Now that the general public is beyond EEStor’s permittivity announcement, there is a desperate desire to grasp it’s significance. Blog and newspaper articles are almost complete repeats of the EEStor and Zenn press releases. The occasional comments quoting ZMC all have a strange lack of intelligibility to them. Thanks to skeptical scientists at TheEEStory.com, we know that permittivity as a property of a material is not itself sufficient to ascertain whether or not it will deliver the claimed energy storage. So was the market for Zenn Motor stock confused when it reacted to this announcement last week? Zenn Motor Company must now say whether or not the $700K milestone will be paid to EEStor. Later, it must announce whether it participated in the 2nd round of financing and disclose it’s total ownership stake in EEStor. This will enable everyone to see whether or not current investors like Kleiner Perkins, Mort Topfer and/or Michael Dell also invested in the second round.
To start my analysis of the announcement, I attempted to contact Ian Clifford but did not have any success. I asked Catherine Scrimgeour for help with that and in the process recorded her take on the announcement as being comparable to a sandwich, permittivity is the bun, with the toppings and meat coming afterwards..presumably energy density tests and production prototypes although Scrimgeour refused to clarify. With Clifford unavailable, I reached out to Brian Cott and found him to be unusually pleased. I would characterize him as extremely happy, confident and even a little bit relieved. I pointed out to him that on the basis of a simple permittivity test, one cannot ascertain whether or not the claimed energy density has been achieved since you also need the measurement taken at working voltage. He was plainly aware of this far too basic point to miss. I would say he was even amused to be listening to something he's probably heard plenty of times before. So I asked if he was still happy and he insisted yes. I believe I could perceive Cott smiling as he was speaking with me on the phone. So if Cott and Zenn are happy yet permittivity tested at 1volt is not scientifically significant, then what is going on here?
To find out, I contacted Dr. Ed Golla who performed the tests. He confirmed that he tested a ceramic material in the shape and size of a hockey puck. He observed the tests running at 1 volt which is a standard procedure. He mentioned that the tests occurred some time ago, possibly months. He ended the conversation by telling me that he could not disclose everything he learned in the process due to an NDA with EEStor Inc. Next, I contacted EEStor and learned they declined to comment pending further review of my request.
So on Friday, April 24th, my belief was that something more had been verified/shared with Zenn. I got an email from a user at TheEEStory.com with the theory that possibly Golla tested permittivity across multiple temperatures and that the permittivity remained stable which would be a big scientific validation of a set of EEStor’s claims. As luck would have it, EEStor skeptic and competitor Rud Istivan sent me an email 10 minutes later offering to comment on the press release. I spoke with him at length and he described what would be the standard set of tests related to permittivity. In his view, which is shared by every skeptic familiar with the science, permittivity in itself is not a measurement that establishes anything of significance since materials with this property have been found previously. The problem is the permittivity in them never stays stable across a wide range of temperatures or voltages. Due to the prior email from a user, I asked Istivan to talk about the significance of a measurement of permittivity across temperature ranges. He confirmed that it would be a major breakthrough:
B: Why is it important if the temperature changes and the permittivity stays stable?
RI: Because that would mean that it is not a Y5V class ceramic. It would be a new material. Something that is not reported anywhere in the literature.
B: why is that an indicator of the material’s ability to hold up with voltage being applied to it?
RI: That is correct. Typically as permittivity of a ceramic dielectric goes up, increases, the temperature coefficient gets worse and the voltage coefficient gets worse. The parts (capacitor materials) that have the lowest voltage and temperature coefficients, almost none, also have a permittivity on the order of 80-100-120 something like that. As the permittivity gets higher, you typically see both of these things occurring at different rates for different materials. If you don’t have as much of a temperature coefficient, it means you’re not going to have as much of a voltage coefficient if the material is like any other ceramic in the whole world. And it means you’ve discovered a whole new class of materials even if it’s a composite material. There’s nothing like that in the scientific literature anywhere that I can discover.
Istivan went on to provide 4 references in scientific literature which describe this well known relationship between temperature and voltage coefficients of Y5V ceramic material permittivities.
Armed with this new information, I went back to Dr. Golla and learned that he did in fact test permittivity at multiple temperatures. He did not indicate what temperatures. At this point something odd occurred. He stated to me that he wasn’t sure why the temperature extremes were important for EEStor’s purposes since under his view, these devices would be shielded, for example in extreme temperature settings. After my discussions with Istivan, I was prepared to inform Golla that the point of testing a multiple temperatures was less related to ruggedization issues and much more related to establishing that a new material has been discovered. There was a long pause. I informed Golla that if his measurements across temperature ranges revealed stability, then this would represent a major breakthrough as described by Rudyard Istivan. Again, a long pause. Golla then asked for literature documenting that this was the more fundamental purpose of measuring the materials in these ways. Golla indicated that the measurements at multiple temperatures would only be released with EEStor’s permission. He refused to comment any further due to his NDA with EEStor. He suggested if I wanted to learn more, I should request permission. As a result, I submitted a request to EEStor to learn whether or not they would permit Golla to reveal the rest of the data gathered in the permittivity testing.
It is my view that Golla did test permittivity across multiple temperatures and observed exactly what Istivan says has never been observed---stable permittivity across temperature range. That is my read of Golla’s responses to my queries on this point. Further, I believe it is the existence of this additional data along with possibly evens more data of a similar purpose which ultimately accounts for the happiness of Zenn Motor Company following the permittivity press releases.
Note: I could be wrong. I could be misreading Golla and ZMC. However, I feel confident I am not. If I am correct, this would be the first major 3rd party validation of a key subset of EEStor's claims about it's development of a breakthrough energy storage system.
To start my analysis of the announcement, I attempted to contact Ian Clifford but did not have any success. I asked Catherine Scrimgeour for help with that and in the process recorded her take on the announcement as being comparable to a sandwich, permittivity is the bun, with the toppings and meat coming afterwards..presumably energy density tests and production prototypes although Scrimgeour refused to clarify. With Clifford unavailable, I reached out to Brian Cott and found him to be unusually pleased. I would characterize him as extremely happy, confident and even a little bit relieved. I pointed out to him that on the basis of a simple permittivity test, one cannot ascertain whether or not the claimed energy density has been achieved since you also need the measurement taken at working voltage. He was plainly aware of this far too basic point to miss. I would say he was even amused to be listening to something he's probably heard plenty of times before. So I asked if he was still happy and he insisted yes. I believe I could perceive Cott smiling as he was speaking with me on the phone. So if Cott and Zenn are happy yet permittivity tested at 1volt is not scientifically significant, then what is going on here?
To find out, I contacted Dr. Ed Golla who performed the tests. He confirmed that he tested a ceramic material in the shape and size of a hockey puck. He observed the tests running at 1 volt which is a standard procedure. He mentioned that the tests occurred some time ago, possibly months. He ended the conversation by telling me that he could not disclose everything he learned in the process due to an NDA with EEStor Inc. Next, I contacted EEStor and learned they declined to comment pending further review of my request.
So on Friday, April 24th, my belief was that something more had been verified/shared with Zenn. I got an email from a user at TheEEStory.com with the theory that possibly Golla tested permittivity across multiple temperatures and that the permittivity remained stable which would be a big scientific validation of a set of EEStor’s claims. As luck would have it, EEStor skeptic and competitor Rud Istivan sent me an email 10 minutes later offering to comment on the press release. I spoke with him at length and he described what would be the standard set of tests related to permittivity. In his view, which is shared by every skeptic familiar with the science, permittivity in itself is not a measurement that establishes anything of significance since materials with this property have been found previously. The problem is the permittivity in them never stays stable across a wide range of temperatures or voltages. Due to the prior email from a user, I asked Istivan to talk about the significance of a measurement of permittivity across temperature ranges. He confirmed that it would be a major breakthrough:
B: Why is it important if the temperature changes and the permittivity stays stable?
RI: Because that would mean that it is not a Y5V class ceramic. It would be a new material. Something that is not reported anywhere in the literature.
B: why is that an indicator of the material’s ability to hold up with voltage being applied to it?
RI: That is correct. Typically as permittivity of a ceramic dielectric goes up, increases, the temperature coefficient gets worse and the voltage coefficient gets worse. The parts (capacitor materials) that have the lowest voltage and temperature coefficients, almost none, also have a permittivity on the order of 80-100-120 something like that. As the permittivity gets higher, you typically see both of these things occurring at different rates for different materials. If you don’t have as much of a temperature coefficient, it means you’re not going to have as much of a voltage coefficient if the material is like any other ceramic in the whole world. And it means you’ve discovered a whole new class of materials even if it’s a composite material. There’s nothing like that in the scientific literature anywhere that I can discover.
Istivan went on to provide 4 references in scientific literature which describe this well known relationship between temperature and voltage coefficients of Y5V ceramic material permittivities.
Armed with this new information, I went back to Dr. Golla and learned that he did in fact test permittivity at multiple temperatures. He did not indicate what temperatures. At this point something odd occurred. He stated to me that he wasn’t sure why the temperature extremes were important for EEStor’s purposes since under his view, these devices would be shielded, for example in extreme temperature settings. After my discussions with Istivan, I was prepared to inform Golla that the point of testing a multiple temperatures was less related to ruggedization issues and much more related to establishing that a new material has been discovered. There was a long pause. I informed Golla that if his measurements across temperature ranges revealed stability, then this would represent a major breakthrough as described by Rudyard Istivan. Again, a long pause. Golla then asked for literature documenting that this was the more fundamental purpose of measuring the materials in these ways. Golla indicated that the measurements at multiple temperatures would only be released with EEStor’s permission. He refused to comment any further due to his NDA with EEStor. He suggested if I wanted to learn more, I should request permission. As a result, I submitted a request to EEStor to learn whether or not they would permit Golla to reveal the rest of the data gathered in the permittivity testing.
It is my view that Golla did test permittivity across multiple temperatures and observed exactly what Istivan says has never been observed---stable permittivity across temperature range. That is my read of Golla’s responses to my queries on this point. Further, I believe it is the existence of this additional data along with possibly evens more data of a similar purpose which ultimately accounts for the happiness of Zenn Motor Company following the permittivity press releases.
Note: I could be wrong. I could be misreading Golla and ZMC. However, I feel confident I am not. If I am correct, this would be the first major 3rd party validation of a key subset of EEStor's claims about it's development of a breakthrough energy storage system.
In later posts, I will provide additional commentary in the form of juvenile gloating. Stay tuned.
9 comments:
B,
Are you telling me that Dr. Golla seemed to not understand the point of your question regarding the purpose of testing across multiple temperatures?
If he does not understand this point, is this man truly qualified to do the test? If he doesn't know the purpose/reason why he is testing how can he properly test the material?
That certainly seemed strange.
Dr. Golla just playing along, knowing full well what it meant?
Your new found expertise embarassing him - catching him with his had in a cookie jar, so to speak? Being a little less than fully forthcoming?
Alternatively, being unaware of the potential significance mean his testing was utterly unbiased?
In EEStor's patent, why did they only test at a temp of 85 C? That's mighty hot.
I do believe the EEStor blogger really does know.
Belief scale has gone up a notch.
Any more of this and it will be a perfect 10.
Any sceptics hear the laughing - I hope so, as I'm starting to believe the joke's on you.
Great work B.
wow. so the simplest explanation as to why eestor doent want THAT kind of information out to the public obviously has nothing to do with the fact that THAT data is specifically damming. must be some convoluted reason that has no rational behind it that is the real reason.
gee wally....
All bark and no bite, Lassie
Well I have yet to see a reason, a rational one as to why they would not test at the claimed voltage, temperature be damned. Thats all been done before.
Hows that for no bite?
Grrrrr. Ruff, ruff.
Post a Comment