

Hmmmm....I'm convinced that this blog is directly related to the price of Zenn stock. I'm wondering exactly how many shares B here has his hands on. It's funny to me that this "good news" story comes out and ZNN stock jumps 15% by 11am. There must be a lot of people out there using this blog to guage purchases in shares.

Marcus said...

I am not accusing anyone of anything but It is interesting how much power bloggers have over share prices these days. You can have no accountability what so ever and profit quite nicely if you are skilled enough.

Tom Villars said...

marcis said, "... but It is interesting how much power bloggers have over share prices these days."

It isn't bloggers so much as news that has the power to move a stock and this is quite proper. b dug up information and was the first to publish. If a journalist had published the info the effect would have been the same.

It is funny though to watch people complain about "too much information" after complaining about to little for so long. :-)

richterm said...

I think it's an obvious X factor - no one knows if this blogger is sincere, a skilled member of the hype machine, or a lone pumper.

But the info from various sources has me strongly leaning toward saying this is for real, so I did invest in Zenn. Better for me at least to be duped and lost a few K than to miss out on it. This is the biggest potential I've seen. Second only maybe to curing cancer.

The Tyler blog corroborating the blogger/Weir conversations adds a nice chunk of credibility for me. Can someone give or link in more info on Tyler's background?

richterm said...

Never mind, duh..

http://www.technorati.com/people/technorati/tylerh/

So unless Tyler is being duped too, it seems this B is independent and really speaking to Dick Weir. Who knows about the rest of the info.

Marcus said...

jonathon, B has disclosed that he/she has shares in Zenn.

From Wiki:

"In the United States and many other jurisdictions, however, "insiders" are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned, but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust. This duty may be imputed; for example, in many jurisdictions, in cases of where the a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend and the friend violates a duty to the company if he or she trades on the basis of this information."

Now personally I don't hold anything against B as long as the story posted is based on real sources. But I'm curious to know what the legal opinion on these types of situations is...

Jonathan said...

It is interesting that one of the best sources for info on EEstor is anonymous. I am a big fan of this blog however. Whether this turns out to change the world, or be a great failure, the ride has been fun. I agree also that this is a good stock to roll the dice on. If this turns out well I'm sure more than one person that reads this blog will be retiring in a few years.

I'd be interested for someone with a little more financial market background to run the numbers. How many stocks would have had to be sold this morning to jump the price 15%?

I also accuse B of nothing. If he were to profit from Zenn stock taking off, I would say more power to him. I'm just glad that we all have a place to discuss this technology with other like minded types of people.

richterm said...

The volume of trading on Zenn is a bit higher than normal - probably 2x Friday's volume. No where near the volume on the first couple days of July, when no news came out. Much more suspicious of insider inf on that one. But the blog definitely produced some action today.

To move a stock you just need more buyers than sellers or vice versa - no hard figure. If people start gobbling up shares at the ask prices, the next higher asks become current.

Tom Villars said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Villars said...

jonathon said, "I'd be interested for someone with a little more financial market background to run the numbers. How many stocks would have had to be sold this morning to jump the price 15%?"

Theoretically, one share.

Someone willing to sell and someone else willing to buy at a certain price is what determine the stock price. Remember for every seller there is a buyer so the each trade is a negotiation. There is no man behind he counter that is sell something and decides to raise the price because his inventory is running low.

Scott said...

The wikipedia article on EEStor has very careful and precise information on the possibility of the permittivity data being real. Weir didn't invent the modified BT (it appears PHillips Corp did). Using zirconium as some of the middle atoms greatly increases the permittivity (from 5,000 ish for regular BT up to 33,000) but that doesn't mean the permittivity is going to remain high at high voltages. Whatever combination of things EEStor is doing to make that possible is the secret that needs the 23 ish patents that have been filed.

The airplane won't work because weight is so important. But boat and rail should be a much better apllication than road vehicles because 6 times less fuel is used on rail than truck and 36 times less in a boat. The extra weight will sink the boat a little, which increases drag but boats are long which is why friction is lowered. Oceanic vessels need at least a week of energy, running 24 hours a day. 83 times more energy between charging than charging a car every night after 2 hours of use. So being 36 times more efficient may not offset the extra energy storage needs for long-distance boating. 25 pounds of diesel has as much useful energy as about 400 pounds of EESU. It takes about 6 pounds of diesel to transport a ton 1,000 miles. Or about 240 pounds to transport 2,000 pounds across the sea, adding more than 10% to the boat's weight.

Jonathan said...

Thanks for that Richterm. I was speculating that in the beginning of July also. I was half expecting to see permittivity results come out after the stock started moving so much for no obvious reasons.

Thanks Tom. I guess it is the ol' something is worth whatever you can get someone to buy it for. I think Richterm clarified what I was looking for on the calculation of the share quotes.

Jay said...

Thats what i find funny about those who say they wont buy any stock untill EEstor is absolutely proven and is no longer speculation. At that point selling and shorting of stock will completely stop and price will increase exponentially, untill the first gready sucker starts to sell.

David said...

from Zenn's offering memo during the latest round of financing: The Corporation's rights to market EEStor's EESU technology are subject to further milestone
payments of (i) US$700,000, within 30 business days following third-party verification of specified
powder permittivity, and (ii) US$500,000, within 15 business days following third-party verification
of a production quality electronic storage unit of 15 kilowatt hours meeting certain operating
parameters agreed to by the parties.... so if 'permittivity' were already verified as mentioned in the blog, wouldnt the payment have to be released?

richterm said...

My take is the blog is saying permittivity is a foregone conclusion, but 3rd party verification has not been completed. But in-house Eestor knows the it's a done deal.

Now here's my pure speculation on what happened in the 1st days of July. Somebody knew something really good about Eestor. The volume was through the roof. Could that have been the day they got the 3rd party results? Is the clock ticking on Zenn making the payment within 30 days, at which time Zenn would have to make permittivity results public?

Tom Villars said...

richterm,

The volume on those days really do stick out. If you are right and I think you are, whoever(s) was doing the buying was willing to go to $6 and above. That is a pretty encouraging sign.

Jay said...

What happened the 1st of July and 30th of June was a response from this article on the 26th. Saying that permitivity results are expected in several weeks. The 30th was the first trading day after this article.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c2046e9d-ce11-4115-af06-9737c3f6f232

Three weeks later there hasnt been a news relase, so we had this falling off in the stock price untill b released his news.

Tom Villars said...

Jay,

The first day would have been June 27th. I show volume for ZNN.V being 224K that day which is high but nothing like 769K on July 2nd.

richterm said...

I thought about the effect of the article too, and it's possible that people just "got around" to reading it over the weekend and went into a buying frenzy on Wednesday July 2. In my judgement, the volume was just too large for that somewhat delayed reaction to kick in on Wednesday morning.

Volume was up 6/26 - 6/30 as stock price moved up steadily.

Tues July 1 Canadian markets were closed for Canada Day.

Wednesday July 2 volume doubled from previous levels, and stock shot to 6.50 range.

Since then, volume has dried up on no news, nervous nellies, and profit taking.

http://tsedb.globeinvestor.com/invest/investSQL/tsx.price_history?pi_symbol=ZNN-X

dmon said...

I think much of the speculative pricing in ZNN is from people like us, who scour the net daily for hints of shreds of news from EEStor, hoping and waiting for the world to change. On days like July 2/3, we've digested the news results from June 26/27, realize there really wasn't much new there and, if we have the guts, take some profit (I wish I had!), driving price down. Then on days like today we see B's latest post, take it as encouragement and start snapping up the stock again while it's relatively "low"...

When I first caught whiff of the EEStor/ZNN story I started watching the stock and noticed that there was a big day-to-day variance in the price. Still is. When there's a tangible announcement detailing real scheduled delivery of cityZenns to dealerships, this stock will (a) skyrocket and (b) become a "normal" stock, with a 1-2% day-to-day variance, instead of the 7-15% we currently see.

dmon said...

er... I mean... what Rich said.

taa said...

Keep in mind that the volume of 224k on June 27 was an all time record which in itself probably created additional activity. Afterall, this stock is very volatile and will react to any kind of news.
To me though, it was more important that Zenn actually posted this article on their website. That must be interpreted as an affirmation. I called them and they confirmed that they thought the article was factual. For sure they know if/ when test results will be announced.
Does anyone know who came in with the additional $15,000,000 capital injection? I thought that was pretty impressive and I think it will be quite telling to know who invested this money.

Tom Villars said...

Here is the press release on the $15 million

http://www.marketwirecanada.com/mw/rel_ca.jsp?id=862944&k=ZENN

taa said...

The big question is who came in with this money? If it became known that it was an 'insider' the stock would sky-rocket!!!

Considering the nature of this situation where everything is hinging around Eestor. There is no way an investor would gamble on this. He would want something very convincing or even conclusive!

taa said...

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

Jay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Villars said...

taa,

The timeline does support your thinking. Weir has his meeting in April and in May Zenn as an extra $15 million in the bank.

Tom Villars said...

Jay,

Not being Canadian I wouldn't bet my life on it but I'm pretty sure July 1st is the holiday you're thinking about.

And I do show volume on June 27 but none on July 1st.

richterm said...

Even on that big volume day though, it's not real big money. 700K shares @ ~$6 per is about $4M in trades. It's not like the whole world bought in on that day.

I personally still sense danger here. Never say it's impossible for people to contrive interesting and new ways to rip off others. But I'm at peace with that, because of what it represents both for this investment, for the country, and for the world. If I lose, well call me an idiot for having hope for the future.

If it wins, I can't wait to get a really cool electric sportscar.

ApplewoodCourt said...

So today, the stock is up ~14% on heavy volume - double the new "usual" volume. Sometimes stocks are manipulated up by the day traders, then they pull out their $$ at the very end of the day, not wanting to put their capital at risk overnight.

Where is Clifford's weekly email? He was fairly consistent for a month or so ... this past 2 weeks I haven't seen anything.

I work with a dual Ph.D. in physics and chemistry, specializing in ferroelectrics materials. I asked him a few questions and pointed him to the eestor wikipedia entry - he said that he didn't think that their claims were legit, but wouldn't completely dismiss them either - leaving the door off possibility slightly ajar.

AK said...

What will it take to charge an EEStor capacitor?

My very limited understanding of capacitors is they need to be fully discharged before charging.

I just read that at 220v it would take about 4 hours to charge the 54Kw EEStor unit. So 1) it will take a fast charge high voltage unit to charge it and 2) it may not be quite so low cost to charge. Assuming current residential rates, it would be about $5 in electricity. But the equipment would also need to be paid for, and labor, and facilities... So may be looking at more like $25-$30 per charge at specialized stations, or a rather expensive home charging station to facilitate a quick charge.

Any thoughts?

ackkk said...

Hey all,

Thanks for the thoughts/conversation.

If the investors and stakehholders of EEStor met and discussed this good news in April, then I don't understand this:

http://canadianinsider.com/coReport/allTransactions.php?ticker=znn

Scott said...

I think the speculation on ZNN movement is kind of silly. $50,000 can make this thing move 10%, so any single small investor can make big changes. There's no news, so there's no big trend.

The 5 minute recharge only applies if you have copper cables something like 2 inches in diameter, both ways, not counting insulation. It has to be DC because of skin effects. So even at a gas station, it's not a simple matter. A strong 200 amp house service at 240 V will take 1 hour to charge it. Now look at those cables coming into your house from the pole. To do the charge in 5 minutes will take aluminum cable that has 12 times more cable cross-section area, or 3.5 times the diameter, not counting insulation.

My permittivity section in wiki has remained unchanged for sometime now which tells me not as many big minds are looking into this like they should. Equally important for comparision is the resveratrol wiki article that, by comparison, changes a lot. Equally important because it can cure most cancers when applied directly to the cancer and doubles the lifespan of most species tested so far.

Despite my negative comments on wiki, the comments from all who are closer to the subject are very positive. My intuition said buy despite my skepticism. My intuition is usually right and too many people languish from too much skepticism. The lies would have to be too big from too many people who have too much to lose from the lies for there to really be any significant lies surrounding this. So i invested what i can safely lose.

Marcus said...

Scott, so you are the author of the wikipedia article?
Did you ever read the criticisms made by Anatoly Moskalev on quantum tunneling for a hypothetical ESU in a now deleted Tesla blog? If so, any opinion? Can I ask what your background is (roughly)?

Marcus said...

ackkk, can you explain to the layman (such as myself) what the table is indicating? Is it that Ian Clifford is selling shares?

richterm said...

Never like to see insider sells, but other things to consider..

-how many insiders are selling? In this case only 2 officers have sold some.

-how many shares do those insiders own vs % selling? Anyone know?

Part of officers compensation is stock, so I don't think it's unusual to cash some in. If they have a lot of shares already, I wouldn't say it's crazy for some to be liquidated. Maybe the guy needs cash.

ApplewoodCourt said...

I was checking this out ... he only sold ~$110k worth of stock. Which isn't "that" much for an officer of the company.

http://canadianinsider.com/coReport/allTransactions.php?ticker=znn

Maybe he was adding on to his house? According to Business Week Clifford makes ~110k $CAD per year - Hell, I make almost that much - after taxes on the sale of his shares ... he barely has enough cash to pay for finishing a basement.

ANNUAL COMPENSATION*
Salary C$90,000
Bonus C$20,000
Total Annual Compensation C$110,000
Total Number of Options 372,960

Also, Regarding Zenn

SHARES OUTSTANDING
29.4M
Meaning that there are 29.4 million shares of stock on the market. Shares outstanding X share price = Total market cap.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about the above.


*****

I am a skeptic by nature, nothing is different in this case. - but in full disclosure I own a few shares of Zenn.

nekote said...

recharging:

The "average" round trip work commute is 30 or 40 miles. Consider 41 miles per day * 365 days = 15,000 miles per year.

The 52.2 KWH EESU under discussion is supposedly good for 5 hours at 60 MPH = 300 miles. (I'm still surprised that 14 HP (10 KW) can do that job!)

Thus, 41 / 300 * 52.2 KWH = about 7 KWH.
Even less at lower speeds.

200 Amps @ 240V = 48 KW.

Less than 10 minutes for the entire daily 7 KWH recharge, at a full 48 KW power rate.

Hopefully at night, at discounted / off-peak pricing.


A full 300 mile "tank" of electricy (52.2 KWH) would be $5.22 @ 10¢ / KWH. $10.44 @ 20¢ .

In comparison, a 30 MPG gasoline car would cost $40.00 for the 10 gallons (@ $4/gallon) for that same 300 miles.

steve said...

Marcus,

It appears the Tesla blog containing Mosalov's criticism of EEstor was deleted just after B's July 18th blockbuster post here.

I was reading that Tesla blog thread a day or two before B made his post and when I went back to double check Moskalov's critique against some of the comments here from nekote and others, I was disappointed to see that the entire thread had been removed.

I wonder what happened.

Marcus said...

I suspect to some degree Tesla are trying to reinvent themselves after Martin's departure. Martin wrote quite a few of those older blogs...

El Kabong said...

We can carve it in stone: Electricity will not cost $0.10 or $0.20/KWH if most people begin driving electric cars. As long as the juice comes from the grid, it will more likely cost $0.40 or $0.50/KWH at that point.

The only chance that it won't is if electricity can be produced and stored locally, that is to say, by the end user. Thus the practical future of electric transportation is bound tightly to the ability of households and businesses to use renewable sources of electricity on site.

Scott said...

Tesla moving their posts around is a problem. I found Anatoly Moskalev comments at

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=46

His Jan 22, 2007 at 10:41 pm seemed to be the most interesting. I didn't see his post on tunneling, but he is quoted as saying that limits it to 200 Wh/kh, only a little below EESU.

Concerning the Jan 22, 2007 10:41 pm post, he stated the EESU might have 3.5 times more energy density than hydrogen reacting with oxygen. That gave 15,000 kWh/m^3 when we know EESU's modified-BT has 60 kWh/m^3, an error off by a factor of 240. His "sm" is centimeters (cm). He says the permittivity of modified-BT is the multiplier to find the V/cm field in the inter-atomic bonds, so that if our capacitor's inner-atomic bonds hold the same energy/bond then the permittivity has to be only 7E7/3E6 = 16 instead of 18,000 (his 300 is wrong because of the 240 factor). He goes at it in such a backward way that this is his proof that the permittivity can't be that high (18,000) because it would create bonds far stronger than hydrogen bonds. But at the same time, his "proof" is showing that EEStor only needs a permittivity of 16 to store the amount of energy EEStor claims. His post is really twisted, circular, confused, and worthless.

Four problems: 1) wrong energy density for EESU. 2) no adjustment for the permittivity of his fuel (water is about 80) which is not a small factor. 3) assumed permittivity is directly related to the bonds storing the majority of the energy 4) selected hydrogen for comparision but selecting water as an end product

His comments seemed too off-the-cuff with very little effort to explain what he was talking about. If he has a solid position, then I would like to see physics spelled out that could deserve a grade of C instead of F. We need an expert that's a little more careful and clear in his writing.

Marcus said...

Thanks Scott. Other than Anatoly the main other detailed critique I know of comes from "Anonymous" (multiple posts) at this link.

http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/1/3328442.html

what's your impression?

zawy said...

Yes, anonymous in that link made a very clear and good post, centered on skepticism towards EEStor claims. It has been posted several times elsewhere by maybe himself and others. But he does not provide any physical theory as to why the EESU is not possible. He makes the well-known claim that the permittivity cannot stay high at such a high V/cm, but that's the whole point: if it's a breakthrough, then he will not be able to explain it until EEStor explains it and EEStor doesn't want to explain it in order to keep away "patent improvements" from other companies that could sneak around their patents. So the secrecy of EEStor should not at all be used as evidence against them. The idea that EEStor is defrauding in some way has way more holes in it than this "trade secret protection" argument which has no holes. All the references anon cites are older than the modified BT used by phillips, so it seems he was partly ignorant of the state-of-the-art. His newest reference is 7 years old. None of the materials are like the phillips material used by EEStor. But his point should be well taken: he knows of no one who has acheived more than 12 J/cc and EEStor is claiming about 7000 J/cc. The primary goal of everyone's work in ceramic capacitors has been to increase energy storage. I have not been able to find any research conducted by Richard Weir in the past. There are claims that he was affiliated with IBM research, Parc, and important hard drive work, but i could not find any verification, except for an article in a newsletter that showed he had a small company (Titanium X i think) and some good knowledge about hard drives. Does he have a PhD in ceramics? I don't think so, and yet they've been studying BT since the 1940s.

Anon seems to be surprised at the voltage breakdown increase, but other research i'd seen indicated that it shouldn't be a surprise.

I've not seen any theory as to why it's not possible, nor any theory as to why it is possible. We only have social knowledge which makes claims both ways.

Y_Po said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

Thanks for your thoughts zawy, they are quite helpful. I was also wondering whether there was a fundamental law of physics prohibiting such an energy density but it seems there is none except if Anatoly is right about quantum tunneling. Do you have a physics background?

Y_Po said...


But he does not provide any physical theory as to why the EESU is not possible. He makes the well-known claim that the permittivity cannot stay high at such a high V/cm, but that's the whole point: if it's a breakthrough

It is really pretty simple
In ferroelectrics you have electric dipoles which can be polarized quite easily by external electric field. That is where energy effectively stored.
The problem is amount of dipoles is fixed, once you ramp up external voltage all dipoles get polarized and no more left. Your high-k material effectively became low k-material, end of EEstory :)

Marcus said...

Y_Po the problem with such a technical argument is that it assumes you know all the parameters of the problem and how they are claiming to solve it. I don't think that's likely in this case.

As I said before, it is inconceivable to me that KP, with their subject material expert would be miss-led at a meeting specifically addressing k claims.

Now its possible that b has a false story but at least some of it has been independently verified by a completely independent person.

I agree that many of the statements made in interviews etc are ambiguous but then again the right question doesn't seem to have been asked. Until it is asked I don't think you can assume they are specifically avoiding the question.

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

Marcus,
Physics gives constrains on all parameters. For example the higher your k is the faster it saturate.


You can calculate best case scenario and trust me it will be much worse than they claim, even though I have never done it.


In case of EEstor they use well known material parameters of which are known and it is painfully clear (for any expert) that they had no clue about physics involved when they were writing their patent.

I am not saying that capacitors with such energy density are not possible, they are, but it has to be completely different approach.

Y_Po said...


I agree that many of the statements made in interviews etc are ambiguous but then again the right question doesn't seem to have been asked. Until it is asked I don't think you can assume they are specifically avoiding the question

Well, I tend to think with right questions EEstor will bust in 5 minutes. And the whole story will go into history as the biggest most ridiculous embarrassment in the business history, much bigger than cold fusion,Enron or any other busts.

If they somehow deliver it will be the most ridiculous, one of the greatest, and most unbelievable discovery in the history of science. I can't even think about analogy.

Y_Po said...

OK, I have got an analogy :)

It is like giving Paris Hilton completely bogus and wrong course of physics then asking her to solve quantum gravity as homework problem, and she actually deliver to the embarrassment of all theorists.

Y_Po said...


As I said before, it is inconceivable to me that KP, with their subject material expert would be miss-led at a meeting specifically addressing k claims.

I don't know which interview you are talking about. I saw one where they asked about permittivity, but it was not k-problem question. It was more like "what about permittivity?" and they answered "We finished permittivity testing last year, permittivity is fine"

This is laughable question and even more laughable answer.

Marcus said...

Its not an interview I am talking about rather its the quote below from b at the start of this post. So this is where it comes down to either believing b or not.

"The purpose of the meeting was not to talk about the Permittivity milestone, because "the science" of that milestone had been completed as early as September of 2007"

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


"The purpose of the meeting was not to talk about the Permittivity milestone, because "the science" of that milestone had been completed as early as September of 2007"

Yes, this is interview I saw.

The question is: Who decides when milestone is completed ? :)
If it EEstor then it is rather clear example of avoiding serious questions.

Marcus said...

I assume this refers to another meeting between EEStor and CP in September 2007 that concentrated on the question of k. I could be misinterpreting this. It would be good if b could elaborate but somehow I suspect b won't unfortunately. b??

Y_Po said...

Marcus,
One thing is for sure "k problem" have not been commented (As I stated in other thread)
The question why is that ?

Marcus said...

I assume that is because they are protecting their intellectual property.

Another point, if this is a mistake or scam, it is no where near the league of cold fusion. This is not happening at the academic level and there are no associated peer reviewed articles. It wouldn't be either the first or last time a VC firm such as KP backs a looser. The amount of money involved is also no where near Enron. Its a minor play for KP.

So what about the Philips patent?

Marcus said...

Also, can I ask what your background is?

Y_Po said...


I assume that is because they are protecting their intellectual property.

I don't buy it, They are not going
to loose anything by saying "Yes there is k-problem and we solved it"


Another point, if this is a mistake or scam, it is no where near the league of cold fusion. This is not happening at the academic level and there are no associated peer reviewed articles. It wouldn't be either the first or last time a VC firm such as KP backs a looser. The amount of money involved is also no where near Enron. Its a minor play for KP.

It is not about money.
It is about amount of embarrasement
backing up a looser and losing a lot of money is one thing, being duped in a such manner is another.
I am pretty sure they would even pay to get less embarrasement.

Y_Po said...

So what about the Philips patent?
What about ? Yes there is Philips patent

Marcus said...

"I am pretty sure they would even pay to get less embarrasement."

Sorry I don't buy this at all. In fact I don't think embarrassment would be an issue at all. Funding would be cut immediately and it would all be finished up. Pride more important than money?! Now that is crazy.

You mention that they haven't talked about measuring field strength. Isn't that precisely what they report in the this patent?

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006026136&IA=WO2006026136&DISPLAY=DESC

Marcus said...

Also, in the earlier patent they include point 3. in which they claim:

3. The method of claim 1 wherein a dielectric voltage breakdown strength of 5.0.times.10.sup.6 V/cm was achieved across the electrodes of the components.

Is this not a measurement of field strength?

zawy said...

I am electrical engineer. I spent a couple of weeks studying BT/Zenn/EEStor. BT, let alone modified nano-particle alumuninum/PET-coated BT, is not a simple dipole. There are 2 or 3 different "dipoles" present the various forms of BT, and they act different at different stages. A high k means a lot of charge can easily pour into the material without having to let the voltage increase a lot. Dielectric saturation means all those charges build up an internal electric field that causes the material to reach it's limit of "stretching". Most of that stretching can be seen as a piezoelectric effect. The more efficient the piezo effect, the less hysteresis (losses in charge cycling). That's probably the first stage of BT charge build-up with the highest K. After that, the center atom movement seems to be the source of energy-storage without piezo effect nor hysteresis losses. Using both titanium and zirconium as the center atom might even out the k over a wider range of voltages. But where are all those electrons getting stored?

Y_PO is right, a high k usually just means it reaches saturation with less voltage. What has changed that allows more electrons to be stored in the material? Nanoparticles which means more surface area per unit volume? University of California was just awarded a patent in 2005 where smaller grains doubled the permittivity, but it's dependence on voltage/cm was not discussed.

I've been thinking of this only in terms of movement of the central atom and whether or not that can store enough energy. It's very symmetrical that could allow it to be contained by the sides while the primary energy storage would be between the top and bottom bonds without causing the piezo effect to break the crystal. But i doubt those bonds can hold the extra electrons needed to create the V/cm field. So maybe the aluminum oxide coating is where the EESU is storing 24 times more electrons per unit volume ( 24 = SQRT(7000 J/cc / 12 J/cc) ). That would explain everything, except for the severe capacitance penalty caused by the AlO3 coating (as explained in the wiki article). The plastic matrix would keep those charges seperate. The particles being separated by the plastic and having about 20 layers of particles (as their patent states) basically means you have 20 layers of metal to store the 24 times more charge needed.

zawy said...

Oops, aluminum oxide is an insulator, so forget that. So the only suggestion i have as to why EESU can shove in 24 times more electrons without saturation is due to a never-before-seen higher surface/volume ratio or much smaller grain sizes. Grain boundaries could have been the source of saturation in the past.

Y_Po said...

zawy,

You assume their claim is true and they do in fact reached claimed energy density, and go to possible explanation.
OK, If you like such speculation then explain to me their patent where they make a calculation without any mentioning of their ground-breaking solution to the k-problem?

Y_Po said...


Oops, aluminum oxide is an insulator, so forget that. So the only suggestion i have as to why EESU can shove in 24 times more electrons without saturation is due to a never-before-seen higher surface/volume ratio or much smaller grain sizes. Grain boundaries could have been the source of saturation in the past.

No, grain has nothing to do with saturation, and electrons don't move there, it is ions and their movement must be restricted within lattice cell. From that you can calculate maximum possible polarization beyond which you can't possibly go, it is just simple geometry.

johng said...

zawy @ 7:37

Good discussion you gave there and above.

Its hard to imagine, though, a higher surface area/volume ratio. These are all planar configurations, with (supposedly) about a 10 micron dielectric thickness. If one tries to roughen the surface that much, you will increase the field concentration even further beyond the already overstessed state.

zawy said...

y_po, I cited a patent in a previous post that shows grain size is possibly the largest determining factor in k factor, although that does not prove it improves energy density. You say i specualte that their claims are true, but it is equal speculation that their claims are true. Yes, i was wrong in saying electrons move into the lattice. Yes, polarization has to do with geometry, but apparently grain size decrease and zirconium greatly improves geometry changes which you say can't be changed.

Homogeneous grains will obviously allow for greater piezo expansion (geometry change) since non-homogeneously-oriented grains will bump into each other and thereby limit piezo expansion.

Until someone shows me how the polarization cannot reach the levels described by EEStor, I can't say EEStor is lying.

Raki said...

VALENCIA, Calif. and MADRID, Spain – July 22, 2008 – Marking a major milestone with the first commercial
use of its breakthrough ultracapacitor nanotechnology, Enable IPC Corp. (OTC BB: EIPC.OB), a leading
company for turning technologies into products and successfully bringing them to market, today announced
that it has partnered with the Madrid, Spain-based IMDEA Energy Institute to jointly develop ultracapacitors
based on Enable IPC’s patent-pending energy technology. The initial project for this venture will be to
incorporate Enable IPC’s ultracapacitor into the SA2VE clean energy innovation program.

http://www.enableipc.com/PR20080722.html

Y_Po said...


y_po, I cited a patent in a previous post that shows grain size is possibly the largest determining factor in k factor, although that does not prove it improves energy density. You say i specualte that their claims are true, but it is equal speculation that their claims are true. Yes, i was wrong in saying electrons move into the lattice. Yes, polarization has to do with geometry, but apparently grain size decrease and zirconium greatly improves geometry changes which you say can't be changed

You confuse k with k-problem
Nobody have ever linked grain size to solving k-problem.
What they possibly linked is grain size and k itself. But I highly doubt that such link have more into it than simple "different mixture giving different k".

I short, nobody have ever reported solving k-problem, Not even EEstor, well, they were not aware of that problem :)

zawy said...

JohnG, EEStor is using 0.64 micron particles, coated in 0.01 micron ALO3 in between the aluminum plates spaced 10 microns apart. Maybe i didn't understand your post, but it seemed to not reflect their design. Maybe the larger surface area/volume in the grains helps increase polarity. Can more charge be held on the surface of BT? This would still require a greater geometry change to store the energy in the "stretched" and "squeezed" orbitals. Only a really good physicist would know the maxium energy storable in the center atom position and how this affects overall structure (piezo effect or not?). An equal amount of skill would be required to know the maxiumum piezo expansion in a homogenous grain. The isolated grains in plastic allow for never-before-seen piezo expansion that extra surface charge (polarization) would require.

Y_Po said...

Until someone shows me how the polarization cannot reach the levels described by EEStor, I can't say EEStor is lying

You give way too much credits to EEstor.
Upper limit on polarization cell is a ion charge multiplied by distance ion allowed to travel.
You can do math yourself.

Marcus said...

Y_Po how about also answering my questions above. Have they not reported measurements at high voltage?

zawy said...

y_po, ok now i see by 'k-problem' you mean what i mean by "energy storage" or energy density. I forgot to answer one of your questions: you ask why didn't EEStor explain how they solved the energy storage problem. As i said before, there are serious and real business reasons to not explain anything they are doing. The patents merely force them to divulge to competitors their secrets. That's why only 1 U.S. patent has been approved and a flood of 20 or so patents are said to be in the works: they want patents to be public only after they have EESU in production. As late as possible to keep competitors in the dark. They only have to showing working samples to investors, and so far investors seem to be happy with everything they have seen. The only troubling thing is that they have not let Zenn have a sample to show the public it works. People have indicated KP has stopped EEStor from helping Zenn that much. The longer competitors don't believe it, the better for EEStor.

Y_Po said...


Y_Po how about also answering my questions above. Have they not reported measurements at high voltage?

About Phillips patent?
Wiki says Phillips have never reported high voltage measurement.

Y_Po said...


As i said before, there are serious and real business reasons to not explain anything they are doing.

You don't understand.
Nobody ask them to explain explain how they did it.

The question is: Did they do it? and if they did, why they forgot to mention it in their patent.

Marcus said...

Y-Po you keep saying that they were not aware of the dielectric voltage breakdown problem and yet they report voltage breakdown measurements in the original patent. Please explain.

Y_Po said...


Y-Po you keep saying that they were not aware of the dielectric voltage breakdown problem and yet they report voltage breakdown measurements in the original patent. Please explain.

You got it completely up-side down
There are two separate problems:
1. voltage breakdown
2. k-problem (dielectric saturation)

They presumably solved first one and completely ignored/was not aware of the second one

Marcus said...

ok, but what about the measurements??

Y_Po said...


ok, but what about the measurements??

What about it ?
I don't dispute them. They may be correct or not correct, I don't know.

Important thing is k-problems renders these measurement meaningless.

zawy said...

OK, polarization calculation: I get 50,000 J/cc, 7 times more than EEStor reports if i move 2 electrons the 5.7 Angstroms from top to bottom:
38 cc/mol * Avogr Num * 2q*2q/4/pi/e/5.7A = 50,000 J/cc

Y_Po said...


OK, polarization calculation: I get 50,000 J/cc, 7 times more than EEStor reports if i move 2 electrons the 5.7 Angstroms from top to bottom:
38 cc/mol * Avogr Num * 2q*2q/4/pi/e/5.7A = 50,000 J/cc

Well you basically got number comparable to the maximum energy of chemical type storage.

Well you got wrong, You simply calculated work needed to move electrons within the cell. Problem is you ignored media in which they move, the very same media which gives you high k by allowing charges to move easily so that you don't spend to much work to move it far.

Your calculation would be true for k=1 but for large k you are off by a square root (I think) of k-factor itself . So basically you are of by a factor sqrt(20000)

In reality of course it is more complicated.

zawy said...

Slight correction:
molecules/cc = Avogr Num / 38 cc/mol

Joules/molecule = 2q*2q/4/pi/e/5.7A = 50,000 J/cc

2q being plus on one side and negative on the other as the 2 electrons are moved.

So if it's so clear that BT can't store that much in polarization energy, please gives us an example calculation. According to what i see, we only need to move one electron the length of the crystal to get 10,000 J/cc.

zawy said...

I just trusted what you said. You implied the calculation was easy, so please let us see it. Concerning my calculation: the change in energy before and after is not debatable unless you're saying there are other polarization changes in the opposite direction. I do not doubt high k means charges can move easily, but the distance they move is very small unless a lot of energy is being stored. There is also spin that is the primary source of the initial k so that very little charge "movement" is needed.

Y_Po said...


I just trusted what you said. You implied the calculation was easy, so please let us see it.

It is easy if know how to make it easy, but you took hard way:)


The easy way is treat it as a capacitor:
calculate maximum polarization (or surface charge)
Then use it to calculate saturation voltage using permittivity.
After that use standard 1/2*C*V^2

The way you choose to do it you it is almost certainty you gonna get confused.

In any case, your calculation is valid for k=1 :)

zawy said...

OK, now is see. I used permittivity of free space in the energy calculation but I needed to divide by the permittivity of this material. So instead of 50,000 J/cc I get 2 J/cc. hmmmmmm. That ain't looking good for the EESU. If other researchers are able to get 12 J/cc in material, they are moving the equivalent of 5 electrons across the lattice. to get 7000/12 more energy, you would have to move 24 electrons. There aren't that many in all the shells of all the BT lattice atoms.

Y_Po said...


OK, now is see. I used permittivity of free space in the energy calculation but I needed to divide by the permittivity of this material. So instead of 50,000 J/cc I get 2 J/cc. hmmmmmm. That ain't looking good for the EESU. If other researchers are able to get 12 J/cc in material, they are moving the equivalent of 5 electrons across the lattice. to get 7000/12 more energy, you would have to move 24 electrons. There aren't that many in all the shells of all the BT lattice atoms.

You got it, but I am not sure is it k or sqrt(k), I am too old and lazy to check it.
Anyway you got the idea.

Marcus said...

What about the energy stored by movement of the central atom?

Y_Po said...


What about the energy stored by movement of the central atom?

This is exactly what we just did.
just replace "electron" with "ion" :)

johng said...

They have two very differnt routes, one mixes BT in plastic, using aluminum powder electrodes,(The World Application) the second mixes BT in glass, and will require 1000°C firing in inert atmosphere to protect the nickel electrodes.(The sole US patent)

In the first case, they claim to reduce aluminum powder size by cryogenic jet milling. I dont think that can be done, the energy would heat the particle, and it would flatten and oxidize. An aluminum ink would not conduct well because of the oxide. I have a vial of Nano-size aluminum on my desk, it is an insulator until you put a lot of pressure to break through the oxide)

Both schemes ignore the mixture rules, and both assume the BT, a known material, will not lose the K with temperature and voltage, which has been thoroughly discussed.

How do they get by with 100 times the voltage stress of any comparable dielectric?

How do they benignly dump all that energy in an emergency? (As Clifford claimed)

How can they have over a million square inches of high-field dielctric without a single flaw. Are they in a super-clean room?

zawy said...

I just had to divide by k, not SQRT(k). It's in the denominator of the electrostatic work equation.

The central atom could possibly have a charge of 4 and in no case can have move than 1/2 the 5.7 angstroms. To convert to my model that used moving the whole lattivce distance, it's the same as SQRT(4^2/2) = 2.8 electrons moving the whole lattice distance. The square comes from 1 electron movement creates a positive charge as well as negative.

I'll have to think about it awhile to make sure we're not using circular logic in requiring the division by k because movement of the electrons is what causes k, i thought, and to use it again to figure energy in the electrons seems circular.

Marcus said...

"Important thing is k-problems renders these measurement meaningless."

Can you explain why these measurements don't prove their energy storage claims?

Perhaps specifically you could address these claims:

Leakage current of ten EESUs that contain 31,351 components each and having the capability of storing 52.22 kW»h of electrical energy measured at 85° C and 3500 V. EESU Leakage Current - μA 1. 4.22 2. 4.13 3. 4.34 4. 4.46 5. 4.18 6. 4.25 7. 4.31 8. 4.48 9. 4.22 10. 4.35
Average leakage current 4.28

Y_Po said...


I'll have to think about it awhile to make sure we're not using circular logic in requiring the division by k because movement of the electrons is what causes k, i thought, and to use it again to figure energy in the electrons seems circular.

I told you your model is easy way to confuse yourself

Just treat it as a capacitor, it is way easier.

Y_Po said...


"Important thing is k-problems renders these measurement meaningless."


Can you explain why these measurements don't prove their energy storage claims?

What is there to explain ?
I already did
There are two problems. Both have to be solved to get what they claim
They solved only one of the problems.



Perhaps specifically you could address these claims:

Leakage current of ten EESUs that contain 31,351 components each and having the capability of storing 52.22 kW»h of electrical energy measured at 85° C and 3500 V. EESU Leakage Current - μA 1. 4.22 2. 4.13 3. 4.34 4. 4.46 5. 4.18 6. 4.25 7. 4.31 8. 4.48 9. 4.22 10. 4.35
Average leakage current 4.28

I see, It can be interpreted as if they measured energy density, but they have not, they calculated it.
That is just one of the many mistakes they made writing a patent

johng said...

I agree, I don't believe they actually made the part.

And its not a patent, and never will become one. It is a published application that serves only as a bridge to file elsewhere.

Marcus said...

" that serves only as a bridge to file elsewhere"

Could you elaborate on that? Do you mean it could act as a decoy?

Marcus said...

Do you mean it can act as a means to file later patents because they are able to reference it? For instance you found an additional two patents filed by them recently and if I recall they reference this older patent.

johng said...

I guess thats an interesting point, it could act as a "decoy" but mostly, as I understand it, it serves as an establishment of a particular date to establish first inventorship.

I'll find more specificity...it has been a while since that lecture.

Marcus said...

"as I understand it, it serves as an establishment of a particular date to establish first inventorship."

So really what you mean is that they hurriedly put together a patent application based on theoretical calculations that ignore dielectric saturation to establish priority on something that they thought would work but probably doesn't?

Y_Po said...

Marcus, that's a certain possibility.
Another one is that they put as an advertisement of this scam. But your explanation I think is more likely, I think they are just stupid.

steve said...

Go back to IHUB Y_PO...

the patent has been granted. tell it to the Patent office. because your FUD is so transparent.

Go back to the penny stocks and bash some companies that need bashing.

your playing with the big boys and last night you didn't even know what permittivity meant, today you're an expert... go cut and paste somewhere else

no cheapies tomorrow

PATENT HAS BEEN GRANTED

Marcus said...

So to summarize, the technical information available directly from EEStor shows they have either overlooked dielectric saturation or that the information they have provided is purposely misleading.

On the other hand we have reports from b saying basically everything is great and they are about to start production. There are multiple reports of a production line as well as the set up of additional production facilities. b claims the subject of permittivity has been covered by Weir in September last year INFERRING that KP are satisfied with this issue. This is really the critical issue I think.

Until EEStor starts producing or we gain further information about what happened in September last year its all looking fairly uninterpretable. That could well be the aim whether it is a scam or not.

Y_Po said...


zawy said...

I just had to divide by k, not SQRT(k). It's in the denominator of the electrostatic work equation.

Yes, I checked it is just "k".
So it is around 2 J/cc for a k=20000
above that dielectric become saturated.

Y_Po said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

Steve, chill.

It is clear Y-Po has valid technical concerns. You haven't demonstrated any such knowledge.

If you are a believer great. But I am sick of preachers, especially if its connected to their own shares.

Y_Po said...

Marcus,
You do realize that if you choose "They are stupid" version it is highly unlikely that k-problem was resolved?

Marcus said...

Of course.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Y_Po said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

"read it and weep"

For some very odd reason Steve you seem to think I and others are like you, heavily emotionally involved in all this. The extent of my involvement is that I would be very happy if EEStor proved our saviors. However I am not a believer because I am not the religious type. I suspect the people that read your comments and weep are people entirely confined your imagination.

johng said...

Here is the official definition from the WIPO site:

"At present, no 'world patents' or 'international patents' exist.

In general, an application for a patent must be filed, and a patent shall be granted and enforced, in each country in which you seek patent protection for your invention, in accordance with the law of that country. In some regions, a regional patent office, for example, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), accepts regional patent applications, or grants patents, which have the same effect as applications filed, or patents granted, in the member States of that region.

Further, any resident or national of a Contracting State of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) may file an international application under the PCT. A single international patent application has the same effect as national applications filed in each designated Contracting State of the PCT. However, under the PCT system, in order to obtain patent protection in the designated States, a patent shall be granted by each designated State to the claimed invention contained in the international application. Further information concerning the PCT is available."

So, the WIPO route is useful for having a particular specification used as an application to any of the member states, but one has to make application in each of those states.

I cant comment on their motivation, I just don't believe that patent reflects real work.

The bit about using aluminum paint is certainly weird, the building of a very large number of parts, the apparent contradiction to anyone else who has put BT into plastic, (eg Georgia Tech, who got an K increase from 30 to 50..the work at Penn State that proposed the maximum K would be about 80) so now EEStor comes out with a K of almost 20,000.

It just does not "feel right"...hows that for scientific?

Go ahead, Steve, rant

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


The bit about using aluminum paint is certainly weird, the building of a very large number of parts, the apparent contradiction to anyone else who has put BT into plastic, (eg Georgia Tech, who got an K increase from 30 to 50..the work at Penn State that proposed the maximum K would be about 80) so now EEStor comes out with a K of almost 20,000.

I would like to point out that
obsession with large k is stupid
In reality to maximize energy density one would like to keep break-down voltage roughly equal to the saturation voltage which means the higher the break-down voltage the lower k one should use.

Of course to do that one had to be aware of the saturation on the first place :)

Jim said...

Steve

I think you completely misunderstand what the Patent Office does and what a Patent means. The Patent Office reviews an application’s claims to confirm they do not infringe on claims made in other issued patents. They do not verify that the claims in an application are correct and true before issuing a patent. As long as your claims are unique and new you can get them patented (with the exception of perpetual motion machines which can never be patented). You are free to patent useless claims as long as they do not infringe on someone else’s claims in an existing patent.

It is very likely that both Yo Po and Marcus are better able to determine the feasibility of EESTOR’s patent than any patent examiner. It is just not the job of the patent examiner to verify that claims are correct. He/she is only looking at the claims, which in EESTOR’s case were very detailed, and determining that they were not already made in an issued patent.

You can not use a patent to prove that an idea works. But if the idea works you can use a Patent to protect your idea.

(I have gone through the process several times and have three issued patents.)

steve said...

johng,

Can you not read?

The Patent wasn't granted by the
by WIPO, it was granted by the EPO...

application goes to WIPO, that application is the subject of B's post about J.

As I stated, quite clearly, the PATENT was granted by the European Patent Office.

You fellas can FUD away all night long, the PATENT Application was studied by professional engineers for two full years before they granted a Patent for EUROPE.

The USPTO will follow soon.

If you Fuddy duddies want to prove mypoint,just keep denying that a PATENT exists... so that others will see you for what you are.

FUD pros... you should start FUFpros.com

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

Oh Man.

Didn't you read Jim's post?

This kind of concern about "FUDing" is kind of amusing and new to me. As a scientist it is my job to be skeptical and judge things on empirical evidence. Perhaps I FUD all day? I would probably leave out the Fear at least. As an investor Steve is worried that by mere open minded discussion of the many strange things concerning EESTor we are driving down his share price. If you are that much of a believer Steve why are you so concerned? EEStor will prove itself in the end regardless right?

If you want to correct perceived factual errors I welcome it. But I would rather you keep your emotional baggage with your broker and not accuse us of deliberate share price manipulation. As I said, how could we possibly stop the success of EEStor if they are for real?

Jim said...

Steve

I think you are the one spreading falsehoods when you make statements like:

“The key patent we have all been waiting for has been granted in Europe, which means pro engineers have evaluated it and deemed it worthy of a patent.”

That never happened. An examiner or team of examiners reviewed the claims and found them unique so a patent was granted. No one in the Patent Office verified the claims. Just think about it. How could an agency possibly evaluate a patent’s claims? There are from 1 to 100 or more claims in a patent. They review tens of thousands of patents a year.

Marcus said...

Oh yes, you wanted me to admit a patent had been granted. From what you say it seems so. Now go read Jim's post.

steve said...

FALSE ALARM...

Please note that I have retracted my orginal post and must admit to having made a mistake.

The PATENT has not been granted.

The Free Patent site is erroneous:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1789980.html

Although that site makes it appear as if the Patent has been granted, having looked deeper into the guts of the European Patent Office documents, I see that there was a slight problem with the wording of the Patent application that the EPT engineers have deemed "rectifiable" and to which the EPO extended EESTOR's Patent attorney four months to recitify it.

EESTOR's attorney has submitted a correction for review.

"You are invited to file your observations, and in so far as the deficiencies are such as to be rectifiable, to correct the indicated deficiencies, within a period of four months".

http://www.epoline.org/portal/PA_1_0_FS/DocumentViewer?RLANG=en&RACTION=LOAD&RAPPNO=05812758.0&RCOUNTRY=EP&RIID=ANONYMOUS&RROLE=PUBLIC&RORGNAME=EPOPORTAL&RDOCPAGENO=FIRST&RDOCTITLE=Examination+Report&RDOCPAGECOUNT=1&RDOCTYPE=PDF&RDOCNO=EMQMPC7H1157702&NPL=false

EESTOR's attroney filed a reply to the examination report...

http://www.epoline.org/portal/PA_1_0_FS/DocumentViewer?RLANG=en&RACTION=LOAD&RAPPNO=05812758.0&RCOUNTRY=EP&RIID=ANONYMOUS&RROLE=PUBLIC&RORGNAME=EPOPORTAL&RDOCPAGENO=FIRST&RDOCTITLE=Reply+to+examination+report&RDOCPAGECOUNT=2&RDOCTYPE=PDF&RDOCNO=ENJOPHZZ3633FI4&NPL=false

steve said...

An honest man admits mistakes.

I am an honest man. Many on here are not.

Richard Weir is an honest man.

EESTOR has done it. Just do your own DD, people. Eve the well intentioned can make mistakes.

Marcus claims to be a scientist but he thought there was a Patent as well based upon the documents that exist.

Just goes to show you, do your own DD and don't trust these comments.

Verify...

There's plenty of verification to be found, a literal plethora exists at just the EPT site alone.

Have at it...

Marcus said...

What I actually said Steve is:

"From what you say it seems so."

Steve, perhaps you may also gain some wisdom from the scientific method. Try it some time. You will be wrong a lot less often I suspect.

steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marcus said...

Steve, you complain about others and their english language skills.

For starters "seems" isn't the same as "is" and secondly I inserted a conditional which means that if your words are wrong my "seems so" is invalidated. Hence the truth of my statement (how ever much there was in the first place..) still holds.

Now I say again, go read BOTH Jim's posts...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 239   Newer› Newest»