TheEEStory.com

The thread found here:

http://www.theeestory.com/topics/4836?page=3

---

One thing I've noticed is that we see the same arguments coming back over and over again. I've been watching this website since its formation in Aug 2008 and the argumentation regarding if this person or that person saw the EESU or other similar arguments keep coming back up but by different persons. Since we have new hopefuls and new skeptics/deniers coming every month or so, they starts to argue about what was argued 3,4,5 months before.
:-)

I think we clearly demonstrated that we deniers/skeptics and hopefuls can agree on one thing only: that we disagree.

BTW:
Why I prefer the term hopeful: I do not like believer - it sounds like too religious for me. I'm hopeful, but I'm not about to wrap myself up with a bomb to go to the EESU heaven with 79 virgin cars waiting for me.

---

faith = assurance of things hoped for and/or the conviction of things unseen

That's religion. While hope is a reagent to faith, the product is not always so. It depends on your own process.

As far as conviction to the unseen, go ahead and stick your tongue on a 9V battery and deny electrons.

---

pchamp5 wrote:

One thing I've noticed is that we see the same arguments coming back over and over again. I've been watching this website since its formation in Aug 2008 and the argumentation regarding if this person or that person saw the EESU or other similar arguments keep coming back up but by different persons. Since we have new hopefuls and new skeptics/deniers coming every month or so, they starts to argue about what was argued 3,4,5 months before.
:-)

I think we clearly demonstrated that we deniers/skeptics and hopefuls can agree on one thing only: that we disagree.

BTW:
Why I prefer the term hopeful: I do not like believer - it sounds like too religious for me. I'm hopeful, but I'm not about to wrap myself up with a bomb to go to the EESU heaven with 79 virgin cars waiting for me.

Yes - I agree about the same arguments. What has kept me here is that the scientific arguments have continued to evolve.

There are the "it is provably impossible" arguments. For a long time these were stated in terms of ED and polarization in the volume of the dielectric. Recently, with emphasis on the field at the edge of the plates, these arguments have become a lot stronger because almost no assumptions are needed for them to hold.

Then there are the "we want to find some way it could be possible" speculations. These continue to evolve as, not surprisingly, none seem satisfactory. I have noticed that they seem to be becoming more exotic - e.g. TP's proposals that atoms could be squashed non-isotropically to 1% their normal volume and somehow make the perfect insulator.

Otherwise all the "business" information remains the same, with the addition recently of new missed "not-deadlines" and increasing B-mediated positive PR noises.

The positive PR is all EEstor have going for them - and it is clearly enough to convince many people. My hope (expectation) is that this has been so orchestrated that things must emerge - either a shining EESU to delight the hopefuls, or some sort of (perhaps indirect) admission of non-operation.

It is not a popular view, but reading the lines in Weir's investors talk, joining these up with other info, I am pretty sure that Weir will be steaming ahead with the stuff he can do well - making a production line - before testing his dielectric for high field ED. It explains all the positive vibes. It is strange behaviour, true, but no stranger than the original patent.

Best wishes, Tom

---

Ok
proffesor Tom

Can we agree that they have.

4 Patents
Barium Nitrate that is purer than anything made before.
CMBT best purity ,crystalization and homogenity of particle size ever made.
A production line with certification of the chemical production.

They have in fact mapped out how to cheaply produce breakthrough chemicals in a novel manner. Then actually produced in quantity what they have previously applied for ip protection on.

My question is how they have arrived at the need to make the chemicals, combine them and go on to produce a component without having vast previous knowledge of the required specifications to produce a high ED capacitor.

Everything we see is aimed at not producing a lab sample, but to produce in quantity chemicals, in quantity CMBT and in quantity production line derived EESU's.

While I would believe that a person that was trying to do this with no previous experience in high volume high quality low defect production might try going directly to production. It is inconcievable the Weir and Nelson would do this. They have a history of producing what they say they will. They have a history of successful patents. They have no history of faking experiments or experimental data or patent data.

Lets state some facts.
You have not seen or tested Barium or CMBT of this purity or even partices size.

You have not seen or tested Cmbt as above with a 100angstrom Al2O3 coating.

You have not seen or tested a dielectric as above immersed in a PET matrix with Al electrodes polled at +2kv-2kv.

Yet you are happy to pronounce that it is impossible.

So much for scientific curiosity and so much for testing the hypothesis.

Mark

ee-tom wrote:

It is not a popular view, but reading the lines in Weir's investors talk, joining these up with other info, I am pretty sure that Weir will be steaming ahead with the stuff he can do well - making a production line - before testing his dielectric for high field ED. It explains all the positive vibes. It is strange behaviour, true, but no stranger than the original patent.

Best wishes, Tom

OK, then I think we agree that it is a

1) Real, the EESU is real and they are working on the finishing touch of their production side or something along those lines.

2) a sophisticated scam

3) a sophisticated delusion

I know we won't agree on the pick though :-)
And there are a lot of side story on item 3 - like what kind of delusion? The one like Dreyfuss, Inspector Clouseau's boss where he ends up in a mental hospital?

---

Old arguments - but just to give the other side:

Mark wrote:

Ok
proffesor Tom

Can we agree that they have.

4 Patents

agreed - and worth nothing of itself.

Barium Nitrate that is purer than anything made before.

I doubt it very much. Evidence?

CMBT best purity ,crystalization and homogenity of particle size ever made.

Could be, again what is your evidence?

A production line with certification of the chemical production.

yes we can agree that weir has a bit of equipment that makes relatively pure chemicals. production line is perhaps a bit grand. But call it this if you like. (Weir likes).

They have in fact mapped out how to cheaply produce breakthrough chemicals in a novel manner. Then actually produced in quantity what they have previously applied for ip protection on.

Well that is entirely possible. Though there is only limited evidence: What do you mean by "in quantity" for example? the only figures I had (from EEstor) were that they had produced 10s of kgs of powder in a few weeks. that is very low volume. Of course they may have higher volume now. How do you know?

My question is how they have arrived at the need to make the chemicals, combine them and go on to produce a component without having vast previous knowledge of the required specifications to produce a high ED capacitor.

There are a number of answers. The simplest is that they believe (incorrectly extrapolating from promising low voltage measurements) that their chemicals will result in high ED at high voltages.

Everything we see is aimed at not producing a lab sample, but to produce in quantity chemicals, in quantity CMBT and in quantity production line derived EESU's.

What evidence do you have for this other than the lack of lab samples (negative) and Weir's statements of working towards production? The latter could be interpreted as a necessary excuse having been caught out once promissing prototypes but unable to deliver.

While I would believe that a person that was trying to do this with no previous experience in high volume high quality low defect production might try going directly to production. It is inconcievable the Weir and Nelson would do this. They have a history of producing what they say they will. They have a history of successful patents. They have no history of faking experiments or experimental data or patent data.

They also have no history of making revolutionary material 1000X better than the nearest competitor. Perhaps it went to their head. You may choose to believe what they say because they seem upright people who have the necessary qualifications to know what they are saying. I am sure that is what a number of people have done, there is then "proof by association" which makes them even easier to believe.

Lets state some facts.
You have not seen or tested Barium or CMBT of this purity or even partices size.

You have not seen or tested Cmbt as above with a 100angstrom Al2O3 coating.

You have not seen or tested a dielectric as above immersed in a PET matrix with Al electrodes polled at +2kv-2kv.

Yet you are happy to pronounce that it is impossible.

I suppose, as doubting Thomas, my namesake, when something is inherently extraordinarily implausible I demand proof. If you believe in miracles, as many here do, you will see Weir, like Jesus, as able to perform them. I don't.

In fact Weir himself is not claiming directly all the things you believe. Listen to the Investor's Talk when surely he would claim anything he felt able to. No clear statement of having made working prototypes. He is basing all his hopes on theoretical extrapolation.

So much for scientific curiosity and so much for testing the hypothesis.
Mark

I stay here, do I not? I remain curious how Weir will deal with his eventual knowledge that his stuff does not work.

Maybe he won't admit this. "We are travelling a road, speed humps but no road blocks".

It sounds like he will go on travelling his road for as long as funded, solving problems one by one. If one formulation does not work at high field just try something else.

But I would of course be very interested to see any tests of an EESU - hardly the attitude of somone with fixed views. The point about science is that you remain open to new evidence contradicting your current view. That does not stop me, given the facts, from being very clear that EESU cannot exist as claimed.

Where is your new evidence?

---

pchamp5 wrote:

OK, then I think we agree that it is a

1) Real, the EESU is real and they are working on the finishing touch of their production side or something along those lines.

2) a sophisticated scam

3) a sophisticated delusion

As you say. Maybe it is a very unsophisticated mistake, which has nevertheless convinced a lot of people. Would not be the first time in history this has happenned...

---

Yes Professor Tom I see it now.

DW: hey Carl this ..err capacitor formula.
CN; yeh dick what about it.
DW: Well if I just raise the voltage its .. well super ... no its an Ultracapacitor.
CN :Oh wow dick I worked with Von Hipple and have tried for decade to advance capacitors and there inherent dielectrics and we never thought of that ... lets make one !
DW : Yeee Haw !!!!

This is EE-Toms world... this is also as far as reality a is possible.

The know about saturation,breakdown,permitivity and ED!!!!

Mark

Mark wrote:

Yes Professor Tom I see it now.

DW: hey Carl this ..err capacitor formula.
CN; yeh dick what about it.
DW: Well if I just raise the voltage its .. well super ... no its an Ultracapacitor.
CN :Oh wow dick I worked with Von Hipple and have tried for decade to advance capacitors and there inherent dielectrics and we never thought of that ... lets make one !
DW : Yeee Haw !!!!

This is EE-Toms world... this is also as far as reality a is possible.

The know about saturation,breakdown,permitivity and ED!!!!

Mark

Yep - Von Hip, & CN, did not know about modern IBLC effect capacitors, and their surprising characteristics.

But to be fair, we don't know what CN says to DW about the powder, do we?

---

Mark wrote:

Ok
proffesor Tom

Can we agree that they have.

4 Patents
Barium Nitrate that is purer than anything made before.
CMBT best purity ,crystalization and homogenity of particle size ever made.
A production line with certification of the chemical production.

They have in fact mapped out how to cheaply produce breakthrough chemicals in a novel manner. Then actually produced in quantity what they have previously applied for ip protection on.

My question is how they have arrived at the need to make the chemicals, combine them and go on to produce a component without having vast previous knowledge of the required specifications to produce a high ED capacitor.

Everything we see is aimed at not producing a lab sample, but to produce in quantity chemicals, in quantity CMBT and in quantity production line derived EESU's.

While I would believe that a person that was trying to do this with no previous experience in high volume high quality low defect production might try going directly to production. It is inconcievable the Weir and Nelson would do this. They have a history of producing what they say they will. They have a history of successful patents. They have no history of faking experiments or experimental data or patent data.

Lets state some facts.
You have not seen or tested Barium or CMBT of this purity or even partices size.

You have not seen or tested Cmbt as above with a 100angstrom Al2O3 coating.

You have not seen or tested a dielectric as above immersed in a PET matrix with Al electrodes polled at +2kv-2kv.

Yet you are happy to pronounce that it is impossible.

So much for scientific curiosity and so much for testing the hypothesis.

Mark

there it is! Deniers and Reality do not a beautiful thing make.

---

ee-tom wrote:

Mark wrote:

Yes Professor Tom I see it now.

DW: hey Carl this ..err capacitor formula.
CN; yeh dick what about it.
DW: Well if I just raise the voltage its .. well super ... no its an Ultracapacitor.
CN :Oh wow dick I worked with Von Hipple and have tried for decade to advance capacitors and there inherent dielectrics and we never thought of that ... lets make one !
DW : Yeee Haw !!!!

This is EE-Toms world... this is also as far as reality a is possible.

The know about saturation,breakdown,permitivity and ED!!!!

Mark

Yep - Von Hip, & CN, did not know about modern IBLC effect capacitors, and their surprising characteristics.

But to be fair, we don't know what CN says to DW about the powder, do we?

bs. The claim isn't sophisticated or complicated. It only requires a high school level of science to know how to test it. Charge. Discharge.

Eetom, you are a religious nut and anti-eestor tenets are your canon.

---

bs. The claim isn't sophisticated or complicated. It only requires a high school level of science to know how to test it. Charge. Discharge.

Eetom, you are a religious nut and anti-eestor tenets are your canon.

Right. But then Weir has never directly claimed he has done this with successful results. Certainly not to the Zenn investors. I wonder why?

I don't believe in miracles.

Best wishes, Tom

---

ee-tom wrote:

bs. The claim isn't sophisticated or complicated. It only requires a high school level of science to know how to test it. Charge. Discharge.

Eetom, you are a religious nut and anti-eestor tenets are your canon.

Right. But then Weir has never directly claimed he has done this with successful results. Certainly not to the Zenn investors. I wonder why?

I don't believe in miracles.

Best wishes, Tom

Wrong. He claimed directly to Zenn investors that he "made this all work" years before. Remember, that was in the leaked audio. The claim is exactly a claim to have done this with successful results. Carl Nelson also claimed that this technology worked as advertised.

---

eestorblog wrote:

...
Wrong. He claimed directly to Zenn investors that he "made this all work" years before. ...

Salesman(s) never bend the truth.

Dick Weir wrote:

So, I shelved it and went into doing some work for the disk drive industry. And made some money there.

---