Monday, July 21, 2008

Even More on ZNN Stock Value: Pt 2


I'm like everyone who reads this blog in the sense that I'd like to see some expedited effort towards getting a new battery technology into my ipod, blackberry, vehicle and a million other aspects of my life especially my pocketbook.  On the one hand, we're waiting on EEStor to turn on the lights and start giving speeches. But on the other, we're to some degree waiting on each other.   That is to say, as EEStor gains further attention around the world, it necessarily gains 

additional prospective investors in ZENN which in turn acts as a gauge for EEStor's value.  This perceived value makes it easier for EEStor to capitalize itself to grow and bring the benefits of the technology to the world faster.   My personal opinion in studying this story is that Zenn Motors and EEStor have far more to gain from receiving attention of this venture whereas Kleiner Perkins CB gains more if it is kept secret.  And to be blunt, I think we win more if KPCB wins less.  


So, it's important to me as someone passionate about this topic, that we do things on this blog to hopefully accelerate the process.  To that end and in light of Massimo's Fiore's recent analysis of ZENN's stock valuation, I am happy Tom Villar has agreed to update his own work on thinking of the value of Zenn stock as a catalyst for further discussion.  So if you find EEStor fascinating, start talking with people about it--start asking for journalists to cover the story and keep the conversations going.  Email a link to a friend and get this on the radar

-------------------

Back on July 2nd, 2008, b was nice enough to allow me to post an analysis on what I thought ZENN Motor Company (ZMC) would be worth which you can read here.  My very amateur analysis put the value of ZMC at US $15 billion in 2012.  Since then a lot has happened and there are even a couple of professional analyst starting to follow the company.  One in particular caught my attention, Massimo Fiore of Versant Partners as he has produced two reports, one from March 2008 and a very recent one published July 18, 2008 which you can purchase here.  Fiore's March 2008 estimate appears to have valued ZMC at roughly US $350 million for 2012 which is considerably less than my estimate of US $15 billion.  At this point I'm thinking I must be way off and this is why I am an amateur and Mr. Fiore is a professional.

 

But then a curious thing happened.  As mentioned above a second report was released just last week with startling different numbers assuming EEStor delivers as promised.  Although the new numbers are still below my original estimates, Fiore is now suggesting a roughly ten fold increase in his valuation.   I will not say anymore about Versant Partners report as they are a business that makes money off selling information and it wouldn't be fair for me to blab all over the web for free what took them considerable effort to produce.  If you are thinking about making a sizable investment in ZMC, you would be an idiot to rely solely on free info like this when professional information is available.

 

For those wanting to convert a company's valuation to a stock price, simply divide the valuation by the number of fully diluted shares.  For ZMC this is roughly 36 million shares.  To give an example using my original estimate of US $15 billion we get a stock price of:

$15,000,000,000 / 36,000,0000 shares = $416 / share.

In the real world and assuming EEStor delivers to spec, the number of shares will be diluted as ZMC issues additional shares to raise working capital.  A number like 45 to 50 million shares is probably more realistic.

 

Now on the surface these valuations seem ridiculous as returns of 6,000% only happen in the movies.  About the only time an average investor has been able to get returns of this size was with a company like Microsoft where stock purchased in the mid 1980s for $0.10 and sold near the peak of $58 would show a return of 5,800% before inflation.  So what is going on here?  I see a couple of possibilities:

 

  1. I am clueless and haven't the foggiest idea what I am talking about, a distinct possibility
  2. Professional analyst want nothing to do with EEStor as the risk of looking like an idiot if the company doesn't deliver is too high
  3. ZMC allows retail investors to get ownership in EEStor under nearly the same terms as the big Venture Capitalist (VC)  firms.

 

If I'm right about the last point it is truly unique and unheard of as far as I know.  As I mentioned above, returns of 6,000% don't happen, but actually they do, just not for retail investors.  Returns of this size are necessary for successful VCs to justify all the risk they take as a lot of start ups flop and don't return a dime.  ZMC's 3.8% stake in EEStor (soon to be 6.2%, see page 13 in the link) is partly what gives ZMC such upside potential.

 

Obviously this is an optimistic vision of what could happen if EEStor is able to deliver Energy Storage Units (EESUs) to ZMC.  Professionals such as Massimo Fiore have to be more conservative as their responsibilities are to factor in all the things that can go wrong instead of focusing on what can go right.  It is my hope the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

Finally since the professionals get to update their analysis, I thought I'd freshen mine up as well with some of the recent news and thoughts from the last two weeks.  Below is an update to what was published in July 2, 2008.

 



 

Although EEStor and its technology are the main focus of this blog, neither EEStor nor its main equity partnerKleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are publicly traded.  The only equity partner publicly traded is ZENN Motor Company Inc. (ZMC) which paid USD $2.5 million in 2007 for a 3.8% stake in EEStor.  This gave EEStor a theoretical market cap of US $66 million but if EEStor is for real, a true value of the company will need to add more than a few zeros to the end.

 

Since ZMC is the only way for retail investors to invest in EEStor, the question becomes how much will ZMC be worth when EEStor begins delivering product?  To answer this question (or more accurately take a wild guess) I think three items need to be quantified:

 

  1. profit margin on EEStor's Electrical Energy Storage Unit
  2. EEStor valuation
  3. ZMC primary line of business valuation

  

1) EEStor's Electrical Energy Storage Unit (EESU)

 

Assuming EEStor's original business plan from 2002 is still relevant we come up with two specifications that differ based on production volumes:

 

EESU Specifications:

 

Specifications

Prototype /

Low Volume

Mass

Production

Energy density (Wh/L)

606

1513

Specific energy (Wh/kg)

273

682

Price ($ US / kWh)

$61

$40

 

Since EEStor has been working on a production factory since 2006 the mass produced specifications should be closer to what ZENN gets in late 2008, but recent information calls this into question as it seems the first production line is more a proving line than a typical production line.  Therefore in this analysis I've decided to go with the Low Volume column and we further assume the cost figures are the EESUs production cost, not the wholesale price.

 

ZMC estimates a 52.2 kWh EESU will cost them C $5,200 which works out to a selling price of US $100 / kWh.  Assuming the C $5,200 price includes the buck boost converter and other misc parts, we put the profit margin for automotive sized EESUs at approximately $20 / kWh.

 

2) EEStor valuation

 

The disruptiveness of EEStor's technology is obvious in so many sectors, the task of valuing this company with any degree of accuracy is limited to providing lower limits.  Trying to forecast best case scenarios would be akin to estimating the impact of the personal computer in 1972, something only a time traveler could have done with any level of accuracy.  Therefore estimates are mostly limited to major sectors with known production volumes and where it is relatively easy to determine the cost of switching to EEStor technology.  The major sectors assumed to be significant are:

a) Transportation - Automotive

b) Military

c) Li-Ion Battery Market

2.a) Transportation - Automotive

 

From Dick Weir's and Carl Nelson's patent filed April 12 2001 is is pretty obvious the initial application was seen as a way to enable Electric Vehicles (EV) to replace Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) vehicles.  With gas prices hovering around US $4.00 / gallon in the United States and much higher in most of Europe the incentive to switch to an electric power source with 1/8 the cost of gasoline is undeniable assuming any additional one-time cost are reasonable.  Since an EESU + electric motor + misc parts are roughly only a few thousand dollars more than all the pieces required for an ICE, there should be no one-time cost impediment to buyers.  Thisworksheet attempts to estimate EEStor's profits over a 5 year period using the above assumptions. 

 

2.b) Military

 

Warfare will be transformed by the new types of weapons EEStor will make possible.  Railguns, lasers and other direct energy weapons will obsolete many of today's aircraft and missile systems causing massive shifts in expenditures within the coming decade.  Of course there is also the mundane existing battery systems that will also be phased out as time permits.  EEStor's unique technology allows EESUs to be built to almost any size and shape so undoubtedly the first uses will be nothing more than plug and play replacements for existing battery systems.

 

No serious attempt is made to qualify the types of systems that will be effected.  Instead this worksheet is a SWAG based on a percentage of total US military expenditures in the areas that could reasonable expect to benefit from EEStor's technology.  Use by militaries other than the US are not included as it is unknowable the degree to which export controls will be imposed on the technology for military purposes.

 

2.c) Li-Ion Market

 

Although Li-Ion batteries have made some in roads into the transportation automotive market, the penetration is very recent and does not account for a significant percentage of existing production although this is changing rapidly.  EEStor's technology will obsolete all Li-Ion batteries within 2 to 3 years although existing manufactures will face sudden and dramatic deterioration of their revenue as customers wait for the new UltraCap EESUs to become widely available.  This market is only about $1 billion per year although the margins will be much higher than the transportation sector.  EEStor can expect and additional $400 million / year profit from this sector by the time all Li-Ion manufactures have ceased operation. 

 

3) ZMC primary line of business valuation

 

ZMC has targeted four main areas of operations:

a) Electric Drive Train (ZENNergy Drive)

b) Highway Capable Vehicle (cityZENN)

c) Low Speed Vehicles (ZENN)

d) EV Conversion Kit

3.a) Electric Drive Train (ZENNergy Drive)

 

The ZENNergy Drive is ZMC primary focus and best hope for becoming a major OEM supplier to the major automotive OEMs.  ZMC has exclusive rights from EEStor as reported in ZMC's 2007 Annual Information page 10: 

FGCI has entered into an agreement with EEStor dated August 24, 2004 (with subsequent amendments dated November 26, 2004, September 30, 2005, August 8, 2006 and January 22, 2007) (collectively, the "EEStor Technology Agreement" or "Agreement" in this section) to acquire in perpetuity the worldwide exclusive rights to use EEStor's EESU in the following markets:

  • all-electric 4-wheeled personal transportation uses up to 15 kW (continuous output) drive system
  • for vehicles with a curb weight up to 1,400 kilograms, net of the battery weight,
  • for golf carts and similar-styled utility vehicles, and
  • the aftermarket conversion of any internal combustion passenger vehicle to electric drive.

 

The exclusivity does not include high performance sports cars with a drive system of 100 kW(continuous output) or greater.

This exclusivity granted to ZMC locks up a significant portion of the world wide vehicle market as close to 50 million of the 70 million cars produced in 2007 would fall under the 1,400 kilogram (3086 lbs) limit.  Although significant portion of these cars would be in the US market, EEStor technology will allow a return of much larger and heavier cars which have been a trademark of US automobiles for decades.  Therefore I assume ZMC will not be able to stifle adoption of EEStor technology in the North American Market as manufactures can simply side step ZMC and concentrate on EESUs in larger heavier vehicles.  Of course the world vehicle market is so large this shouldn't be an issue and the following worksheet gives profit estimates for the ZENNergy Drive for the next five years.

 

3.b) Highway Capable Vehicle (cityZENN)

 

In many ways cityZENN is an advertisement for ZMC's ZENNergy Drive as it will demonstrate how the ZENNergy can be combined with the body of a traditional passenger vehicle.  This worksheet assumes ZMC meets sales forecast for the cityZENN over the next five years.

 

3.c) Low Speed Vehicles (ZENN)

 

Although this vehicle concept is near and dear to ZMC's founder Ian Clifford, the vehicle itself is more golf cart than car and simply not suitable to the US market in large volumes.  This Kelly Blue Book review sums up the toy car feel of this vehicle.  Hopefully ZMC is planning to market this outside North America.  I am assuming no significant profit from the ZENN.

 

3.d) EV Conversion Kit

 

Although the concept of converting existing vehicles is sure to warm the hearts of treehuggers as it is always seems better to recycle something than make something new, the complexities on converting existing vehicles is daunting.  Modern vehicles have a web of interconnected devices from dashboard displays, heaters, and power brakes.  Mess with one system and all the other require changes as well.  This will limit conversions to large fleets which makes this operation difficult to manage and time consuming as each vehicle type will need it's own conversion kit.  We hope for no net profit from this operation as it could easily turn negative if mismanaged.

 

Summary

 

A final worksheet summarizes total gross profits for both EEStor and ZMC.  I'm estimating a new valuation of ZMC for 2012 of $36 billion with a stock price of $600 / share.

 

Of course if others see the same numbers I'm seeing, it raises the question of whether one of the majors will try to buy ZMC so they can get the exclusive rights to the EEStor's technology.  Even if EEStor releases excellent test results, it will take time for any of the majors to figure out what the technology is really worth.  But once ZMC can successfully start selling cityZENNs and ZENNergy drive trains, then I expect a bidding war to develop for ZMC.  What ZMC is worth at that point is any one's guess and of course whether Ian wants to sell will have some impact on this but at least some the majors are going to see the potential of getting a lock on a huge percentage of global production for at least the next 5 to 10 years.

 

Now if anyone is thinking they should immediately invest their life's savings in ZMC (ticker symbols ZNN.V andZNNMF.PK) because of the analysis they've just read, then click this link for some very important information you absolutely need to know before making your stock purchase.  If you didn't click the link then keep reading.

 

As a total outsider to everything you've seen discussed here is at best back of the napkin estimates and at worst a misleading stinking pile of poo.  Personally I have invested in ZMC up to my limit for speculative stocks and will not be increasing my holdings for the foreseeable future.

 

Cautions

 

When ZENN made the deal with EEStor it was 2004 and gas was selling for around USD $1.80 a gallon.  At that price using EESUs for EVs is very very marginal and conversion kits make no sense at all.  If prices fall anywhere under $3.00 then things aren't nearly as rosy and anything under USD $2.00 and ZENN is kaput.  This dynamic could also explain why EEStor was willing to give ZENN such a great deal as at that time the compact EV market must not have looked very promising to EEStor.

 


Another caution is the price of electricity.  Unlike gas and diesel, electricity isn't fungible.  There are areas in the US where the price of electricity can be as much as 50% over the national average such as in the North East.  Of course there are also areas that can be 50% below the average such as in parts of the Mid West and Great Plains states.  If EVs prove to be a viable solution for ground freight, it will be interesting to see if there is an increase in migration of manufacturing businesses and jobs to states with low power cost.


 









Final tea leaf reading to consider:

 


ZMC is obligated to make a USD $700,000 payment to EEStor on third-party confirmation of permittivity testing of production units and another USD $500,000 upon delivery by EEStor of a production quality EESU.  Successful permittivity testing also triggers an equity funding round where existing equity partners can purchase additional shares in EEStor.  ZMC can increase its ownership to 6.2% of EEStor for USD $2 million. On May 30th ZENN received gross proceeds of CDN $15,225,000 after issuing and selling 4,060,000 shares.

136 comments:

whatsyourevidence said...

First, thanks for that Tom.

The professional's $100 valuation seemed to defy common sense for something so earth-shattering. Yours makes more sense, assuming the most optimistic outcome.

taa said...

Who came in with the additional capital?
Anyway of finding out? It probably would say volumes.

steve said...

Re: Patents

I've been wondering what to make of the time-line concerning the 21 new patents B states EESTOR has filed applications for:

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.

B goes on to say:

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.

If EESTOR is waiting for the patents before they go public with everything listed above, how long will it take for 21 new patents to be issued?

The US .Gov Patent Office web site gives the following:

Currently, the average patent application pendency is 24.6 months.

http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/index.html

It would be necessary to know the date the 21 new patent applications were filed. B doesn't tell us that, but the way his post was written seems to indicate that these new patents were filed after the ones we know about. If they were filed recently, say January 08, the patents could possibly not be granted until January 2010.

I became confused.

I then did a Google search on the term "expedited patents" and found the following press release concerning a company (Data Quality Solutions) who received an expedited patent:

Patent Expedited for "Counter-Terrorism" Grid Architecture

The US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued them an expedited patent for Data Quality Solutions' "Enterprise Business Process Management System and Method". The USPTO, on rare occasions, expedites the patent review and approval processes for innovative, promising inventions that are in the national interest. Data Quality Solutions' patent was expedited because of the patents applicability and importance to "countering terrorism."

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/467954.html

With Colin Powel and Al Gore on board at Kleiner and Lockheed Martin getting exclusive rights to EESTOR's tech for military purposes, and a chance to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, does anybody doubt that EESTOR would be an excellent candidate for an "expedited patent"?

steve said...

Tom,

Thanks for doing that analysis but I must take serious issue with the following:

If prices fall anywhere under $3.00 then things aren't nearly as rosy and anything under USD $2.00 and ZENN is kaput.

Even if gas was $1.75 a gallon, assuming EESTOR delivers a kick ass EESU to ZENN, it's still going to be massive for ZENN because the USA (and I assume Canada) is sick and tired of being dependent on foreign oil and funding certain countries and philosophies.

Furthermore, you're not factoring in the green clean tech environmental craze that's (thankfully) spreading across the world. I fully expect the EESTOR/ZENN synergy to drive the price of a gallon of gas below $2... I thought that was the point.

Once people get a taste of zero emission no noise driving, being able to fill up the tank in their own garage, paying so much less, and not having to feel guilty about funding what many in this country believe to be enemies of our way of life (please don't assume I am making a political pundit like statement here, just stating the obvious)... they will not want to go back to the old status quo.

Then there's all of the other possible applications for EESTOR tech which are not related to automobiles. What about military applications, computer, gadgets, cell phones, home appliances, novelties etc... all using EESTOR tech which Zenn would profit from on their minimum of 6.2% equity ownership of EESTOR.

I think your use of the word "kaput" is not responsible or even possible assuming EESTOR delivers the goods.

Not flaming you. I appreciate your work, but "kaput" doesn't make any sense at all.

Tom Villars said...

steve,

Thanks for the comment. I was wondering if anyone would bother to dig into the details of what I wrote after the professionals have started do their stuff.

I'll answer your points in detail later today when I have some time, but one quick response was the military applications for EEStor technology. At first I thought this could be as big as the automotive sector, but when I ran the numbers (see this worksheet) there isn't nearly as much potential profit as I thought. In short the US military budget is $400B/year with only $84B being spent on procurement and another $73B/year on R&D. Assuming EEStor gets up to 1% of this and has a profit margin of 50% we are only talking about $780M/year in profit which isn't that much.

Energy is a $4T/year business where EEStor can have a major impact. World military spending is only $900B/year and EEStor is at best an enabling technology. There is just no comparison.

steve said...

Tom,

Thanks for the response, looking forward to your update later today.

You said,

At first I thought this could be as big as the automotive sector, but when I ran the numbers (see this worksheet) there isn't nearly as much potential profit as I thought.

Agreed, but your use of the word "kaput" is still not realistic.

"Kaput" implies worthless...out of business, bankrupt.

If EESTOR delivers the goods to ZENN, ZENN is not going to be worthless, or anything close to a loss compared to a $5 to $6 price per share where its at today.

Innovative military applications often lead to breakthroughs for civilian life as well and Zenn would be in on any of that.

I appreciate that you are trying to
make a reasonable objective analysis across both possible futures (bad and good) for Zenn. But I think it's more than fair to say that the only realistic scenario where Zenn is "kaput" only occurs if EESTOR never delivers a
revolutionary product.

Give me the choice of a gas powered engine at $1.75 a gallon or a CityZENN powered by EESTOR and I'm taking the EESTOR, and I'm betting I wouldn't be alone.

Just my opinion, do your own DD or face financial ruin.

sds said...

Tom says
For ZMC this is roughly 36 million shares.

Actually according to Finance.Google :
Shares: 29.38M

In the real world and assuming EEStor delivers to spec, the number of shares will be diluted as ZMC issues additional shares to raise working capital. A number like 45 to 50 million shares is probably more realistic.

I am not financial expert but don't you think the value of shares purchased before additional emission should be somehow accounted. Otherwise company could endlessly make emissions and splits which would degrade value of existing shares.

How does this work in general? What happens with existing shares if, say, ZMC does addition emission or splits? Anybody knows what is the regulation for such actions?

Charles Barton said...

The Venture Beat story on Kleiner Perkins is seriously flawed by broken links, many of them to other Venture Beat stories. If this story is true, then we should raise questions about Keiner's investment judgments. Bloom Energy in involved in an Amory Lovinsesque energy idea. The want to build home fuel cells. Not very likely. Any cellulosic ethanol technology is likely to be a loosing play as far as I am concered, because either the energy input will be greater than the energy output, or the energy output will only be slightly greater thn the energy input. There are also environmental concerns, which advocates of ethanol don't talk about.

Investments in transportation electrification will undoubtedly a big future play but high performance cars are probably going to be at best use part time gasoline power until it becomes illegal. Wealthy people can afford expensive gas, and everyone, rich and poor, loves horse power.

Jonathan said...

I think the one problem I always notice with people running the numbers is that they always seem to use the current price of electricity. I work for a power company on the east coast and can assure you that by the time Zennergy drives are powering everyone around the US that we will have nowhere near the same cost per kw/h for electricity. I am a huge believer in EV and the need to move to a better solution. However, the aging electrical infrastructure and the increasing regulations and costs for the power providers make this goal almost unattainable until we can get the current generation and transmission infrastructure to a point where it can handle this type of new load. The one thing that I seem to hear from people is, "I wish I had an electric car so that I wouldn't be paying $4.00 per gallon for gas." My response is usually along the lines of, "Well how do you feel about paying about 3 times your current electric bill?" Before we are able to change the transportation energy, we need to first change the Electric industry. These EEstor components are a Green Power providers dream. They could easily store energy in large banks to be released during peak hours. They are also capable of storing energy from wind and solar arrays to help make the power provided more constant and reliable. I also believe we need to greatly expand our nuclear production.

Tom Villars said...

You need to use fully diluted shares. See ZENN's 2007 Annual Report http://www.zenncars.com/media/documents/FY07_Annual_Report.pdf

Of course the number in this report is 32 million so you have to add the recent sale of 4 million shares to raise the C $15 million.

Jonathan said...

Sorry, I hit post instead of preview.......


My main point is basically this:

Our current electrical infratructure can not handle a wide spread adoption of electric vehicles at this time. We need to update/upgrade our current power providing technology before this is a viable reality. We also need to move away from Coal as our main source of generation. Or at least find a way to clean it up, supplement it, and slowly move away from it. Of course this will all be solved in 2030 when the commercial fusion reactors begin to come online!

erkyl said...

Thanks for the analysis. That was a lot of work for you and a fun and interesting read for us. Thanks, Steve for your thoughtful response, and I agree with all you said. I want to emphasize his point about moving back to larger cars in a post EESU world. Electric performance has never been the problem. EV's can be made to perform extremely well. It's the energy storage. Jonathan, the utility companies had better learn their lesson from what happened to the oil companies. Be reasonable or be replaced. Technologies for accomplishing that are either here already (solar/wind) or on the horizon www.lutec.com.au. It's gonna be cool, folks.

richterm said...

b - is it your understanding that Weir intends to hold back on going public and starting production until all his patents are granted? If the average turnaround is around 24 months, any new applications wouldn't come to fruition until 2010. Nothing else seems to point to a timeline such as this, so your info in the "..past permittivity" piece seems inconsistent. I don't expect that every aspect of your info is 100% correct, nor do I expect that you think so either. Just trying to piece the puzzle together.

richterm said...

I think it's a building concensus that our electrical infrastructure needs to be upgraded and modernized. In and EESU EV world, we will need EV filling stations, and more production.

But when EESUs start being mass produced, and a wide array of EVs start being produced, I believe it will be commonplace to have an optional solar panel on the roof of new EVs. Additionally, I think it will be common to have an EESU in your basement/garage, possibly being trickle charged or even charged by a (dedicated?) solar panel. For most people when they need to "fill up" once a week, the energy will be there. Filling stations will be needed just for long trips. In that setup, there would be fewer EV fillup stations than the current number of gas stations we have today. They'll probably need to sell something else too. Coffee? Another idea I heard somewhere was that supermarkets with large solar banks on their roofs might offer free "fillups" to customers while they shop. All interesting. Cheap solar is another enabler - (nanosolar?).

richterm said...

Charles - the nature of a VC firm is to not bet on one horse. They bet on entire movements, and blanket it with investments to make sure they hit.

Kleiner bet on Amazon and Google - they bet on a bunch of internet losers too I'm sure.

I've never viewed Kleiner's investment as a sign that they think the tech is GOING to work. I just took it as a sign that they saw something impressive with their own eyes, and recognized the tremendous upside.

Their judgement in going for green energy vs Web 2.0 is a bigger strategic decision. Personally I think it's bold and wise. They get paid the big bucks to make those decisions.

steve said...

richterm,

I addressed your question about patents in comment #3 above. The main part being,

The USPTO, on rare occasions, expedites the patent review and approval processes for innovative, promising inventions that are in the national interest.

The quote is from a recent press release by another company.

I don't see a problem with EESTOR being awarded an expedited patent.

richterm said...

steve,

No offense, but that seems like a little too much conjecture for my comfort. While my Zenn investment is out of my speculative $$, I still want it to succeed. I like to focus on facts, or at least what seems like an intersection of truths that give clues to facts.

If Eestor JUST filed these patent apps, I really want to find out what their intentions are. Perhaps just filing and having "patent pending" is good enough of a legal protection. I don't know the legalities.

steve said...

richterm,

What's "too much conjecture"?

The US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) issued Data Quality Solutions' an expedited patent for software described as "Enterprise Business Process Management System and Method".

As I said, the USPTO, on rare occasions, expedites the patent review and approval processes for innovative, promising inventions that are in the national interest. Data Quality Solutions' patent was expedited because of the patents applicability and importance to "countering terrorism."

You think what EESTOR has isn't more important to national interest than some data collection software?

Really?

I'm not talking about conjecture, I'm talking about PRECEDENT.

Did Data Point have Lockheed Martin, Colin Powel and Al Gore circling in the water?

"Too much conjecture"... until EESTOR releases the motherload all you've got is conjecture. At least my post gave you something more than conjecture, it gave you precedent.

Here's the link

http://www.gridtoday.com/grid/467954.html

richterm said...

steve - really, I didn't mean that as a flame at all. What you're saying is certainly plausable.

I'm just saying in terms of getting a feel for what's really going on I feel it's straying a little too far down a path of speculating on the chain of events.

We have no evidence that Eestor even requested that their application(s) be expedited. If they did, we have no way of knowing if this request was granted. In fact we have no evidence of actual additional patent applications. We have these..

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Weir&FIELD1=IN&co1=AND&TERM2=Cedar+Park&FIELD2=INCI&d=PG01

Maybe it's a mute point if "patent pending" is protective enough to go public. Any patent lawyers out there?

richterm said...

Sorry bad link to patent apps.

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

Inventor Name = Weir
Inventor City = Cedar Park

steve said...

richterm said,


"I feel it's straying a little too far down a path of speculating on the chain of events."

Really? I can't think of any other way this is going to happen in a timely manner, and since there is legal precedent for it, it's the only path of speculation open to us... other than EESTOR applied for the 21 "new" patents over two years ago.

It's got to be one or the other for them to release the patents soon

a. they applied a long time ago for the "new" patents

or

b. they applied recently for expedited patents

richterm said...

That's fine - we can agree that it's a line of speculation. I just wouldn't use it as a basis for making any any additional investment decision.

Let me add to your options A) and B)..

C) They don't need to wait for patent approval. Filing records the process and protects them well enough.

D) It will take a long time and they're going to wait. Maybe 2 more years, at which time Zenn may or may not be in business.

Y_Po said...

People still don't realize that based on information contained in EEstor patents they will never deliver what they promised, not in a million years.

Marcus said...

I would call that possibility E.

richterm said...

That's the million dollar question obviously.

It is kind of funny when people say they'll never get it working without seeing the whole picture of what they've been working on for 7 years.

It's just that the evidence seems to strongly point to them having it working. That's what speculating is all about!

Charles Barton said...

richterm, Kleiner did make good bets on Amazon and Google. Green is not the same thing as post-carbon. If you get advise on post-carbon investments frm so called"Green" sources like Amory Lovins, as Kleiner does, you may be in for a unhappy surprise.

richterm said...

Aside from the 2012 $100 target, what does everyone think will happen immediately to Zenn stock if Eestor comes out with this thing in all it's glory?

I'm thinking $20, but could be way off.

richterm said...

Charles - correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the nuclear blogger, right? I'm not against nuclear energy as being part of the solution.

Whatever - this is my only "green" play right now. Obviously I hope Kleiner hits this one. I was just saying VC firms see an area of need and invest in a wide variety of plays - some conflicting.

Y_Po said...

Just consider following facts:
1. Pretty much every single expert in the field will tell you that permittivity is an absolute show stopper here. Also they will tell you that they see how EEstor could have made such a blunt mistake.


2. EEstor have never directly commented about permittivity problem. Why ?

3. EEstor or anyone else have never admitted that capacitor prototype existed. Why would not they admit it?


The reason why EEstor ignores important questions is because they don't have good answers. There are absolutely no other (technical or business) reasons to ignore these questions.

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

Actually most experts I've read about (who allow their name to be published) identify the existing problem - then give the caveat that maybe Eestor has found a breakthrough. They may be skeptical, but they are hoping Eestor has invented a solution.

Marcus said...

Either it is:

1) Real and the "experts" are wrong (who are these experts?)
2) A scam/mistake that has sucked in KP and ZENN etc
3) A scam involving KP, ZENN and most likely blogger b.

Now unfortunately we only have our own prejudices to guide us into making this judgement call. For me, I suspect 3) is the most unlikely (although b is a little fishy in my opinion....;-)). 2) is also unlikely but less so that 3). 1) is difficult to judge without being an expert physicist or having access to an assessment by a known expert physicist. The opinions on the web, especially by anonymous posters have little credibility - although they "sound" convincing.

All three are quite unlikely and yet one of them is probably correct.....

steve said...

Y_Po,

Every single one of your assertions is totally false. Obviously, you haven't done the level of DD necessary to understand the facts.

You said,

Just consider following facts:
1. Pretty much every single expert in the field will tell you that permittivity is an absolute show stopper here. Also they will tell you that they see how EEstor could have made such a blunt mistake.


There are experts in the field posting on this blog as to the sanity of EESTOR's claimed technology and have explained what are probably the missing links most "experts" have missed. EESTOR told B that many of these "experts" are "going to have egg on their face".

You also said,

2. EEstor have never directly commented about permittivity problem. Why?

False. See on this blog, "Eestor Beyond Permittivity" and prior statements from Richard Weir as well as Lionel Liebman form Lockheed Martin. You're way off the mark here.

3. EEstor or anyone else have never admitted that capacitor prototype existed. Why would not they admit it?

Ian Clifford, Lionel Liebman and Richard Weir have all stated prototypes exist.

Seriously, you need to dig in and read ALL of the info available, not just the FUD.

steve said...

richterm said,

Let me add to your options A) and B)..

C) They don't need to wait for patent approval. Filing records the process and protects them well enough.


B said EESTOR was going to announce "patents", which is a totally different animal than "patent-pending".

D) It will take a long time and they're going to wait. Maybe 2 more years, at which time Zenn may or may not be in business.

EESTOR says they will deliver commercial ESU's by end of 2008. EESTOR is talking to B. B just reported they will anounce permittivity, patents and launch their web site at the same time.

Do you believe they are going to deliver a commercial ESU prior to all of the above?

steve said...

Y_Po said...

People still don't realize that based on information contained in EEstor patents they will never deliver what they promised, not in a million years.

They've filed 21 new patents. It's those which allegedly contain the keys to the kingdom.

richterm said...

"Do you believe they are going to deliver a commercial ESU prior to all of the above?"

I'm betting that they will deliver this year. There are enough different sources/signs that point me to that conclusion.

That said, I have no idea about the patents - what has been done, what is required, what is planned. I take B's detective work as a strong indication of progress (especially since his contact with Weir was backed up by Tyler). However, I also bet that B is not exactly correct on every point. Even he acknowledges that he can't verify what all of his sources have told him. So would I be shocked if the annouuncement of patents turns out to be "patents pending"? No. And really that won't matter one bit if that gives them the needed protection. the info B has gathered is great but it really can't be expected to be 100% accurate in every nuance.

Marcus said...

Well at this rate if I wait four days ZNN will be back at the price it was at before b's market manipulation. I think I can wait.

steve said...

richterm,

Fair enough. I would have to agree that "patent-pending" is a possibility, but having looked into it, I think the odds are better they've applied for an "expedited patent" at the same time they filed the patent application.

I can't see any logical reason why they wouldn't apply for an expedited patent at the same exact time, citing precedent etc. EESTOR lawyers must have at least considered it. And I don't see any drawbacks to asking for one since the technology has such intense national security possibilities besides "national interests" like getting off foreign oil.

In fact, if we take EESTOR and Lockheed Martin at their word, then I believe it would be a huge error on their part and their patent atttorneys' part to NOT ask for an expedited patent.

It would be stupid not to. You're gonna change the world on the scale they're alleging, but you don't think you invention merits an expedited patent?

Think about it.

richterm said...

marcus - I think you got that right. I think it will come back down sub-5 within a week.

Unless Eestor announces and it jumps to 20.

steve said...

marcus,

Im not telling anybody to buy anything. No way. Play at your own risk. This is speculation. Do your own DD or risk financial ruin.

I'm just interested in getting the facts straight. I see alot of speculation in this blog commentary which is outdated when viewed with new facts.

I also have seen alot of people twisting words to mean negative things which the English language does not support.

Marcus said...

Steve, I'm not willing to bet so much that I'm going to face financial ruin if this loses, I can assure you!

b, just don't post anymore blockbusters until I say OK??!!

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

Does anybody know if ZMC 'exclusivity' contract with EEStor text is publicly available?

I would like, as I am sure everybody else on this blog, to see exact terms and conditions ZMS gets for exclusive rights.

Is there expiration or other terms?

Robw said...

I don't understand the patent process well enough...wouldn't they be protected even if the patents were in a 'pending' process or would they have to wait until they are accepted?

If they are covered while pending then what purpose would an 'expediated' patent provide, as long as the patent was filed?

Charles Barton said...

richterm I would be happy to communicate with you. Don't get me wrong, I would love for the EEStory to be true. I believe that the future belongs to electrical powered transportation. And EEStor would fit right in to that. EEStor claims to offer a superior product. But as much as I want this to be true, there are still red flags. The story cannot be believed until EEStor lays its cards on the table for anyone to examine, or until we see a working EEStor Unit in a ZENN car.

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

Steve,


Every single one of your assertions is totally false. Obviously, you haven't done the level of DD necessary to understand the
facts.


Nope, Everything I said is completely correct.


There are experts in the field posting on this blog as to the sanity of EESTOR's claimed technology and have
explained what are probably the missing links most "experts" have missed.

Care to name what are they missing ?
I myself is an
expert.
Permitivity problem is single most important problem in ferroelectrics
And guess what? EEStor have not even mentioned it in the patent. Tell me why?
If they knew and solved this problem they would have mentioned it in the patent (Do you even realize the significance ot such discovery? of course such
"discovery" is physically forbidden). Instead they put completely erroneous calculation which assumes "k" to be constant. That is pretty much proves that they had no clue whatsoever.





2. EEstor have never directly commented about permittivity problem. Why?

False. See on this blog, "Eestor Beyond Permittivity" and prior statements from Richard Weir as well as Lionel Liebman form Lockheed Martin. You're way off the mark here.


Nope, I am absolutely correct, I read that blog and it contain no direct answer which would sound like "We know what permitivity problem is and we solved this
problem", He simply says "Permitivity is fine", that is nothing but ignoring the question.


3. EEstor or anyone else have never admitted that capacitor prototype existed. Why would not they admit it?

Ian Clifford, Lionel Liebman and Richard Weir have all stated prototypes exist.


Nope, they have not, If you think otherwise give me the link.

Seriously, you need to dig in and read ALL of the info available, not just the FUD.


I read a lot of info and most of the info coming from EEstore is nothing but a nonsensical hype which is laughable to say the least
There are no experts who would cares about their ridicilous milestones, purity and vaccuum cleaners (yes, they were talking about vacuum cleaners)
The questions which interest experts are :
1. Permittivity problem (was not answered)
2. Prototype (was not answered)
3. Results od the testing (well, since they don't admit existence of the prototype this question is premature)

there are of course some other minor problems like apparent absence of effect of aluminum oxide on permitivity which again, points again towards their utter ignorance, but these are not fundamental show stoppers like
"k problem".

mrjerry said...

B - "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"

Comment:
I've read some blogs from patent employee laughing at the original patent, saying it would never be inforced as it was too specific, and this was before we had KP involved. So there definitely truth to this. Also we are talking about 100 of billion here, you better get this right, or you toast...

B - "according to sources familiar with EEStor's status, Zenn is not announcing that because presumably they know well that things are going well."

Comment:
Zenn you just got 15 million dollars, notice how quiet they are, that good, it give me confidence, when ian clifford starts going on his rants, that tell me he needs something...

It's the quiet before the storm...

B - "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."

Comment:
You got to be kidding... what a joke.. we all know if you deliver the orginal patent, you get all the attention you need, hey al gore, KP... come on B. that's not believable

Y_Po said...

steve said...

They've filed 21 new patents. It's those which allegedly contain the keys to the kingdom.

Then what was the point of filing previous one? To make experts laugh at them? Maybe that is their devious plan.

The way I see it filing 21 patents is their way of postponing answering important questions and showing results.

a question said...

Thanks Tom. But I do think you exercise a little too much “excessive exuberance” when it comes to Zenn’s potential market dominance.

You write, “This exclusivity granted to ZMC locks up a significant portion of the world wide vehicle market as close to 50 million of the 70 million cars produced in 2007 would fall under the 1,400 kilogram (3086 lbs) limit.”

Did you forget “the exclusivity does not include high performance sports cars with a drive system of 100 kW (continuous output)?”

Let’s review ZMC’s technology agreement with Eestor again.

“FGCI has entered into an agreement with EEStor dated August 24, 2004 (with subsequent amendments dated November 26, 2004, September 30, 2005, August 8, 2006 and January 22, 2007) (collectively, the "EEStor Technology Agreement" or "Agreement" in this section) to acquire in perpetuity the worldwide exclusive rights to use EEStor's EESU in the following markets:

“all-electric 4-wheeled personal transportation uses up to 15 kW (continuous output) drive system
“for vehicles with a curb weight up to 1,400 kilograms, net of the battery weight,
“for golf carts and similar-styled utility vehicles, and
“the aftermarket conversion of any internal combustion passenger vehicle to electric drive.

[N.B.]
“The exclusivity does not include high performance sports cars with a drive system of 100 kW (continuous output) or greater.”


Actually, I feel the language “high performance sports cars” in the Zenn document is distracting. The exclusivity would be lost for all electric vehicles, new or conversions, with drive systems over 100 kW.

As 1 HP is equal to .746 kW a 100 kW drive system is anything over 134 HP. Anything below or equal to that threshold is subcompact/compact class. While cars within these classes could be seen as “a significant portion of the world wide vehicle market,” as you say, 50 million out of the 70 total for 2007 is a stretch.

I would have to expect most auto makers of 4 wheel EV passenger vehicles will have drivetrains greater than 100 kW of continuous output, if not for performance and efficiency issues (higher kW rated electric motors tend to be more efficient than ones with a lower kW rating), then to circumvent Zenn’s deal with Eestor.

The absolute gold standard for electric drivetrains in automobiles is the AC Propulsion unit. (AC Propulsion was founded by Alan Cocconi who came up with the design for the drivetrain used in the original GM Impact, a design that has been licensed by Tesla for use in not only in their roadster but in all of their future-planned models.)

http://www.acpropulsion.com/technology/gen2.htm

AC Propulsion’s drivetrain is 150 kW, (1 HP = .746 kW) that’s a 200 HP rating.

And as for the weight limit for new cars, let’s list a small sampling of new cars that have curb weights of over 1400 kg. Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, BMW 3 Series. The first two are some of the top selling cars in the US. True, the terms of Zenn’s rights consider the weight of the vehicle net the weight of the Eestor unit (and naturally without the weight of an ICE.) But with safety as a constant factor and the financial cost effectiveness of using steel over, say carbon fiber, in manufacturing (especially with Eestor’s EESU countering the absolute requirement for low operating weights), average vehicle weights even for EVs will likely remain above the Zenn limit.

Even if they don’t, there still is the pesky detail that Zenn’s exclusivity is lost on any car, new or conversion, that uses a greater than 100 kW (75 HP) drivetrain.

So, any other car manufacturer or EV conversion shop is free to develop their own deal with Eestor if they use a greater than 100 kW powerplant. I think they will.

In the end, are Zenn’s rights good only for putters or things bordering on what Tesla Motor’s founder, Martin Eberhard, would call a “punishment” EV? Let’s face it - if Eestor’s EESU works as specified, the SUV will still have its heyday. If you’re a bicyclist, get ready for all of those electric Hummers powered by off-the-grid wind and solar.

That is, if Eestor’s EESU does work as specified ... if it exists at all.

Y_Po said...


I've read some blogs from patent employee laughing at the original patent, saying it would never be inforced as it was too specific, and this was before we had KP involved. So there definitely truth to this. Also we are talking about 100 of billion here, you better get this right, or you toast.

I heard that too, Maybe the point of first patent was to get attention and financing.

New patents is a lame attempt to postpone answering questions.
Fact is: their original claim is in previous patent and demonstrating proof of their claim does not hurt their business.

Marcus said...

So Y_Po you think they have deceived KP over these last two meetings reported by b? Especially the one apparently devoted to the question of K late last year? This seems to me very unlikely unless you think the whole story put together by b is false. Any comment?

mrjerry said...

I guess no one has commented about KP purchasing think city and creating a plant in the us to manufacture it, where zenn has the exclusive aggrement on eestor.. no one see the connection, OK well how about this

Did you forget “the exclusivity does not include high performance sports cars with a drive system of 100 kW (continuous output)?”

Why did KP invest in a electric sports car?

http://bznotes.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/kleiner-perkins-investing-in-alternative-powertrains-fisker-automotive/

anyone see the connection here?

if not, i got more...

Y_Po said...


So Y_Po you think they have deceived KP over these last two meetings reported by b? Especially the one apparently devoted to the question of K late last year? This seems to me very unlikely unless you think the whole story put together by b is false. Any comment?

We don't know what exactly going on during these meetings.
I can only speculate that these famous investors are not interested public embarrassment, especially for relatively small money.

Marcus said...

Ok, from JohnG at Tyler's blog, a couple more patents found. Apparently these are much more professional...

20070148065 Method of preparing ceramic powders using chelate precursors

20080031796 Method of preparing ceramic powders using ammonium oxalate

steve said...

Y-Po,

I will address each of your three allegations one by one. In order to keep the information orderly, I'll make a separate comment on each allegation.

I'd like to begin with #2.

You wrote:

3. EEstor or anyone else have never admitted that capacitor prototype existed. Why would not they admit it?

I responded:

"Ian Clifford, Lionel Liebman and Richard Weir have all stated prototypes exist."

To which you replied:

Nope, they have not, If you think otherwise give me the link.

Let's start with Richard Weir who stated in EESTOR's January 16, 2007 press release:

It is anticipated that the relative permittivity of the current powder will-either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor, Inc. produced prototype components using its engineering level processing equipment.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200701/ai_n17125012

Then Ian Clifford referred to Weir's statement in the following response to a question about prototypes:

RE: EEStor Prototypes.

Based on EEStor’s press release from January 16th, (and I quote) “It is anticipated that the relative permittivity of the current powder will-either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor, Inc. produced prototype components using its engineering level processing equipment.”

So EEStor confirms that the components were prototyped and that the prototypes achieved the claimed permittivity. This was a very positive confirmation.

My comment on prototyping had to do more with delivery of Energy Storage Units (ESU) to ZENN. Since EEStor has prototyped, they are going straight to production, so ZENN will receive production, not prototype ESUs...

Ian Clifford

Chief Executive Officer

ZENN Motor Company
Posted by: Ian Clifford


And finally Lionel Liebman, manager of Program Development – Applied Research at Lockheed Martin for Missiles and Fire Control, referred directly to EESTOR's prototypes during an interview hosted by the GM-VOLT blog:

QUESTION: Do they have something that they’ve tested that you’ve seen which makes you want to work with them?

LL: We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year.


"Their prototypes"...

The link you requested is here

http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/

And all three of these comments by the key players involved, which do in fact reference the existence of prototypes, received further confirmation by B in his "EESTOR BEYOND PERMITTIVITY" article of July 18th wherein the following was reported:

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.

Assign whatever importance to it that you like, but that fact remains that the key players here have all made direct reference to existing prototypes.

This was all the subject of a previous long comment I made back on July 17th, 2008. See previous commentary here:

http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/fact-checking.html?showComment=1216273200000#c2459398454171899165

Y_Po said...


It is anticipated that the relative permittivity of the current powder will-either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor, Inc. produced prototype components using its engineering level processing equipment.

"prototype components" != prototype
Prototype components means powder

There is no capacitor which can be charged and discharged

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

a question,

I agree the whole exclusivity agreement needs some clarification from ZENN as there is ambiguity in the exclusions listed.

But as to the 100 kW (continuous output) sport car exclusion, the AC -150 motor you linked to is included in the agreement.

From the website you linked to:

Power 150 kW max 7,000-8,000 rpm, 50 kW continuous

mrjerry said...

Steve Y-po

I have always said that the key of Lockheed signing the agreement was based on the permittivity test was knows, B - states in sept 2007. That why lockeed said without a pause,

http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/

Are you confident that their technology will offer a greater amount of energy and power density than batteries?
Yes, and at a fraction of the cost.

Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?
Yes

Y_Po said...


LL: We haven’t personally tested their prototypes yet. Its something that we’ll work on together this year.

"Their prototypes"...

You must be kidding ?
How did you make a conclusion that prototype exist ?

If they had said "We have tested the prototype" or "we saw their prototype" then I would give you that
As of now nobody admitted existence of prototype and usage word "prototype" in the sentence does not mean it exists

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

Do their caps hold 10x the energy at 1/10th the weight of a lead acid battery?
Yes


It is not direct answer on direct question.
And this whole part of conversation was done using "future" tense.
Also, present tense would mean that Lockheed had it tested which is not true.
So there is no direct confirmation of existence of prototype. Basically question should be: "Does it exist?" Answer: "Yes, we have seen working capacitor prototype"

Tom Villars said...

Jonathan said, "...I work for a power company on the east coast and can assure you that by the time Zennergy drives are powering everyone around the US that we will have nowhere near the same cost per kw/h for electricity."

This is actually something I have first hand knowledge of having worked on the trading floors of LGE, DTE, and MidAmerican.

As you work for an energy company, you'll know power is typically sold at peak and off peak prices. I think it is safe to assume PHEVs and EVs will mostly be recharged at night during off-peak rates. The excess capacity during off-peak hours will be put to use and should actually lower average kWh prices and utilities are better able to utilize their power generating assets.

For more I suggest EVCast #35 and EVCast #36.

Y_Po said...

Tom Villars,
I never understood why people keep discussing secondary problems when main ones have not even been shown to be close to solution.

It is like discussing parking lots for antigravity flying saucers :)

richterm said...

Just a general note of caution..

B's info can be viewed by the skeptical as possible "pumper" activity.

On the other side of the coin there are dumpers. The last few day's runup to 5.60 presents a great opportunity for short sellers. They'll often follow up a short sell by hitting the message boards to sow doubt. The negative arguments here are pretty shallow IMO, but as long as Eestor is quiet, it's something that won't stop.

steve said...

Y_Po,

From EESTOR's January 16th, 2008 press release

In addition, EEStor, Inc. has completed the initial milestone of certifying purification, concentration, and stability of all of its key production chemicals notably the attainment of 99.9994% purity of its barium nitrate powder.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200701/ai_n17125012

The powder was certified by Southwest Research Institute to have attained 99.9994% purity.

Y-Po, you quoted EESTOR's press release:

"It is anticipated that the relative permittivity of the current powder will-either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor, Inc. produced prototype components using its engineering level processing equipment."

Weir is not referring to the 99.9994% purity rating of the powder, he is making reference to the permittivity of 18,500. These are two different measurements

1. purity of the powder = 99.9994
2. permitivvity of the prototypes containing the powder = 18,500

Y_Po commented:

"prototype components" != prototype
Prototype components means powder

There is no capacitor which can be charged and discharged


You can't measure permittivity without storing electricity in a medium.

Permitivvity measures the capacity of a medium to store electrical energy

The ability to measure permittivity
requires an energy storage unit.

The following is an excellent explanation of how this is done. It's taken from an exisiting patent (not EESTOR's):

The permittivity of a specimen is the complex ratio of the capacitance between a pair of electrodes which sandwich the specimen and that of the same pair with an air gap. Measurement of capacitance and determination of permittivity is generally accomplished through the use of a test fixture coupled to a measurement instrument such as an LCR meter, an impedance/material analyzer, or a network analyzer.

Test fixtures may be classified according to the measurement technique which they employ, and thus may be classified as being a parallel plate fixture, coaxial probe, transmission line fixture, free-space fixture, or a resonant cavity fixture.


http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6559656/description.html

EESTOR achieved 18,500 permittivity using the barium nitrate powder which was measured at being 99.9994% pure.

This was achieved by prototypes created by EESTOR using its "engineering level processing equipment".

The only question that remains is whether or not the "production line equipment" can achieve similar permittivity of 18,500.

In other words, the question is:

Do those "capacitors" which are being "printed" by EESTOR on their beta production line achieve permittivity of 18,500?

Said another way,

DO THOSE PRODUCTION LINE CAPACITORS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO STORE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AT A RATING OF 18,500... a rating they have already achieved using engineering level prototypes.

I know it's confusing, but they have clearly stated in the January 16, 2007 press release that their prototypes can hold electrical charge to the tune of 18,500 permittivity.

PURITY is the rating for powder

PERMITTIVITY is the rating for holding electrical charge

You measure permittivity via an enclosed medium, a storage unit.

The ESU holds electrical charge and that ability to store electricity is called "permattivity".

The barium nitrate powder by itself is just powder... sure, it's a "component" of the prototype, but you can't measure its permittivity without encasing it in a storage unit, in this case an EESTOR prototype ESU.

Tom Villars said...

steve,

I have the feeling I'm surrounded by treehuggers on this blog, so I'm sure I'll offend when I say I'd run my car on biodiesel made from baby seals if some one could sell it for a buck seventy five.

Unless the economics make sense people's behavior will rarely change for some abstract "greater" good. At $2 /gallon the opportunity cost of switching to EVs and PHEVs even with EEStor technology are to high.

I agree you have a point that ZENN stock would not fall to zero as EEStor's technology would still have applications outside of EVs even with a dramatic fall in oil prices. So kaput is probably a bad word, but ZENN would be nothing more than a paper shell that holds stock in EEStor.

Personally I feel a dramatic fall in oil prices is very unlikely. If there is one thing the Middle East is good at, it is promoting chaos. Chaos breeds uncertainty which leads to risk and ultimately higher prices.

richterm said...

Hi charles - I respect your right to be a skeptic, and your hope that Eestor is for real.

I personally am as excited for the prospects for the country as for my investment.

Once we're able to store the electricity, we can figure out however we want to generate it.

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

You can't measure permittivity without storing electricity in a medium.

Well you don't need to store whole lot of electricity to measure permittivity

Besides permittivity were measured before them many times. Where is the discovery ?
Nobody really care about their permitivity measurement because they were done at low voltage therefore are pretty useless.

Do you understand what direct question/direct answer means ?

If they had admitted existence of prototype they would had been immediately asked "What is energy density it can hold? did you test it?"
At this point they would have a problem because they would have to tell results of the energy density test, and trust me they would have to lie or they finished.

Y_Po said...


The barium nitrate powder by itself is just powder... sure, it's a "component" of the prototype, but you can't measure its permittivity without encasing it in a storage unit, in this case an EESTOR prototype ESU

That would make no sense, because once you have fully functional prototype the only thing is worth measuring is its energy storage capacity

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


Y_PO said:

I myself is an expert. Permitivity problem is single most important problem in ferroelectrics.

Later, Y_Po also said:

Besides permittivity were measured before them many times. Where is the discovery ?

These two statements appear to directly contradict each other. But I digress.

No, they don't
"Permittivity problem" is a drop of permitivity at high voltages.
This is fundamental property of high-k materials, well actually it is true for all material but for low-k it just require higher voltages which way higher then break-down.

k=20000 was measured the first time this material was created probably few decades ago, therefore it is not a new discovery

steve said...

Y_PO said:

I myself is an expert. Permitivity problem is single most important problem in ferroelectrics.

Later, Y_Po also said:

Besides permittivity were measured before them many times. Where is the discovery ?

These two statements appear to directly contradict each other. But I digress.

Y_Po, EEstor did not claim to invent permittivity. I have no idea how you came up with that idea. Regardless, it's the rating of 18,500 which is so impressive and is the basis for all EESTOR's incredible potential.

Now, we were discussing whether EESTOR has ever said they have prototypes. You can't measure permittivity without a storage device. The storage device used by EESTOR to test permittivity of its 99.9994% pure barium nitrate powder achieved permittivity of 18,500.

There's your prototype which achieved incredible permittivity.

You said the "prototype components" just meant the powder.

Y_Po commented:

"prototype components" != prototype
Prototype components means powder

There is no capacitor which can be charged and discharged.

Weir said "prototype components"... it's plural.

The prototype is made up of various components, not just the powder which is just one of the components.

Other components include the storage unit which houses the powder. As I originally stated, Weir, Clifford and Liebman (of Lockheed Martin) all made reference to EESTOR prototypes.

EESTOR is making energy storage units with a permittivity of 18,500.

Fair enough if you choose not to believe Weir's press release, but this discussion involves whether EESTOR has prototype energy storage units and whether the key players have admitted to having them.

The answer is clearly yes, they have prototypes and the key players have said so in interviews and press releases.

mrjerry said...

Steve - I don't think you can be clearer about permittivity than your last comment.. The reason eestor got the money was from the prototypes, but the 100 billion dollar question was always can you really

"Burke, meanwhile, says that there's a big difference between making powder in a controlled environment and making defect-free devices in a large quantity that can survive underneath the hood of a car."

Don't underestimate that difficulty, we have not even got to the commercial eesu yet. lots can still go wrong, think about how much testing in the real world has to be done.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=18086&ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&pg=3

Y_Po said...

steve,
OK, I will give illustration:
You believe they did in fact say they have working well prototype
Now you invested a lot of money into EEStor stock or whatever.

Next month they say "We failed, we have nothing" and stock goes to zero.

Now, can you sue whoever made you believe they had a prototype in court?

Answer is NO.

Y_Po said...


"Burke, meanwhile, says that there's a big difference between making powder in a controlled environment and making defect-free devices in a large quantity that can survive underneath the hood of a car."

They made you believe that problem is these defects :)
It is not defects

steve said...

Steve stated:

The barium nitrate powder by itself is just powder... sure, it's a "component" of the prototype, but you can't measure its permittivity without encasing it in a storage unit, in this case an EESTOR prototype ESU

Y_Po then postulated:

That would make no sense, because once you have fully functional prototype the only thing is worth measuring is its energy storage capacity

Am I being punked? Is that you B, or possibly Dick Weird (spelling?) messing around with me?

PERMITTIVITY is the measurement of electricity storage.

Y_Po also fronted:

I myself is an expert.

An expert at what?

This isn't IHUB. The same tactics will not yield the same results. The voltage nerds (myself included) who read an participate in this blog know the tech clean.

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

Tom- Thanks for engaging me on this topic. My main point is that a lot of people forget where the power is coming from. Even without these cars on the road the rates are about to increase. The price of coal is rising quickly. As developing countries begin to rely on it, and the continuing environmental pressure mount, coal is quickly beginning to raise rates. And don't think the power company is going to take a hit. We are more than happy to pass the cost on to the consumer. And by the way, biofuel from baby seals has a very high stored energy raating!

I just feel that people get overwhelmed with the "This will save the world" stuff, especially when coupled with "I'm sick of paying for gas." I think the masses need to better understand that we are in a environmental and energy crisis, and these crisis are tightly woven together. I think this technology is a critical step in developing a reliable clean power source for the future. I also feel this technology can help to slow or reverse or impact on the environment as a whole over a longer period of time. All of this stuff will not happen overnight. And don't think the price of energy won't go up in the mean time.

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

Y_po said:

"Tom Villars,
I never understood why people keep discussing secondary problems when main ones have not even been shown to be close to solution.

It is like discussing parking lots for antigravity flying saucers :)"

I think you are the one that has it backwards. Whether this technology pans out or not, we are still having massive problems meeting our energy needs in a more environmentaly friendly fasion. I'm not one to jump on the hippie save the world band wagon, but even I am intelligent enough to see a problem. Even if there were affordable electric cars on the road with current or next gen battery systems, we would still have energy generation issues.

Y_Po said...


Y_Po then postulated:

That would make no sense, because once you have fully functional prototype the only thing is worth measuring is its energy storage capacity

Am I being punked? Is that you B, or possibly Dick Weird (spelling?) messing around with me?

I am not native speaker, is that a problem ?
Do you have any argument against my arguments ?

I repeat my argument
Why would anyone be interested in permittivity in dielectrics of working prototype?


Have you ever seen a capaciror which had dielectric constant written on it?
Do you ask about size of the crankshaft when you buy a car ?

Y_Po said...


I think you are the one that has it backwards. Whether this technology pans out or not, we are still having massive problems meeting our energy needs in a more environmentaly friendly fasion

Actually we will have very modest increase of electricity consumption.

Still, you did not get my point.

steve said...

In reference to Lionel Liebman's use of the term

"Their prototypes"...

Y_Po cried:

You must be kidding? How did you make a conclusion that prototype exist?

It was rather simple actually, I see the word "their" and I see the word "prototypes"... when Liebman put them together and said, "their prototypes", I looked in my fourth grade English textbook to make sure I understood what "their" meant.

Here, it's the same as if I said, "Y_Po's comments"

That would refer to comments that Y_Po made. "Their" is possessive.

So, I assume that this Lionel Liebman (manager of Program Development – Applied Research at Lockheed Martin for Missiles and Fire Control) probably understands what the words, "THEIR PROTOTYPES" would mean to those of us who speak the English language. Liebman and Lockheed Martin probably also understand exactly what they've got the rights to as well.

I seriously think we're being punked. Is Ashton Kutcher into EESTOR?

richterm said...

Why waste so much time with y_po. Probably a paid basher. Why else would he be spending time here. He's no expert - he's rehashing old material and sowing doubt.

Y_Po said...


It was rather simple actually, I see the word "their" and I see the word "prototypes"...

Trust me, this will not work in court. Judge will simply laugh at you

Jonathan said...

Y_po-Actually I did get your point, I just think it is invalid. Apparently many other people think your points are invalid as well. Do I need to provide a link to document this?


http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/even-more-on-znn-stock-value-pt-2.html

Y_Po said...


Why waste so much time with y_po. Probably a paid basher. Why else would he be spending time here. He's no expert - he's rehashing old material and sowing doubt.

Of course it is old, still it was not answered.
Also I can say same about you - "paid..... debasher"

steve said...

richterm,

Why waste so much time with y_po. Probably a paid basher. Why else would he be spending time here. He's no expert - he's rehashing old material...

I'm obsessed and enjoying being forced to constantly review the facts and the more I see bull doooky being spread, the more excited I am getting.

Also, it forces me to really dig in and do the DD to understand what Weir meant by "prototype components". I became alot more confident in this technology because of all this.

Marcus said...

Arguing over semantics is pointless. People can interpret things the way they like and invest accordingly. No point in pushing this further I suspect.

Y_Po said...


Y_po-Actually I did get your point, I just think it is invalid. Apparently many other people think your points are invalid as well. Do I need to provide a link to document this?

I don't think you did.
As for the your worries I made once my own estimation, the problem is not large.

Jonathan said...

Y_po- What do you see as the most promising "green" power generation technology? Do you believe there is a technology out there that will stop China from bringing on so many coal power plants over the next few years?

Y_Po said...


Arguing over semantics is pointless. People can interpret things the way they like and invest accordingly. No point in pushing this further I suspect.

Well, when it all goes to the court semantics will become very important.
But I am glad to see that you agree that it can be interpreted either way, that was exactly intention of EEstor&company.

Y_Po said...


Y_po- What do you see as the most promising "green" power generation technology? Do you believe there is a technology out there that will stop China from bringing on so many coal power plants over the next few years?

I don't see how is that relevant here, but I see wind and solar taking off. Anyway I am not sure where you going with that.

steve said...

Y_Po goofed:

Trust me, this will not work in court. Judge will simply laugh at you

INT: Federal Court - Day

A fat judge with grey beard (50's) sits in black robes on a dark leather swivel chair in Federal District Court. The room is packed with techno geeks.

LIONEL LIEBMAN (40's, clean cut well dressed but with pencil holder stuffed in Armani suit) picks his nose as...

HOT FEMALE ATTORNEY (30's, wavy blond hair, slim, hard calfs, big breasts wearing short business suit and white button down shirt with fine cleavage) saunters over to witness stand, stares hard at Liebman

HFM
Mr. Liebman, are you manager of Program Development – Applied Research at Lockheed Martin for Missiles and Fire Control?

LL
Damn straight, baby.

JUDGE
Mr. Liebman, I will admonish you not to address the attorney's as "baby", and please stop picking your nose.

LL
Sorry dude.

HFA
Mr. Liebman, did you give an interview to the GM-VOLT blog wherein you referred to EESTOR's prototypes as "their prototypes"?

LL
Yes, ba--. sorry... uh, I sure did Counselor.

HFA
Can you please explain to the court what you meant by "their prototypes"?

LL
Yes counselor. When I said, "their prototypes", I mean that the prototypes they have are theirs and they are also prototypes.

HFA
Are you sure you didn't mean to say "they are" prototypes?

LL
They had clothes on and they appeared to be breathing?

HFA
The prototypes were breathing?

LL
No, the freaks at EESTOR were breathing... and they had clothes on. I can't be certain, but I do believe that they were real humans and not prototypes.

HFA
What about the ESU's?

LL
They didn't have clothes on.

_________________________

Yes, Y_Po, you might be right. This could become problematic in court.

we finally agree

Jonathan said...

Just seeing where you stood. You stated that you had done the math and didn't think there was any sort of generation problem. I'm signing out for the night. Hope all have a good night. Have enjoyed the back and forth on the blog tonight.

Jonathan said...

You sure you are not a screen writer steve?

Y_Po said...

steve,

I am sorry, my sarcasm detector is confused by your reply.
I can only repeat - it will not work in court.

I would appreciate if you retune your sarcasm generator

Tom Villars said...

johnathon,
I'd be interested in seeing some numbers behind your concerns. Here is a link to the California ISO. How many EVs do you think would need to be on the road in California for it to become a problem?

Tom Villars said...

a question,

Do you have volume pricing for the AC 150? I'm looking to compare it to UQM's product line. At over 200K units / year the price of a PowerPhase125 was US $1418.

Jonathan said...

Tom- Honestly, no clue. I don't really have time to run the numbers either. Did find some interesting articles, one in particular from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?releasenumber=mr20080312-02

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v41_1_08/article11.shtml

It appears as if there could be a large swing either way. If everyone were to plug their EV's in right when they get home from work there could be big problems. On the other hand, if there were ways to force off peak charging this would not be much of a problem, in fact it may even be beneficial to grid leveling. I think the biggest adjustment that would need to be made to this report to make it more relevent to this blog would be the technology used and the percentages of EV's being plugged in. I'm a big fan of a system similar to the picture in the report. Solar panel car ports with charging stations. Another press release I found interesting was this one:

http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/10-24-2007.htm

The idea of the EV being able to directly respond to commands from the power supplier is an interesting situation.

Jack said...

Just in support of Y Po: He's telling you (over and over, as have experienced chemical engineers and physicists Capacitatorman, Johng, and Malinkov on other blogs) that the permittivity of the purified bt powder at low voltage has no bearing, because the ability of this dielectric to accept charge decreases dramatically as voltage is increased. That's why the best anyone else has done with a bt capacitor is about 50, not 18,000.

So he's also right about the senselessness of worrying about parking lots for antigravity ufos -- because the physics behind EEStor are simply wrong, YA JUST CAN'T DO IT!!!, according to those working with bt, so we don't need to start figuring out how/if we will have the electricity to fill up EEStor devices.

And he's right, in my opinion, to point out that evidence for the existence of a prototype is ambiguous at best. You can disagree, or have more faith in an indirect comment by Lockheed-Martin, or whatever, but surely your enthusiasm hasn't blinded you as to whether a reasonable person could look at the same set of references and come away with a different opinion? (After all, Steve, last Thursday you yourself submitted an "is there a prototype?" question to EEStor through this fishy blog!)

Finally, when Y Po says statements about prototypes, etc. won't stand up in court, perhaps he is thinking of the possible culpability of those who claim a working prototype exists when it really doesn't, and who as a result of this subterfuge end up benefiting from the ZNN stock.

steve said...

Jack is Y-Po...

just my opinion. do you own DD

Y_Po is of course Ashton Kutcher as well...

FUDdy duddy...

Tom Villars said...

Here is an interesting tea leaf to consider:

LONG BEACH (Mffais.com) - Condor Capital Management completely dumped all -88,200 shares they owned of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc (ALTI) as shown by filings made public on 2008-07-22.

Jack said...

Thanks, Steve. I've never been accused of being a sock puppet before. You need to realize that beyond a layman like me (and Y Po, my dastardly doppelganger :)) plenty of people who actually work in materials science and engineering think your zeal (and "we vs. the unbelievers" viewpoint) is ... misplaced. Google "capacitorman" and read up a bit.

When it comes to investing money (and that seems to be the real goal of this blog), May Cooler Heads Prevail.

steve said...

Tom,

Thanks for pointing the tea leaves out.

The link you posted and the headline are going out on the news wire as well...

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:ALTI

Hudson Bay Capital also sold all of their shares in Altair as well, 182,963 shares according to filings made public on May 16, 2008 at a $25,000 loss.

Credit Suisse also sold all 92,164 of their shares in Altair for a $12,093 loss according to filings made public on the same date, May 16th, 2008.

Columbus Circle Investors sold all 52,000 of their shares (filing May 2, 2008) in Altair for a loss of $7950.

And there's more large blocks sold analyzed here

http://www.mffais.com/alti.html

and why did their stock drop around July 8th if they had the followong news

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1742502/

To be fair, they are up 9% today. But still off 50% of their year high.

steve said...

Ashton Kutcher,

It's my opinion that you are Y-Po and that last night you were making believe you couldn't speak English.

Now stop punking around and go get Demi Moore to say hello to us... that would be nice.

a question said...

>>But as to the 100 kW (continuous output) sport car exclusion, the AC -150 motor you linked to is included in the agreement.
>>

Tom,

I stand corrected. That’s what I get for writing off the top of my head. Getting my specs (and companies) confused.

I guess you have seen that UQM Technologies (for blog reader’s who may not know … UQM did power systems for GM’s Precept concept car and are working on hybrid Humvees) has a 150 kW peak power motor that is rated at 100 kW continuous power.

http://www.uqm.com/propulsion_specs.php

http://www.uqm.com/pdfs/PowerPhase150%20_edited_.pdf


And sorry I don’t have (and can’t find) pricing info on the AC Propulsion unit. They seem content to license its manufacture to others (like Tesla.) Finding the volume price point for Tesla Motor’s unit would probably tell you want you want to know.

Thanks again and keep up the good work,

(By the way Condor’s dumping of Altair is interesting news)

(and to all the guys and gals out there ... please remember, don't feed the trolls)

steve said...

a question,

Nice post. You're right, but against my best interests I feel the need to feed them.... grilled cheese...

But seriously folks, here's a link to the dummy guide on how EESTOR esu's work... it's based on a grilled cheese sandwich

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/eestore_ultra_c.php

Tom Villars said...

a question,

Have you been able to find anything that compares DC -vs- AC motors? I have found a few things but them seem to be hobbiest related. I've gone through UQM's specs and it looks nice as the seem to have a wide range of products where as most of the other vendors seem to have only one or two sizes.

a question said...

Tom,

Here’s a comparison (circa 1994) of induction motors (like AC Propulsion’s) and brushless DC motors (like UQM’s ).
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel3/62/7541/00311235.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=311235


While the cost analysis of the article is outdated, BDCMs are still cheaper 12 years on. BDCMs are also probably better suited for so-called wheel hub motors or applications where low end torque is really needed (or appreciated). I think the initial problems with phased IM systems was the complexity (and cost) of controllers. But as these issues are addressed, IMs have some advantages overall. IMs have great efficiency once up to speed. Good for cruising at highway speeds.
Below are some more links. A few sentences comparing AC to DC motors and another older article comparing the propulsion systems for use in mass transit.


http://www.engineering.sdsu.edu/~hev/motor.html

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10477/33224/01566332.pdf?tp=&arnumber=1566332&isnumber=33224

And finally, a primer article on EVs but one that I think explains how a brushless DC motor is actually an AC motor rather than an old-tyme DC motor.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/1122/7181/00289020.pdf

Just for your information, I’m starting to get in over my head, but I’m having fun while learning.

And, oh, I don’t know if you’ll have access to search the IEEE database, but here’s the link to do your own searching.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/dynhome.jsp

johng said...

There is another aspect of the US patent system that people should be aware of.

About 18 months after a patent is filed, the application is published, exactly as it was submitted, without any review by examiners.

Then, about a year and a half after that, the examiner reviews it, and sends his objections to the inventors attorney, and they respond with arguments and/or new claims.

Eventually, when the examiner is satisfied, the patent is approved, and a couple months later it issues.

Thus, the only US Patent EEStor has was filed Apr 12, 2001. It was published Apr 15,2004 as 2004/0071944, and then was issued as patent no 7033406 on Apr 25, 2006.

So, you see, we will get to see whatever they file, about 18 months after they file it, well before its really a patent.

steve said...

Stephen I. Rodgers - President, GS Global Solutions... is on the Board of Directors of Zenn Motor Cars. Check him out...

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/steve-rodgers-joins-optessa-advisory/story.aspx?guid=%7B0B1FFD56-F018-41C1-864B-AC36319F0CA7%7D&dist=hppr

Also, Maybach Financial has rated Zenn a "Speculative Buy" as of July 23, 2008. Analyst Lili Zhang said,:

The stock remains speculative at this time, but we are intrigued by this company's story and would rate it a speculative buy.

http://maybachfinancial.com/index.php?id=26&newsID=311

You may have to register there to read the short report. It's free.

richterm said...

For the investor with no stomach for Zenn stock, some ideas for profitting if/when Eestor delivers. There will be a little time before everyone realizes the implications.

- Buy Zenn as quickly as possible. Maybe if you're really quick you can get in.

- Find a commodities broker and come up with an oil puts strategy.

- Buy beaten down airline stocks and/or cheap LEAP options (calls). The price of oil will start to drop, and airline stocks will take off. Pun intended.

- Short sell battery stocks and/or buy cheap LEAP options (puts).

- Get your money into mutual funds that don't carry too much exposure to oil/batteries. The overall economy will roar in the new age of energy.

Y_Po said...

richterm,
Do you have any ideas for investors who know that EEstor is going to fail but does not know exact date?

richterm said...

Yes y_po,

Simply short-sell Zenn. But I think you know that.

Y_Po said...


Yes y_po,

Simply short-sell Zenn. But I think you know that.

How much?
short sells has time limits.
If I knew when they finally going to bust I would.
It is canadian company can I buy/sell them?

In any I don't see it is going down too much even EEstor go bust.

Marcus said...

richterm, thanks for the ideas. I hope I get a chance to use them.

Marcus said...

Johng, so if EEStor were actually waiting for patents before going public, what stage in the process would they be waiting on?

Satya51 said...

y_po,
Translating knowledge of a company into money is tricky. There are actually larger potential risks in shorting a low dollar stock than buying it. Still, it is common to short and people make money at it. I think I read that there were 187,000 shares shorted at this time, which is not a lot but the daily volume is low.

On the other hand I think there is major risk to buyers even if Eestor pans out. For instance, the ESU is real, but yields are not good. Or the yields are good, but there is a patent loop hole, or a competitor has a breakthrough that they have been working on, on and on.

One thing seems to me to be sure, Eestor does not have motivation to lay their cards on the table until they are completely ready to go commercial, including ramp up logistics, potential customers (Think! City, GM, Lockheed), and ready (planned) finance (Mort T and friends have deep pockets, not to mention KP and friends).

Zenn and Zenn shareholders will have to tough it out, and shorts might make some money in the mean time.

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

Satya51,
I have zero experience in shorting.

I only buy cheap and hold
In case of Zenn I don't see it is falling too much from what it is now. If only they jumped by a factor of 10 after some bogus EEstor press release. Even in this case one does not know how much higher and longer this scam will go before it busts.
It has been 2 years (or more) since it was identified as scam.

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

Marcus @ 9:42

Good question. It depends on how safe you want to be. Most people, us included, are content to sell a new product once the patent is actually filed. To sell or describe publicly a device before one files cuts off some of the foreign patent.

But once your patent is written and submitted, the specification is not going to change, though the claims might as one goes through the examiner-objections part. So once its out there, there really is no point in waiting. Anyone who tries to duplicate it would have to show prior work to the filing date.

richterm said...

Tom -

One thing that occurred to me. You assume no revenue from LSVs. Does that not include golf carts? If Zenn has exclusive rights to use EESUs in golf carts, that is a pretty sizeable market. I could have missed something in your analysis.

Tom Villars said...

I pretty much assumed things like golf carts, LSV EVs, forklifts, etc. where just noise and not worth the trouble of figuring out. Also ZENN is a small company and if they go off in a hundred directions it actually hurts over all financial performance. I wouldn't want Ian spending even a second deciding which golf cart manufacturer to partner with when he could be talking to Honda, Toyota, Honda or Kia.

I suppose Ian could be thinking small markets like these aren't as sensitive to gas prices so if gas had stayed under $2 he'd still have a marketable product.

richterm said...

I agree the focus has to be on partnering with big auto makers. But down the line, there's money to be made there. I'm not positive if Zenn's rights extend into golf carts, but I think they do.

I don't know if you play golf, but golf carts for on golf courses are pretty much all electric. There are lots of golf courses in the world and I'd imagine millions of golf carts. They have batteries that have to be replaced at some point. If Zenn can create a retrofit kit, I think there's a huge market there. It might not be much more complicated than producing an EESU package that can replace the existing battery on each model, cheaper, lighter, quicker charging, and indefinite cycles.

I'm glad these aren't included in your analysis, because I do think down the road there's $$ to be made. I'll do some research when I get a chance.

Greg said...

US Army to Award Laser Gun Contract to Boeing:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19926715.400-us-army-has-laser-guns-in-its-sights.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_mg19926715.400

This is for 100KW vehicle mounted lasers powered by "diesel generator." I think this bodes well for EESTOR or similar supercapacitor technology. Laser couldn't be powered directly by a generator--would need capacitor to store pulse energy. This jibes with EESTOR's comments about "Manhattan II" project and Lockheed Martin agreement.