I got a lucky break in my efforts in that Dick Weir actually gave me the time of day to take a phone call from me. He didn't have to do that. I was attacked personally for making this claim and understandably some of that originates from my intention to maintain this blog anonymously and my admission that I own stock in Zenn Motors....but alot of it stems from a distinct lack of manners and civility and greed that lives in our culture unfortunately. Mr. Weir has been nothing but kind to me in taking my calls and helping me understand what he was able to relay and still stay on course with his mission.
Alot of people ask me, "what do you make of Dick Weir as a person, do you believe him?" I say this truly, I like Dick Weir, I do believe him and I would like him even if this EEStor technology never comes to fruition. Why do I feel that way about someone I've never met in person but only spoken to over the phone? Reason #1: Weir is a friendly soul. My personal take on him, which I am sure other people will validate, is that he is not pompous, cocky, off-putting or in any way snooty, rude or combative. He's inviting, jolly, friendly and amusing--with a good sense of humor. My read is he's not out to prove anything to anybody from a personality point of view. I honestly think that we have a man here who has been plying away at a practice or trade for maybe 50 years with a discipline and focus that is uncommon except among pioneers. So because EEStor has chosen to keep a low profile as they go through steps to develop their business--protect their IP, build out their production--that this implies they are scamming everyone? Let me be very clear here: if you talk with Dick Weir yourself, you will very quickly see that this is not the type of person who pulls scams. Make up your own mind on this but I am telling you, the reader of this blog, that I do not sense any shred of scam or hoax in Dick Weir at all. Zero. I'm not saying I am an expert at reading people but I have common sense. And one thing I can tell you is that the way some people express themselves in the comments threads, even if they turn out to be correct about whatever it is they are trying to prove, I would not trust them. Because, your character is a clue to your honesty and trustworthiness.
So, as I stand back and look at what has become of this blog, I can see that I have not done a good job of sticking to what I had originally laid out back in June when I said:
In the meantime, moving forward, I'm more than a little concerned about the level and quality of comments being posted on my blog. What we all have in common is an interest in whether or not EEStor can deliver this amazing technology. We can disagree and even be cranky about each other's assessments of this. But I'd like to ask that everyone show a little more civility and class. My blog is like my home. If I invite you in, act like a guest. I'm going to hold off moving to a moderated comment format for now. My guess is there are always going to be a few people who go beyond polite skepticism and issue vulgarities to ruin the atmosphere. If it keeps up, I'll have to moderate the comments.
Now, it seems to me I have made a mistake. In my attempt to increase discussion, I changed the format of the blog to allow anonymous posting. And even among posters with recurring usernames, I have not stuck to my plan to try and keep the discourse on this blog civil. I would also like to thank Steve for making this clearer to me via email. He was right that anonymous posting and some of the comments posted should be deleted immediately. I am taking corrective actions on that now. Anonymous posting is no longer permitted. Further, I am going to make an effort to remove comments that are not respectful and/or offensive and I would ask help from readers to do this well. Simply shoot me an email with a link and reference to an offensive post, and I will delete it after considering the merits. Now, of course, this is probably going to become unmanageable. So I may have to move to fully moderated comments only. Thats where all comments have to go to me in email and I have to manually approve each one. I'm not a fan of that format because I believe real dialogue is hampered in part due to the time delays....but I'm going to try and maintain a clean blog here. I'm asking for some help from the readers on this.
So, taken altogether here, I'd like to apologize to EEStor and to Dick Weir, personally for not doing a better job of maintaining a blog worthy of being a source of information for EEStor. I think I can do a better job moving forward and restore some of the innocence that sparked my efforts to launch this blog. And if you, the reader, think these words from me sound strange, then consider this: imagine you came up with a great technology that could help many people, but as you stuck to your plans, kept your head down and moving forward, people started to attack you personally--people who have never met you, calling you things which should only be reserved for unaccomplished slothful people....eventually it would wear you down. And you know what, in Mr. Weir's case, it's completely undeserved. Before it's all said and done, if all goes well, the man may be awarded a Nobel prize for his breakthroughs.
And I'd also like to apologize to readers who have been offended at some of the comments on this blog. Please email me any offensive comments and I will do my best to delete them.
Invariably, some questions may arise as to why I deleted certain comments and not others. All I can say to you is if you had a comment deleted, it was probably disrespectful or contained content which included a personal attack. I would invite you to direct your energy elsewhere to conduct yourself in that manner. But I would also invite you to resubmit your comment devoid of personal attacks. This can be a place where people debate, but it is my blog and I want to keep the discourse at a higher level.
And I would pledge that if I can't operate this blog in a manner befitting it's subject matter, then I will have to close up shop which would be really disappointing to a lot of people.
Finally, I don't need to run this blog.My main motivation is to increase awareness of what EEStor is up to in the hopes that in some small way, it could hasten it's arrival. That's something on which even skeptics who comment here can agree with me.
283 comments:
1 – 200 of 283 Newer› Newest»Yes, B. Well said.
At times, in the heat of argument, I said a few things which were childish. My apologies to readers for having to wade through any of that.
There's been so much intelligent thought provoking stuff written at this blog, let's keep it "on point" and try to educate each other going forward.
respect to all
B,
I appreciate your right to run this page, and your wish to moderate a civil discussion.
I am confused however. I think I have witnessed 2 different posts disappear from the board, and I don't understand how the 2 could have been interpreted as uncivil; although each could be construed as pointing towards a skeptical interpretation of events. Perhaps I have simply lost their location, but they continue to exist.
What are the grounds for the deletion of posts? Personal attacks on fellow responders? Attacks on the character or motivations of the players in the EEstory?
AC
AC, in the end, it's a judgement call. I'm not talking about content or skepticism obviously but the way people express themselves: just be respectful, give others the benefit of the doubt.
I hope this doesnt mean that we will be seeing fewer news posts on this site. I am extreemly hopeful for this technology, Keep up the level of comments (well good comments!).
Thanks again B! :)
Fair enough. I've done a little self editing..
B,
Did you remove a post by the author "nullpointer0?"
Yes, it was getting a little crazy out there. I was finding it hard to wade through some of it. Good move.
B: no reason to apologize, this is the internet ... land of the trolls. It's not your fault that the absence of the risk of getting punched in the nose brings out the the more juvenile among us. I'm sure RW is fully aware of the nature of the net and wouldn't hold you responsible for it's creatures.
*** APPLAUSE ***
STANDING OVATION
AUTHOR, AUTHOR.
Less drivel and snot to wade through.
Needn't feel so guilty, though.
Free speech is free speech.
Even from idiots.
I hope those "attacked" take it as just so much babble from the disturbed.
"It is better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" attributed to Abraham Lincoln
Please keep the blog going. It is very useful and full of much information about EEstor and Zenn. Edit, yes, by all means. Please keep personal attacks out.
Also, I ask the "science" folk among you to maybe break down some of your discussion in elementary form so the rest of us have some some clue about what you are talking about. Maybe a summary section in plain English after you go through all of the technical formulas.
Thanks, keep up the good work.
Regarding RW, perhaps its an idea not to forget this passage.
Blogger: are you following any of the discussions on the web?
RW: [scoffing] I dont follow any discussions. I get to work, get my ass to work and get things done around here. What people say has no meaning to me.
Yes, it's probably better that he doesn't pay attention to us. I don't understand how he could manage it, though.
What people say has no meaning to me
I see problem right here.
Is there a "nullpointer0" out there?
Y_Po, LOL!
Well if you are wrong Y_Po (even though of course that's impossible..) I assume you will give yourself at least ten lashings correct?
Well if you are wrong Y_Po (even though of course that's impossible..) I assume you will give yourself at least ten lashings correct?
Of course.
Bravo, B. Bravo. Everything I have read or heard about Mr Weir (that is worth listening to) points to two things - he is a gentleman and a scholar. All power to him, and to Ian Clifford, a man who appears far more motivated by the electric car than his share price. Regardless of the outcome, and I believe it will be positive, there is no way these guys are anything other than on the level.
I did some simple basic guessing basic math and would like to get this forums opinion :)
The ESU that is currently being developed for ZENN is a 300 lb 52.5 KW and goes 300 miles and the ZENN vehicle itself is about 1500 lbs with the battery. So for every 500 lbs it takes 17.5 KW. So for me to move my current vehicle with the weight of 5000 lbs the same distance I would require 175 KW to do the same. So I would need at least 3 to get the desired effect, that is an additional 900 lbs to the vehicle, of course you would loose a little weight by removing the engine.
I see why ZENN wanted to stick to the little vehicles. We are always going to have ICE. It will be nice to have an electric rototiller tho :)
B - When ever anyone says rude things, disrespectful of others/myself they get no response from me. Think of being on the highway and someone demonstrate road rage etc, i don't get upset because the only control I have in life is how I treat people, if i get caught up in their world I become one of them. B - by trying to control the responses you will fail. What seems to be missing tool with this blog, is to remove the the offender. You have the right to say anything your want but when your rude, you don't get to come back, you lose your license to drive here.
Pardon me. I am sorry if you were disappointed with my statement.
I was merely pointing out that it will change a lot of thing but not my old car.
maybe in another 50 years this may happen and as for city vehicles this will surely happen and anything that runs on batteries and hopefully nifty robots. But for the next 50 years or so, the gas car will still be here, hopefully running on hydrogen. it will make the movies real, cars really will blow up when they go off the cliffs when you use hydrogen :)
@geofreesparts: not to worry. Total energy consumption for an electric car is not proportional to weight. While cruising, power consumption is determined by the coefficient of drag, which is determined by the shape of the car. The energy required to accelerate is proportional to weight, but you can get most of that part back through regenerative breaking when you stop.
Matt,
actually it is mostly weight (rolling resistance) and not drag.
It is your blog and a valuable resource it is so please monitor it as you need to. I have seen to many good sites go bad by the few who ruin it for the majority. So thank you and keep up the good work.
Marc
thanks for all the positive feedback. y_po, would you please shoot me an email? create an anonymous account if needed. no conflict intended...just a brief offline, if you would please. respectfully, b
y_po: yes, you're right. I guess geo will have to shell out for 3 EESUs. Oh well, if he wants to buy 5000 pound cars, he can probably afford it.
B.- Thanks for moderating with class and integrity. Great blog community!
For those still wondering whether the technology will work or this is just some mirage, I recommend
"listening" and take a little break from reading.
B communicated some valuable information that some may have missed. B has spoken with Richard Weir and Ian Clifford. To an experienced ear, liars and lunatics, well, tend to sound like liars and lunatics. Neither fit the bill.
Go to the ZENN site and download and listen to the annual meeting from March 28, 2008.
(Investor Relations, Annual General Meeting). It is about an hour but well worth the time. Remember, there are potential legal ramifications for officers misleading investors.
You will hear from Rick McGraw, Brian Cott, Ian Clifford along with questions from the attendees integrated with Power Point type slides which communicate a true belief, vision and passion for what this team is doing. It will be difficult to doubt their convictions. It is clear that the EEStor partnership is the centerpiece of their marketing and production plans for the future.
This is not a game. These are men and women with families who are giving the most productive years of their lives to a shared vision of helping electrify consumer transportation. Not only are they sacrificing time and their careers, but they have clearly staked their personal reputations to the success of EEStor.
They are fully convinced this is a go. Do you honestly think people have invested their lives without some verification of the technology? Ian clearly states they have engineers "frequently visiting their state-of-the-art facility in Austin". Ian also stated Lockeed Martin was engaged in "extensive due diligence" prior to their licensing agreement.
It appears they honestly believe the truth that they espouse and are running with it.
I can appreciate the passion for scientific validation. I am a true analytical, a former physics instructor. On the other hand, it is the potential breakthrough that makes this story a story. By definition, a breakthrough must actually "break through" a presupposed impossibility.
Yes, it may be difficult to accept the science, but I believe it is even more difficult to deny the behavior of potentially dozens of bright, seemingly sane, respected engineers, managers, technicians, scientists, and investors.
For what it's worth...
does anyone else think this is weird?
General rule for blog-commenting is to imagine you're actually talking to your audience in person and he has a large, blunt object in his hand. Anything you'd feel comfortable saying in a situation like that is usually OK. Too many people think of themselves as "bulletproof" in the anonymity of the Internet and act like jerks.
ackkk, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you still wondering about nullpointer0 or are you referring to Dale's post?
Dale I will take your advice and have a listen. But here are a couple of important points in my opinion.
There is absolutely no reason at all to decide one way or the other on this. Given limited information the most reasonable position is to be uncertain. People can take their chances on the stock market if they want or not and they still don't have to be convinced one way or the other.
Also, this is going to play out the way its going to play out. If this is for real nothing anyone here can say, including Y_Po, will change that outcome.The facts will speak for themselves.
So I want to put the question out there. Why are so many people here so keen to convince others that this is for real?
One cynical answer is that they simply want to push up stock prices in order to minimize short term risk. If stock is high then they can pull out when ever they want without loss.
Are there other reasons? "Fan Boy-ism" as one commenter put it? Because its fun?
Remember some here are investing their whole net worth. Are they really being sensible? How much of an influence has some of the hype been in these decisions?
So while I think this forum is great for sharing EESTor info and speculation on what is going on I think people should think twice before posting messages to the effect "incontrovertible evidence EESTOR are for real". When in fact there is no incontrovertible evidence so far revealed and some very valid scientific reasons for doubt. This is a RISKY investment and should be treated with the uncertainty that it deserves.
I have been lurking in this forum for some time. I feel this is a valuable resource and that you have the right to moderate comments to keep things civil.
I have invested in companies that provide an alternative to the non sustainable & finite resource of oil and have included in my portfolio companies that meet this criteria. For this reason I chose Zenn.
I am exited with the promise that EESTOR brings with it.
I have learned to trust my gut to do the right thing. I was at Zenn's Annual General Meeting and got an opportunity to look the participants in the eye and get a sense of whether the promise of the EEStor was real. My gut told me it was.
I wait like everybody else for the commercialization of EEStor.
Thank you the service you provide to everyone interested in this very important "holy grail" technology.
Marcus said:
Why are so many people here so keen to convince others that this is for real?
It's a debate, bro. The forum here encourages us debating the issues.
You take the side you believe in and you make the case. That's why people are keen to convince others. That's what you do in a debate. That's the whole point of a debate.
If you believe in your argument, then you make your argument strong enough to win the debate.
Those who enjoy debating, find debates. EEstor is an interesting debate.
I think it's counter-productive to switch the debate to discovering people's motives for entering the debate. If this forum was created to debate the facts regarding EEstor technology then let's do that.
When we question the "motives" of why people are debating, that's when we have the kind of problems that B alluded to in this post.
y_po, rolling resistance is only dominant at low speeds, accounting for less than 30% on large Zenn cars at 40 mph. At 60 mph, it's about 15% due to the v^2 influence of air drag.
I would like to see discussions about Zenn and EEStor instead of discussing the discussion. Oops, now I'm doing it too. This could go on forever.
It seems to me many people here are interested in deciding whether this technology is for real or not. For almost all of us, scientific discussion is useless since we don't know one way or the other. We might be being duped by either side. A better way to make the evaluation is incentives. What are the incentives for Dick Weir to be behaving as he is.
1) If it's for real
The incentives for Dick Weir to keep quiet if he could explain why the technology works are: a) That the fewer people who know how it works the better. b) There are unfiled patents in the works. c) Opens to company up to unwanted attention.
The incentives for Weir to say more, such as "we have reached the permittivity milestone" or "this is how we overcome the problems people are concerned with" are: a) I can't think of any besides that it would make us happy.
2) If the technology doesn't work
The incentives for Dick Weir to keep quiet would be: a) It makes him look stupid which is needless if he thinks he might be able to come up with something else given more time. b) It will hurt Zenn stock.
The incentives for Dick Weir to say so if there are insurmountable technical problems are a) He would feel good inside.
So, on balance I think Dick Weir keeping quiet about what is going on is the best option for him whether this is working technology or not.
B, I agree with what you said.
Keep your good work. Yesterday, I've just removed all my others RSS subscriptions that scan for the word "EEStor" or "Zenn", because your blog contains every valuable information I found elsewhere.
Thanks you for the time you invest in this blog
B,
This is by far the best place for information and discussion, please keep up the good work!
y_po, rolling resistance is only dominant at low speeds, accounting for less than 30% on large Zenn cars at 40 mph. At 60 mph, it's about 15% due to the v^2 influence of air drag.
for a typical car with a typical driving pattern it is on average 2/3 rolling and 1/3 drag.
moomipapa
I think there is a third possiblity, that the technology is not real, but (EEStor and Zenn) don't know it yet.
Until they get their last BT into a dielectric, and make a capacitor, and test it at 300v/micron, they dont know what they have or dont have.
They may have a whole bunch of pieces, each of which is encouraging, but have not put it all together yet.
I would rather stick to EEStor and EESU discussion as well. Therefore: Is the EESU considered an array of millions of nano-capacitors? Or something else? I guess I don't understand how a powder is supposed to hold charge like a capacitor, unless it creates some sort of array and atomic sized nano-capacitors?
"They may have a whole bunch of pieces, each of which is encouraging, but have not put it all together yet."
Really? You really think Eestor never put the pieces together for a working prototype in the last 7 years? You really think they'd invest millions on a production line without taking some time to build one?
You're entitled to think so, but I don't think it makes any sense.
New to the blog, thanks B! Your work in assembling the info and keeping the blog respectable is admirable.
When can we view Y_Po's credentials? To a layman, he seems to be the most intelligent poster who is flatly denying the claims.
That is fine. However, I'd like to know his background, level of scientific education, etc. Nothing specific, just, how do you know what you know, Y_Po?
"I think there is a third possiblity, that the technology is not real, but (EEStor and Zenn) don't know it yet."
This may be true but on the other hand, I don't think it's likely that Y_Po et al have revealed something the Eestor engineers were not aware of. Is it really likely that the engineers themselves, Lockead and Kleiner Perkins' all managed to miss what Y_Po has seen?
Y_Po,
Everything I've read shows drag becomes the dominant force above 35-45 mph assuming a constant speed. Even if one assumes that they are at the 1:2 drag:rolling resistance ratio at 40 mph, by the time you get to 70 mph the ratio becomes 3:2. Perhaps both opinions might be correct? This is highly dependent on the speed evaluated.
Steve I think you bring up a very important distinction here. That is that debating is where you take a side, stick to it and try to convince the other side you are right. A discussion on the other hand is where ideas can are offered and opinions can change. A debate is inherently an argument and therefore in my mind more likely to bring out ugly behavior.
When has any empirical fact ever been decided by debate? In other words everyone knows you can win a debate arguing the earth is flat if you are good enough. Its only by going out there and measuring it that you find out the truth.
As an concrete example, why is it that the holy grail for funding is independently verified permittivity data? Why don't EESTor's backers instead just have a debate to decide whether they will fund them?
But if taking sides and debating rather than discussion is what people enjoy thats fine. I don't want to try and control the type of interaction going on here. I just want to make the point that no matter how convincing some person's argument is, unless they have the third party permittivity data in hand (complete with field measurements) there is grounds for uncertainty.
About my credentials, I have PhD in physics, and no, I am not Clive Randall and material science is not my field, I am more into fundamental and "useless" physics.
But then again it is anonymous and I can claim pretty much anything
I did not invent any new arguments, as far as can tell arguments against EEStor surfaced immediately after their claims. I is just remarkable to me how this can continue for so long.
First, I do so love (most of) this blog - and the new nuggets of genuine verifiable info that continues to turn up.
Second, it took me a while too.
But making the http://blah stuff linkable is *really* easy.
For those who care to:
< a href="http://blah"> text name < /a>
*without* the single blank after each <
text name can be most any text
simplest thing is just a duplicate pasting of http://blah
nekote :)
for average car at average driving patern
y_po - boy, that was quick!
Thanks for doing the hyperlinking.
Wikipedia on Rolling Resistance
Which leads to a diagram of (a) city and (b) highway Energy flows for (gasoline) powered cars.
Can't say I'm buying that info, yet.
Rolling resistance - primarily flexing rubber tires.
For a given distance, say 300 miles, close to a fixed energy cost?
Mostly regardless of speed?
1 mph or 100 mph?
The same total "flexes"?
Little, if any, speed factor?
More weight, more flexing, more energy.
Also, thicker tread, more energy.
Claims worn treads give better economy - noted heavy duty trucks?
moomipappa said,
"This may be true but on the other hand, I don't think it's likely that Y_Po et al have revealed something the Eestor engineers were not aware of. Is it really likely that the engineers themselves, Lockead and Kleiner Perkins' all managed to miss what Y_Po has seen?"
That's exactly how I feel. I think it's plan silly to think Eestor and their investors have never heard of the issues raised here. Yet they continue to fund the production line.
Robert Hebner of the University of Texas Center for Electromechanics:
"We've been trying to make this type of thing for 20 years and no one has been able to do it."
I submit that if it were KNOWN that it's IMPOSSIBLE, EE's and physicists would have stopped trying. There's room for discovery and breakthroughs.
I am very wary of those who say it's not doable.
I'm not qualified to comment on the science, and I won't try to. I'm interpreting the business decisions being made here to conclude Eestor has made a breakthrough.
B,
I didn't see a reply to my question re. nullpointer0. Was his post deleted? If so, on what grounds?
Nullpointer0 gave me a link to the post:
http://finance.google.ca/group/google.finance.709339/browse_thread/thread/df636150511dfc10
I have wondered about the press release on the same grounds. I don't think it besmerches anyone's character or speaks bad of our leader. I think there's a possibility that things are slower than hoped, but a responsibility remains to investors.
I don't think there is scam or lying involved. I think everything in the press release is true.
But I also think that I could have bought a spectrometer, brought somebody in to test it, and then written the same release.
For what it's worth.
y_po,
I've never addressed you about the physics; so far have been more consumed by the psychology.
Are the numbers/standards that we see of permativity/saturation etc. purely based upon what has been measured? ie. We seem to accept that barium titanate at low voltages has a permativity of x. And at higher voltages x is different. How do we know this? What is the mechanism for the variance in x? How is it measured?
Is there a physical constant that can't be violated? Is our understanding based upon what has been measured before? Can permativity be measured on 'powder' or does it need to be measured on a capacitor component?
I have more questions.
Is there a physical constant that can't be violated? Is our understanding based upon what has been measured before?
Well, if I had material they claim in my hands, measured it and it turned out to be real, I would suggest that this material is not made of usual electrons/protons/neutrons but from heavier electron and lighter protons/neutrons :)
You can do it by violating charge of electron also. In reality of course I would conclude that I am asleep and dreaming :)
y_po,
So it's based upon atomic weight?
Why even experimentally measure it? How is it measured? Before the permittivity of BaTiO3 had ever been measured, was there already an understanding of what the measurement would be?
So it's based upon atomic weight?
Why even experimentally measure it? How is it measured? Before the permittivity of BaTiO3 had ever been measured, was there already an understanding of what the measurement would be?
Not atomic weight, weight of nucleons. Permittivity can be measured by essentially making a capacitor and measuring its capacitance. Of course there was understanding what to expect, saturation is well known and explained phenomena which must be present in all materials.
y_po,
Why even measure it? Is there a theoretical maximum that can be approached? but only by purity?
I'm not apologizing for EEstor, I just don't understand why anyone measures. YOur previous reply didn't seem to address my question.
Why even measure it? Is there a theoretical maximum that can be approached? but only by purity?
I'm not apologizing for EEstor, I just don't understand why anyone measures. YOur previous reply didn't seem to address my question.
There is no limit on permittivity it can be 20,000, 200,000 or a million. Well, there is probably a limit for a given temperature.
People measure because it can't be calculated very well.
There is limit on permittivity saturation and EEstor was not aware of that.
.
y_po, I still don't "buy it" that surface charge is needed for energy density. Dipoles can have a create D field without movement of charge to the surface. But we've already hashed that out and decided I'm just too ignorant of dielectrics to understand that you are correct.
So why did you chose 1 e- per angstrom^2 as a theoretical max surface charge? EEStor needs 2.5 e- per angstrom^2. That would mean 40 electrons for each BaTiO3 molecule.
I was impressed that y_po knew off-hand that rolling resistance is twice as much as air drag for avg use. It supports his comment that he knows practical physics best. I kind of know that stuff, but i didn't know the rolling resistance was twice as much as air drag in the city.
not sure if anyone saw this article. It seems there is a lot of intersted parties looking into ultracapacitor tech now.
http://www.ultracapacitors.org/ultracapacitors.org-blog/eestor-eestor-eestor.html
another article.
http://www.auto123.com/en/news/car-news/zenn-making-giant-leaps-with-eestor-technology?artid=99886
and another one.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/08/02/earth2tech-week-in-review-40/
zawy,
1e does not mean one electron
it is charge equal to charge of one electron.
in ferroelectrics it is due ions not electrons.
1 angstrom is characteristic scale of atoms and molecules. Typical distance between atoms in the molecules or crystals is few angstroms. Therefore maximum surface charge due to polarization (due to ions) is less than 1 e/A^2.
If you look at electron shell deformation it can be technically higher but we are talking about ferro-electrics.
I redid the calculation and they're claiming 11,000 J/cc in the world patent instead of 7,000 J/cc as someone wrote. So they need the equivalent of 64 electrons per BaTiO3 molecule to store the charge.
By "equivalent electrons" i mean ions, spin, and/or electrons. Each atom of BaTiO3 has a charge of 2 or higher (12 total), but they are given a surface area larger than y_po used, a 4x4 angstron surface, so that y_po's use of 1 e per 1 A^2 is indeed close and conservative.
So there's not a charge on the surface other than the ions?
Marcus,
Of course, we can substitute "discussion" for debate, and I will say the same thing:
Let's keep the "discussion" away from guessing at the "motives" for people discussing positive or negative aspects of the EEstory.
ie
"He's saying that just to pump ZNN stock."
or
"You spread FUD because you are short ZNN shares."
We need to avoid attacks on motive and stick to the facts and theories presented or the board will regress.
Obviously, if you want to discuss a possible motive for Richard Weir's actions, or Zenn's actions, Lockheed Martin, Kleiner Perkins VC, etc... of course, that is very relevant.
But talking about other B blog posters' motivations for discussing EEstor in a positive manner(ie Dale earlier in this thread) or in a negative manner (ie Y_Po just about anywhere on the blog) is going to lead to the regression B would like to avoid.
You said:
So I want to put the question out there. Why are so many people here so keen to convince others that this is for real?
The only thing that matters are the actual facts and opinions generated by those facts. Personal motivation attacks like attributing positive statements to "fan boyism" don't help at all. That's just a way to belittle somebody's opinion.
I've only posted once here, B, but as someone who reads every single comment, I applaud and appreciate anything you are willing to do to keep the acrimony down.
Unfortunately the anonymity of the Internet seems to cause people to remove their "polite/civil" filter.
I encourage everyone who is responding to what someone else has written to think about what they've written before posting. If it's not something you'd say to the person if they were standing right in front of you, then you need to reword your post.
I'm glad the point was brought up about the third possibility. Unfortunately it *does* happen that people with a good grounding in science misinterpret what they've seen and think they've made a real breakthru, when in fact they have not. I think the best-known example is the Pons & Fleishman claim of "cold fusion". Apparently those two really did think they'd discovered a way to generate fusion power at low temperatures, and in fact they asked for government sponsorship to develop a practical cold fusion generator, which they projected would take 10 years.
Altho their results have never been fully explained, the consensus of the scientific community is now that whatever they discovered, it will never lead to anything which can actually generate more power than the process consumes.
Now, with EEstor we have a situation where people in the industry of manufacturing capacitors say EEstor's claims are impossible, and based on faulty mathematics. Yet solid companies are investing in EEstor. Why? Has EEstor really demonstrated a prototype to them? I don't think it's at all clear, despite strong claims one way or another by various people here.
"Lockheed has not seen a working prototype but said that qualification testing and mass production of EEStor's system is planned for late 2008."
That quote is from an article dated Jan 22, 2008:
http://tinyurl.com/693cl7
If you hunt around via Google, you can also find statements that at least one investor characterized EEstor as their highest-risk investment.
Now all this sounds like I'm saying the EEstor will turn out to be a bust. Not necessarily; people *do* occasionally come up with a real breakthru that confounds scientists. I *hope* this is another such, altho frankly scams and failures are much more common than breakthrus.
So until an independent third party has verified that an actual hold-it-in-your-hands prototype can hold the amount of electrical energy EEstor claims, with no appreciable decay or discharge over a period of at least days, then I remain skeptical... but still hopeful!
And I'm not really interesting in yet another verification of their powder or their processes. I've read enough about capacitors to know that being able to manufacture a tiny plate that can hold a high-density electric charge is *not* the same as being able to sandwich hundreds or thousands of them together and have all the plates hold charges when they're so close together. *That* is why the permittivity test is what everyone is waiting for. And Richare Weir's apparent dismissal of permittivity as unimportant does not inspire confidence-- rather, it has made me considerably more skeptical than I was before. I hadn't seen anything before that which "smelled" like a scam to me, but that does.
Disclosure: I am not an investor in ZENN Motors or EEstor, I am not an insider, I am not in the capacitor industry. I'm just someone hoping to see a practical replacement for the internal combustion engine in his lifetime, one which doesn't produce pollution to push the car down the road.
Another interesting revelation from a comment after the article:
"So why do you not email Ian Cliford and ask him yourself. He will answer you. He did me when I asked him that question. He will tell you that due to a non-disclosure agreement that Zenn has sign with Eestor that he cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a prototype."
So assuming the same applied for LM, LMs wording in the interview was intentionally ambiguous (at least according to this poster). What would the rational be behind such a strategy?
Assuming prototypes have been shown it makes more sense of the fact that these parties are confident despite never mentioning seeing a prototype. Having not seen a prototype and then having to sign such an agreement certainly would NOT make me happy or confident!
WEIRD NEWS STORY OUT TODAY ON ZNN USING EESTOR "ACCUMULATORS"
The following story about the CityZenn hit the Google News search engine 13 hours ago via "auto123.com". That site has a perplexing story out today on Zenn Motor Cars. The story says:
In its ongoing efforts to become the world's foremost developer of zero-emissions vehicles capable, even, of highway driving, ZENN has just taken a giant step forward thanks to the new accumulators designed by EEStor, the company's main partner.
With the new EEStor technology, the cityZENN will be a true highway car with an operating range of 400 kilometres capable of achieving 125 km/h.
There are two photos attached to the story. It features the mysterious pic of an alleged EEstor ESU that is also featured in this Forbes article
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/battery-motorola-mit-ent-tech-cx_bn_0228battery_slide_3.html?thisSpeed=3000000
And the larger photo pictures an electric car that appears to be the current model Zenn NEV.
The story is written in the present tense:
ZENN has just taken a giant step forward thanks to the new accumulators designed by EEStor, the company's main partner.
http://www.auto123.com/en/news/car-news/zenn-making-giant-leaps-with-eestor-technology?artid=99886
The story also appears on today's edition of energyinvestmentstrategies.com
http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/2008/08/02/the-next-electric-car/
I don't know what to make of this.
Why are they saying Zenn took a big step forward?
Why are they calling it an "accumulator" instead of an ultracapacitor?
I'm fairly sure that picture is NOT of an EESU. I'll try to find the link to what it actually is. This has come up before.
Marcus:
Yes, I realize there are NDAs which prevent anyone from talking about a prototype if they *had* seen one. That's one of the reasons I'm still hopeful that EEstor could turn out to be more-or-less as advertised. Some post-ers here seem to want to reduce the whole issue of credibility to an either/or question, but it seems to me it's a lot more complex than that.
Has anyone talked about the potential of this technology if it didn't quite stack up to initial claims? Everyone seems to be in a work-as-advertised vs total hoax mode. What if the thing works but only as good a lithium ion battery. Yes we would all be let down after the promises made, but the world would still have a cheaper, safer, and highly adaptable (envelope and manufacturing) alternative to what is currently out. Would it not?
Lensman,
The article you linked to (the tiny URL goes to a technologyreview.com article) uses quotes by Lionel Liebman of Lockheed Martin but does not include a quote from Liebman or anybody at Lockheed which says they've not seen an EEstor prototype.
In fact, Liebman makes direct reference to EEstor prototypes during his interview with 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.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/
Not having tested EEstor prototypes does not mean he hasn't seen one. However, I will admit that it's not clear from Liebman's quote whether he actually saw an EEstor prototype with his own eyes, but it's certainly not clear that he didn't see one either.
From Richard Weir's recent interview with B:
RW: Prototypes have been built built and prototypes have been tested.
Blogger: tested by 3rd parties?
RW: I'm just going to say that. they've been tested and the data has been reviewed by a lot of people.
I think it's safe to say that Liebman is probably one of the people who reviewed the prototype test data, but again, it's not clear whether he's actually seen a prototype.
The following purported interview with Zenn comes from a Google Finance forum discussion:
From: matthew...@hotmail.com
Date: Thurs, Jul 17 2008 2:24 pm
Email: matthew...@hotmail.com
I just spoke with Catherine Scrimgeour from Zenn, to see if anything has changed, and she said the "permittivity results are imminent."
She also said they still expect commercialization of EEstor's
Electrical Energy Storage Units by end of 2008. Sounds like they are not altering their projections at this point.
I also asked her if Zenn has seen a prototype EESU, and if they have seen one tested on a Zenn vehicle. She said they are under a strict NDA with EEstor and can not disclose that but did say they have been impressed with what they have seen...
This positive attitude echoes an even more encouraging quote from Lionel Liebman which concludes the technologyreview.com article:
Liebman, who says that he has visited EEStor's facility in Cedar Park and was impressed, also expressed confidence in the company. He notes that EEStor's approach so far allows for a rapid ramp-up in production. "I think it's very real," he says.
steve,
Nice summary of important interview comments. Thanks
Tom,
Nice find on the fake EESU pic.
Satya, thanks.
Tom Villars said...
Why do you think it is more important for EEStor to demonstrate a prototype than getting a production line going?
Important to who? If I were EEstor, I wouldn't give a flying fig what anyone on the Internet said. They should be concentrating on developing their product and their production-- which, indeed, they seem to be doing. That's why I'm willing to believe that *maybe* they really have what they claim. Contrast EEstor's behavior to a fraudulent company like MDI, which has repeatedly issued glowing press releases promising an "air car" made in various countries over he past 20 years, with nothing to show for it:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2000-2008: Production in France was claimed to be starting in late
2000, and at frequent intervals, in several countries, thereafter.
None are in production as of February 2008.
2003: The Eolo Car is a version of the Air Car that was to be
manufactured in Italy in 2003, but failed to get into production.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_Development_International
And not at all to my surprise, AutoBlogGreen now reports there will be a two-year delay in producing the air car in India. (Try "infinite delay".)
The result of permittivity tests of the assembled EEstor unit are what's important to the public at large. Frex if I were GM, I would be *very* interested to know if the EEstor unit, working as advertised, will be available to put in their Volt, or whether they're gonna have to go with (very expensive and heavy) current Lithium-ion batteries. If I were a presidential candidate, I'd very much want to know if the EEstor unit, or something similar, will be available to help make practical a transition away from dependence on foreign oil. This could quite literally change the world!
What bothers me about the most recent EEstor press release is that it seems to be aimed at propping up the price of ZENN Motors stock. As has been pointed out: If the info was important only for EEstor's private investors, then why release it publicly? One thing that might make sense is that ZENN asked EEstor to throw them a "bone" in the way of publicity. Unfortunately, a darker possibility is that EEstor is trying to attract new investors, even if they're doing it quietly rather than publicly.
- - - - - -
Steve:
Thanks for the link to the direct quote from LM re EEstor prototypes!
Re RW's comments about prototypes: Yes, but didn't he or someone say elsewhere something like "These prototypes are not what you mean by prototypes." ?? I can't find that quote, so perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. Anyway, I don't think it's at all clear just what RW is claiming. If it were, y'all wouldn't be arguing over just what he meant. For all I know, they have a "prototype" of one of their individual capacitor plates but not a prototype of the assembled EEstor unit.
Regarding the NDA (non disclosure agreement) both Ian Clifford and Catherine Scrimgeou have recently discussed...
NDAs are entered into to protect intellectual property. Since both Clifford and Scrimgeou have deferred to the NDA when asked whether they've seen working EEstor prototypes, we must conclude they've either been shown actual EEstor prototypes or, at the very least, they were given the "prototype test data" mentioned by Weir in his last interview with B.
If nothing worthy of keeping secret was revealed to Zenn, there would be no need for the NDA as there would have been no transfer of relevant information to protect.
Common sense dictates that you don't sign a non disclosure agreement unless you have been shown something to disclose.
I sincerely hope it wasn't just prototype test data. This is supposedly already reported in the world patent.
This Business Week article on EEstor from 2005 is very interesting. The following quote from it is more evidence that the prototype Weir recently said EEstor "built and tested" was a prototype of an actual EESU:
According to a May, 2004 edition of Utility Federal Technology Opportunities, an obscure trade newsletter, EEStor claims to make a battery at half the cost per kilowatt-hour and one-tenth the weight of lead-acid batteries. Specifically, the product weighs 400 pounds and delivers 52 kilowatt-hours...No hazardous or dangerous materials are used in manufacturing the ceramic-based unit...
It says EEstor "claims to make" the battery. This is present tense.
It does not say EEstor claims "it will make" the battery.
Here's more from the UFTO article which bears repeating:
The technology is basically a parallel plate capacitor with barium titanate as the dielectric. With it's extremely high permittivity, barium titanate has a long history in capacitors, but one known for high leakage, voltage breakdown and temperature sensitivity. EEStor has confronted these drawbacks head on, and has measurements on prototypes to support their claims.
Once again, present tense. It says EEstor "has confronted these problems".
It does not say "EEstor will confront these problems."
It also says EEstor "has measurements to support their claims."
I does not say EEstor "will take measurements in the hope such measurements will support their claims."
The UFTO article goes on to say:
The product is a ceramic-based unit fabricated with integrated-circuit techniques. The design is based on proprietary technology and there is a patent pending for the production process. There are no corrosive, hazardous, or explosive materials used in manufacturing this product, making this a totally green technology. Also, since it is ceramic, it can be fully charged and discharged using ultrahigh currents and at electronic speeds repeatedly with no degradation to the original specifications. Samples have been rapid-cycled over 1 million times, with no change of any kind. Operating temperature is -40 to +85 deg C.
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/uftonotes04.html#Subject:%20UFTO%20Note%
lensman,
Regarding the latest announcement, Weir said it was significant. If it was significant (and it clearly is important that Eestor can make the "ingredients" at the required purity level), then Zenn would have to disclose it anyway, being a public company.
everyone,
Building a production line without having a prototype is surely unprecedented. Thus, it did not happen.
Marcus said:
I sincerely hope it wasn't just prototype test data. This is supposedly already reported in the world patent.
If the prototypes Weir told B about are working EESUs, then "test data" could include things like:
- how many miles a car went when powered by the prototype EESU
- the top speed the car was able to accelerate to when powered by the prototype EESU
- how long it took to "fill up" the prototype EESU using a home wall outlet
- how long it took to "fill up" the prototype EESU using a high powered charging station
- effects of the prototype EESU on various lazers or other military applications
None of the above was specifically mentioned in the Patent application. And those are just the first which came to mind.
steve,
I think "accumulators" is just a clumsy translation, meaning "capacitors", of course, from the French language:
I got a Google EEStor news alert for both the auto123.com/en/ ... {{English}} story and the auto123.com/fr/ ... {{French}} in the same e-mail. Same article, different languages; from a French-Canadian website.
I don't think the article had anything new. --- beale
Compare and contrast Ian Clifford's previous comments from Feb. 07 regarding EESU prototypes with his recent refusal to comment on EEstor prototypes as per the alleged NDA.
The following is a statement given by Ian Clifford to the EV World Blog on Feb 7th, 2007
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...
Since EEStor has prototyped, they are going straight to production, so ZENN will receive production, not prototype ESUs...
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1197
That was then, but now Zenn, via Clifford and Scrimgeo, have allegedly been saying that due to a non-disclosure agreement Zenn has signed with Eestor, they cannot confirm nor deny the existence of a prototype.
It's an interesting change of policy. As stated above, it doesn't make sense that Zenn would sign the NDA to protect intellectual property that they have not been shown.
It may be the case that Clifford's prior reference to and knowledge of EEstor prototypes was completely derived from the EEstor PR of January 16, 2007. If Clifford wasn't under a non disclosure agreement in Feb 07, he was free to make the comments about the existence of EEstor prototypes back then, and so he did.
But now something has changed and Zenn has allegedly signed the NDA and are now refusing to comment about the existence of prototypes.
Once again, it stands to reason that they were most likely shown something which caused the need for the NDA to be signed.
(I have been saying "alleged NDA" because the only references I've seen to it were in various internet forum commentary. I haven't confirmed that the NDA exists.)
Thanks beale, what you wrote makes sense. I agree it's probably a red herring.
steve said...
Since both Clifford and Scrimgeou have deferred to the NDA when asked whether they've seen working EEstor prototypes, we must conclude they've either been shown actual EEstor prototypes or, at the very least, they were given the "prototype test data"
No, we can only conclude that they've been asked not to divulge any information they might have about any prototypes or potential prototypes. Including, possibly, the fact they either have or haven't seen one demonstrated.
Common sense dictates that you don't sign a non disclosure agreement unless you have been shown something to disclose.
It's clear EEstor wants to keep their secrets, which is certainly understandable! It's been mentioned they remove the print heads from their production lines when giving a tour of their production facility. That alone would justify a NDA, and does not in any way indicate they have demonstrated to anyone a finished working prototype.
Look at it this way, Steve: If one of EEstor's major investors *had* seen the demonstration of a working prototype-- not just being *shown* one, but seen it working as promised-- they wouldn't be calling this "Our most risky investment."
Again, it's not that I believe there's no "there there", it's just that I think it's best to be skeptical until some third party has actually verified the thing works.
This is not an either/ or thing, either. As someone has already mentioned in this section, they may have something that works, but there's the possibility that it doesn't work nearly as well as they hoped/ promised it would.
(I have been saying "alleged NDA" because the only references I've seen to it were in various internet forum commentary. I haven't confirmed that the NDA exists.)
Thanks, I think we need frequent reminders of how much we're basing our speculations and arguments on what someone is only *rumored* to have said. Supposition and inference based on rumor, that's the problem. *Very* little is certain.
- - - - - - - -
Moomipappa said...
If it was significant... then Zenn would have to disclose it anyway, being a public company.
I'm far from a financial expert, but I'm fairly certain that's not how it works. EEstor, being a privately owned company, has no obligation to allow any third party to disclose their business secrets. ZENN may have had to disclose the fact that they had given EEstor a payment, and perhaps they needed to explain that this payment was triggered by EEstor reaching a certain milestone, but it seems difficult to believe they would have been required to divulge any details beyond that.
- - - - - - - -
Blogger Tom Villars said...
That is why EEStor did a release that only 0.0006% of the population would understand which is obviously not something that is going to pump ZENN stock.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ZENN stock shot up dramatically just before this latest PR was made public. Presumably the statement was passed around to a few insiders before it was made public. Also, there was a news item that a competitor of ZENN made a major announcement on the very same day this PR was released. The timing strongly suggests to me that the main purpose, perhaps the *only* purpose, was to drive up ZENN stock. As I said, perhaps EEstor issued the PR at the request of ZENN. At least, that seems the most reasonable explanation for issuing something that has us scratching our heads and arguing over the meaning.
Finally permittivity testing triggers all sorts of financial transactions. To release this test result before the patent is granted would be silly as it weakens EEStor negotiating position with potential investors.
I know little about finances; please explain how this would weaken EEstor's position. But I agree they don't really have any incentive to release *any* info until they're ready to start taking orders for the finished product... so long as they have all the investment money they can currently use, which seems to be the image they're projecting. If this isn't a very sophisticated scam, it's probably true.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but ZENN stock shot up dramatically just before this latest PR was made public."
You're wrong. It shot up briefly the day after the announcement - which was quite odd.
Am I the only one on the blog right now? Where the heck are all the other night owls? Heh heh.
Listen folks: while we're all desperately trying to squeeze semantic juice out of the dried up fruits of our web searches, and debating about how many EESU-powered angels can dance on the head of a pin, I thought I'd take a different tack. Since I had nothing to do during afternoon coffee break on Friday at the lab (aka "ninth plane of hell"), I figured I'd offer something you might find topical and interesting. Be warned: this will not slake your insatiable thirst for answers and certainty on the EEStor issue in any way, shape or form.
I decided to build an EESU. More specifically, build one up to the level of "first level array" as described in the WIPO patent. Now, just so everyone understands, I'm using commercially available parts (including copper sheet cut to size by the base's sheet metal shop - thanks guys). Although what I built is a real, functioning "electrostatic energy storage array", it obviously won't have the specs as described in the patent. At least I hope that's obvious...
Anyway, let's begin. R. Weir & Co. had to go through many steps to get their basic "component". All I had to do was dig around in my parts box and come up with a similarly construced one. Five identical ones, actually.
Just to be clear, this is the smallest capacitive element as described in the patent. The layers, or "interleaved plates", are not capacitors themselves, just as one blade does not make a fan. Previous posts asserting 31,351,000 tiny capacitors per EESU" is incorrect. So, based on a thousand staggered layers per component (the patent rightly states that this number is arbitrary, depending on what final specs the manufacturer is tailoring it for), we get a component size of about 1cm x 1cm x0.5cm, not including "end caps". The closest I had available was a cubic form just under 1cm per side, so from the front it should look fairly close to the drawings in the patent.
I should add that this component is constructed identically to the EEStor patent example (by morphology, not process). It is called a "stacked plate" capacitor, and the multiple "fingers" or "aluminum electrodes" of each terminal are arranged exactly as in the patent. The "end caps" are also similar, and are also bonded with a conductive epoxy by the manufacturer, the same as the patent process. Here it is (pay no attention to the man behind the thumb):
component
The end caps (capacitor terminals) are on the top and bottom. The interleaved plates are viewed edge on from the front and extend up from the bottom terminal and down from the top. This capacitor has no casing, so you can actually see inside, through the thin protective plastic layer covering the front, back, left and right sides. The bright area on top near the back is where I eased the leads off with a razor blade. The drawing of the single component in the patent labeled "figure 2" is improperly oriented with the other figures and with my picture. Rotate it 90 degrees in your head. In the picture, notice the thick, slightly brighter horizontal band across the front. That's the region where the plates overlap. Again, the plates are oriented parallel to the sides, so your looking at them edge-on. Since there are twice the number of metal plate ends in this region, it will appear brighter.
That's one component. We need five, so here they are:
five components
five components angle view
Now we have to assemble them into what the patent refers to as a "single layer array". In comes the "silver filled epoxy resin" again. Here's a picture of the stuff:
conductive silver ink
It's more or less the same stuff as described in the patent. It uses a fine silver powder with an epoxy binder in a solvent. In this case I think the solvent is toluene. The next view shows the silver powder has fallen out of suspension and collected on the bottom:
silver powder
After mixing thoroughly, we end up with this:
conductive ink on applicator
Now we assemble our "single-layer array" (not to be confused with the "layers" inside the single components themselves). Here's a picture of it half assembled, with the bottom complete, and the ink applied to the top terminals (end caps), ready for the other power rail or "copper conducting sheet" in patent parlance:
single-layer array half complete
After adding the other copper conducting sheet to the top (not the "anode" in this case, because the capacitors I'm using are non-polarized), we get the completed "single-layer array" as shown in patent figure 3:
single-layer array complete
And two more to show scale:
single-layer array again
single-layer array top view
Finally, through the awesome power of a $29.95 shareware image editor, a "double-layer array" as shown in patent figure 4:
double-layer array top view
And there you have it. Throw a whole bunch of these in an aluminum box the size of a coffee table, add some very high voltage, very high current bidirectional control electronics (gotta look into that), and Bob's yer uncle.
It was an interesting exercise, and filled up the coffee break, but I believe the actual production EESU (if it ever happens) will look somewhat different. Component size may be different, the spacing may be different depending on ESR (equivalent series resistance - determines internal heat generation), cooling methods, packaging constraints, assembly line economics, etc. Also, don't look for any final product smaller than a breadbox for quite some time - the price and size of the EXTREMELY esoteric control electronics (yeah, really gotta look into that) will dictate the practicality and lower size limit of EESU's. Unless it's vapourware, then it won't matter.
Have a good weekend, and to my fellow Canucks, have a good LONG weekend! :-p
Dan
daniel_r_plante@hotmail.com
The state-of-the-art for military applications (rail guns) in capacitors in 2005 is shown on the second-to-last page at this link
According to the article it was the largest capacitor ever built. It it weighed 5 times more than EEStor's and stores 1,000 times less energy. It used 6.6 kV. It's about half the size of what EEStor is talking about. It had 2.6 J/cc verses EEStor's 10,000 J/cc. 0.014 Farads verses 30 F.
Here's a 2007 patent that uses CaCu3Ti4O12 to store EEStor like energy densities of 2500 J/cc by some guys in maryland. They estimated k=80,000 and used a safety margin of 3 (k/3) to calculate the energy density as 250 V/um. Which makes it all look a lot like EEStor, but with a different crystal. They mention othe rperovskite ceramics (like BT) can be used.
I found these two by using a google search on
maximum "energy density" j cc
zawy, interesting find. A couple of observations and thoughts.
1. This patent seems much better formulated in a legal sense compared to EESTOR in that its claims are both vaguer and broader.
2. If you look at the WIPO version of this you will see an interesting list of applicants including Northrop Grumman Corporation.
3. Again it seems here that there is no mention of changes in k as voltage increases. Like EESTor's first patent it is all based on theoretical calculations that ignore dielectric saturation.
4. If you look at previous patents by Talvacchio; John J, he seems to have been working for Westinghouse in the early 90s with experience in capacitors. His technical expertise appears impressive.
Questions:
Does this mean a legal fight for EESTOR? If you look at the claims section and application to electric vehicles is mentioned.
Why, again, would someone who appears to be knowledgeable ignore dielectric saturation?
If Weir and this guy have really figured something out I am quite concerned that there may be legal issues for EESTOR if they vary their method at all from their published patent. Since NGC are applicants on this 2007 patent I would not be surprised at all if their technology never sees the light of day in public life.
It is not a short-term threat to EEStor since getting up to production takes years, and no one else appears to have even started.
This patent from the guys in MD does discuss k decreasing with increasing field strength. That is what i meant by k/3. They said in order to account for dielectric saturation, they would not use 80,000, but 80,000/3 for a safety factor of 3 which they considered conservative.
Ok thanks for the correction.
Guys,
Just some perspective. A million Eestor ESU's would need 120,000 tons of coated CMBT. If you were to make a pile of this stuff on a field you would be impressed. This is why R. Weir is working on completing the ISO 9000 production line, and he thinks it will be complete in 2008, and this is already August.
These announced milestones have to do with production lines that will make these chemicals by the ton. Get it? How many here think that the issue is still the science, besides y_po?
If you want to scale up an operation, Mort Topfer is the man to have on your board. That what this is about.
Tom Villars said...
As Moomipappa mentioned the stock price did not "shot up dramatically just before this latest PR was made public"...
Yeah, thanks to you both. That's what I get for relying on comments on various forums instead of researching it myself.
As seen on the 1 month chart here:
http://tinyurl.com/58w98s
The biggest rise was on Jul 21, the Monday following the Friday on which someone posted an article talking about the possibility of ZENN stock rising to $100 per share, and the most activity was on Jul 31, two days after the EEstor press release.
So yes, it does *appear* (to someone unfamiliar with stock market analysis) that activity of ZENN stock has not been directly affected by this PR.
...the higher the risk the lower the price new investors will want to pay for ownership in EEStor. Obviously EEStor counters by getting their patents in order, ensuring production yields are going to meet planned targets, etc. Once they've done as much as they reasonably can, then they release the permittivity results which stops all the posturing and the real negotiations can begin.
Hope that answers your questions/concerns.
Thanks for trying, but not really. Looking at the recent "third party certification" in question, there are no proprietary details listed. EEstor could easily have a third party certify "We have tested a unit, and yes it does hold the charge EEstor claims with degradation over time as slow as EEstor claims." That wouldn't affect the patent process at all, so far as I can see.
But again, there's a huge difference between what the EEstor company wants and what we EEstor watchers want. We want as much info as possible as soon as possible; EEstor wants to give out as little as possible for as long as possible. Unless EEstor is looking for new investors, releasing permittivity test results before they're ready to start taking orders gains them nothing.
Satya51, I think my view is clearly outlined above.
The vast majority think science is the issue, otherwise Zenn stock would be 20. If i didn't think science were an issue, I'd put 15% of my net worth on Zenn stock and hold until it were at least 50, doubling my net worth in a few years. Assuming my other investments don't go anywhere. Watching issues like this closely is worth much more than working for a living. I've never been able to find work that was as profitable as knowing the future better than others.
Lensman,
Your attribution of the following quote to Kleiner Perkins regarding EEstor is NOT accurate:
"Our most risky investment."
It's VERY important that when you quote somebody those words be totally accurate. Let's correct the record.
In a Business Week article back in January 2006, there was a story on Kleiner Perkins. Here is the relevant headline and relevant quote:
Kleiner Perkins Energy Startups Soon to Shine?
Posted by: Rob Hof on January 13
For years, Kleiner Perkins VC John Doerr has been talking up the firm’s investments in energy and environmental startups, but he has not revealed many details. Last night, at a Churchill Club event in Palo Alto where he and other VCs offered their annual tech predictions, he hinted that we might see a lot more of them this year.
My colleague Justin Hibbard, among others, has unearthed a few tidbits, such as a fuel-cell company called Ion America and a battery startup called EEStor. Doerr mentioned last night that an unnamed energy storage company was its “highest-risk, highest-reward” investment.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/01/kleiner_perkins.html
Your quote is wrong. EEStor was apparently "named" at the conference by Doerr. The "highest-risk, highest reward investment" refers to "an unnamed" company.
Regardless of how you might personally want to read into this article, the "quote" you published is simply not accurate. No offense, but we need to keep the record pure.
As to the NDA, I was drawing people's attention to the FACT that in Feb 2007, Ian Clifford was openly discussing the existence of EEstor prototypes, while as of two weeks ago, Zenn has apparently been declining to discuss EEstor prototypes by invoking the NDA.
Something has changed.
"Dirty" 99.5% pure BT costs $20/kg in ton quantities according to this link. That's $2,000 for 52 kWh. If they're selling it for $5,000, that's not much room for profit.
Dano,
Your building that thing is cool. Nice post! Now charge that sucker up!
"How many here think that the issue is still the science, besides y_po?"
I think there are quite a few. I haven't been checking in enough to be able to keep up. From what I understand from y_po, permittivity is discovered by measurement, and there doesn't seem to be a model that definitively says "it is physically impossible to do what eestor claims." But, it seems unlikely from what's been measured before.
I still haven't been able to engage many in my 'what is the purpose of this press release' conversation. I've seen some ideas from Dano, Ontarioinvestor and Nullpointer0, but I don't think we've discovered much. And I still think it's the important consideration.
"120,000 tons of coated CMBT." So EEstor is gearing up towards this kind of production? Their plant needs to be on a railroad; or have massive storage including conveyors etc. Is there an image of this kind of production facility?
I'd like to have a few opinions from the crew here explaining the specific difference between what Golla certified and what Mr. Ian Treviranus of HORIBA Instruments certified in the July 30th PR.?
In other words,
What did Golla certify?
What did Treviranus certify?
How are each of these experts' certifications unique and necessary to the EEstory?
and there doesn't seem to be a model that definitively says "it is physically impossible to do what eestor claims."
Wow ! I said that ?
I inferred it. Incorrectly?
y_po: "People measure because it can't be calculated very well."
My inference is based on very little. Mostly your's and others' statements and what i've been able to glean from web sources. Can we theoretically choose a random compound, calculate the permittivity, measure it and find our measurement jibe with the calculation?
You stated that permittivity is basically measured by building a capacitor and testing it. What is the method of saturation. I understand that every material necessarily has a saturation point, but when one measures in the lab, is it possible that the mechanism for breakdown is a physical flaw in the capacitor and the material itself is capable of much more?
I usually feel that my comments go unnoticed here. I am invested in this. I think R Weir legitimately believes/is on to something. But I'm skeptical of what is going on now. Very few skeptics around here it seems. I don't understand the lack of speculation. Physics says 'very unlikey;' why are there so many unquestioning believers? is this human nature?
I inferred it. Incorrectly?
You could not be more incorrect.
I don't see how you can possibly infer that. I was perfectly clear, there is calculated upper limit on energy density, there is absolutely no chance of exceeding it. Zero chance.
I think it's pretty safe to say that the increase in volume and stock price was due to Zenn being featured on the "Stars and Dogs" section of BNN, and it's very positive outlook given on the company. I have seen it happen to various other stocks that when a reputable analyst gives a recommendation, you literally see the spike in volume/price moments afterwards. It is typically more dramatic depending on the reputation of the analyst, and the size of the company. For example, small cap stocks with lower volume see much larger percentage gains.
As per the question regarding on how an analyst would look at a company like Zenn....without question due diligence is taken by speaking with resident experts, however these funds actually keep "field experts" on payroll. Your talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of investment money...trust me these guys just aren't taking guesses. That is why institutional buy in was very important to feel out legitamacy of the technology. They typically would meet with management/board members, address all their questions, look at the numbers, and science directly, and then weigh the risks. Now, they might not have been shown a prototype persay, but they were shown something, or discussed something to start weighting their fund equity into ZNN.
i mean stepping back and looking at this logically, EEstor is doing exactly what they said they were going to do a year ago. Now lets think about this logically for a second. EEstor has:
1) filed and are continuing to file patents.
2) Getting a production line going.
3) Working in close contact with Zenn on a daily basis.
4) Working with Kliener with filing the patents.
5) Setting up equipment to test purtity.
6) Hiring a board member of very high stature.
7) Making stakeholders signing NDAs.
During this whole time, if the tech was found out to not work, one of the stakeholers (of which there are many now), would have seperated themselves publically from EEStor and it's claims. This hasn't happened. In fact Zenn/EEstor is getting a lot more attention, and the investment community is starting to buy in. So you be the judge of what's happening here, and what you think the trend is going forward. I think it's pretty clear where I stand.
Buy y_po's calculation gave 2,800 J/cc, only 4 times lower than EEStor's and the Maryland group's dual and independent claims. Even if they could achieve only 1/10th their claims, they would still be competitive with lithium on terms of cost.
EEStor bent over backwards to keep a design at 52 kWh. It makes me wonder if that 's in a contract somewhere. That was the only variable between the two patent's that did not change. All other variables seemed to be adjusted in response to the lowered k just so that they could keep the final number: 52 kWh. That could also be due to publicity reasons: no one can say they were not able to reach former claims
A couple of business points for Steve and Lensman.
* People sign NDAs all the time, often before they start a conversation, and often even when it's unlikely anything confidential will come up. It let's them have an open dialogue without worrying about watching their tongue. I'm sure I signed hundreds of them when I was a corporate guy.
Second, applying for a patent, not getting it approved, assures that no Johnny-come-lately can step on your toes. In fact, simply having your lab books will protect your interest, though it can shift the burden of proof if you have only lab books and someone else has a patent application.
Buy y_po's calculation gave 2,800 J/cc, only 4 times lower than EEStor's and the Maryland group's dual and independent claims.
No, my estimate is 250 J/cc
2,800 J/cc is your calculation where you use 1e/A^2, which is not realistic, I said that surface charge is a fraction of 1e/A^2.
so it more like 1/10 e/A^2.
Secondly 250 J/cc is the best case scenario, where you found material where k matches breakdown voltage and saturate abruptly.
For these business people here I have one word for you - Enron.
You remember what were they saying? what analysts were saying? what banks were doing?
what people were saying about Kenneth Lay?
I mean before crash, not after.
book-em-dano,
very greatly enjoyed your prototyping / mockup.
Special thanks for pics!!!
(Though EESUs are going to be using 2 dimensional sheets of copper, rather than the rail / bar version you've demonstrated?)
(And, hey, where'd I go wrong on the 31 million tiny capacitors? 100 layers of 12 µm thick capacitors per "element"; 10 "elements" per "component"; 31,351 components per 52.2 KWH EESU ?)
Curious - what's the numbers, on those off the shelf capacitors / your prototype?
In terms of costs and energy, in comparison to this EEStor stuff we're kicking around.
Exactly my point. The precedent has been set with Enron, Worldcom....there is very little tolerance in the courts for stock schemes.
Comparing Enron is night and day, they were using extremely complicated financial loopholes, and moving debts off-balance sheet. It took a foreignsic accountant to follow the moves. EEstor/Zenn has given no indication of anything remotely sinister.
BTW there is a fantastic documentary "Enron: The smartest guys in the room" for anyone that is intersted in the story.
Night and day you say.
Analysts loved Enron.
Banks loved it Enron.
People loved Lay, Lay was a good and trustworthy man who was considered for Bush administration.
The second guy who is now serving 26 years was considered a genius. Not such a smart now when he is prison.
And guess what? Enron did not start as a scam, it became a scam when they business went sour.
It took a foreignsic accountant to follow the moves. EEstor/Zenn has given no indication of anything remotely sinister
You know it how?
Are you foreignsic accountant?
y_po,
Not to irritate you, or your antagonist(s), but could you evaluate / explain:
BaTiO3 phase changes
in terms that I / others might understand?
Specifically, but not only, the tetraogonal, orthorombic and rombohedral crystal shapes BaTiO3 apparently can have? To do with the "significant extent on movement of the Ti atom in the O6 octahedra"?
I'm lost, in this area.
Could the crystal (shape) [phase change?] aspect explain the (additional) energy?
Something like the extra energy it takes (or is stored) to change water's phase from solid (ice) to liquid to gas (steam), even at a constant temperature (0 °C and 100 °C)?
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong place...
zawy,
Thanks for the BT powder cost link. I may be mistaken but I was thinking that Eestor was making their own powder rather than just coating someone elses. Still that is a good reference price. I doubt my search skills would have ever led me to it.
Could the crystal (shape) [phase change?] aspect explain the (additional) energy?
Absolutely not.
You can store a lot of heat with phase changing materials. In fact these materials are used for storing heat in houses.
But heat is not usable energy.
As for the explanation, I doubt I can explain anything better than you see there.
y_po + others who like physics,
I think there are a number here who would appreciate careful discussion of the science. Also that it is difficult to convey the precise limits or strengths of a given theory. I will try to summarise what questions I still have from a relatively quick reading of some of the posts here. Please forgive me for repeating things that have been said, and correct any mistakes.
From a technological standpoint for eestor's device to work we need:
(1) device using apparently relatively conventional technology has performance 1000X better than acheived by many other groups working hard in this field.
(2) In this field the potential limitations on energy storage are:
*1. Leakage
*2. Breakdown voltage
*3. Temperature-dependence
*4. permittivity saturation
(3) eestor claimed originally to have solved 1,2,3 - did not mention 4.
(4) More recent patent addresses 4. to some extent talking about permittivity results vs voltage. This worries me, since such results mean nothing. It is dependence of k on electric field that is crucial, not on voltage. 5kV on its own means nothing. This mor recent patent (quoted here somewhere) did not ring true to me since the writers did not seem to understand this.
(5) As well as a "proof of concept" device solving 1,2,3,4 (which does not need to be large, just v high energy density, and can easily be 3rd party tested for energy density) there are production issues:
cost? (related to yield)
safety? (control electronics, other stuff, it is a scary amount of energy if as advertised).
reliability?
(6) Both the initial 1000X better energy density and the secure productionising are major breakthroughs. The normal course of events is for the first step to be verified first - then will come LOTS of funding and effort to deal with the second.
(7) With a real breakthrough in *1,*2,*3 eestor still may have vaulable technology but nothing like the 1000X that they originally, and still, claim.
(8) So key is the *4 issue. Since high k energy storage is due to work done against chemical bonds (electrostatic forces between ions and electron clouds) it can't be higher than chemical energy. In practice it is likely to be much lower, since we require reversible deformations in structure without change to a different chemical state.
So how near are the eestor claims to these limits? Is there any mechanism in which nano-structures could increase the stored electrostatic energy - if do what are the limits on this? Is there any other possible physical mechanism for the energy storage?
To me, these limits look very fundamental. In some ways more fundamental than the energy vs cross-section arguments in cold fusion since it is conceivable though very implausible that some quantum mechanical mechanism would allow weird electrostatic sheilding of nuclei by electrons and so increase cross-section. Of course the gap between expected and claimed there was more than X1000!
(9) vs cold fusion - the "proof of concept" for eestor is much much more straightforward, and not confused by arcane experimental issues.
(10) Believability of protagonists here for me weighs much much less heavily than science. But maybe those who think the device can exist should try to find plausible and detailed mechanisms involving electrostatic fields for the claimed energy density? Quantum mechanics here does not seem likely to change things very much since electron wave functions will store enery roughly the same as the classical analog.
(My qualifications: non-expert, 4 yrs maths incl some theoretical physics & QM, I teach electronics and have a decent but not very detailed understanding of the underlying physics. I never knew before this of the k saturation issue as opposed to breakdown voltage in spite of using regularly high-k ceramic caps - which perhaps makes possible eestor ignorance at some historic time more plausible)
Best wishes, Tom
PS - since I am new here, and have enjoyed reading the discussions. Thanks very much to all for well-argued and high quality debate (which for me means willingness to engage combatively with other people's ideas whilst respecting them as persons, + respecting their right to hold contrary views.)
steve said...
Lensman,
Your attribution of the following quote to Kleiner Perkins regarding EEstor is NOT accurate:
"Our most risky investment."
It's VERY important that when you quote somebody those words be totally accurate.
I agree about the importance, Steve. So it would have been appropriate for you to quote me accurately, which you did not. I didn't attribute that quote to Kleiner Perkins, but merely to "one of EEstor's major investors".
And BTW Steve, giving someone a public tongue-lashing is neither appropriate nor polite. As a reminder, the blog post above touches on that.
y_po said...
Night and day you say.
Analysts loved Enron.
Banks loved it Enron.
People loved Lay, Lay was a good and trustworthy man who was considered for Bush administration.
The second guy who is now serving 26 years was considered a genius. Not such a smart now when he is prison.
And guess what? Enron did not start as a scam, it became a scam when they business went sour..
Y_po, usually you debunk EEStor based on science, and don't delve into motives too much. However, above, you speak of Enron, equating them to EEStor.
So by that I take it that you now believe EEStor is involved in outright fraud.
However, earlier, you mentioned that it was more that Weir was continuing his charade out of embarrassment. Is your view now that he's gone from embarrassment to outright scam? Forgive me, I can't find the old post, possibly you believed in a fraud from the beginning.
Nonetheless, following that logic, which is entirely plausible, (asking the community here) are Lockheed and Zenn and Kleiner Perkins and Topfer involved or duped? The above are either minority owners of significant proportions (KP & Zenn), or staking money or reputations on the endeavor--(all of them).
A physicist can flat out deny the possibility of the energy storage as Y_Po does, but no one can empirically verify or debunk the EESU until EEStor lets us.
What we have instead as a fact is the movement of interest, money and reputations.
Assuming it's a fraud, I have to conclude that LMT and KP and Zenn are as duped as anyone.
While that seems plausible to me, it does not seem likely.
Since they have more money than me, more info on the EESU, more at stake, are smarter, have access to their own experts, I just can't get around the illogic of ALL three of them being duped. Zenn, ok. But Lockheed Martin and KP? Those guys have billions, and are answerable to public and/or private investors.
Others have said it's a moon shot, that LMT and KP take these type chances as a part of their business risk. Agreed.
But nobody likes to throw money away, even a little. If Gates saw a $20 on the ground he'd pick it up, and maybe find someone to give it to. Money, or the idea of money, holds that type of sway on those of us in a free market system. Christ, on all of us around the world. (with the possible exception of Pacman Jones)
And even if it's a moon shot, why would they not bring in their own Ph'd physicists and engineers and verify this battery, before sending millions?
It's more plausible that they have done just that, and are satisfied.
Forgive me if I'm repeating previous info here.
Disclosure: not an investor but considering ZNN.
One last thing, tho. Anyone out there with the credentials of Y_po Ph'd Physics) who disagrees with him?
And anyone out there with an MBA or who's studied the history of modern capitalism that can point to a similar situation as this that supports Y_po's assertion of fraud?
Like, a Fortune 500 company (LMT) AND a major venture capital firm (KP) being taken to the cleaners by a secretive technology company?
y_po,
Why are you hanging out here? what is up? You know nobody can do it; why hang out?
What the F'? You're just seeing who makes fools of themselves?
Wondering. (wondering).
Y_po, usually you debunk EEStor based on science
Most people here don't care about science, they look at who said what and at their reputations and intelligence.
Well, people involved in Enron had a lot of reputation and intelligence.
My theory which I supported from the beginning is that it did not start as "scam", they truly believed they had something.
I just can't get around the illogic of ALL three of them being duped. Zenn, ok. But Lockheed Martin and KP
I think if you dig you will find examples of military contractors being duped into much more stupid projects. Were military funding conducting parapsychology experiments ? I am pretty sure they were.
y_po,
Why are you hanging out here?
I feel the the urge to interfere when I see BS. I wish there were some pills which cure that.
OntarioInvestor,
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting on various investment analysis perspectives. I've learned alot form your posts.
Y_Po,
Drawing analogies between EEstor and Enron is way below the belt. Just because your pseudo science hasn't convinced people to lose faith in EEstor, doesn't give you the right to such vicious defamatory tactics. That is so sad.
Why can't you just stick to your guns and focus on "facts" instead of evil innuendo which totally demeans whatever legitimate scientific points you are "trying" to make?
All of the evidence available to us suggests that Mr. Weir and Mr. Clifford are highly ethical people who have no past modus operandi of fraud.
Enron being a pure evil force in this world doesn't have a damn thing to do EEstor.
I'm not buying your technical analysis of Mr. Weir's inventions, nor am I buying your defamatory moral analysis of his character.
I suggest you read B's "Mea Culpa" again. And I expect your post, once again, to be removed by B.
Lensman,
Tell me which "major investor" you were talking about and where you got the quote. If the quote exists as to "any" major investor, it will be news to me.
Were you not talking about Kleiner?
What am I missing?
You put a quote out there and I said the quote was wrong. So fill in the blanks... if there are any.
THE SCIENCE
The science isn't merely the most important thing, it's the *only* important thing... unless you're just interested in using ZENN as a pump-and-dump stock. I have a fairly good grounding in basic science, but the technical aspects of this are completely over my head. However, to some extent I think it doesn't matter that much if we understand the intricacies of how capacitors work or not. People qualified to speak to that, such as y_po, are basically saying "If you accept the premises that the industry currently uses, then here's proof that what EEstor is claiming can't work."
There are plenty of precedents for people who deluded themselves and/or others into thinking they had a real breakthru when they didn't. The "smart money" would bet EEstor's claims won't be realized, even tho they *have* gotten some respected partners. Even smart people can be fooled; it certainly has happened before.
Contrariwise, disruptive technologies *have* been invented which have transformed the world. Iron working, paper, gunpowder, Watt's steam engine, the alternating current electric motor, light bulbs, the internal combustion engine, plastic, lasers, microwave ovens, desktop computers and the Internet have transformed our way of life. It's possible EEstor will do the same.
But no matter how much we debate the subject here or try to analyze it, we can't determine the truth of the matter. Only insiders privy to EEstor's technology have sufficient information to know the truth of their claims... and perhaps not even most of them, if EEstor is running a scam.
Like it or not, we're just going to have to wait until some independent agency tests an EEstor unit and reports on how well it works.
That's not to dismiss the value of the scientific discussion/ debate which y_po and other engage in here. I'm certainly interested in learning more about the science. But all the calculations used for the current capacitor/ ultracapacitor industry rest on a certain set of assumptions, and clearly EEstor is using different assumptions. Those assumptions must be demonstrated and tested before we can accept they're valid.
This has nothing to do with whether or not we "believe" Richard Weir, or anybody else with EEstor or ZENN Motors. It's solely about the scientific method, which is the only way to *properly* judge claims of a breakthru technology.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." --Carl Sagan
steve,
My irony meter just melted
I took y_po's suggestion that i re-read some basic dielectric text.
From Feynman Vol 2 Ch 10-3:
dielectric surface charge which is approx equal to plate surface charge for high k which is =
k*eo*E = N*q*x = 68 coulumbs/m^2 (4 e per A^2)
Where E is between the plates, not in the BT (350 V/1 um)
N = number of dipoles per volume. I'll use 1 dipole per 4x4x4 Ang of crystal.
q = charge in columbs per dipole
x = the separation between dipole's + and - charges
My goal is to solve for x, the separation between the Ti+4 ion and the 2 O-2 ions to see if it's reasonable, despite high surface charge.
d=22,000*8.85E-12*(350/1E-6)/[1/(4E-10)^3*(+4)*1.6E-19]
22,000 is for the CMBT itself rather than the reduced 18,000.
d = 68 angstroms, which means the dipole would have to be 17 times longer than the crystal it's supposed to be inside.
This is a different approach to show that that this amount of energy storage is ridiculous.
As a check, the highest energy density found before was 10 J/cc, 1,000 times lower the EEStor. Since energy = Q*V/2, reduce E above by factor of 1,000. This is the same as using EEStor's equipment at 1,000 times less voltage. So d is also reduced by 1,000, or 0.068 angstroms, 1.7% the width of the 4 angstrom lattice. Very reasonable, close to what I guessed the maximum dipole could be.
I can find a way around the series capacitor effect (sort of mentioned by feynman in fig 10-3 saying the 12% is right for 88% dielectric in an insulating material) as an approximation. but i still don't understand it not being a series effect.
I'm with y_po now. Energy density seems impossible.
Lensman,
I did "quote" you correctly. The only words I put in quotation marks were the ones you put in quotation marks.
When I said that "you attributed" the quote to Kleiner Perkins, that was my analysis and I'm entitled to voice it. And if you contend I was wrong, please provide evidence/links etc.
There is nothing in my post which "quotes" you wrong.
Furthermore, I respectfully included in my post the following:
No offense, but we need to keep the record pure.
You called it a "tongue-lashing", but "no offense" was intended.
for financial types.
There are various ZENN stock symbols?
Care to explain (even some of) it?
ZNN ZNN.V ZNN.VN ZNN.CA ZNNMF
All I've got so far is that ZNN is on the TSX venture exchange (TSX.V TSX.VN?) - a high risk / penny stock area.
And, ZNNMF is on the OTC.
In the similar "pink" sheets?
What's it all mean, Master Yoda?
(Oh, and that purchases of ZNNMF show up as short sales of ZNN, until trades settle?)
(Also, depending on stock broker, (Americans?) might purchase ZNN directly via the TSX, or alternatively via ZNNMF on the OTC?)
zawy,
Do you now understand relation between polarization and surface charge ? that it is the same thing.
As to all the equations being kicked around, consider that what Weir has supposedly created is a world changing revolutionary technology, does anybody really think that the secret is going to be cracked by people on this bulletin board?
By all means try, knock yourselves out, it's a healthy thought provoking and fun discussion, but the minute somebody here "proves" Weir's technology is real, that might worry me a bit.
Here's why: If "proving" this technology doesn't require rigorous testing by trial and error in a laboratory setting, then that would bother me.
I think what's much more important right now in the present for investors and potential investors, is trying to figure out what Weir just said in his July 30th PR.
Today, I did some research and found some interesting things, none of which are my own interpretations of electronics but rather all come directly from textbooks and I will be discussing and quoting that stuff in a future post.
But for now, I want to ask a technical question I asked earlier, but nobody was able to answer.
I'd like to have a few opinions from the crew here explaining the specific difference between what Golla certified and what Mr. Ian Treviranus of HORIBA Instruments certified in the July 30th PR.?
In other words,
What did Golla certify?
What did Treviranus certify?
How are each of these experts' certifications unique and necessary to the EEstory?
@zawy... having found that your previous scientific conclusion (the series effect) was wrong, why are you not more willing to entertain the idea the your new conclusion (max energy density) might be wrong as well?
Yes, when k is large:
Qd = Qp - Qp/k
p=plates
d=dielectric
Steve, what they certified was only the equipment to test the purity, not the purity as some are saying.
I'm not sure that my conclusion about the series effect is wrong. I'm saying it's possible. If i was wrong, it doesn't mean I'm wrong on a different issue. I do well placing my bets on assuming I am right instead of wrong.
I'd agree on an even bet, but not this one.
I look back over that section again. I didn't look at it carefully because I was interested in energy density. It doesn't apply. All my capacitance comments are still correct. So that proves by two independent methods that EEStor can't do it. Of course all the physicists reading about this posted years ago and have not looked back. I wonder why y_po hangs around to correct people. I guess I'll hang around just to see how it turns out. It's looking really sad.
If you want to read an interesting patent from 1959 try this one:
6078494
use pat2pdf to retreive
Zawy said:
All my capacitance comments are still correct. So that proves by two independent methods that EEStor can't do it.
That doesn't "prove" EEstor can't do it, it just proves that you can't figure out how they did it.
That's the phillips patent from 2000 that described the CMBT that EEStor is using.
Y_PO, please get in touch with me. eestorblog@gmail.com.
Zawy said:
Steve, what they certified was only the equipment to test the purity, not the purity as some are saying.
So, you're "on the record" as saying Golla and Treviranus certified the exact same data? Is that what you're saying?
Zawy said:
Of course all the physicists reading about this posted years ago and have not looked back.
I beg to differ, Prof Randall, a premier expert in this field, aka EEstor's most prominent critic, who, according to B, was publicly ridiculing EEstor in 2007, has now refused to go on the record as to EEstor technology.
B offered to let him prepare a blog which B was going to publish unedited...Randall refused the invitation.
Steve you are again completely out of control. I thought you dismissed yourself from this conversation a couple of days ago.
Y_po's motives confuse me, but he seems to be the one here we should listen to. To suggest his posts should be deleted is outrageous. His Enron analogy is poignant. Kenneth Lay was not (I think) an evil person. R. Weir probably is not an evil person. But if we are invested/interested in what he is up to, then we should also be free to speculate on his progress. Please allow some speculation....sit back and understand that others are trying to figure this thing out.
Weir's claim is IMPOSSIBLE. I hope he has some kind of magic. This conversation has finally gotten somewhere. Steve, you can continue to interject your fanaticism, but I don't think you're convincing anybody.
What does that mean? It's such a ridiculous topic that Dr R won't even discuss it?
OK, now i see Mr T did seem to test the powder along with some other group described in the press release in 2007. OK, so the purity has been tested.
If they can store that much energy, it really is worth a Nobel prize in physics. I wonder if it would be the first time a non-PhD won a nobel prize in physics.
y_po,
could I try another tack?
piezoelectric
possible to store energy in the BaTiO3 as if it were a spring, being compressed by 3,500V?
Wikipedia Piezo
When a mechanical stress is applied, this symmetry is disturbed, and the charge asymmetry generates a voltage across the material. For example, a 1 cm cube of quartz with 2 kN (500 lbf) of correctly applied force upon it, can produce a voltage of 12,500 V. [12]
Piezoelectric materials also show the opposite effect, called converse piezoelectric effect, where the application of an electrical field creates mechanical deformation in the crystal.
The piezo effect can be the result of the surface charge. You might be able to deform BT 1%. Using young's modulus, I've calculated you would have to stretch it something like 40% to store energy in it like a spring, at which point you've cut the capacitance in half from the larger distance between the plates (if you could get aluminum to stretch 40%). But it's beside the point. I don't see any way around y_po's surface charge after re-expressing it in terms of dipole lengths. There's no way to create a dipole moment between Ti and O2 that's 34 times longer than the original distance between them.
What is the consensus on how long this debate/discussion is going to have to go on before it’s either a yes a viable EESU exists or it does not?
So, I guess the energy density mentioned in the BASF patent is bogus too?
Zawy said:
"d = 68 angstroms, which means the dipole would have to be 17 times longer than the crystal it's supposed to be inside."
I'm sorry, but I have to note that the particle size is said to be some 100nm; 68 angstroms is 6.8nm, two orders of magnitude smaller than the 100nm. Could you please explain this?
Rod it depends on which side of the fence you are on. If you are convinced the claims are bogus I would guess this thing could go on for a very long time. If you think it is true then the permittivity data (which must be accompanied by field measurements) should be imminent.
ackk
I dismissed myself from the blog when B went to "anonymous" posting. I said I wouldnt be back unless the format went back to the original non-anonymous.
As B's text above lays out, the blog got out of control, and B agreed that he needed to go back to non-anonymous posting citing the E mail conversation between us in the text above.
I am now happy to be back here at the B blog.
And once again, because my arguments are too difficult for you deal with on the merits and the facts, you are violating the spirit of B's text above:
All I can say to you is if you had a comment deleted, it was probably disrespectful or contained content which included a personal attack.
You said:
Steve you are again completely out of control.
and
Steve, you can continue to interject your fanaticism, but I don't think you're convincing anybody.
These comments are nothing but personal attacks. They add no facts to the debate and they are not constructive except to show that my opinions make you nervous.
I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am here to convince myself.
By posting my theories and taking note of the weak responses thereto, I confirm for myself, that the faith I have in EEstor and Mr. Weir is justified.
I am here to discuss EEstor. I suggest you also discuss EEstor and refrain from personal attacks. If you have the intellectual capacity to attack what I post here on its merits, than by all means have at it.
The truth will out.
What BASF patent? The "maryland" patent i linked to earlier was apparently "northrop grumman".
Charges do not move across the lattice, but they create dipoles that are the source of the energy storage. These dipoles are within the 4 angstrom lattice structure. The whole crystal would have to have overlapping dipoles (which is impossible) to store that much energy. Each Ti atom would have to be moved not just to the bottom of the lattice, but 17 "apartments" over. But then they'd all be sleeping with the wrong wife (O-2 atom) and there would be any net benefit.
zawy,
Ya' really got me with this Young's modulus.
Wikipedia (Wiki) says "a measure of stiffness".
Tons of formulae.
What values / formulas were used?
Also that directionality (uniformity of polarization ?) can be an important consideration.
"Most metals and ceramics, along with many other materials, are isotropic: Their mechanical properties are the same in all orientations"
EEStor is very particular to get domains all lined up / polarized, possibly to particularly "strenghten" the BaTiO3?
To the people that get frustrated with certain posters, it is better to not bother communicating with these people. At least that is what I've found..
Zawy said:
What does that mean? It's such a ridiculous topic that Dr R won't even discuss it?
If it's such a ridiculous topic, why are you discussing it as intently as you have been?
Randall didn't tell B it was ridiculous. He refused to go on the record after Weir's latest PR and interviews. But back in 2007 he didn't apparently have such reservations. Now he does. Seems like his confidence has been rattled.
If Randall won't go on the record to diss EEstor, and he's supposed to be "the man", well actions do speak louder than bombs.
Zawy said:
OK, now i see Mr T did seem to test the powder along with some other group described in the press release in 2007. OK, so the purity has been tested.
You're just figuring that out now?
And then you make bold assertions that the EEstor technology isn't possible? Is this your idea of due diligence?
I'll repeat my question then:
I'd like to have a few opinions from the crew here explaining the specific difference between what Golla certified and what Mr. Ian Treviranus of HORIBA Instruments certified in the July 30th PR.?
In other words,
What did Golla certify?
What did Treviranus certify?
How are each of these experts' certifications unique from each other and necessary to the EEstory?
BASF patent mentioned is US patent 7023687 and claims energy density of 5.5kwh/liter.
Thanks Marcus, seems like if someone said the permittivity is emminent then if its not, the discussion is over at that point, what is concensus deffinion of emmminent.
Steve
You keep interrupting conversations about EEStor with discussions about people. We know how you feel, can you let these fellows talk for a while so I can learn something.
Marcus is correct about bloggers, I just had to do this just one time.
Marcus said:
To the people that get frustrated with certain posters, it is better to not bother communicating with these people.
Communication is the key to understanding. People shouldn't get frustrated with anything anybody says here unless it's a personal attack.
Everybody is entitled to make their points and to defend them. How can you learn knew things if you don't talk to people who challenge your views?
Rod,
You keep interrupting conversations about EEStor with discussions about people.
Like you are doing right now?
y_po
I got you don't see the math. Is it just the permittivity that will make or break?
thank you Marcus.
I am afraid somebody might think my views are being challenged.
I will deal.
Thanks Tom that was a perfect breakdown for me.
Y_po,
Doesn't matter if the capacitor is created perfectly?
It just can't do it?
dielectric breakdown will be because of the nature of the compound?
"120,000 tons of coated CMBT." So EEstor is gearing up towards this kind of production?
Their plant needs to be on a railroad; or have massive storage including conveyors etc. Have they built this?
Y_Po,
I'm having some trouble reconciling what you're saying with some scientific papers that appear to show that using a small particle size of BaTiO2 powder in a matrix that keeps the particles close together but allows them to be polarized yields very high k that doesn't show variation of k with field strength. Patents by third parties (the Phillips and BASF patents have been mentioned, and there is also a University of California patent that has not been mentioned here) declare this, and there are in addition at least three scholarly papers with abstracts that claim it as well. All of particle size, proper doping, proper crystallization within the particles, and immersion in a plastic matrix and polarization in this matrix while it is malleable seem to be important for the best results, and these seem to be the steps EEStor is taking.
I've reviewed your posts on multiple threads here, and been unable to reconcile your claims with experimental evidence; however, EEStor's claims seem in line with that evidence. Could you please explain this discrepancy, and the fact that EEStor's claims do not show it?
Thanks.
-Da Schneib
Doesn't matter if the capacitor is created perfectly?
No, it does not matter. There is no way around dielectric saturation.
purity and perfection can only improve break-down voltage.
5.5 kWh/l is 20,000 J/cc, twice as high as EEStor. They're talking about 2,000 V/um which is 5.7 times higher than EEStor. And i think they are describing and increase surface area ( icouldn't see the images) by porous plates like carbon nanotubes. Even if the effective area of the plates is increased, the surface charge of BT is still limited, so i don't see how it helps. That's 3 smart companies claiming it's possible, so maybe y_po and I are missing something.
That's a good find on the BASF patent.
Schneibster,
fill us in
"University of California patent"?
How about a patent number?
And, USPTO, WIPO, EPO, ... ?
Schneibster, you said "experimental evidence". What patent or research paper reports they that have measured such high energy storage. Except for the EEStor world patent, all the sources you cited either did not give the measured k at high V/um, or they merely calculated from theory and assumed saturation would not be a problem. Also, any "resolving" of the energy storage question does not resolve the capacitance problem.
Schneibster, can you give the references you've been talking about? Especially the published papers.
Thanks.
ackkk,
Mass production is the key (otherwise they are just another Altair Nano), and that means building a production line as Eestor is doing now. So, while some are proving bees can't fly because their wings are too small (for those who remember back that far), Eestor is building their factory production line one milestone at a time. How many lines they are putting in at this time I don't know, but it is clear that their plans target the automotive industry. So a million ESU's is just a start.
Eestor is not at the "Popular Science" stage as they have moved from the engineering level and prototypes to the factory line stage. Furthermore, they seem to feel they have completed the critical milestone with the July 30, 2008 announcement.
All the patents he's talking about are in the wikipedia EEStor article under "permittivity questions"
Yes, I've seen those patents. For the papers the question will be of course whether the manipulations increase k beyond the theoretical limit discussed here. I very much doubt that.
zawy,
I think that your analysis is admirable. I could not do it. And I am sure y_po is smart and knowledgeable, but it would have been nice if he had not chased off Christine.
I have trouble swallowing R. Weir pursuing a production line with the thousands of hours of research and testing, putting in measurements of permittivity in his WIPO patent at 3500 V and 5000V, all the SME's that have done DD for the investors, and that it is just impossible.
There are research papers that have to be bought that discuss these thin film capacitances at high voltage, so there appears to be more than what is in the text books.
Marcus,
Zawy said,
"All the patents he's talking about are in the wikipedia EEStor article under 'permittivity questions'"
That's pretty much correct; they'll do for now, anyway. There are a couple more that are worth mentioning, and Zawy, it's worth mentioning as well that there are scientific papers mentioned there that you might want to look over. I'm too cheap to bother paying for content I couldn't post anyway without violating copyright. Not to mention there's plenty that's obvious from the abstracts.
The long and short of it is, it's been shown in published scientific papers that reducing BaTiO3 uniformly to sub-micron size and embedding it in a matrix that allows polarization to re-orient the particles allows for high permittivity, and low dependence of permittivity upon electric field strength, and this has been known for at least three years. The coatings on the particles have nothing to do with permittivity; in fact, they somewhat compromise it. But not enough to overwhelm another effect made clear by the UC patent: uniform distribution of the BaTiO3 particles also contributes to the non-dependency of permittivity upon electric field strength, and high dielectric strength. The coatings help with uniform distribution of the BaTiO3 particles in the PET matrix.
Furthermore, the PET matrix also somewhat compromises the final permittivity, but allows (relatively) low-temperature polarization of the particles, which again overwhelms the permittivity problems introduced by the PET.
The link to the UC patent is in the Wikipedia article. It's patent 6905649.
Zawy, I asked above about your comments on the 65A distance and its conflict with the crystal size, and this measurement being 6.5um, whereas the particle size (crystal size?) is two orders of magnitude larger at 100um. Do you have a comment on this discrepancy? I might have missed something.
Schneibster, I can probably get hold of those articles if you could just give me the authors and year or title. I would be quite interested to read about the voltage independence of k. I did a search myself but probably didn't do it very thoroughly..
I could also post sections of them.
Marcus,
Lemme see what I can do. It might take a few days; I did my searches pursuant to a bunch of FUD on another forum, and they're long gone from my browser history. The local purveyor of comestibles finally got their act together and I got ahold of some products from Stone Brewing, and quite frankly I'm in no condition to be searching tonite. :D
That would be great. I'll also have another look.
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6905649
was filed in April of 2003, not "fifty years ago."
That was FUD. And obvious FUD at that.
Realy sorry about wrong pat # . I have too many open at the same time and I picked the wrong one.
This is the one
2908579
A review of patent 6905649 shows that even with a different method, spark plasma sintering, and without polarization, BaTiO3 material can be prepared that has a relative permittivity of more than 10,000, as seen from the table on page 8 of the patent application. It is furthermore noteworthy that no mention is made of relative permittivity at various levels of the electric field; instead, the permittivity change with frequency is mentioned. The claims in the patent, also worthy of note, concern only spark plasma sintering; the implication is that this patent does not apply to EEStor's work. Moving right along, it would appear that the state of the art has advanced rather considerably in the few years since the patent was filed, since relative permittivity in the EEStor patent is about twice what is given in the UC patent; this is impressive, but not extraordinary. In addition to all that, the perceived application for this invention centers around computer RAM; current state and advances of the manufacturing art in this field is concentrated on read and write frequency, not voltage, and as a result appropriate characteristics for such an application are illuminated. To top it all off, it appears that significant features of semiconductor and disk drive manufacturing have been applied, and that a principle involving polarization of the material has been discovered, and these account for the increase in relative permittivity, and the high dielectric strength.
It is worth noting that for the same weight of material, a 100nm grain size yields an order of magnitude or more greater surface area than a 1um grain size. It is worth noting that prevention of gaps in the material preserves its dielectric strength, and that isolation of the grains and small grain size keep the dielectric constant's dependence upon electric field strength small.
This appears to be a quickly developing field. It is not surprising that quite a few people, even in this field, would not be fully aware of all the possibilities; it's fairly obvious that there are some posting here who are unaware of the effects that can be shown for highly compacted BaTiO3 powder of considerably sub-micron size; the UC patent mentions that earlier work seemed to show that the maximum permittivity was around 2,000, whereas the permittivity they measured was around 10,000, some five times higher. I wouldn't be at all surprised, based on their claims, to find that there are certain individuals posting here who were involved in the earlier work that gave results around 2,000. Examining some of that work, I find that there is a theory propounded in it regarding the nature of permittivity that is overthrown by the UC work, and rendered fairly ridiculous by EEStor's claims. It is not surprising that there might be considerable academic reputation at stake. I'm not having a great deal of trouble interpreting some of what I'm seeing here and elsewhere around the 'Net in those terms.
In addition, there appears to be a very considerable amount of money at stake. The practice of "short selling" requires that the stock being sold short fall; and one way to bring a stock down is to introduce FUD. Other parts of what I'm seeing are easily interpreted in those terms.
If you think carefully about what has happened between EEStor and Zenn, the interpretation seems fairly likely that EEStor showed up all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed with their lab project, someone at Zenn got all excited when they tested it, some perhaps ill-considered publicity was released, and someone with more knowledge in these matters pointed out before very much money became involved that it is one thing to present a lab project and very much another to roll a million of them off the end of a production line. The implication of this is clear in the delays in release of the product, specifically the changing timeline we've heard from Zenn. We haven't seen such claims from EEStor, and that also is noteworthy.
NOBODY invests millions of dollars in building a production line for a product that has never been made in the lab. Nobody buys most of a million bucks worth of analysis equipment for such a production line unless it is necessary to that line. Certainly nobody involved in a scam does anything of the kind. Mr. Weir appears to be saying precisely that in communications with B rendered on this blog. If you've got the money for the equipment, and to build the production line, and it's a scam, you take the money and run. You surely don't sit around waiting for everyone to figure out it's a scam, and you surely don't waste the money buying expensive and sophisticated testing gear.
I'm thinking based on the evidence that it is at minimum plausible and at maximum highly likely that EEStor has precisely what they claim, and that they've spent some time and money figuring out how to manufacture it. There is an excellent chance that we're watching the birth of a new industry.
I'm still waiting to hear about the 65 angstrom vs. 100nm question I asked, and I'm also waiting to hear why claims are being made from another source that are inconsistent with published literature.
Post a Comment