Change Font Size

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Nanocarbons Posts Message to Eestor Believers 08/29/12

"Since communicating infrequently with B offline has led to some apparent misunderstandings, I rejoined specifically and only to make this post, in the hope that it might encourage at least some of you to do some independent fact checking and due diligence. It might bring enlightenment.
In November 2008 I provided B (and he posted) my reasons why EEStor was physically unlikely, and commercially improbable. In a nutshell, Weir had not demonstrated overcoming VCC, and his claimed necessary purity (PPB, PPT) would be horrendously expensive. Simply by comparing his proposed MLCC part size to then existing high voltage (3500V) chipcaps, you realize he was promising Zenn a >million fold better energy density at 1/10 the cost per part, compared to parts already scaled into production of hundreds of millions per year. His emphasis on needing a production line was in my opinion a head fake from the beginning. People should have been demanding independent proof of principal on lab scale parts in 2007, not now as you are in the chatroom. NDA excuses aside, it is apparent (see below) that no one ever did, since no such parts have or can exist. That no one has seen them is shown not only by the events of 2012, but by the Jacob Securities ZNN research 'tout' published 9/2/09.
During summer 2009, I posted that Zenn had strayed into provable gross negligence, if not outright fraud, during their $9 million (net, about) stock raise that summer based on the May 09 EEStor permittivity announcement. Permittivity is measured at 1 volt. For EESU energy density, EEStor needs that permittivity at 3500V (or so).  Zenn knew or should have known this. By 2009, given my EEStory public postings, and my talks at various technical conferences on energy storage, they had absolutely no excuse other than willful ignorance. Hence my conclusions about Zenn management.
During 2009, I further posted on EEStory that the 7466536 patent contained provably falsified information. First, Table 6 claimed measurements of EESU that, from the patent specification itself, would have required synthesis of >one metric ton of >99.999xxx pure CMBT in 2004. Such materials are not available even in research quantities. Try to buy some if you doubt this statement. EEStor's announcements and Zenn's milestone payments publicly said such CMBT powder production capacity did not exist prior to either 2007 or 2008 (depending on which announcements one choses to believe). Second, the specification prior to Table 6 claimed the volumetric random packing density of these CMBT grains into PET matrix was 96%. That is mathematically impossible. So, the patent 'measured data' examples are physically and mathematically impossible, and Weirs sworn deposition to the contrary (necessary for filing and obtaining an issued patent) was perjury under 37CFR1.56 and 18USC1001. These observations was derogated by EEStory netizens at the time, but never factually refuted. This is a lesson worth contemplating for those who continued investing thereafter. 
During spring 2012, the new TA required third party testing. This means only one thing for Zenn, VCC. Permittivity at voltage. Since EEStor's own (and Zenn's) announcements (e.g. morphology is solved) mean that at least some layers existed at that time. This should have been done then. Weir even said, energy density is not yet what we want (which means he had test data). No one thought to (or apparently wanted to) ask, what is the present number? How far do you still have to go? Is not hard to do. It is a test of the dielectric, not necessarily of a fabricated component. Again Zenn management knew or should have known this in May 2012. The lack of subsequent result displays either astounding incompetence or more deliberate misleading of gullible investors such as many of yourselves.
Finally, we come to the perplexing patent application published 8/23/2012. The independent claims cover power electronics in association with capacitive storage. Those cannot issue as filed because of prior commercial systems such as the PSA e-HDI diesel start stop system, discussed since 2008 and in production since 2011. The patent application reflects very poor knowledge of the larger waterfront.Worse, the specification gives TCC but not VCC, when Weir knew VCC was everything. Worst, none of the independent claims cover any of the materials manufacturing methods, or the materials results. The fact of official US publication, however, means this information is now public domain prior art. That prevents subsequent patenting by EEStor or anyone else. Some of you seem to think this was clever. It was not. The only potentially commercially valuable new information in the application is Table 32, which B brought to your attention after I brought it to his. Flat TCC at very high K is potentially of interest to the entire $7 billion mlcc industry (Panasonic, Kyocera, AVX, Kemet,Vishay,...). 'Low voltage' (e.g.5V) 'consumer' electronics (e.g. smartphones, auto electronics) actually live in a temperature environment that ranges pretty widely. Cell phones in outer pockets on ski and beach vacations prove the point. High K low TCC CMBT would enable smaller chipcaps, without having to overdesign/overspecify larger and more expensive parts for this normal temperature range. That is of potential commercial interest depending on the cost of Weir's wet co-deposition CMBT materials. But the patent application has given this possibility away for free to the industry since it is shown but not claimed. Zenn could not benefit anyway, since their license is only for EESU (or ESU, depending on one's view of the flawed trademark filing posted by TV). EEStor cannot benefit since the publication has given it away for free. This says something about Weir's acumen.
I conclude where I began with you all in 2008. There is no there, there. Never was. Never will be. The fundamental physics problem was described by Feynman in Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, section 10 back in 1963. For those who don't do well with physics, B posted a layman's explanation by Prof. Cross of Penn State on 10/2/09. That is not to say that some new physics might not solve this in some system other than CMBT. But for what Weir has claimed for his materials system, impossible.
The fatal flaw in his and your thinking is the following. There are high K CMBT parts (20000 is commercial at 5V). There are high voltage CMBT parts. (3500V is commercial at much less than 1000k depending on dielectric). There are no high K, high V commercial parts because of VCC. And VCC is inherent physics. The analogy I have used since my high tech consulting days in the 1980's is the following. There are animals that eat grass (cows). There are animals that crawl (snakes). But there are no grass eating snakes. Investing in Zenn was investing in a grass eating snake. A modicum of Google level due diligence could have shown this to anyone. At this point, investing in Zenn and hoping for a 'reveal', thinking DW has something but is hiding it to protect patentability (a joke) means you all are practicing CARGO CULT Science. I refer to Feynman's Caltech commencement speech from 1974. You don't have to believe a word of this post, but at least read his address and compare yourselves to it. Readily available on line.
Finally, B knows that I will be publishing a book in the fall called Arts of Truth. One of its examples is EEStor, discussed in more detail than given here. That has to be weighing on him. He has a draft of that portion from the March version.
The book also takes on low energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which I note is another thread here. Contrary to EEStor, LENR actually does exist. It is not cold fusion. It is weak nuclear force interactions described by Widom Larsen theory, anticipated by Julius Schwinger back in 1993. But what no one yet knows is whether it is commercially scalable to useful products. My guess is yes, but has been under researched because of taint by cold fusion, and humbug hype such as E-Cat, Blacklight Power, or EEStor. Makes a nice counterpoint example.
Selling ZNN at $0.70/share still can save $0.70/share on a stock than anyone could have known was worthless in 2008. 
Better luck on your next speculative investment.

Nanocarbons sent this note to the Eestor Blogger.  

From: Rud Istvan

To: eestorblog@g;

Date: Sun, August 26, 2012 10:58:08 AM

Cc: tvillars@g;

Subject: New EEStor patent application published 8/23/12

Read it very carefully. Is an effort to couple standard power supply electronics

(e.g. voltage conversion, DC/AC) to capacitive storage (rather than to a battery

as in all conventional UPS). As such, independent claims 1 and 11 might have a

chance of issuing (but probably not, since there are equivalent EDLC engine jump

start systems already in the marketplace, as well as the new Mazda start/stop

and regen braking system). Independent claim 19 has no chance. That is not the

important part of this publication.

Figure 32 appears to actually measure surprisingly high (60000) relative

permittivity with a surprisingly stable TCC from -20C +35C. If the data are

real (always a question with EEStor), then the complex (and costly) high purity

wet coprecipitation/aluminum oxide coating method has possible significant

commercial value. Note that the CMBT grain sizes are very small (0.6-1.0 micron)

and of a uniform distribution. Note that the resulting monolithic material is

not sintered, so these high purity grains remain unchanged in the final

dielectric layers. All four features (very high K, very flat TCC, grain size,

unsintered) are novel to the best of my considerable knowledge of this field.

The value would be in better, smaller, high capacitance mlcc for ordinary 'room

temperature' consumer electronics. For example, in autos. (Of course, also

depends on relative cost versus the components used today. I have no view on


Now the bad news for the EEStory.

1. Zenn does not have any economic claim on such an application, as their

license is for automotive drive train EESU (or ESU). The patent application

discloses absolutely nothing useful about the necessary VCC. (Remember, standard

TCC testing is at 1V). So does not help Zenn or ESU goals at all.

2. Since none of the patent's independent claims are directed at the above

commercial mlcc use, protecting that independently is not now possible. The

patent publication automatically becomes prior art, and high K, high TCC mlcc

were no where independently claimed in the application. That is really bad

lawyering, or DW tunnel vision, or... I am quite sure of this legal conclusion,

since in my day job had to spend 4 years and many hundreds of thousands of $

overcoming a similar problem from an abandoned publication by our licensor (who

had published and abandoned in an effort to nullify the economic value in the

exclusive license we had purchased from them.)

So neither Zenn nor EEStor can derive any benefit from the possible technical

[high K high TCC] breakthrough that DW seems to have demonstrated using Zenn

funding. I bet that AVX, Panasonic, Kyocera, Kemet, and all the other mlcc big

boys are all over this.

And, says my and my commercial partner's investment in NanoCarbons for better

conventional EDLC for hybrid auto, UPS, and grid applications is still safe and sound. Which discloses the motivation for carefully reading the application.


Rud Istvan

Principal, NanoCarbons LLC

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Jim Kofman How About DOE For 3rd Party Verification

Jim Kofman Zenn CEO is contracting with someone well known in the capacitor world to verify eestor's technology. Having been a consultant in a past life, there is often pressure for the consultant to give the client what they want to hear. With so much money at stake, Zenn may want a general statement of verification that can be positively spun rather than specifics that experts can attack.

However, we all believe that Jim has a long term view and what Zenn needs is credibility. Outside of world eestor is viewed as a likely investment trap.

My suggestion to Jim is to use an undeniably objective third party that will verify the technology for free. Why not free because of Zenn's tight cash situation?

Who will do this work for Free? A recent conversation with Tom Hund of DOE Sandia suggests that they are still willing to test eestor's product. In fact, DOE has developed a lab influenced by their experience with eestor to prove Energy Storage technology. Here is summary of current activity

If you recall, folks at DOE were invited by eestor to a demonstration of eestor’s product. When DOE said they would be happy to test eestor’s capacitor, but they would only do it with DOE’s equipment and at the Sandia Lab, then Dick Weir stopped communicating about a demonstration. Both DOE and AFRL FOIA release's support this history.

When I proposed this idea of getting credibility from DOE to Dick, he responded that DOE knows all about eestor. Now we know that DOE doesn't know anything about eestor's actual product.

What is the connection between Lockheed and Sandia? Would Lockheed's embarrassment with the eestor deal (as reported by nanocarbon) reflect communication with Tom Hund's team at Sandia Lab?

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

What is prudent for Jim Kofman?

The recent reinvestment by the sinking Zenn Motors, has brought to light the gravitas of Jim Kofman. Clearly, there are two power centers in the Eestory (no not the cadre and its bloggers, Ypo or Haig), Dick and Jim Kofman. The timing makes sense for eestor to be running out of money. A source said eestor had two years of money in April 2010. The last few months of employees leaving and Dick selling equipment fit the “eestor needs money scenario” more than the “we are about to experience explosive growth scenario.”

Kofman is a man of great business experience. I also believe he is a man of integrity which makes the recent investment just that much more interesting. Simple explanation for the Zenn (which is facing oblivion) investment is that the investment buys Dick’s cooperation to “poo or get off the pot.” Obviously, the fact that they even needed to go to such an effort, as eestor’s primary investor, signals Dick’s evasiveness. Without the new investment would Dick have done anything to help Zenn survive?

Welcome to the wild world of internet technology vetting Jim. When presented with the skeptic side of the eestory, Jim responded, “As I said at the Shareholders' Meeting, we wouldn't have made our recent investment if we didn't think it was prudent.” I further detailed what skeptics believe and the history of Dick’s involvement with DOE and AFRL. Jim responded, “Ok thanks, I can only deliver on transparency, not technology. Hopefully the world will be much better informed on the facts in the "near term."

I think Jim understands the bright line that both believers and skeptics are drawing. Only a credible third party confirmation of fully working prototype EESUs meeting the standards, tests and claims of Patent 7466536 will confirm that the patent data has not been faked.

Does Jim live in a group think believer bubble? At least now he has read the criticism of nanocarbon and likely that of eetom. Will he realize the prudent possibility that he may have to end the eestory to protect Zenn Management from investor lawsuits? If he gets an expert report that proves there isn’t any prototype with the specifications meeting tables 5 and 6.and energy density of Patent 7466536 he must consider the possibility that Dick has faked the patent data.

Jim was given the eestor critique from Nanocarbons and the analysis circulated by DOE (FOIA 10-00297-H Document 10).
I asked him to look at the posts of Eetom. His response:


Obviously you have a very negative view of the opportunity and have chosen not to be a shareholder.  Given your background I am sure you know that with patience the truth will always emerge.  I am not going to get drawn into your discussions, but rather focus on working for the company's shareholders.  We will see what happens in the ‘near future.’


Back to Jim’s least he is open to the possibility that objective observers would conclude that Dick does not have what he claims. It will take integrity to stem the tide of groupthink reflected by even so called journalists such as Toronto greentech cheerleader Tyler Hamilton who is circularly giving credibility to eestor because of Kofman. It will take integrity to end the charade and accept some liability to avoid larger liability for Zenn management. Obviously Kofman has to rely on experts. He is not a scientist.

Why should Kofman listen to Nanocarbon, eetom, and DOE...for one good reason, because they are probably right. When he does he will see the future more clearly. Nanocarbons lists the many reasons why the eesu is not real and why he thinks the patent 7466536 table data was faked. In the 2009 presentation posted here earlier Nano points out how unlikely it is that table 5 of 7466536 were actual component measurements of relative permittivity. Actual existing BT MLCC products at various voltages show greater variance at higher voltages.

Finally, Nano has made the point of how unlikely it is that Dick and company built full 31,351 component EESU’s in 2004 when the application for patent 7466536 was submitted. Surely Jim can see this. In 2004, Dick was working out of Tom’s house at 1404 Wesson Cove, Cedar Park, TX. According to the Cedar Park Building Department Eestor executed its Certificate of Occupation in October 2005 for 715 Discovery Blvd, Building 107. This is the same month that Carl Nelson says he started working full-time at Eestor. It would not be legal for Eestor to occupy their leased space prior to submittal of the Certificate of Occupation. Dick manufactured and tested 10 complex 280 lbs. EESUs out his son’s residence. Right.
Where are the exhaust vents at 1404 Wesson Cove?

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

DOE Contact Says Eestor Underground

I spoke with a Dept. of Energy contact that works in the area of evaluating energy storage technology. He says he hasn't heard anything from Eestor for about a year.  He said he thinks, "they have gone underground."  He gave a exasperated sigh "Oh" when I asked if he had an update on the progress of Eestor. He said he didn't really want to say too much because he got into trouble for saying something before.  This is an odd statement because we never saw any mention of this person saying anything in any of the bloggers' articles about DOE. 

This is the person that was mentioned during the eestor demonstration discussion as being involved with the test scheduling.  Apparently eestor reneged on its own invitation to demonstrate its technology mid 2010 (as reported by John Boyes in  early 2011).  AFRL interpreted Dick Weir's description of the test as a demonstration of efficiency rather than energy density.

I asked the DOE contact today about energy storage for EVs and he said that he did not see any revolutionary technology emerging in the immediate future.   I asked him about whether supercaps could be the technology of the future.  He said you never know for sure, but that supercaps served a different function because of limitations on energy density.  Even though activated carbon supercaps on the market he didn't think supercap could replace batteries, standalone,  for EV applications.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Nanocarbons Gives Blogger the Truth

We know how powerful belief can be. Cultures have mass murdered civilizations because of a belief in religion. The eestore faithful hold on to their beliefs that Dick Weir is the revolutionary inventor and not an incompetent investment hack or worse a con man. They have invested in zenn and have virtually lost everything if Zenn sinks, so what else are they to do, change religion or sink with the ship?  They are lead by the blogger with his own set of self interest.

The blogger knows negative information but hides it from his faithful followers.  Blogger received an analysis from one of the eestor community’s strongest capacitor experts. Nanocarbon Rud has given the blogger his technical analysis of eestore. The blogger has chosen to hide it.  It is a clear condemnation of eestor’s technology and explains why the patents were not drawn from measurements.

Nanocarbon reasserted, via email, the truth of his contact from Lockheed Martin, saying that the blogger’s mob could ruin the guy’s career for being honest about Lockheed’s embarrassment with their eestor contract.  Nanocarbon pointed out to the blogger that his own technology will be in production in Europe this summer.

Why does the blogger hide this information? Is it because like eestor he will profit from the mystery if it continues.    When the story is about deception and exaggerated claims then the blogger will appear as part of the problem.         

Another odd example of selective awarenes, has been the amount of evidence pointing to the probability that eestor has failed.  Why would eestor not allow DOE with John Boyes and Tom Hund to test the magic capacitor?  DOE is willing to certify an energy storage winner if they can find one. They are testing RedFlow’s 10kw/h flow battery.  Eestor refused to allow DOE to test their storage device.  A DOE certification of eestor would provide creditability which is more important at this point then any secret youtube interviews cooked up with the blogger.  

Eestor backs out of its own invitation because?

The cadre ignore the evidence. Electrical Engineer Alex Bernstein was putting together the test unit electronics.  He no longer works at eestor.  He is the last person to make a statement about what went on inside of Eestor.   Bernstein states from the inside of eestor, "just at know chillen...counting 0's the norm ha!!"  He has nothing to do because there is no working product to test.   Of course blogger did not write a blog post on Bernstein’s quote.  The info does not match blogger’s public relations strategy.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Sandia Says They are Done with Eestor

Wonder why Sandia has no more Email about Eestor after September 2010? They stop mentioning Eestor in email. For example, I spoke with Ross (subject of the recently closed Sandia FOIA request) in April 2011. Here is what he said to me in response:


Fred called me and requested an interview but I sent him to you.


I manage the stationary energy storage program… not the vehicle energy storage program. The battery chemistry’s, cycling requirements, and cost targets are different. Stationary storage deals with managing electric power grid applications. Given this, you may not want to talk with me. The primary labs responsible for development of energy vehicle storage are Argonne National Lab or Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (I don’t have any contacts for you).

You can also reach Stephanie Holinka at_________.



Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Dick Weir's Last Interview Back Online

The eestor community has never gotten to the bottom of the mystery surrounding Dick Weir's last interview.  It is back online.

Watch this video.  Could the author of the two videos be the same? Both authors have a love of periods.