EEStor, Inc. Announces Relative Permittivity Certification of 2009-04-22 19:49:36.589 GMT
EEStor, Inc. Announces Relative Permittivity Certification of Their Composition Modified Barium-Titanate Powders
PR Newswire
CEDAR PARK, Texas, April 22
CEDAR PARK, Texas, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- EEStor, Inc. announces relative permittivity certification of their Composition Modified Barium-Titanate powders. The third party certification tests were performed by Texas Research International's Dr. Edward G. Golla, PhD., Laboratory Director. He has certificated that EEStor's patented and patent pending Composition Modified Barium-Titanate Powders have met and/or exceeded a relative permittivity of 22,500.
EEStor feels this is a huge milestone which opens the advancement of key products and services in the electrical energy storage markets of today. The automotive and renewable energy sectors are a few of the key markets that would benefit greatly with the technology.
Company background
EEStor, Inc. develops solid-state electrical energy storage units (EESU's) in the form of batteries and capacitors. This technology has a wide variety of application use which includes with the added benefit of being longer lasting, lighter, more powerful, and more environmentally friendly than current technology in use.
SOURCE EEStor, Inc.
Contact: Richard D. Weir, President and CEO of EEStor, Inc., +1-512-259-7601, Info@eestor.us -0- Apr/22/2009 19:49 GMT
25 comments:
Hmmm... Could this be Why Zenn's stocks have been crazy this week???
Leaky Leaky Loo
Hey, isn't today Earth Day - how fitting this slips out when everyone is in tune to Ma Earth. It is almost Googlish to announce this today. Either way - I like it.
to bad the permitivity doesn't mean anything, at all!
ahhhh, Aaron Carmody
aka goUSA
aka XYMOX
aka pullthecurtainback?
pullbackthecurtain?
got kicked off www.TheEEStory.com?
again?
Technically correct as I think I've agreed with you under some name, on that other forum.
Question is, whether ZENN buys it.
If they pony up the $700K for their "permittivity" milestone and then the $5M for the increase in stock equity in EEStor, your only hope is for EEStor to be a scam.
Unfortunately, all the *public* indicators continue flowing towards the eventual public reveal.
If / when that day ever comes, I hope you can someday be man enough to face it and provide some sincere apologies, where due. Given your track record, I would think that would be an extraordinarily difficult thing for you to do. So it would be even more to your credit, if / whenever you can.
LOL Nekote, so awesome. So did theeestory website bomb or what? -Runs away
Nekote, I can admit that if in the profoundly ulikely event that I was wrong and Weir and CO are not deliberatly pulling the wool over everyones eyes, that I was wrong and a great big apology to all those whome I offended.
Who is the pullabckthecurtain guy? another person who got kicked off for stating the obvious?
The only likely scenario here is that Zenn will in fact buy it. I am willing to state on the record that Zenn was responsible for the indside trades that resulted in a run up the last few days, they are no more than a pump and dump. The big initial trades all came from a canadian source. Of course they will hand over the profits to eestor to maintain some illusion for the next year. Contrary to everyones opinion, Zenn is actually a very small player so I doubt that the canadian sec will get involved as they do have bigger fish to fry.
So again, permitivity alone is a useless measurement of energy storage, especially seeing that energy storage is what got us all reading about eestor from the get-go. I can buy High K BT from a number of places if I wanted. In addition, Ed Golla, from Texas Research Institute claims that they were told to "ONLY" test for permitivity, not dialectric strength, I have this info 1st hand from Ed himself. So if you want to attack my character, feel free, but first provide a logical answer to why someone would only want a relative permitivity evaluation done in a game like this? Its a fair question Nekote.
Aaron, why bother check for dielectric voltage breakdown?
When the CMBT powder, apparently, wasn't coated with the (alumina) "secret sauce"?
The "secret sauce" that "provides a dielectric saturation that is above the 5000V limit and the relative permittivity is highly insensitive to both voltage and temperature".
So written in the so called PET / Aluminum Patent.
Don't know the particulars why ZENN might accept that, but since they were reliably reported as "popping champagne corks" last evening, it would seem they are likely to be satisfied.
Ever more strongly, it appears EEStor skeptics are going to have to come to terms with EESU success.
Wow, theeestory.com website is being hammered today. I can't access it!
Nekote said:
"In addition, Ed Golla, from Texas Research Institute claims that they were told to "ONLY" test for permitivity, not dialectric strength, I have this info 1st hand from Ed himself."
What else is Mr. Golla saying, and how did you come by this 1st hand info? Is a dielectric strength test in the offing?
Kerry Thurber, you need to credit that quote to Aaron, not me.
Nekote:
"Ever more strongly, it appears EEStor skeptics are going to have to come to terms with EESU success."
I dont know if your thinking straight about this. This would seem to be the worst possible news for a believer. It was predicted by those smarter than I that there would be no voltage. Those with heads in the sand will sugget that voltage would reveal to much info.
Finally, permitivity can only get worse after being coated. So again, worst possible outcome. At some point there has to be an element of clear thought?
Just wanted to let you all know that the EESU technology is rock solid and will be commercialized this year. The permittivity results speak for themselves. At these energy densities it will become the energy source of choice for automotive and transportation applications, as well as other key sectors. Stay tuned - you won't be dissappointed.
My apologies. Aaron? If you're going to claim first hand information, how about backing it up?
its easy to make a few phone calls.
Aaron, keep singing your song.
I'll stay with mine.
Guess all we can agree on, for the moment, is that the price of ZENN stock will be the real indicator, say, 1 year from now?
I'm long.
You short?
.
Interestingly, you are technically correct in pointing out the permittivity does get 6% or so worse, with the alumina coating.
But the "secret sauce" is the alumina coating. Causing other effects (by mechanically restraining the CMBT) that prevents dielectric saturation and voltage breakdown. The alumina also provides its own voltage breakdown protection, to the tune of 1,100V/µm = 11,000V/(10µm) = 1.1GV/m.
IMHO.
Nekote, it is wrong technically to assume that the permittivity will only decrease by 6% with coating. This was mentioned a looong time ago.
He has certificated that EEStor's patented and patent pending Composition Modified Barium-Titanate Powders have met and/or exceeded a relative permittivity of 22,500.
I always thought that this powder was patented by Phillips. The only thing patented by EEStor is the fabrication method.
Nek,
"Interestingly, you are technically correct in pointing out the permittivity does get 6% or so worse, with the alumina coating."
6% (overly optimistic) or 99.992% doesn't matter. NO voltage, so its impossible to have an intellgent discussion about the material properties when 9/10ths of the equation is blank. A fair statement? I can promise you that there is no more technical information about the "powders" that will be brought forth.
Aaron said:
"its easy to make a few phone calls."
So, you called Ed on his cell phone, he answered and said "honestly Aaron, nothing to get excited over. We ONLY tested permittivity"?
I was over at Dick's place this weekend and he has an EESU in the basement connected to a custom invertor powering his whole house, including his beer fridge.
How cool is that?
Shadow why do you say the permittivity results speak for themselves? Without field strength they say nothing as far as energy storage - unless there are other pieces of the puzzle we don't know about. But if that were the case the results still wouldn't be speaking for themselves now would they?
I agree that without field strength EEStor's case is far from clinched.
I don't know why EEStor has chosen to reveal things in the way they have to date. It's almost as if they are daring us to be skeptical.
StephenB
long and probably wrong
we may have to start using this site more; main site is mostly inoperable, or am I the only one having problems with it?
Post a Comment