If you've been following the EEStory for any period of time, you know that for some mysterious reason, EEStor occasionally speaks with me, an anonymous blogger. Possibly, if you ask Dick Weir, he might possibly say it's because he knows that I know that any Marine who risked life and limb for the freedom of insignificant people like me is and always will be a noble sacrifice. You might say I pay my EEStor bills with respect, something very foreign to many who show EEStor disdain at their business choices. In the meantime, I am very certain that EEStor is not at all concerned or interested in educating irrelevant skeptics while they make their way along their path to commercialization. That said, occasionally the stars align and I am able to acquire a few more clues about EEStor's ongoing validation of their technology, something that appears to only be understood by persons who are not simply focused on material science but also those who understand manufacturing milestones.
In that context, I am happy to learn that EEStor's recent permittivity testing took place with a few additional data points. First, the permittivity had a loss of less than 10% across the temperatures it was tested. Secondly, the frequency of the testing was 100Hz. That much was included in the 3rd party testing. Within it's own internal tests, EEStor has shared with me that the loss value is flat from 100Hz up to 100,000Hz. If you recall past blog posts, this is data that persons from Penn State were interested in obtaining to further assess the significance of the announcement.
Ordinarily, I would provide additional commentary by way of recording some interpretations of this additional data from some SME's. But my results from very cursury attempts at this were mixed. So I felt I would simply share the information and let it speak for itself...whatever its significance may be.
5 comments:
Did you ask them these questions? Or, do they read your posts?
So nothing about voltage?
Interesting that you now have every conceivable data point besides energy storage capactiy. If you dont smell something fishy by now, I feel really bad for you.
Aaron, we actually already have the storage capacity. What you're trying to say is we dont have the energy density measurements taken at voltage. It's ok, I don't mind correcting you. You've got a busy day of denying everything you read about EEStor. Happy to help you out. Looks like you fizzled out on doing your own original research. So, I'd like to encourage you to stop being so lazy and annoying in your quest to debunk EEStor. Pick up the phone yourself and start asking questions of people who know what all of this data means. Establish some credibility for yourself by uncovering new facts pro or con. No one is saying you can't do what I've done which is bring together many different expert views. News flash for your friend ESPY, who has a bag over his brain, Y_Po owns 100 shares of Zenn stock. MUHAHAHAHAH! Yes, I'm willing to accept its just a speculative bet on his part not related to his real views on EEstor but no one can seem to make him talk about the science post permittivity. EEnteresting.
wake me up when eestor delivers a a capacitor that can do even 2% of what they claim. Its getting old.
Post a Comment