TheEEStory.com

Oakthicket wrote:

As far as I know, only Weir is making these purity claims. "Weir said" has no credibility for me.

Are you really saying that you don't know EEStor's powders have been third-party certified for purity?

wow Oak-Thick-et appropriate name.

Mark

they're just setting up to toss off upcoming ED certs.

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

As far as I know, only Weir is making these purity claims. "Weir said" has no credibility for me.

Are you really saying that you don't know EEStor's powders have been third-party certified for purity?

I'm saying that I'm skeptical of everything that comes out of Weir's mouth. Even if Weir uses the royal third party *we*, the purity information is only coming from one source.

I'm sure there's no money to be had but it would be nice to see a judgement hung on these trolls for slander.

Oakthicket wrote:

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

As far as I know, only Weir is making these purity claims. "Weir said" has no credibility for me.

Are you really saying that you don't know EEStor's powders have been third-party certified for purity?

I'm saying that I'm skeptical of everything that comes out of Weir's mouth. Even if Weir uses the royal third party *we*, the purity information is only coming from one source.

No, it's coming from at least two sources. Weir, and the company that was employed to perform independent third-party testing for purity (within which organisation, more than one person may have double checked the results).

If independent third-party testing and certification - by respectable companies with big reputations and oodles of experience in the field - is not enough for you, then you may as well find a hole in some sand somewhere and put your head in it.

Actually 3 sources as Zenn is releasing it as material.

Every revelation makes scam more and more unlikly but still unfounded bashing of Weir continues.

Weir is the anti-christ... burn the weir burn the weir.

what is everyone afraid of ?

Mark

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Y_Po wrote:

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

You're probably right. For the cost of purifying and making sure that the alumina coating is an exact thickness, they could have replaced their aluminum electrodes with gold. Actually, that's my current fraud theory. Whilst making the world think they were making EESUs with aluminum electrodes, they have really been stockpiling gold. Once the cat is out of the bag that EESUs don't work, nobody will really care enough about them to look for the treasure buried inside.

See, once again, all you have to do is follow the money. (-:

yes ok

ihaveno@spaceballs.com

oops

um

fixxed now

mark

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Purity can't be that important. That's why Eestor sent their material to this mom-and-pop operation - Southwest Research Institute

Y_Po wrote:

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

You're probably right. For the cost of purifying and making sure that the alumina coating is an exact thickness, they could have replaced their aluminum electrodes with gold. Actually, that's my current fraud theory. Whilst making the world think they were making EESUs with aluminum electrodes, they have really been stockpiling gold. Once the cat is out of the bag that EESUs don't work, nobody will really care enough about them to look for the treasure buried inside.

See, once again, all you have to do is follow the money. (-:

interesting how "follow the money" works really well - until it does not (South Sea Bubble etc).

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

You are missing a lot of things, in addition to salient facts. Not least the inclination to use Google, or trawl through either bariumtitanate.blogspot.com or theeestory's archives.

Try knowing what you're talking about before you post rubbish. This may mean you have to do some research all by yourself.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-...

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Purity can't be that important. That's why Eestor sent their material to this mom-and-pop operation - Southwest Research Institute

ee-tom wrote:

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Purity can't be that important. That's why Eestor sent their material to this mom-and-pop operation - Southwest Research Institute

Y_Po wrote:

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

You're probably right. For the cost of purifying and making sure that the alumina coating is an exact thickness, they could have replaced their aluminum electrodes with gold. Actually, that's my current fraud theory. Whilst making the world think they were making EESUs with aluminum electrodes, they have really been stockpiling gold. Once the cat is out of the bag that EESUs don't work, nobody will really care enough about them to look for the treasure buried inside.

See, once again, all you have to do is follow the money. (-:

interesting how "follow the money" works really well - until it does not (South Sea Bubble etc).

So Tom, do you have any ideas why Eestor requires super-duper puriss alumina and why that alumina has to coat the CMBT with an exact thickness? You seem to have some EE expertise. How would each of these factors improve the dielectric's insulating properties?

Y_Po wrote:

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Purity can't be that important. That's why Eestor sent their material to this mom-and-pop operation - Southwest Research Institute

Is it so hard to understand that I don't care what EEStor say or do?

It must be that you really care a lot about the rest of your fellow forum participants. You know, those people you call all sorts of endearing names.

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

DAP wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

In any case, I doubt very much that "certification" involved any actual purity measurement.

Purity can't be that important. That's why Eestor sent their material to this mom-and-pop operation - Southwest Research Institute

Is it so hard to understand that I don't care what EEStor say or do?

Then why do you spend so much time here???

It must be that you really care a lot about the rest of your fellow forum participants. You know, those people you call all sorts of endearing names.

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

You are missing a lot of things, in addition to salient facts. Not least the inclination to use Google, or trawl through either bariumtitanate.blogspot.com or theeestory's archives.

Try knowing what you're talking about before you post rubbish. This may mean you have to do some research all by yourself.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-...

Yeah. I saw that already. I asked for third-party links and you give me the same old Weir bullshit. You linked an EEStor press release.

I'll ask again. Please link THIRD-PARTY information. I hope I've made myself clear this time.

Please read before you post rubbish.

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.

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.

Oakthicket wrote:

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.

Oakthicket,
I'm clutching at straws.....AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

You reacted exactly as I said.

I point out that you made a major mistake when you laughed and called DW a snake oil salesman for claiming purity in parts per trillion. You reaction is to call me the forum clown. You know nothing of this story and you are here only trash forum members and the key players at Zenn and Eestor.

I predicted you would squirm and name call when I brought the 3rd party verification of purity in parts per trillion that TV brought forward to the attention of your post where you laughed at DW.

You are the laughable ass of this forum without a doubt. Squirm squirm wriggle wriggle out of this.
No worries AD2 The troll is busted again.

Oakthicket wrote:

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

You are missing a lot of things, in addition to salient facts. Not least the inclination to use Google, or trawl through either bariumtitanate.blogspot.com or theeestory's archives.

Try knowing what you're talking about before you post rubbish. This may mean you have to do some research all by yourself.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-...

Yeah. I saw that already. I asked for third-party links and you give me the same old Weir bullshit. You linked an EEStor press release.

I'll ask again. Please link THIRD-PARTY information. I hope I've made myself clear this time.

Please read before you post rubbish.

From the press release:

In addition, EEStor, Inc. has completed the initial milestone of certifying purification, concentration, and stability of all of its key production chemicals notably the attainment of 99.9994% purity of its barium nitrate powder.

The independent 3rd party chemical analysis was completed by Southwest Research Institute, Inc. located in San Antonio, Texas under contract with EEStor, Inc.

Sure seems like AD2 answered your question, Oak.

Oakthicket wrote:

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

You are missing a lot of things, in addition to salient facts. Not least the inclination to use Google, or trawl through either bariumtitanate.blogspot.com or theeestory's archives.

Try knowing what you're talking about before you post rubbish. This may mean you have to do some research all by yourself.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-...

Yeah. I saw that already. I asked for third-party links and you give me the same old Weir bullshit. You linked an EEStor press release.

I'll ask again. Please link THIRD-PARTY information. I hope I've made myself clear this time.

Please read before you post rubbish.

Now you're just making an idiot of yourself.

If you don't believe what is in the press release, pull your finger out of your fat, lazy arse and use it to make a telephone call to the Southwest Research Institute.

Then check it for yourself.

Hiya Forum Clown

You really need to improve the insults. You're disappointing me.

There is no third party verification that anyone has been able to show, but I'll let you have a crack as well. Show me THIRD-PARTY verification. I don't mean EEStor saying what someone else said or did. Weir is a snakeoil salesman.

Does your pea-brain finally grasp the issue? Somehow I doubt it, but please prove me wrong.

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello AD2

Maybe I'm missing something. Please link where the company employed for third-party testing confirms the purity claims.

You are missing a lot of things, in addition to salient facts. Not least the inclination to use Google, or trawl through either bariumtitanate.blogspot.com or theeestory's archives.

Try knowing what you're talking about before you post rubbish. This may mean you have to do some research all by yourself.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-...

Yeah. I saw that already. I asked for third-party links and you give me the same old Weir bullshit. You linked an EEStor press release.

I'll ask again. Please link THIRD-PARTY information. I hope I've made myself clear this time.

Please read before you post rubbish.

Now you're just making an idiot of yourself.

If you don't believe what is in the press release, pull your finger out of your fat, lazy arse and use it to make a telephone call to the Southwest Research Institute.

Then check it for yourself.

Ahh... I see. You admit that there is no THIRD-PARTY information and you want *me* to get it. So you were flapping your gums, tossing out insults and behaving like a yammering pismire.

Let me know when you get THIRD-PARTY confirmation.

Oakthicket wrote:

Hiya Forum Clown

You really need to improve the insults. You're disappointing me.

There is no third party verification that anyone has been able to show, but I'll let you have a crack as well. Show me THIRD-PARTY verification. I don't mean EEStor saying what someone else said or did. Weir is a snakeoil salesman.

Does your pea-brain finally grasp the issue? Somehow I doubt it, but please prove me wrong.

So what you are saying is that Weir just made up the fact that SRI tested their stuff? And all parties involved were complicit with this? OK. That is believable. Got it. Wow.

Oakthicket wrote:

Ahh... I see. You admit that there is no THIRD-PARTY information and you want *me* to get it. So you were flapping your gums, tossing out insults and behaving like a yammering pismire.

Let me know when you get THIRD-PARTY confirmation.

Thanks Oakthicket. I won't waste my time any further.

EEnigma, take note.

Oakthicket wrote:

Hiya Forum Clown

You really need to improve the insults. You're disappointing me.

There is no third party verification that anyone has been able to show, but I'll let you have a crack as well. Show me THIRD-PARTY verification. I don't mean EEStor saying what someone else said or did. Weir is a snakeoil salesman.

Does your pea-brain finally grasp the issue? Somehow I doubt it, but please prove me wrong.

Squirm squirm wriggle wriggle

All I hear is the bells on your troll shoes shaking as you scurry about trashing forum members.

Hello Eddie

It's funny how folks like you try to embellish and exaggerate what others say.

I prefer to think that Weir is delusional since I have no direct evidence of a scam. I suspect that SRI tested or examined something but I won't take Weir's word for what the results were. I have no suspicions of others being complicit.

Folks can try to rationalize, wheedle and squirm as much as they like. They can attempt to expand the lack of credibility beyond Weir. So far I've seen no independent third-party information related to coating purity. Unless and until I see it, I'm skeptical of Weir.

AD2 wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

Ahh... I see. You admit that there is no THIRD-PARTY information and you want *me* to get it. So you were flapping your gums, tossing out insults and behaving like a yammering pismire.

Let me know when you get THIRD-PARTY confirmation.

Thanks Oakthicket. I won't waste my time any further.

EEnigma, take note.

AD2......

The boys in chat just said don't respond to Oakthicket he is clearly and idiot.

He always gets in the last word so we'll see.

AD2 wrote:

Thanks Oakthicket. I won't waste my time any further.

Thanks AD2. I feel the same about you.

EEventually wrote:

After reviewing the patent and giving a copy to my favorite chemist, I'm really kind of disappointed with you guys. This is much bigger than it seems. Much much bigger.

I know somebody who will be calling Cedar Park pretty soon to seek a license to use this process.

Ceramics based nanotech will owe its existence (and a portion of its revenue) to EEStor for a long time.

Notice c6/l60. This is where they parted company with a specific process that showed up as a patent for their chemistry development partner. It also mentions specifically why.

Notice also C6/l8. This is very likely the "consumable" supplier who is so thoroughly challenged by DW. Great tie-in. I'll drink to that and yes, it will be Bombay.

What is really new here in this patent is the liquid-liquid ion exchange process for elements of very similar oxidation potential. They use differing ion charge density between the desired and undesired ions to be targeted by a hydrocarbon, acidified, and then salted out/filtered. The chemistry is not necessarily new but the mechanisms and process flow is. I haven't ready the dialogue between CN and USPTO yet so I'll come back after I look at that.

The claims are very strong but as noted before, this is a US only patent. It was likely decided early-on that the claims were winnable but publication was risky. So instead of gaining legal standing on this process by choosing the less-stealthy international IP process, they employed proprietary supplier agreements. In this way, they can retain market share by holding their equipment and material suppliers very closely. If someone wants to copy this in China, they will have to talk a US supplier into killing their gold-egg laying goose to provide the goods to make it happen. The parts are NOT going to be off-the-shelf and those parts are under supplier IP AND a proprietary supply agreement. Basically, EEStor is saying "here's how to make it, good luck buying the equipment."

Technically, this patent is very new stuff and is probably #3 in line of revolutionary processes behind:

1. CMBT particle precipitation (how the hell do they get >99% crystalization, uniform particle size, relatively low temp 1050C, and complete removal of activating chemistry at the same time.
2. Uniform 100A Al2O3 coating of complete conformality and ridiculous purity.

These guys didn't do this alone. They have done it with a great deal of help and have done it with utter secrecy. This is the kind of project LM can help pull off.

I still don't understand why people complain about how long it's taking. Read the damned patent and realize that most of what's in there is a new kind of aqueous chemistry. I'm very very impressed with this patent and more understanding of merits of the first milestone.

EEventually, I agree that there are not enough people on this forum who are goving this the attention it deserves.

Come on guys, weight in on this one.

I just have a few queries I would appreciate your thoughts on:

EEventually wrote:

"I know somebody who will be calling Cedar Park pretty soon to seek a license to use this process".

Are you able to say who? Is it a sizeable company and would they be willing to pay a significant sum to license the use of the process?

EEventually wrote:

"So instead of gaining legal standing on this process by choosing the less-stealthy international IP process, they employed proprietary supplier agreements"

Do we know that they have these proprietary supplier agreements in place?

EEventually wrote:

"These guys didn't do this alone. They have done it with a great deal of help and have done it with utter secrecy. This is the kind of project LM can help pull off"

What makes you say this? Where has the help come from apart from LM (who we know about)?

EEventually wrote:

"I'm very very impressed with this patent and more understanding of merits of the first milestone"

What is it that has impressed you most about this Patent?

I would very much appreciate your feedback and thanks for the post.

Last edited Sun, 24 Jan 2010, 11:53am by EEcosse

Oakthicket wrote:

Hello Eddie

It's funny how folks like you try to embellish and exaggerate what others say.

I prefer to think that Weir is delusional since I have no direct evidence of a scam. I suspect that SRI tested or examined something but I won't take Weir's word for what the results were. I have no suspicions of others being complicit.

Folks can try to rationalize, wheedle and squirm as much as they like. They can attempt to expand the lack of credibility beyond Weir. So far I've seen no independent third-party information related to coating purity. Unless and until I see it, I'm skeptical of Weir.

LOL. OK. Another well thought, reasoned response from you, Oak. You seem to be a bit more belligerent than usual today. Perhaps you need a break?