TheEEStory.com

CapMan...

wasn't parts per trillion for the coating?

By using organic TMA, it doesn't bring metals (and it says so in the patent). There's also no reason to think the chemical is not recycled. The only limitation on how dirty the constituents are, is how fast the filtration fails. You end up with a tradeoff between the quality of feedstock and filter replacement/backwashing. That's where the real expense is. Downtime and hardware.

8.5 pH is not going to take much TMA either and since that is reused, they seem to hint that pH control is via HNO3 injection which (surprise) getters metals nicely and actually renews the TMA. It precipitates from the barium nitrate impurities AND any metals it might bring with it.

Besides, stage three is where the real meat is here and you know it. Anyone else find it ironic that kerosene is used to manufacture a device that will help substantially reduce petroleum consumption? Third stage processes are also using recycled chemicals.

Zoom out from oxidation state numbers, and material compatibilities for a minute and consider this for what it is. The impurities are concentrated in solids and filtered out. In terms of chemical use, this is a very mass efficient manner in which to produce a chemical of high purity. I think the most expensive part of this process is going to be the filters and the downtime for replacement and periodic backwashing.

I have 15 years direct experience in semiconductor wet chemistry equipment and process. The product for my experience is a solid instead of liquid so I understand the major differences in terms of material handling. I know there are limitations to my understanding but I also see how this is unique and non-obvious.

Eenigma wrote:

...perhaps they wanted to patent a process so in the future they can make their own at a greatly reduced cost vs. buying it from someone else.

Maybe, that would be consistant with their other two chemical process patents.

EEventually wrote:

CapMan...

wasn't parts per trillion for the coating?

By using organic TMA, it doesn't bring metals (and it says so in the patent). There's also no reason to think the chemical is not recycled. The only limitation on how dirty the constituents are, is how fast the filtration fails. You end up with a tradeoff between the quality of feedstock and filter replacement/backwashing. That's where the real expense is. Downtime and hardware.

8.5 pH is not going to take much TMA either and since that is reused, they seem to hint that pH control is via HNO3 injection which (surprise) getters metals nicely and actually renews the TMA. It precipitates from the barium nitrate impurities AND any metals it might bring with it.

Besides, stage three is where the real meat is here and you know it. Anyone else find it ironic that kerosene is used to manufacture a device that will help substantially reduce petroleum consumption? Third stage processes are also using recycled chemicals.

Zoom out from oxidation state numbers, and material compatibilities for a minute and consider this for what it is. The impurities are concentrated in solids and filtered out. In terms of chemical use, this is a very mass efficient manner in which to produce a chemical of high purity. I think the most expensive part of this process is going to be the filters and the downtime for replacement and periodic backwashing.

I have 15 years direct experience in semiconductor wet chemistry equipment and process. The product for my experience is a solid instead of liquid so I understand the major differences in terms of material handling. I know there are limitations to my understanding but I also see how this is unique and non-obvious.

EEV,

Thanks for the clarification. So much FUD on this topic it is getting increasingly difficult to seek out fact.

Nice work.

No matter how expensive 99.999% BN is, why wouldn't they just buy this very common chemical, and get on with what they do best, make the EESU or at least the BT?

Because what they do best is not completely about making the EESU. It is about making the EESU for $100/kWh. You can get the purity of BT needed on films by using MBE but imagine how much that would cost.

EEventually wrote:

CapMan...

wasn't parts per trillion for the coating?

By using organic TMA, it doesn't bring metals (and it says so in the patent). There's also no reason to think the chemical is not recycled. The only limitation on how dirty the constituents are, is how fast the filtration fails. You end up with a tradeoff between the quality of feedstock and filter replacement/backwashing. That's where the real expense is. Downtime and hardware.

8.5 pH is not going to take much TMA either and since that is reused, they seem to hint that pH control is via HNO3 injection which (surprise) getters metals nicely and actually renews the TMA. It precipitates from the barium nitrate impurities AND any metals it might bring with it.

Besides, stage three is where the real meat is here and you know it. Anyone else find it ironic that kerosene is used to manufacture a device that will help substantially reduce petroleum consumption? Third stage processes are also using recycled chemicals.

Zoom out from oxidation state numbers, and material compatibilities for a minute and consider this for what it is. The impurities are concentrated in solids and filtered out. In terms of chemical use, this is a very mass efficient manner in which to produce a chemical of high purity. I think the most expensive part of this process is going to be the filters and the downtime for replacement and periodic backwashing.

I have 15 years direct experience in semiconductor wet chemistry equipment and process. The product for my experience is a solid instead of liquid so I understand the major differences in terms of material handling. I know there are limitations to my understanding but I also see how this is unique and non-obvious.

Finally, a chemist! ;)

Those are very good points, but what do you think about processing nitrates like that, and can you comment on the scaling up of the process in the patent?

Yeah EE, I commented in another thread that "Tec would be happy because the petroleum industry is saved since EEStor is using kerosenes". ;)

Scaling up stage three is tricky since it involves counter-rotating fluids. The available volume for the reaction depends on column diameter and the ability to control the two fluids. I'm pretty sure it has to be laminar to get that "cylinder of calm" at the boundary of the fluids so a multiple of cylinders may be needed since you want a lot of this boundary per unit volume of stage three chemistry. The length of the cylinder is limited by your ability to control the rotation of the inner fluid. A multiple column arrangment may be needed unless this is the targeted bottleneck. This is especially problematic because they are using FTIR to endpoint. Multiple columns means either multiple FTIR lasers or a really kickass (and dimensionally perfect) robot to move the sensor from column to column. With that in mind, it's possible that they are intentionally going to use the third stage purification column as the bottleneck that establishes the module throughput. You always want the bottleneck to exist at the most expensive part of the overall process. I'd love to spend an afternoon poking around the powder prep module. It's fascinating.

CapacitorMan wrote:

Eenigma wrote:

...perhaps they wanted to patent a process so in the future they can make their own at a greatly reduced cost vs. buying it from someone else.

Maybe, that would be consistant with their other two chemical process patents.

Thanks Capman,

It seems you, EEV and myself feel it is more than possible that what EEStor is really doing is trying to control future costs.

By the way, we have another supplier to add to the list of potentials...

http://www.liquid-extraction.com/karr-column.htm

In this, it's not counter-rotating fluids like I said before. I was thinking a Scheibel column. The scaling on this is still limited by instrumentation, IMO.

Some questions got raised about claimed purity levels. Here is the relevant section from the 2008 press release.

...
The purification of the EEStor, Inc. chemicals has been certified by the same chemical analysis company [Southwest Research Institute, Inc.] as EEStor's press release dated January 17, 2007 and now indicates that EEStor has improved its chemical purity to the parts-per-billion range. The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.
...

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857762&EDATE=

I checked for Barium Nitrate pricing and found American Elements is selling 99.999% Barium Nitrate Solution but no price is given. I have an email into them but haven't had much luck lately with vendors responding to my inquiries.

tvillars wrote:

Some questions got raised about claimed purity levels. Here is the relevant section from the 2008 press release.

...
The purification of the EEStor, Inc. chemicals has been certified by the same chemical analysis company [Southwest Research Institute, Inc.] as EEStor's press release dated January 17, 2007 and now indicates that EEStor has improved its chemical purity to the parts-per-billion range. The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.
...

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857762&EDATE=

I checked for Barium Nitrate pricing and found American Elements is selling 99.999% Barium Nitrate Solution but no price is given. I have an email into them but haven't had much luck lately with vendors responding to my inquiries.

EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15 kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles.

If it helps, I have an account with Sigma-Aldrich. I can get pricing for a customer like a university on any chemical they sell.

For example: "barium nitrate 99.999% trace metals basis (Aldrich)" is $69.70 CDN for 25g and $205.50 for 100g. This includes a substantial discount for the university I work at.

Nice find TV,

The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.

How is oakthicket going to wiggle out this?

Oakthicket wrote:

CapacitorMan wrote:

And speaking of purity. Someone has been tossing around that the impurities are in the "parts per billion" range.

For the first milestone, and the only verified purity level, didn't they claim 99.9996%, which is 4 parts per million?

Weir said parts per *trillion* impurities in the leaked interview. I laughed long and hard when I heard that. He's a snakeoil salesman extraordinaire.

Going to name call to squirm your way out of this? Good luck.

Heh. You sure are clutching at straws Forum Clown. There's nothing to wiggle out of. DW said parts per trillion impurities. If you listen, you will too.

If you want to believe the certification of coating impurities in the parts per trillion range, be my guest. I don't. I also don't believe that the EESU works as claimed. Imagine that!

But if you want me to concede that the ppt is possible, I'll do that, if only to avoid lengthy technical discussions on coatings. I avoid technical discussions with Google hexperts.

Last edited Sat, 23 Jan 2010, 8:35pm by Oakthicket

that just means that 3rd party verification is not enough evidence for you. It indicates your rational approach. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.

Last edited Sun, 24 Jan 2010, 2:56am by Y_Po

tvillars wrote:

Some questions got raised about claimed purity levels. Here is the relevant section from the 2008 press release.

...
The purification of the EEStor, Inc. chemicals has been certified by the same chemical analysis company [Southwest Research Institute, Inc.] as EEStor's press release dated January 17, 2007 and now indicates that EEStor has improved its chemical purity to the parts-per-billion range. The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.
...

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-29-2008/0004857762&EDATE=

I checked for Barium Nitrate pricing and found American Elements is selling 99.999% Barium Nitrate Solution but no price is given. I have an email into them but haven't had much luck lately with vendors responding to my inquiries.

I thought that Capman said he could walk down the hall and get some .... seems to be taking a long time to get supplier and pricing for this 'common' material.

I am certain that this is just oversight by capman and he will post this 'easy' to access information that from his post I think must be available even in chain stores ... it being so common and easy to do ....

Mark

Y_Po wrote:

The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.

Call me a skeptic but I call it BS.

Why do you deliberatly do this ? You obviously have intelligence but are you trying to say that the testing company has lied ? or that its not possible to get Al203 in ppt impuities ? or are saying that DW and friends are aliens taking over the bodies of key people like IC and the tester in a cunning plan to .. to .. ahhhhhh!

Mark

Mark wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.

Call me a skeptic but I call it BS.

Why do you deliberatly do this ? You obviously have intelligence but are you trying to say that the testing company has lied ? or that its not possible to get Al203 in ppt impuities ? or are saying that DW and friends are aliens taking over the bodies of key people like IC and the tester in a cunning plan to .. to .. ahhhhhh!

Mark

and one more thing, high purity will not help him to achieve claimed ED.

Last edited Sun, 24 Jan 2010, 4:19am by Y_Po

Y_Po wrote:

I am skeptical ppt levels can me measured, certainly not on random sample and by ordinary means.
And as far as I can tell nobody except Weir claimed it. And we all know that Mr. Weir likes to "exaggerate".
In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.


and one more thing, high purity will not help him to achieve claimed ED.

I'm sorry ... you can't measure in random samples... WTF ?

The testing consisted of the production line running and the tester taking samples from the production line.

You call BS on who ? The testing lab ?

I call BS on your idiotic statement that purity won't help ED. Caps fail from oxidation and impurities/imperfections that lead to .... breakdown. Higher purity will raise the ED before failure at least for impurities and I would also thing imperfections to some degree.

The tests are done the Barium nitrate and chelate/oxolate are proven in actual production line tests. As usual your tempts to re-write history are re-buffed. EEstor have proven results for chemical purity from the production line. EEStor have delivered everything they hve promised up to this point (delivery of an EESU) and the ip they have generated is extremly valuable.

If you have some valid points to raise do it, and please don't make a sweeping statement then call every one an idiot and depart.

Mark

Mark wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

I am skeptical ppt levels can me measured, certainly not on random sample and by ordinary means.
And as far as I can tell nobody except Weir claimed it. And we all know that Mr. Weir likes to "exaggerate".
In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.


and one more thing, high purity will not help him to achieve claimed ED.

I'm sorry ... you can't measure in random samples... WTF ?

The testing consisted of the production line running and the tester taking samples from the production line.

You call BS on who ? The testing lab ?

I call BS on your idiotic statement that purity won't help ED. Caps fail from oxidation and impurities/imperfections that lead to .... breakdown.

Higher purity will raise the ED before failure at least for impurities and I would also thing imperfections to some degree.

The tests are done the Barium nitrate and chelate/oxolate are proven in actual production line tests. As usual your tempts to re-write history are re-buffed. EEstor have proven results for chemical purity from the production line. EEStor have delivered everything they hve promised up to this point (delivery of an EESU) and the ip they have generated is extremly valuable.

If you have some valid points to raise do it, and please don't make a sweeping statement then call every one an idiot and depart.

Right so you know more thn Golla and TR-I.

Please show off your gargantuan intelect by ... say telling us why you think the tests are 'bs' ?

You think what ... they can't test to ppb? or you think that there is a conspirasy ... 0_o

Mark

I think Weir is a liar, at the very least he uses artful exaggerations.

Yes ok... but what about Golla and TR-I why would they lie for Weir ?

Perhaps you could reference a study on say ... the imposibility of finding impurities in the ppm/ppb range.

Perhaps Weir isn't a liar... perhaps someone else is ... hmmm

Mark wrote:

Yes ok... but what about Golla and TR-I why would they lie for Weir ?

Perhaps you could reference a study on say ... the imposibility of finding impurities in the ppm/ppb range.

Perhaps Weir isn't a liar... perhaps someone else is ... hmmm

You have Golla saying parts per trillion?

Y_Po wrote:

Mark wrote:

Yes ok... but what about Golla and TR-I why would they lie for Weir ?

Perhaps you could reference a study on say ... the imposibility of finding impurities in the ppm/ppb range.

Perhaps Weir isn't a liar... perhaps someone else is ... hmmm

You have Golla saying parts per trillion?

The purification of the EEStor, Inc. chemicals has been certified by
the same chemical analysis company as EEStor's press release dated January
17, 2007 and now indicates that EEStor has improved its chemical purity to
the parts-per-billion range. The aluminum oxide particle coating material
purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level.

http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?A.../www/story/07-29-2008/0004857762&EDATE=

It's a public statement.

cmbt ppb Al203 ppt

good work eh

Mark

That's from Weir's PR.

It's certified by Golla and was accepted by Zenn... so is it a conspircy or is it real ?

They seem to have a trail of patents from Barium to EESU all supported with tests and a production line. I don't know if a packaged EESu will work because apparently ... one hasn't appeared yet. What I do kno is theyhave produced extra-ordinary chemicals and produced patents to protect them. #rd parties have certified the purity and particle size from a production line.

So
Who's the liar

0_o

Mark

it triggered a payment fron zenn so fraud on the part of Golla is what you are saying.

That's from Weir's PR.