Carl Nelson & Nobel Prize Winner William N. Lipscomb

I've written previously about how EEStor's Carl Nelson worked with world materials pioneer Arthur Von Hippel. Thanks to EEStory user BigMig, it's now been brought to my attention that Carl Nelson also utilized some notes provided to him by Harvard University's William N. Lipscomb in his 1964 Laboratory of Insulation Research government sponsored research paper.

Lipscomb won the 1976 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, something that escaped by notice. Thanks BigMig!

In any case, just an interesting connection to note.

Photo is of William Lipscomb!

Top Lockheed Martin Energy Execs Lack EEStor Poker Face

Today at the National Press Club, Lockheed Martin held a hastily thrown together press conference to lay out it's vision for it's future in energy. Unfortunately, talking about EEStor was not on the agenda. However, thanks to a gutsy anonymous blogger, we have one hell of a post-event interview whereupon two of Lockheed's senior most executives demonstrate REAL TROUBLE hiding their enthusiasm about EEStor.

Additionally, the vast majority of questions submitted online during the web conference were on the topic of EEStor. Hello, Lockheed? Inquiring minds want to know. Get your game plan together already. Geeze.

Draw your own conclusions. Important: doubleclick on the video below so you can see it in full screen. Blogspot is clipping off the side.

Key take aways from the interviews:

1) Lockheed Martin Execs smile when you ask them about EEStor

2) They have trouble wiping the smile off their faces once they start smiling

3) The slightest hint of an EEStor concept brings the smile back

4) Why are they so happy?

5) What do they know?

6) Are you still reading this list?

7) Go to bed.

8) Now.

9) I mean it.

10) No, I am not the one who captured the video. ;-)

Here is a link to the webcast briefing for replays of Lockheed's Briefing. Here is a more legitimate

article covering what Lockheed actually wanted to talk about.

Darryl Siry on DOE

Darryl Siry's latest article is mandatory reading for anyone following the manner in which stimulus funding and in particular, Department of Energy funding is being allocated to private companies as of late. He makes the simple point that when the federal government begins injecting funds into particular markets (such as with the pot of gold Fisker/Tesla have drawn funds), it has the counter effect of reducing private investment in that space since the competitors chosen by the government obtain such an enormous advantage over all others.

This is a very relevant point that has wider application to discussions across all of the current stimulus funding that's being handed out these days. It's the sort of point that should give everyone involved pause and hopefully consider whether or not picking individual companies is really the best way to stimulate the economy and even usher in newer modes of energy use that many who read this blog so strongly desire.

Personally, I advocate tax credits that reward technological advances. Instead of Cash for Clunkers or Cash for Caulkers, make the credits reward innovation and technological success: Cash for Batteries Whose Energy Density Is 52kWh has a nice ring to it. Cash for Solar Panels that cost less than ____per kW. Cash for Wind Turbines that cost less than _____ per kW. Etc Etc. Cash for States that Resolve Distribution Line Right of Way Issues Before X July 2010, etc etc.

It's a simple tweak but what it does is cause more private investment, more competition and thus more jobs. Just handing out funds to a few companies who hire lobbyists and former government office holders (Al Gore) to promote a particular company to their former colleagues (Cathy Zoi) is not the best way forward if the goal is to stimulate the economy and create jobs. In fact, as Siry points out succinctly, it's probably counterproductive.

So, that brings us back to a question I've been asking (all alone apparently) and that is, how is it exactly that the Department of Energy is going about selecting the promising companies/technologies in which to invest? How many who have received stimulus funds have also hired lobbyists?

Stanford MBAs Fail to Ask EEStor Question

A group of Stanford University MBA hopefuls gathered together recently to waste each other's time by asking a collection of run of the mill dumb questions at a Kleiner Perkins & John Doerr presentation. From what I can tell by skimming through the video, no one at Stanford has any sense at all. Ok, there was a tiny bit of common sense in the crowd but it was starved for oxygen. So, non Stanford alums, walk tall today because you saved quite a bit on your education and are probably in much better shape as a result.

Yes, it is necessary to be critical of smart people who have an opportunity to ask smart questions but fail to do so! Had "the EEStor question" been asked, we might be in a more tolerating mood this great Monday morning! Now, let's show our Stanford friends how we get down to business.

Skip to 12:00 and examine the Green Fund Portfolio which includes the "stealth capacitor" investment. MUHAHAHAAHAH!!

We know who the stealth capacitor company is. One of the stealth battery companies is Fortu. Not sure about the stealth battery company and the stealth vehicle company.

A stealth vehicle company? V-Vehicle? Can't be them because they are out of stealth unless you are suggesting Kleiner partners are too lazy to update their powerpoint slides.

Special thanks to an alert reader who sent this video to me!

CIA Says It Can Talk about EEStor Founders But Would Also Have to Kill You

A recent FOIA request was submitted by EEStory user RT in an attempt to learn about the existence of any documents related to past work performed by Carl Nelson or Dick Weir on behalf of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. If you recall, in the recent leaked audio, Dick Weir mentioned the following:

At TRW I invented the chip that went into Deep Space ... I worked for the CIA for Scientific Initiative. They needed a ultra high frequency channel. They came and recruited me. I invented that channel for them.

To respond to the FOIA, the CIA issued a Glomar Response which, as with past cases, always raises interesting questions about the implications of such a response. What does it mean? What does it imply?

Only you can decide!

Note: Here is the full FOIA document.

Thanks to RT for the info!

Climate Research Unit Emails Hacked: What about their internal conversations?

Far too much attention has been given to these hacked emails passed between scientists working at Britain's Climate Research Unit. Many are drawing unreasonable conclusions about whether or not these scientists have colluded to falsify important climate change data. I for one would like to call a halt to all of this speculation based on these emails which can so easily be taken out of context and misinterpreted by neanderthal religious types for nefarious purposes!!!

Instead, I propose all of the discussion re-focus on actual conversations a few of these same scientists had recently which, yours truly, the EEStor blogger, has personally intercepted and which I will now make available for your consideration. These are actual conversations as I imagine they probably occurred.

Scene: Office Kitchen Area.

Phil Jones: Hey mates. Did you remember to delete your emails?

Ben Santer: Sure did and wow, mate, it's getting so hot lately. Don't you agree?

PJ: Yes yes of course. And you Master Tom?

Tom Wigley: Lord Phil, I deleted all of my email and all of the latest data we've got coming in from all of the probes around the world. I mean ALL the probes, mate.

PJ: Nice show old chap! Really, all of the data from the probes too? Good GAWD, Al F&%ing Gore is going to bleeding love you mate! I love you! Nice pants, by the way.

TW: Oh definitely every probe. And I do like the new pair too. Had to buy new because some tosser and I scrapped at the last conference over some graphs he presented. I love them.

PJ: Fantastic. Now listen mates. We've got to keep cool on the raw data.

BS: The Climate data?

PJ: No....no.

TW: The sensor data?

PJ: No, no, you idiots...THE DATA!

[two guys shrug]

PJ: The F&*^%&*ing Investment data you twits!!!

[two goofy guys nod understandingly]

PJ: No more checking your investment portfolios from work! And please stop calling all of those greentech VC companies from your offices! Buy a f*$&%ing private cellphone, mates!

----

Update on EEStor Expansion

Based on Lyle Dennis's lazy reporting yesterday, I was forced to call up Cedar Park's Phil Brewer this morning and ask for clarification of his remarks from yesterday. (I'm just kidding Lyle! :-) ) While he acknowledged his quote from yesterday, I pointed out to him the permit of occupancy provided in September and he acknowledged he was unaware of it.

"Well ok. My mistake. Everything doesn't go through my office when it comes to issuing permits. I was mistaken when I said that then. "

Thank you, Mr. Brewer.

Please note, it must be hell on people like Brewer to have to deal with this internet circus that is following EEStor. He's been extremely patient under the circumstances which I greatly appreciate.

Another Day, Another Puff Piece about the Department of Energy

It's a sad day for Journalism. Despite the fact that the USA is experiencing an unprecedented increase in federal government spending as part of a stimulus program, there are no worthy investigative reporters doing ANYTHING AT ALL to tell the story.

Instead, in their infinite Wisdom, the jokers at the WashingtonPost have allowed the federal bureaucrats to write an article about what else? Bureaucrats. Who else could paint such a rosy picture of stimulus spending while quoting Cathy Zoi but not asking about Al Gore's White House lobbying effort recently disclosed?

In the article, Steven Chalk is quoted on the topic of stimulus spending. He says his team's motto is "Spend fast, but spend well." Oh really, Mr. Chalk? How do you go about spending well? What do the processes look like? Who makes the decisions? How are they made? How does your process handle disagreement? What are the key criteria for picking one proposal over another? How many of your choices have been made to firms who haven't made enormous recent campaign donations or spend millions on lobbying? What guidelines protect the American taxpayer from donations to venture capitalists?

EEStor Expands Cedar Park Offices

Thanks to alert TheEEStory.com forum participant, Jay, we now have reason to believe that EEStor is expanding their corporate HQ. According to a permit filed in August, 2009 and issued 8/25/09 to "EE Store, Inc" (sic) the office #110 with 2800 sq ft will be brought into the EEStor domain. Plenty of room for a pick n' place robot named B.

The new space is to the right of the existing EEStor offices (behind the small tree in the photo above).

To discuss this topic and come up with other names for EEStor's robots, visit TheEEStory.com.

If you have trouble with the link, google this: CO-09-03700 Should be 4th link down.

Secret EEStor Patents Not So Secret Any More

Thanks to what appears to possibly be a bit of a slip up on the part of the US Patent & Trademark office, we now know the descriptions of two additional EEStor patent applications. They are:

11/499594 Systems and methods for utility grid power averaging, long term uninterruptible power supply, power line isolation from noise and transients and intelligent power transfer on demand

11/45381 Methods of purifying barium nitrate aqueous solution

The slip up appears to be that the patent examiner did an intranet search on the USPTO network to locate all patents/applications whose inventor name is Richard Weir. He then published the search results to the file wrapper for patent application 11/400,875.

Oddly, these patents were filed before others that have already published which is odd. What is even odder is another patent filed at the same time, 11/400,875 is about to granted based on a recent issue letter. If that happens soon, it means we will have two patents filed at roughly the same time, where one has been granted and the other hasn't even been published yet!

Keep in mind, as I've stated previously, the normal process as I understand it is for a patent to publish 18 months after being filed unless the applicant makes a secrecy request, which would not be possible if World patents are filed. The other possibility is that EEStor's patents are under government secrecy protection.

For those keeping notes. The search was performed 6 August 2007.