TheEEStory.com

http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat7595109.pdf

Compared with the 2 previously issued US patents, the main claims are very broad! this patent is a lot more valuable to EESTOR!

1st Main claim: "1. An article of manufacture comprising: first and second electrodes; and a dielectric layer located between the first and second electrodes, the dielectric layer including high-permittivity ceramic powder particles coated with a first layer of high dielectric breakdown material and isostatically pressed together, wherein the first layer of high dielectric breakdown material comprises material different from the high-permittivity ceramic powder particles, wherein the high-permittivity ceramic powder particles comprise composition-modified barium titanate, wherein the first layer of high dielectric breakdown material comprises alumina."

2nd main claim: "15. A capacitor comprising: first and second electrodes; and a dielectric layer located between the first and second electrodes, the dielectric layer including high-permittivity ceramic powder particles coated with a first layer of high dielectric breakdown material and isostatically pressed together, wherein the first layer of high dielectric breakdown material comprises material different from the high-permittivity ceramic powder particles, wherein the high-permittivity ceramic powder particles comprise composition-modified barium titanate, wherein the first layer of high dielectric breakdown material comprises alumina."

Last edited Tue, 29 Sep 2009, 10:42am by NewScience

This patent (already discussed I think) encapsulates the core of the mystery:

Weird patent wrote:

Assumptions:

The relative permittivity of the high-permittivity powder is nominally 33,500, as given in the reference: P. Hansen, U.S. Pat. No. 6,078,494, issued Jan. 20, 2000.

The 100 .ANG. coating of Al.sub.2O.sub.3 and 100 .ANG. of calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass will reduce the relative permittivity by 12%. K=29,480

Energy stored by a capacitor: E=CV.sup.2/(2.times.3600 s/h)=Wh C=capacitance in farads V=voltage across the terminals of the capacitor.

And, shortly after...

From the above description, it will be apparent that the invention disclosed herein provides a novel and advantageous electrical-energy-storage unit composed of unique materials and processes.

Given that the assumption on which all rests is nowhere justified by the patent, and considered "by those skilled in the art" to be untrue, it is not apparent!

But what do I know? DanielAP will say (and I defer to his judgement) that the technical merit of this patent is irrelevant...

Best wishes, Tom

He writes patents at night :)

Do you guys (believers) realize that if Weir is right then Hansen is a moron?

He had it in 2000 but for some reasons decided not to patent it.

BTW, what is exactly new in this patent?

Not new exactly, since used by others, but different from Hansen.

The alumina & glass coating.

Best wishes, Tom

ee-tom wrote:

Not new exactly, since used by others, but different from Hansen.

The alumina & glass coating.

Best wishes, Tom

Y_Po wrote:

ee-tom wrote:

Not new exactly, since used by others, but different from Hansen.

The alumina & glass coating.

Best wishes, Tom

I meant new compared to previous Weird patents.
:)

The "secret sauce" is plainly revealed here, as before. It is the clever assumption. No new. :)

Interesting to me at least that the first to post are eeTom and Y_Po. How does that poem go? "Not with a bang, but a wimper."

This is yet another nail in the coffin of denial.

Its not a bang OR a wimper. I think you'll find its a whimper.

devotEE wrote:

Interesting to me at least that the first to post are eeTom and Y_Po. How does that poem go? "Not with a bang, but a wimper."

This is yet another nail in the coffin of denial.

Y_PO quoted out of context: "Weir is right"

Did this patent really issue? I still only see 2 patents for EEStor which would make it:

EEStor 2
Y_Po 0

Most of the questions asked above have been already answered in the following thread:

http://theeestory.com/topics/3202?page=2#p60966

The patent claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,595,109 are very good claims for Eestor, especially if you believe that coating the CMBT with alumina is important for the energy storage properties they are reporting. There is nothing controversial here IP-wise.

If you want to consider a story that is not so straightforward, check out the intellectual property situation that A123 has found itself in.

eestorblog wrote:

Did this patent really issue? I still only see 2 patents for EEStor which would make it:

EEStor 2
Y_Po 0

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

danielapearson wrote:

Most of the questions asked above have been already answered in the following thread:

http://theeestory.com/topics/3202?page=2#p60966

The patent claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,595,109 are very good claims for Eestor, especially if you believe that coating the CMBT with alumina is important for the energy storage properties they are reporting. There is nothing controversial here IP-wise.

If you want to consider a story that is not so straightforward, check out the intellectual property situation that A123 has found itself in.

Daniel - I don't question that. However the "energy-storage properties they are reporting" are NOT what Eestor need for the EESU. In fact no advance in energy storage can be determined from this patent - the E = 1/2CV^2 assumption is known to be untrue.

That is a serious gap, not for the IP, but because the patents are the only information we have about eestor's invention.

Best wishes, Tom

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

Last edited Tue, 29 Sep 2009, 8:37am by Y_Po

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

I thought he had WIPO patent

My understanding is the WIPO doesn't approve patents but is merely a data repository for cross referencing patents from gov't agencies that do issue patents and handle enforcement. Rolf has 2 listings on the WIPO.

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

I thought he had WIPO patent

My understanding is the WIPO doesn't approve patents but is merely a data repository for cross referencing patents from gov't agencies that do issue patents and handle enforcement. Rolf has 2 listings on the WIPO.

That at least must mean that he has 2 patents somewhere.

Therefore:
Number of stupid patents:
1. EEStor 3
2. Rolf 2
3. Y_Po 0

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

I thought he had WIPO patent

My understanding is the WIPO doesn't approve patents but is merely a data repository for cross referencing patents from gov't agencies that do issue patents and handle enforcement. Rolf has 2 listings on the WIPO.

That at least must mean that he has 2 patents somewhere.

Therefore:
Number of stupid patents:
1. EEStor 3
2. Rolf 2
3. Y_Po 0

For more illustrative comparison purposes, a system could be devised which awards a point for either a patent or a job. The count might look like this:

EEStor 25
Rolf 3
Y_Po 0

:-)

Y_Po wrote:

That at least must mean that he has 2 patents somewhere.

Therefore:
Number of stupid patents:
1. EEStor 3
2. Rolf 2
3. Y_Po 0

Does that mean you're not stupid enough? :)

David Joslin

tvillars wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

tvillars
Can you find out how many patents Rolf has?

Rolf Eisenring currently has 0 patents and 3 patent applications one of which is a divisional application.

What about James Dyson? He must write patents at night too.

Congratulations EEStor!
Another *PATENT* in hand!

Only ~15? more to go.

ee-tom wrote:

...the E = 1/2CV^2 assumption is known to be untrue....

i've seen this in your sig for a while but i haven't seen where/how the formula was proven untrue.

i always figured your problem with the formula was that C reduced with increasing V. not that the formula ITSELF was wrong.

capacitance (C) is defined by the the charge (Q) divided by the voltage (V). 1 farad = 1 coulomb/1 volt.

E = 1/2CV^2 is derived as an Integral of the work done to charge the capacitor.

what is it that you are saying is untrue? the definition, the calculus or the way people use the formula?

Last edited Tue, 29 Sep 2009, 11:04am by LXicon

For one thing, you can't just keep increasing voltage forever...

2320 components per 52kWh. Now were talking!

Anyone care to comment on the reduced voltage breakdown? Instead of the minimum 500 V/um, this patent claims breakdown voltage from 100 V/um to 500 V/um. So even if the material were to work as they claim and not saturate, the energy density could be as low as 8% of the 52 kWh number assuming ¹/₂CV². Unless we now assume capacitance increases with voltage.

LXicon wrote:

what is it that you are saying is untrue? the definition, the calculus or the way people use the formula?

LXicon wrote:

ee-tom wrote:

...the E = 1/2CV^2 assumption is known to be untrue....

i've seen this in your sig for a while but i haven't seen where/how the formula was proven untrue.

i always figured your problem with the formula was that C reduced with increasing V. not that the formula ITSELF was wrong.

capacitance (C) is defined by the the charge (Q) divided by the voltage (V). 1 farad = 1 coulomb/1 volt.

E = 1/2CV^2 is derived as an Integral of the work done to charge the capacitor.

what is it that you are saying is untrue? the definition, the calculus or the way people use the formula?

The assumption that C is constant independent of V is untrue. While I agree the euqation could be Ok if you make C a variable, in the context that it is used in the patent (from which I quote) it is generally accepted as untrue. The patent assumes C is constant.

EEventually wrote:

2320 components per 52kWh. Now were talking!

Thus the 2320 components of that "embodiment".

NOT the case, with the Aluminum / PET patent.
31,351 components, in that case.