TheEEStory.com

Much has been made of the tabulated data in Eestor’s patents. NanoCarbons compare the Eestor patents to those of Blacklight Power. See http://www.theeestory.com/posts/32210. This comparison is not an apt one since Blacklight Power did not describe the manufacture of anything in their patents and the data (and theories) found therein were based on measurements of physical phenomena. This is in contrast to the Eestor patents, where something was built and subsequently measured. For example, see the priority document for U.S. Patent No. 7,466,536: http://theeestory.com/files/05812758.0.pdf.

It has been implied that the tabulated data in the Eestor patents are made up. See http://www.theeestory.com/topics/1903?page=1#p2.... I have argued that it is rare for data to be falsified in a patent application. I have now checked with three senior patent attorneys and not one of them or I can come up with a single example of fraudulent data in a patent. It has also been argued that the Eestor data are too consistent. Doing a statistical analysis of the data, I have come up with the following:

For the 10 measurements of single-coated CMBT at 85C: sample variance = 733.6; standard deviation = 27.1.
For the measurements of 10 components at 85C: sample variance = 209.3; standard deviation = 14.5.
For the measurements of 10 components at 85C - 3500V: sample variance = 182.2; standard deviation = 13.6.
For the measurements of 10 components at 85C - 5000V: sample variance = 176.3; standard deviation = 13.3.

The results of this statistical analysis are curious to me. The numbers get tighter for the manufactured components over those obtained for the alumina-coated CMBT. I would expect, a priori, that the variance would be greater for the components over that found for the material. The difference is that another substance has been added during the manufacture of the Eestor components – polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Furthermore, under the assumption that the tests proceeded from low voltage testing of components at 85C to testing at increasing voltages, the variances get smaller with continued testing. I would also expect, a priori, the variances to increase when the dielectric is put under the stress of increasing voltage. Instead, the inverse appears to be true. Could having PET as a component of the dielectric account for this as well?

Not much has been made of the fact that PET may be in integral component of the Eestor dielectric. When accounted for, it is usually in a subtractive fashion when calculating permittivity. When put to the blog whether or not it is known if others have experimented with a similar composition, the answer appears to be no. See the responses to the following post: http://www.theeestory.com/posts/32191.

I again make the case that the statement “Many other groups have studied dielectrics very similar to that proposed by Eestor, and have found technological limits to performance” misses the mark. It appears to me that nobody has published results of studies on material similar to that of being used by Eestor. Until this is done, I would not be too hasty in drawing conclusions about the Eestor technology. It could well be that they have something. It could also be the case that they recognized this back in 2001-2002 and have been snapping up the intellectual property rights to technology that relates to CMBT in a polymer matrix since then. Oops, one more reason for keeping things on the QT.