Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Eestor begins Accepting Orders


Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Is Google Purposely Profiting From Your Pain?

Prepare yourself for another round of questions about Google's cooperation with evil practices thanks to a video posted yesterday by Rexxfield founder Michael Roberts.   In the video, Roberts advances a well thought out theory that Google may be intentionally promoting search results which allege misdeeds of the persons being searched for in order to generate more advertising revenue.   So, if someone says something negative about you, especially if it has to do with your professional reputation, Google may be elevating those remarks so that end users decide against working with you so that they will be more like to click related ads.  He offers a few compelling examples which in my mind raise serious questions.

Roberts may be on to something that can be proven scientifically.   Google's search algorithms are based on multiple factors but the one most are familiar with focuses on the number inbound links a webpage has accumulated over time.  This is modeled after the concept of peer review in academic circles: if a published paper is cited numerous times, chances are the claims made in it are interesting.  In other words, academics who cite it likely do so because the conclusions are correct or false or controversial.

If examples of elevated search results could be shown to have few inbound links yet are still found on the first page of search results (where 90+% of clicked results reside), this would provide significant evidence that could lead to a major scandal worthy of a congressional investigation.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Lockheed Self-Powered Ad-hoc Network with "Field and Forget" Energy Storage

This is an interesting video posted on YouTube in February 2012.  Seems like I would have remembered this technology if I had come across it previously.  Check out the description of the technology which I will quote in detail:

"Uploaded by  on Feb 7, 2012A covert, perpetually self-powered wireless sensor network developed by Lockheed Martin could revolutionize how to discreetly monitor one's surroundings. Lockheed Martin's Self-Powered Ad-hoc Network (SPAN) system is a network of "Field-and Forget" ground sensors that provides unobtrusive, continuous surveillance which can support a variety of missions and applications, such as border protection, area surveillance and even bridge, pipeline, aircraft and other structural monitoring requirements.
SPAN is a mesh network of self-organizing, self-healing sensors. Information from this mesh is processed using proprietary algorithms that reduce false alarms, providing intelligent situational awareness for military, border patrol and structural monitoring applications. This smart sensor network can cue a camera or unmanned aerial vehicle to further study an area or call an engineer when a pipeline or bridge structure is in danger of fracture.
Camouflaged and Easily Concealed
With sensors small enough to be fit into one's hand, SPAN sensors can be concealed in camouflage housings, such as those resembling rocks, to be inconspicuously positioned throughout an area.
The SPAN system also operates with extremely low power, thereby making it possible to power it via energy-harvesting technology, such as solar panels. SPAN's innovative power management harvests energy from its surroundings to provide perpetually powered sensors. Its ultra low sensor cost is predicated on the fact that each node within the SPAN network incorporates an energy harvesting subsystem that re-charges itself using simple energy sources in its surrounding environment. This innovation negates typical life and cost concerns of batteries and reduces the manual deployment and servicing. Battery life can be a critical differentiator when determining the safety of those in harm's way.
SPAN's lighter power demand extends operational range, and its inconspicuous sensors reduce the likelihood of discovery and tampering, increasing the realization of persistent surveillance."

I'm not saying this is describing EEStor technology.  But this is an interesting new technology that raises EEStory questions. 

The original press release occurred on October 12, 2011

The Lockheed brochure says "the sensor nodes use thin-film energy storage cells coupled with solar and thermal energy harvesting devices to provide truly perpetual power."  In addition, I happen to know that this energy storage is solid state and rechargeable but only because I read this 2008 Lockheed press release.  The energy storage is likely provided by Infinite Power Solutions (one of my nicknames actually). Their factory is in Denver. 

Tuesday, March 27, 2012


The 2012 Zenn Annual Ge.......MUAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHA!!!.....neral meeting took place today with Zenn interim CEO Jim Kofman laying......MUAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHA!!!....down the law (remember, he is an attorney) about what comes next in the EEStory.  Firstly, some of the revealed facts.....MUAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHA!!!

According to Kofman, who sounded confident and sober(!),  EEStor will make a public reveal of their technology "before summer" due to a recently struck non-dilutive investment agreement between Zenn and EEStor. The non non disclosure agreement "actually has very specific dates in it. And I guess all I'll say to you is we're expecting this before the summer if not well before that time. MUAHAHAAHAHAAHAAHA!!!"

Whatever will be revealed will be certified by a third party expert. Here's how Kofman described that party (who has already been involved in the review cited in the press release yesterday):

They know a lot about the space. We've been very careful choosing a firm that is extremely well known in the space.  Knows what they're doing. Has been looking at this technology for a long time. And was able to be of significant assistance to us and also will be in the future.  But they are a firm that would be very well known to people who know the space. Very reputable and very independent. And were able to be responsive. who knows a lot about the space.  Firm that is extremely well known in the space. Has been looking at this technology for a long time. 

Kofman went on to say "it's coming and it's very specific on what needs to be disclosed.  So we're excited and we think that's probably the most positive development you could look for."

If you've been paying attention, you probably noticed he didn't say what would be revealed.  And T H A T is why we call it TheEEStory.


In conclusion, it appears that maybe possibly Kofman is making sense.  Very possible.  

Monday, March 26, 2012

Zenn Gives EEStor More Cash For Less Secrets

It's been awhile since Zenn Motor Company has said anything about EEStor Inc.   And even when compelled to say something about EEStor, the topic of timing has been an anathema due to several apparent miscalculations.  The topic of time is the kiss of death at this point in the EEStory saga.  But today, Zenn has made itself ready to tempt fate one more time with yet another prediction related to timing.   Here is the key paragraph:

The Company recently participated as a minority investor in an equity financing completed by EEStor, Inc. While the Company's investment was small, the investment was part of a financing that provided EEStor with additional working capital to further the development of its power storage technology. Importantly, as part of the investment the Company was able to review certain aspects of the technology and obtain a covenant from EEStor regarding a timeline for near term public disclosure of the status of its technological development certified by an independent third party.
Of course, the obvious thing to say at this point is no freaking way. Not again. Not another prediction of something happening soonish.  Statements about timing are dead to me. They have been for at least 2 years.  Everyone who has ever succumbed to thinking maybe it's going to happen this time has always been burned.   Still, it is hard not to be a tiny bit hopefull if only because Jim Kofman is now on board.

But wait a second.  Why does EEStor need this financing?  If they produce the holy grail of energy storage, we've been assured so many times money will rain down on them like Noah's Flood.  So, I will reserve judgement at this point.

The prediction that EEStor is out of cash seems to have come true.  But will we ever get to the finish line?
What do you think?

We can now look forward to tomorrow's AGM...if it can add any flesh to this news.

If you have been under a rock, you may not realize, we're all over at http://TheEEStory.ning.com now.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Forsale: The EEstor Dream?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Eestor has officially launched a line of Eestor collectors items?

Or, they are out of....how shall we say.....cash?

Let the debates begin!!!!

UPDATE #1:  So, it looks like EEStor is selling some equipment which they haven't used "in production."

There are 10 pieces of equipment up for bid from EEStor on LabX.com.   The equipment costs range from $2500-$95,000 and include a free Zenn electric car.  The photos appear to have been taken at the end of February.  Most of the items seem to reside in some sort of storage holding area but the Dispensing System seems like maybe it is onsite at EEStor.  In fact, if you look into the glass on the Dispensing System, you can almost see the reflection of a fully operational EESU on a table in the background.  Nah, kidding.  The item description notes:   "EEStor, Inc. was planning on using the system to print capacitor dielectric layers with a set of valves attached to the CNC plate and controlled by the system controller."

None of the items supported the notion that pet rocks were being manufactured at EEStor.

EEStor Inc. Equipment For sale

Friday, March 16, 2012

Envia Envy

If you noticed in the comments section of my previous blog article on Envia, Atul Kapadia dropped by to clarify some items in part to tamp down some of my wilder speculative notions.  I decided to contact him directly to verify it was indeed him who left the comments and then ask a few more questions.   I'm going to post the exchange note style for those who hate my writing style (which is I think 1 or 2 of you).

Incidently, I am excited about this technology. I'm happy for DoE and ARPA-E as well.  I still reserve doubts about how investments are placed in companies rather than specs but that's not important in cases like these where it's time to celebrate some success.   From Mr. Kapadia:

Atul Kapadia said...
Thanks for recognizing Envia's achievement - our scientists and engineers have worked tirelessly for the past 4.5 years to get to these energy densities. Envia is a highly (highly) capital efficient model - almost all Series C funds from December 2010 are still in the bank.
Envia did take investmeiusnt from Japanese chemical companies but did not give whatsoever any manufacturing or intellectual property rights to any of these investors.
The facility in Jiaxing does system assembly of cells. Envia views cell-making as an assembly process in contrast to materials development and manufacturing (which is bulk of the IP and BOM of the cell). Envia's material is manufactured in Newark, CA.
So far, it is indeed an American company but the market is international and we intend to enable all automotive OEM's around the world.
February 29, 2012 2:54 PM  

 After I sent him a verification check, he responded with this:

Yes, I did leave a comment on your blog.
As you know, we make our own cathode, anode and electrolyte - all these materials are made in Newark, CA.  However cells are made in China - we ship this material to China and the cells are assembled in China.
As for manufacturing, I want to make sure we are not a capital intensive company.  We will partner with the right companies around the world to lower our manufacturing costs.  We will still continue to build pilot plants for mule vehicle testing, etc but when it comes to volume production - there has been a lot of capacity built out with public and private money last five years - we can take advantage of that.
Atul Kapadia

This was my reply to his reply:

Thanks for confirming and providing a bit more information.  Congratulations again.   That's a fantastic accomplishment.  Kudos to your hard working team!
Why wouldn't you make the C, A and E in China in addition to cell assembly?  Just curious.
Conversely, why wouldn't you have the cells assembled in CA?
Obviously, GM as a partner enables you to sell into a GM mass production environment easily.   But will you sell your batteries to Ford and other automakers if they come seeking it?  I would assume the answer is yes but want to be clear.   Are you planning to sell to any Chinese automakers?
Can you say whether your battery is already undergoing or scheduled to be tested in a Chevy Volt?   With nothing more than a battery swap, what do you think your battery could do to the range of a Volt?    Could Chevy offer your battery as an upgrade to current Volt owners?

I know you've laid out some conservative time tables so I apologize if these questions are a bit hysterical and overanxious in regard to timing.
Again, well done.  I'm happy for you and I'm happy for ARPA-E.  We had no innovation and investment in energy for so long as a country, thank God we have some success now. 

 Atul's reply to my reply to his reply with my pie in the sky to say hi:

We partitioned the tasks between China and US to ensure scale-up of IP sensitive material stayed near our scientists so we can have quick iterations between scale-up engineers and scientists.  We have a very good VP Manufacturing who has manufactured cells in China before - so we leveraged that skill set and saved some money early on when there was not much money in the bank by doing it in China.
Legally and formally, GM is not a partner - it is important to note that the word partner has specific definitions inside large companies.  GM Ventures is an investor and that implies we may possibly have other relationship with GM but I am bound by confidentiality to not discuss it.  You can approach GM directly.
We are free to do business with any automotive OEM around the world.  GM has demonstrated the highest integrity - they never ever probe or attend meetings where competitive program discussion is ongoing.
As for your questions on Volt, you will have to approach GM.
But I can tell you accurately that some of the components of our 400 Wh/kg are definitely undergoing qualification already with some of the large automotive OEMs around the world.  It is an open secret in the market that Envia is the larger in meeting automotive specs and capacity of material in the market.  I am being conservative in my timing estimates simply because automotive qualification cycles are long and it is the OEM's prerogative to decide when they integrate our solutions in their cars.
The last point you made is why we made this announcement.  For the country, for the market and to give the automotive OEMs confidence that while ionic breakthroughs will not be as fast as electronic breakthroughs, the anemic pace of innovation in materials and batteries for the past decade is unacceptable and not going to be the norm while Envia is around.
Thanks for your interest.

After this last note, I got pretty excited and had to break off further email communications.  I don't know why. Oh yeah, because I didn't want to badger him for more detail after he spent such a long time responding in such a thorough manner.  Ah, fresh air.

Ok, battery freaks of the world.  Let's dissect, speculate and formulate some new questions....if you are in fact interested which you should be if I say so. I say so.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Envia Systems: ARPA-E's Greatest Success To Date?

2012 ARPA-E Technology Showcase
Envia Co-Founder, Sujeet Kumar with A123 Systems' Yet-Ming Chiang
The 2012 ARPA-E Innovation Summit kicked off this week amid ongoing reports of renewable energy's funeral toll and various politically oriented DOE quasi-scandals.   The pressure to deliver a winner is so intense at this time,  DOE recently hired a full time psychologist to deal with the pervasive loss of fingernails (due to biting) among & between staff.   To make matters worse, the Red Phone in the White House has been reprogrammed to ring Arun Majumdar in hopes that something--anything--might emerge as a success this election year.   As everything goes into slow motion, and the buzzer is just about to sound,  Envia Systems has slipped through the crowd to catch ARPA-E's first game winning touchdown.  It is no exaggeration to say this is a very big deal.

1) 400wh/kg
2) Automotive Grade (not a prototype)
3) $150/kwh
4) Validated by US Navy Testing
5) General Motors Funding of $17Mil

This combination of factors seems to be, quite clearly, the exact sort of breakthrough ARPA-E was designed to achieve.   After another round of cycle testing at the Navy's Crane, IN facilities, we should be in a prime position to declare this ARPA-E's greatest victory to date which in turn would be the Department of Energy's greatest victory to date which in turn would be the Obama Administration's greatest victory to date.  Consider the following rationale.

Envia's battery has the ability to create sub $20,000 electric cars (with no range problems even for heavy Americans) which when factored with total cost of ownership and with modest gains in production efficiencies, will make electric cars superior to gas powered vehicles....economically.   As a country, we spend around $1Trillion/year on foreign oil and another $1Trillion on Dept of Defense whose main mission is to protect our energy supply lines.  Eliminating those two misappropriations of US wealth holds the power to restore economic growth and spur innovation unlike anything we have seen to date.  (I know.  It's all very convincing. )

It's no wonder then that A123 Systems founder Yet-Ming Chiang stopped by the Envia booth at the ARPA-E Summit this week to ask a few questions... and congratulate them on their success.   Chiang spent at least 20 minutes with the Envia founders and flipped through the Navy test result report they had on hand.  He was visibly impressed.   So does that mean Envia takes over A123 Systems as the next battery innovator on which people with deep pockets place their hope?    That's not exactly clear since Envia's business model calls for "selling cathode material to cell vendors" such as A123...which would make a lot of sense.  Companies like A123 have invested in production/manufacturing equipment.  Envia doesn't want to go through a ramp cycle like that--they simply want to insert their innovation into existing infrastructure for speed to market.   Yes, this is a glimmer of genuine hope for people who have waited patiently for an American energy storage breakthrough.
Torch Bearers of the Lithium Ion Tradition 

But is it actually a true American success?  Not exactly. The investors to date comprise an international consortium of venture and business concerns including American, Canadian and Japanese companies.  This is an internationally funded company, i.e.,  not a straight play American company.  Even though Envia's headquarters are in Newark, CA, it's manufacturing facility is in Jiaxing, China which raises interesting questions about Envia's intention to actually develop anything substantive in the United States.  It does not appear that they do.  At least not in the Obama Administration sense of creating manufacturing jobs in the United States.  :-(   And finally, as we've stated before, lithium ion solutions will always have a question around the origins of the lithium--most of which is foreign.

So, yes, there is still room to sit around and wait for something better which leaves us to our increasingly lonely practice of speculating about EEStor...and Recapping.    And...?

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

New Recapping Patent Publishes (EEStor Competitor Perks Up)

"High energy density electrical energy storage devices 
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent Application 20120034528
Kind Code:
High electrical energy density storage devices are disclosed. The devices include electrochemical capacitors, electrolytic capacitors, hybrid electrochemical-electrolytic capacitors and secondary batteries. Advantageously, the energy storage devices may employ core-shell protonated perovskite submicron or nano particles in composite films that have one or more shell coatings on a protonated perovskite core particle, proton bearing and proton conductive. The shells may be formed of proton barrier materials as well as of electrochemically active materials in various configurations.
Wendman, Mark A. (Freemont, CA, US)
Application Number:
Publication Date:
Filing Date:
View Patent Images:
Download PDF 20120034528 PDF help
Export Citation:
Click for automatic bibliography generation
Recapping, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA, US)
Primary Class:
Other Classes:
429/304, 429/314, 429/310, 429/316, 429/319, 252/182.1, 252/62.2, 361/525, 977/742, 977/780
International Classes:
H01M10/02; H01M4/50; H01M4/54; H01M4/58; H01G9/025; H01M4/48; H01M4/52; B82Y30/00"


Tom Villars says, "This is a continuation of the Recapping/Penn State patent application 12/656,463"
Thanks to DeedleTwo.  Mark was clearly snoozing. 

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Why the Natural Born Citizen Controversy Disenfranchises Democrats

President Obama
We interrupt the normal broadcasting of this blog to bring you a timely article on a subject few Americans seem to understand due to the media blackout imposed by God knows who in the USA.  Warning: Readers outside the USA may or may not be interested.

Many people in this country are only recently beginning to disentangle two separate issues having to do with President Obama's eligibility to be President of the United States. The first has to do with whether or not President Obama was born in Hawaii.  This is the controversy shoved down our throats by the media since it helps polarize us via the portrayal of fringe groups hell bent on proving a conspiracy theory about Obama's birth certificate being forged.  As of last week, this particular controversy includes sworn testimony in a Georgia Court from several officials who claim President Obama's records/documents are forgeries.    I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE.  I believe President Obama was born in Hawaii and that Hawaii has released his birth certificate.  But the Georgia court did not convene for the sole purpose of examining birther conspiracies about birth certificates, passports and social security numbers.  It also convened to attempt to answer the question as to whether or not President Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the constitution.

Supreme Court Oldy
However, the media has used this birth certificate issue as a cover to hide the more fundamental and important issue which has to do with President Obama's father being a Kenyan or British National at the time of President Obama's birth.   Article 2 Section 1 states that to be eligible to be President of the United States you must be a natural born citizen.   President Obama's status is not yet determined under this law.  This is because it has never been fully adjudicated in the courts for this or any President or Presidential candidate.  However, we do have a precedent setting case called Minor V. Happersett which appears to define a natural born citizen as someone born in the USA with parents who are citizens.  Does this make Obama a NBC?  We don't know. But many are very angry and determined to find out. This is the basis of a number of recent challenges to Obama's eligibility to be on the 2012 election ballots.  Many have called these lawsuits completely partisan attempts that disrespect the office of the President and may be racially motivated.  Very helpful additional polarization if that's your goal.

The media for it's part has portrayed only one issue--the birth certificate /conspiracy theory issue.  They have done nothing to cover the Natural Born Citizen issue. Therein lies the problem.

If you cruise around the web and try to educate yourself on this topic, you will quickly find many negative comments about birthers.   It is as if the birthers are to blame for this situation.

Case in point.   Observe how determined CNN's Anderson Cooper is to prevent the Natural Born Citizenship issue from overtaking the birth certificate and records issue in this December 2010 interview.   Pay close attention to how Cooper cuts off Texas Representative Leo Berman when the issue of Obama's Kenyan father arises?  What does Cooper do?  He goes back to the conspiracy theory and throughout the rest of the interview, we never hear anything more about the dual citizenship President Obama was born with due to his father being a citizen of Kenya, part of the British Empire at the time.   Instead, Cooper ends the interview by suggesting that the entire eligibility issue is based purely on politics and conspiracy theories.

Here's the problem.   Guys like Anderson Cooper are painting this NBC issue as a non-issue by suffocating it in the birth certificate conspiracy hatched by Internet rumor mongers.  The fact is that our very own Congress recognized long ago that this NBC ISSUE is a REAL ISSUE with very big stakes and which could lead to legal catastrophe of biblical proportions if not addressed.   But did Congress solve the problem?  Did Congress clarify the law around this issue so that controversies such as this cannot occur in the future?   No and no.    As much as the Anderson Cooper's of the world try to pin this problem on birthers, what he should be doing is working with his producers (people presumably smarter than he is) to figure out how our democracy actually works.   Congress creates the laws.  The Courts settle disputes arising from disagreement about the meaning of those laws.  Birthers are not a division of our government.  They do not create ambiguous rules which allow controversial lawsuits to disrupt the governing of our nation.

Anderson Cooper Contemplating The Insignificance of  The Birth Certificate
Let's look at some key facts that the mainstream media has never bothered to bring before the American Public.


1) More than 2 dozen constitutional amendments have been introduced BUT NOT PASSED in Congress to clarify the meaning & significance of the Natural Born Citizen requirement for Presidential Eligibility.  (USA Today-Martin Kasendorf)

If the NBC issue is so cut and dry, why has Congress tried to change it 24 times?  The media makes it sound like everyone with a birth certificate from the USA entitles one to hold office.  Anyone holding a contrary view is a conspiracy theorist.

2) Why has Congress tried to change the NBC clause in the Constitution?  For many of the reasons described in this article.

Whether you agree with that position or not, it's a simple fact that the EXISTENCE of the NBC requirement requires a Constitutional Amendment to repair.  Let's examine the public record to learn more.

Confused Citizen
3)  In 2000, Congress investigated the citizenship status of foreign born children adopted by US Citizens.   Assistant Attorney General Baben testified that "the limitation of eligibility for the office of President of the United States to ‘‘natural born’’ citizens in Article II of the Constitution [... ] has never been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court, and HR 2883 does not and cannot resolve questions as to its meaning, either."

4) In 2003, Senator Orin Hatch introduced the "Equal Opportunity to Govern" Amendment which would have removed the Natural Born Citizen requirement for becoming President of the United States.  On October 5, 2004, the full Senate Judiciary Committee (20 USA Senators) held a hearing on this very topic. Expert witnesses were brought in to testify and provide written submissions.  Sadly, this hearing has been removed from CSPAN's archives.  I wonder why.  Instead of informed discussion on the topic, CSPAN perhaps begrudgingly held a call in program asking the President should be a natural born citizen to demonstrate to people like me that Americans do not understand the issue.

Yeah, No Kidding.
4) Here's another bill from 2004 attempting to specifically define what is a Natural Born Citizen.  The problem is that only the Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Congress can Amend the constitution.  This is plain evidence that even Congress was confused about this constitutional requirement that our President be a Natural Born Citizen...not to mention confused about their own powers.

5) In 2005, another attempt via an AMENDMENT proposed by Republican Dana Rohrabacher.

Confused but smoking hot. 
6) In 2008, Democrat  Claire McCaskill proposed a bill allowing children born to military serving overseas be eligible to be President.  Again, there is an attempt to define or redefine what is a Natural Born Citizen. 
Again, this was unconstitutional, however.

7)  Infamously in 2008, another group of legislators got together to fix the problem Senator McCain had as a result of being born to military serving in Panama...where he was born. They passed another non-constitutional non-binding resolution recognizing not that those born to military personnel serving abroad are NBC's but merely Senator McCain was an NBC.   How do you like those apples military folks everywhere?   Of course, it should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Senator Obama added their names to this bill.  I wonder why.

Definition of NBC Being Recorded In Invisible Ink
8) Of course also in 2008, we elected Obama to be President of the United States.   What do you think happened when it was revealed his father was from Kenya and never became a US Citizen?   That's right, all of the confusion that played out over numerous years in Congresss was kindly handed over to the people and the courts.  Thank you Congress!!!

9) After 2008, you will not see any more significant discussion of NBC in Congress.  I wonder why.  It's because they are all hiding and hoping it isn't as bad as it really is.  In 2009, 2010 and 2011, you will only find records of lawsuits about NBC.  I have to point out one of my favorites filed by David Harris. Who do you think he wanted to sue?  CONGRESS!!!  :-)  He wanted to sue Congress so he could vote for Jennifer Granholm (who was born in Canada). "Plaintiff asks the court to invalidate Article II and declare Granholm eligible for president because he intends to vote for her in the next presidential election."

10) Before, I move on, I'm going to present yet another example of Congressional research on this matter because I think it represents uniquely the strongest cases both for and against removing the NBC clause from the constitution.

Here is the transcript of the hearing.

Before you get the impression that I am a research genius, let me debunk that by pointing out that none of the above was difficult to identify due to the search engine installed at gpo.gov or at CSPAN.   Try it yourself.  You will find discussions, debates, confusion, speculation and lack of action over decades related to the Natural Born Citizenship issue.

Anderson Cooper
I've only posted a few of the official records which prove Congress failed to act on this matter.  Now, interestingly, go back and watch the Anderson Cooper interview again.  Do you see what Cooper is doing?  He's deliberately avoiding the fact that Congress knew about this issue and failed to solve it even though they KNEW it was going to lead to problems potentially.   How is Cooper doing that? By focusing on the birth certificate conspiracy.    Anderson Cooper should be doing his job as a journalist and reporting the full story.

Confused in 1960s
How should he do that?  Maybe in the same way the press covered the issue when it arose in 1967 for Presidential hopeful George Romney (father of Mitt Romney)....by simply describing the nature of the controversy and presenting both sides.   Or when it came up with Barry Goldwater in 1964.    Or how about in the spirit of William Saphire's opinion piece in 1987? Or when it came up with General Meade in 1863.  Or even more recently with Senator John McCain in 2008?  Instead, all of a sudden after 2008, we Americans never get to hear anything about the controversy related to the Natural Born Citizen requirement for Presidential eligibility.   All we hear about is a polarizing birth certificate conspiracy. Very convenient.
More 1960s Confusion

I've proven that the media  has used the birth certificate issue to cloud the issue of NBC (yes, Anderson Cooper represents all media--show me counter-examples if you don't believe me).  Now I'm going to prove to you that Congress has done the same thing in the same vein.  In 2004, when the full Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on this topic, the controversy was well understood as having everything to do with the Constitution and nothing to do with a Hawaiian birth certificate.   Let's take a quick look at who sat on that committee.

Committee On the Judiciary United States Senate 108th Congress 2004
Senate Judiciary Committee Busy Thinking

When constituents of these Senators started asking questions about the NBC issue in 2008 & 2009, how do you think these fine upstanding folks responded?   Yes, EXACTLY like Anderson Cooper at CNN.  Underplay and ignore the NBC issue and focus entirely on the birth certificate.   Guess what folks--these are Republicans AND Democrats who held hearings on the NBC issue but suddenly in 2008, their memories are a little foggy.  (yet another reason for congressional term limits)  Let's enumerate and examine their responses on this issue as recorded here.

Senator Jon Kyl
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: “Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.”

Senator John Cornyn 
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: “As we enter the 111th Congress, our nation faces many challenges. We are in the midst of tough economic times, and the federal government must stand on the side of taxpayers and small businesses. Now more than ever, we need fiscal discipline in Washington. I welcome President-elect Obama’s commitment to reform the federal budget process and rein in wasteful government spending,
and I will hold the President-elect accountable as Congress works to quickly identify and eliminate inefficient, ineffective, and outdated federal programs.” He didn’t respond to the eligibility issue.

Senator Charles Schumer
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: “The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Moreover, in December 2008, the Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, concurring with three other federal courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Washington. The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: “President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Senator Arlen Specter
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.: “On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth
certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of
official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department’s system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. … Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, R-Pa.: "Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution specifies the qualifications for this executive office. It states that no person except for a natural born American citizen is eligible to run for President of the United States. Also, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have resided in the United States for at least fourteen years.

President Obama meets these constitutional requirements. If you were not already aware, on April 27, 2011 the White House released a copy of President Obama’s long form birth certificate. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in the United States are considered citizens of the United States. Under these criteria, President Obama, a 47-year old U.S. citizen, who has resided in the United States for longer than fourteen years, is eligible to be President."

Senator Dianne Feinsten
By the way, this is what Senator Dianne Feinstein said immediately after the October 2003 hearings:

Chief among the skeptics at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who said she was very reluctant to support changes to the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1. It sets the requirements for serving as president -- a minimum of 35 years of age, 14 years continuous residence in the country and being a "natural-born citizen.''

"I don't think we should move precipitously,'' Feinstein said. She said the Constitution's ban on immigrants serving as president created a "reserved right of birth for the presidency. It may not be a bad thing. It may be a strengthening thing,'' a way of holding the country together by allowing immigrants to meld into American society and permitting their children to run for president.

"I've never had anyone approach me and say you have to do this because it's so important,'' Feinstein said. Besides, she added, "I think this amendment will have a very hard time'' getting the needed two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress and approval from three-fourths of the states.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Pa.:  An adoption advocate, Craig said Americans bring home 25,000 foreign children annually for adoption, and "to suggest those children would be denied that right (of serving as president) is a tough one."


At this point, I'm sick to my stomach and really don't want to keep going on and on.  But I have to post one more post-2008 remark from a Senator who absolutely knew what the NBC issue was all about but again painted it as a birth certificate / citizenship issue.  I'm talking about Senator Orrin Hatch...the guy who called the hearings and proposed the Amendment to eliminate the natural born citizenship clause.  His remarks take the cake.   The interviewer had a good idea. Find out what Congress thinks about this controversial issue. But since the media wasn't doing it's job, she wasn't aware that Senator Hatch actually held hearings on the topic.  The interviewer asks the Senator...rather awkwardly...what is a natural born citizen?  His response is an answer to a different question: what is a citizen?  The man held hearings on the NBC topic but can't put it all together.  But then suddenly he snaps out of it and recalls that the constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen "and that means born to a Citizen of this country." Not a British National.  Then he ends with this, "my understanding of the law is that if one of the parent's is a citizen, then the child of that parent will be naturally born."

Senator Orrin Hatch
In 2004, this is what Senator Hatch said:  "The purpose of the native born cit- izen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us—the elected represent- atives of this Nation or immigrants—to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on this provision dur- ing the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III’s second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the United States.

This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un- American. Consistent with our demo- cratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreason- able limitations. Indeed, no similar re- striction bars other critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Su- preme Court, or the President’s most trusted cabinet officials."

So you say, well, set aside what Congress thinks and what the media thinks about this issue. What do legal scholars say about this issue?  Unfortunately, there's not much to say other than to admit the central push of this article:  it is an unsettled matter of law that Congress could have fixed but now the courts have to address.   Temple Law Professor Peter Spiro.   Note that Prof Spiro said there was a good argument that Senator John McCain was not a NBC.  Neither of his parents were foreign nationals.

Dude Afraid to Learn More
Now, there is one final piece of business to attend to in this article.  Our democracy has been damaged by a failure on the part of Congress to act and a failure on the part of the media to report.  Big deal right?  Sweep it under the rug and move on.  That's just it, moving on isn't possible right now. Here's why.    We are now embarking on the 2012 elections. Primaries have been held and will continue to be held. There is only one Democrat on the ballot for the 2012 election. A candidate whose eligibility to be there may in fact be stripped by a court case at some inopportune moment during the election cycle.   Will it happen next week, the following month...how about 5 months down the road?   What happens then?   Do we re-do all of the primaries and give the Democrats their right to select a candidate who is actually eligible?   By then the Republicans will be all set and ready for the 2012 election (provided issues of Romney and Santorum's eligibility are handled).

Reader Recognizing Length Issue With This Article
Do you see why George Romney dropped out of the Presidential race in the 1960's?  He did so because some journalists simply raised the question, sparked some debate and reasonable people could not predict what might have happened if they put him on the ticket.   The possibility of a catastrophe was sufficient to dump him.    Well my friends, they were geniuses back then because we have now on our hands a full blown catastrophe that will only grow bigger by the day.  If you're a Democrat, don't you want to be able to compare Hillary Clinton with other possible eligible candidates rather than someone who may or may not be able to be there on election day??? This issue threatens to disenfranchise Democrats, removing their ability to select from eligible candidates.  They are damaged by this deliberate omission on the part of Congress and the mainstream media.

"Alien offspring can't be POTUS you dopes!
Can't you read your own laws?" -Xipizi

This damage to our democracy and our democratic election process is entirely the fault of Congress and the Media.    Make sure you let them know how you feel about that.

One thing the Obama administration could do right now to fix this is to file for a declatory ruling with the Supreme Court. (I'm sort of making this part up.)  If the Obama Campaign is so certain he is a Natural Born Citizen as prescribed by the Constitution, I think he owes it to his constituents to seek this relief.   Don't worry, no need to produce the birth certificate!

 What do you think the courts want to do with this issue?  They want to toss it back to Congress or they want to say that individuals do not have a right to enforce this clause in the Constitution.     Note especially too how CSpan describes this video: "Wiley Drake, a former vice presidential candidate in 2008 and former presidential candidate Alan Keyes, are two of the lead plaintiffs challenging the validity of President Obama's birth certificate. "  But watch the case. It's about the NBC issue!

PPS Note in the above court case how the plaintiff mentions the laws in 26 states barring electors from voting outside of the popular vote. But the electors are supposed to validate the candidates....  do you see how this game is played? Around and around it goes.....


They are stealing your democracy and you are letting them do it. Yes, you!


Thursday, January 19, 2012

Fresh EEStor Controversy

Black & Decker. Boeing. Snap-On Tools. Vextrex Corporation. Lockheed Martin. According to new documents released by the USPTO, EEStor's use of the EESU trademark began with "budgetary quotes" submitted to these prospective customers going back to 2002/2003 time frame.  But are price quotes sufficient activity to constitute actual use of the EESU trademark in commerce?  Read this.  Or did EEStor actually ship test units once upon a time?

What's intriguing about the quotes is some of the listed battery specs.  The charge times listed aren't the 5 minute charge we've grown accustomed to hearing. Instead the various battery sizes include charge times measured in hours....up to 12.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Aggressive EEStor Skeptic Claims Lockheed Support for EEStor Debacle: Opens Hornet's Nest with Prominent Canadian Attorney Now Running Zenn? (probably not)

Rud Istivan is a motivated EEStor skeptic who has enough bravado to make his objections to EEStor  Inc.'s validity extremely public. Last night, he has made a direct attack on EEStor with a claim of Lockheed Martin support.  A former colleague of Mort Topfer's at Motorola, Istivan has a significant and accomplished career to stand upon when making a technological claim.  I've spoken with him on multiple occasions and think that despite his conflicts of interest (since he has business interests which would be damaged by EEStor's success), he is genuinely bothered by what appears to him as obvious fraud on the part of EEStor.   Before you conclude this is a technology rival whose head has popped off, keep in mind Istivan has a BA, MBA and a JD from Harvard, graduating cum laude from Harvard Law School.  He IS the most reputable and learned person to loudly and publicly challenge EEStor's claims.  It is fair to say he is actively challenging them to sue him with this latest claim.  If they don't attempt to sue him,  it is also very fair to say it diminishes EEStor's credibility.  There is no other way to frame the situation in my incompetent and probably wrong opinion.

As for the facts, here is what Istivan posted last night (4 Jan 2012) in the TheEEStory.com forums:

I was wrong about Zenn. Thought for sure it would be bankrupt by now, as opposed to merely hanging on by a thread under new management.
Another year has passed without your 'reveal'. As previously posted late in 2008, EESTOR is most likely impossible on multiple grounds, any single one of which would be fatal.
It appears these collectively have proven so, despite your collective vehement denials.
BTW, I had a very amusing conversation with a senior Lockheed exec in December at a famous global energy storage conference, the 21st of that series, concerning their deal with EEStor. Their sum and substance was embarrassment, regret, and denial. You don't have to believe me. Call them. But you really should have been at that world conference yourselves, as opposed to merely being avatars on this site.
Auf Wiedersehen.

Obviously, Istivan is attacking not only Zenn Motor Company & EEStor Inc but also Cormark Securities Inc's' Vice Chairman Jim Kofman who now runs Zenn.  Lest we forget Kofman is...an .attorney and accomplished former UBS Securities bad ass who happens to be  the brother of ABC News correspondent Jeffrey Kofman.  Let's not candy coat this statement by Esquire Istivan. His statement, if extended reasonably, is in direct contradiction to Zenn CEO Kofman's statements at Zenn's 2011 Annual General Meeting in which he said, "I take joining a board very seriously due to the liability so you have to ask yourself why a guy like me would join this board." Has Istivan asked himself Esquire Kofman's question? We don't know yet mostly because I'm a lazy & admittedly incompetent journalist (but hanging in there til relief arrives).

Not a lot of investigative journalists have investigated members of their own family.... for obvious reasons.  But the EEStory presents this possibility as a question worth considering since Jeffrey Kofman has produced several stories related to legacy and renewable energy issues including stories on environmental topics.  The conflict in play would be one advanced by traditional energy market players who could reasonably say that Jeffrey Kofman underplays or will underplay genuine obstacles to the success of renewable energy enablers like EEStor. It would be ridiculous to think Jeffrey Kofman would comment on this situation? But it would be equally silly to think traditional energy titans would disregard Jeff Kofman's potential connection to brother Jim Kofman's renewable energy enterprise in relation to future renewable energy stories.  Before you roll your eyes out of their sockets, keep in mind, we're not talking about an incremental improvement to a wind turbine or solar panel, we're talking about an energy storage capability which changes the entire economics of renewable energy in relation to traditional energy markets which equate to around $7Tril/yr.  This is a very very very big deal.  Theoretically, if Jeffrey Kofman created another widely viewed story on renewable energy, he could be attacked on his family connection to Jim Kofman....rightly or wrongly.

Wait a second. Stop the production of this article right there. Stop!  Woh, Nelly....wooohh!!!  These last two and a half or so paragraphs appear now to be the lunatic ravings of a deranged mind loose on the keyboard with a bottle of juice and an intermittent muahaha.....all crazy talk!  This is NOT--I repeat NOT-- a fight between Rud Istivan and ABC Correspondent & accomplished investigative journalist Jeffrey Kofman.  This is a fight between Rud Istivan and Tom, Dick, Betty & Greg Weir and probably Lucas Pettey. It is also a fight between Rud Istivan and Ian Clifford and now of course, Cormark Securities Inc's Vice Chairman, attorney Jim Kofman. The part dragging in Jeffrey Kofman was so far of a stretch it is ludiridiculous.  Forget I said any of that. Really Dumb!   Let's get back to the rest of this article with that clarification and edit now applied herewith.

What about Lockheed Martin?  According to Istivan, a "senior exec" spoke for "their" or Lockheed's "sum and substance" in regard to EEStor.... declaring the relationship created no more than "embarrassment, regret and denial" for Lockheed.  That is one hell of an indictment to attribute to a multi-billion dollar organization and I look forward to learning whether or not Lockheed's official spokesman for the Missiles and Fire Control business unit, Craig Van Bebber will establish clarity on what's going on here.  Query is submitted.

Rud Istivan Moving & Shaking
Now, let's get down to business here. Who in the world is Istivan referring to in relation to the claimed statements?  Well, the only 21st edition of a storage conference I am aware of personally is the International Seminar on Double Layer Capacitors & Hybrid Energy Storage Devices organized by Nikola Marincic.   If we look at the Program for this particular conference, we see a familiar cast of characters hereto referred to affectionately as "the establishment" of capacitors and energy storage.  Yes, all the greats were here--the ones who have no reason other than physics to be upset with EEStor.  Let's see, there's John Miller.  Long ago famed commentator, Andrew Burke.  Wait a second, could it be? Could it? Yes, here he is holding court with his own views on energy storage breakthroughs, Mr. Rud Istivan.

Nice R. Brewer aka Mark Twain IV
The only Lockheed person on the agenda is a one R. Brewer, who, submitted a presentation on "Electrical Energy Storage to meet Evolving Aircraft Needs."  Brewer hails from Marietta, GA, location of the fabled energy storage production facility involving EEStor.  Question for Istivan. Is this researcher really a "Sr Executive" at Lockheed? He looks like a very nice energy storage researcher and part time re-enactment actor for events requiring a Mark Twain lookalike.  I'm not sure he is an executive, however.

To wrap up here, a second look at Istivan's statements reveals less rigidity than one might think. Note the use of "likely" "appears" "most likely" etc. Plenty of wiggle room.  Actually appears to be a carefully architected statement by a man who knows how to cover his ass.  Ah shit, forget this whole article then. There's no fight here to be had. Please disperse.  Go back to your Lockheed cubicle, your Cormark executive lounge or retirement barcalounger.  Watch more UFO documentaries on the History Channel.  Eat peanuts. Wait for Dick Weir.  Wait & wait. Wait, wait & wait.

Where are you Y_PO!? In there somewhere muttering 'idiot' is my guess.

Is this the sun setting on the Lockheed / EEStor Friendship Contract Agreement?

Photo Credit: The photos linked to in this article are published at http://supercapseminar.com.