"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.
Regards
NanoCarbons"
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
that.)
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.
Regards
Rud Istvan
Principal, NanoCarbons LLC
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
that.)
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.
Regards
Rud Istvan
Principal, NanoCarbons LLC
