TheEEStory.com

TimBitts649! LOL...I love how you give poopoo a hard time in chat and now here. Its hilariously entertaining!

On a side note, I believe the institutional investors and MM's are scumbags. They are not to be trusted IMO

Prototypes exist. I own stock in Zenn, and have recently added to my position. I have been following this story and B since January 2007.

Nekote's sig succinctly sums up what remains to be seen:

*economical* mass production

been lurking since 08 ought-eight an I reckon this here EEstory is about due to end... Got me just over 1800 shares n I figger it's a crap shoot still.

if'n we all gets rich then I'll be a might more optimistic.

But fer now I jus waitin ....bored.. think I'll have another whiskey...laters peeps.

I guess I'm a pessimistic optimist ....is that even possible?

Been Following The Fun For At Least 3 Years, Made Lots Of Money Playing The Ups And Downs Over The Years But Am Currently Out Of The Game Due To My Diminished Faith (Currently < 10%) Of A Positive Outcome.

TimBitts649 wrote:

Po, you really think you can put a number to it? Like "institutional Investors are 1 in 50 against Eestor"?

That's the stupidest thing I've heard, in a while. Like, you can trust institutional investors, to come up with a number like that?

Like they know the answer to that? Fluck, you are stupid.
People that work at banks, Institutional Investors, can tell you that, for high risk ventures of this sort, about 49 fail, for every 1 that succeeds. That's obviously your thinking. Do you really think that proves anything?

These institutional investors cannot tell WHICH of the 50 will fail or succeed, only that 49 will not work. So, in other words, they know NOTHING about what makes any one of these work, or fail.

So, you rely on these twits, and their half-assed reasoning, to piggy back on their idiocy, and come up with your own half-assed reasoning?

Think, man, think.

Fruck, you are a twit.

Go back to whatever university you went to, and demand your money back. They did a bad job, teaching you to think.

I'm about a 20% believer now, I started about a 70%, but no published results for so long has dropped my belief down low.

I have been here almost since the inception of the blog and still checking in about 5 times a week. Yes I think there is about a 20% chance that a prototype exists. I have bought and sold twice and currently with currently nothing involved. I would definitely re-buy with any better news.

I transferred my investments over to silver last year so smiling smugly at the moment.

I believe they have a supercapacitor. But I also believe in other forms of quackery as well. I believe in the principles and practice of Homeopathy. There is little or no evidence based on chemistry and biochemistry that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo. Yet I have personal evidence that it is. I believe that capacitance is poorly understood at best no matter what the brains on this blog appear to know about it. I see no reason for DW to deceive but plenty of reasons for secrecy. After all, why would anyone deceive so as to enable themselves to hang out in a Texas strip mall: it doesn't make sense to me. Time will tell. I have a bet on Zenn. I am willing to lose. Chances are I will, but I have to pull for the underdog, its my nature.

The more details of the science come to light, the more likely it is that DW understands the constraints as the EESU clearly operates close to those limits. If DW were just telling lies then there would not be so much detailed thought in the design.

For that reason I am still a 100% believer in the science (and existence of research prototypes) and a 90% believer that DW will crack the production yield problems soon.

TecFan wrote:

I want to believe in EEStor and DW, but the sticking point for me is that this is really one guy trying to both design an earth shattering technology by himself as well as build a manufacturing facility more or less by himself.

Seems to me that if any company of any size at all sees value in what he is trying to do they could easily beat him there. They could use teams of researchers until they got it working, and then use a different team with different expertise to build a state of the art manufacturing process and facility.

A lot of people think like this, but they are just plain wrong.

A small team of those who know what they are doing will beat a large team of those who do not - every time.

Regards,
Peter

wyndbag wrote:

I believe they have a supercapacitor. But I also believe in other forms of quackery as well. I believe in the principles and practice of Homeopathy. There is little or no evidence based on chemistry and biochemistry that homeopathy is anything more than a placebo. Yet I have personal evidence that it is. I believe that capacitance is poorly understood at best no matter what the brains on this blog appear to know about it. I see no reason for DW to deceive but plenty of reasons for secrecy. After all, why would anyone deceive so as to enable themselves to hang out in a Texas strip mall: it doesn't make sense to me. Time will tell. I have a bet on Zenn. I am willing to lose. Chances are I will, but I have to pull for the underdog, its my nature.

Hes getting paid pretty well to hang out in a strip mall, certainly better than some other 70+ folk.

If DW were just telling lies then ...

But hes not telling lies. Nor is he speaking the truth. He's not saying ANYTHING is he.

I think you've erected a tottering tower of your own suppositions and guesses based on a few vague hints ages ago, and some rather flaky patents.

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

Y_Po wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.

You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.

I still believe...been here since the site started, I think. This is the year...so was last year. Who knows. I'm sinking with the ship if it is not real.

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.

You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.

You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.

B - you are talking rubbish here. I remember the original science discussions. All Y_Po's comments about ED were given volume dielectric, E = 350V/u. Higher field gives higher possible ED. And there are other ways to make capacitors (DL etc) which do not have such obvious fundamental limits. Indeed graphene-based DL supercaps can manage ED in Li ion range, though when you add in packaging etc it does not look quite so impressive.

Yes, I think there is at least a 10% chance that a prototype exists. I've been a member of the site since nearly the beginning. I own Zenn shares. It's all or nothing for me.

I'm in, invested, and think there is a prototype. I also believe in the good in all humans; so there....

I understand why Believers would stick around, what is confusing is why people who think EEStor is bologna would hang around.

one conclusion i come up with is the need of some people to antagonize others for fun.

I mean If EEstor is a hoax, which is the conclusion of skeptics, what is the point other than vindictiveness?

Or it must be important to some to "Change" the mind of believers. but why is this so important? many believers will not change even when failure is imminent.

I guess this site is interesting even though some do not think EEStor has a chance of success.

Dialog stimulates the imagination regardeless of content

They say that 60% of the time the EESU works every time.

I've been invested in ZENN since 2008 but I lost hope in EESTOR a few months ago. From my initial buy, I've already lost 68% if I sell today so I've decided to go down with the sinking ship. Just in case. ;)

I have been invested since April of 08. I have added to my position 3 times. We have a cousin who worked for over 20 years at Lockheed in the skunk works. He has been gone for awhile but he told me " I can say that LM does not enter into such agreements unless they see a strategic business benefit." Kleiner Perkins does not invest millions without due diligence.
Than recently you have Elon Musk the founder of Tesla saying capacitors are the answer to cars.
The many research labs doing work in this area must see something.I'm in for the duration. I helped start a software company in Seattle called Instant Service, So I'm well versed in the ups and downs and time lines to succeed. Keep at it Dick, I believe in you!

I believe there is a 100% chance of a prototype.

This made me laugh!

I too believe there is a 100% chance of a prototype - indeed one that does exactly what it says on the tin. But only with a confidence level of 0.00001%!

I wonder what EEstor's level of confidence in his statement is?

ee-tom wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.

You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.

B - you are talking rubbish here. I remember the original science discussions. All Y_Po's comments about ED were given volume dielectric, E = 350V/u. Higher field gives higher possible ED. And there are other ways to make capacitors (DL etc) which do not have such obvious fundamental limits. Indeed graphene-based DL supercaps can manage ED in Li ion range, though when you add in packaging etc it does not look quite so impressive.

It's only rubbish to someone like you who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Y_Pogo wrote:

It is really pretty simple
In ferroelectrics you have electric dipoles which can be polarized quite easily by external electric field. That is where energy effectively stored.
The problem is amount of dipoles is fixed, once you ramp up external voltage all dipoles get polarized and no more left. Your high-k material effectively became low k-material, end of EEstory :)

Upper limit on polarization cell is a ion charge multiplied by distance ion allowed to travel.
You can do math yourself.

There are two separate problems:
1. voltage breakdown
2. k-problem (dielectric saturation)

They presumably solved first one and completely ignored/was not aware of the second one

The easy way is treat it as a capacitor:
calculate maximum polarization (or surface charge)
Then use it to calculate saturation voltage using permittivity.
After that use standard 1/2*C*V^2

I told you your model is easy way to confuse yourself

Just treat it as a capacitor, it is way easier.

I would like to point out that
obsession with large k is stupid
In reality to maximize energy density one would like to keep break-down voltage roughly equal to the saturation voltage which means the higher the break-down voltage the lower k one should use.

Of course to do that one had to be aware of the saturation on the first place :)

Where did you get 5.7 A & 2 e from ?
I did exact calculation using these numbers myself
and for optimal k=~200 and break-down voltage of 500 V/micrometer I got 250 J/cc
Which is upper limit, you can't go higher than that, which is consistent with current record results for BT of only 10 J/cc. They claim 10,000 J/cc which is 40 times higher then calculated limit.

Assuming they did in fact made a measurement, I think they made a mistake during measurement.

I think what happened is that their sample was not k=20,000
but something much less than that.
In that case there will be no dependence and since most likely they assumed k=20000 and looked at the relative change of k they got what they got.

The reason why I think thet had k<<20,000 is the fact they use mix of BT with some other much lower k dielectric.

The reason why we can safely exclude possibility of breakthrough is simple - no voltage dependence of k were observed. If it were the real breakthrough there would be some dependence. It is highly unlikely that a known nonlinear material mixed with something else becomes absolutely linear. These idiots simply forgot to turn the voltage on. (or as I said before their k was much lower than 20000). Result fabrication is also possible. There is no possibility of breakthrough.

You are so slow that it is not even funny. Everybody have already agreed that their patents can not have any relation to the presumed "discovery". The problem with yours and others theories is that EEstor patent don't mention word "saturation", that fact immediately suggests their utter ignorance. Your theories have to incorporate this fact somehow. What would be the point in creating impression of being ignorant? How does it help anything?

EEtom, this is Y_po's original position. It shows he assumed EEStor's solution was a ferroelectric simple dipole system. It is not. That's why he got so mad at me when I told him Penn State said it was not a simple dipole system and that they were interested in other mechanisms that could achieve the energy density in question ala recapping. Y_Po, remember getting so angry about that? Why did you get so angry?

Notice how he assumed permittivity was not measured. It was measured and reported via 3rd party. That's why Y_Po left the site for a couple weeks. He had to reconstitute new bullshit which everyone agrees he achieved.

Y_Po was so sure EEStor was proposing a simple dipole system. Later it was revealed it was paraelectric not ferroelectric. Additionally, saturation--although possible in any formulation--is not the key problem real experts focus on. It is breakdown.

Basically, Y_Po was an idiot because he doesn't know how to read patents despite attending a decent US school to receive his PHD. He thinks patents are scientific articles where entrepreneurs tell the world how to find buried treasure so they can easily go dig it up, make their own capacitors and start their own companies.

Now, you've stated with enormous confidence that you knew exactly what Y_Po originally proposed. I don't think we can trust your confidence any more. Do you?

The level of permittivity reported by 3rd parties and in further patents suggest EEStor's is a barrier layer/core shell device of some sort. This matches what recapping is doing as well with the core-shell terminology they use in their patents. As far as I can tell, they are both pursuing exactly the same technology unless you want to believe that there were two hitherto unknown mechanisms waiting to be discovered that are distinct but somehow able to achieve the same end. With recapping's, we know from ARPA they had to provide actual data and convince multiple SME's they could build a prototype with ED above lithium ion as specified in the funding requirements. Dielectric saturation in a simple dipole system as Y_Po originally argued against is a phantom. I expect we'll be seeing more phantoms as fast as you guys can create them.

I dont claim to understand the science but I know inconsistency and changing one's story when I see it.

The real problem is breakdown and always has been. EEStor solved that problem by manufacturing capacitors the way integrated circuits are manufactured. They have applied 60 year old chemistry techniques to problems that have plagued capacitors for numerous years. That is why they can claim no new science. I also think Stanford's approach of using electrons rather than ions is related.

What ties all 3 together is the inapplicability of the concepts of a battery and a capacitor. All 3 are attempting to exploit mechanisms which do not fit neatly into those well understood phenomena.

These people are scientists and some think they have a tiger by the tail..meaning they have at a minimum interesting measurements. Guess what? It's more than interesting measurements.

eestorblog wrote:

ee-tom wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Y_Po wrote:

After fuse patent one has to be pretty technically naive to think that Weir has anything besides his wild imagination.

After Recapping's ARPA project got funding, you'd have to be very naive to think you've got anything besides your dull imagination.

What does Recapping have to do with EEstor?
People get funded all the time.

You said what EEStor was working on was impossible. You said capacitors can't store more energy than batteries. Recapping proves you were wrong on both cases. Dont forget, a leopard sometimes changes it's spots.

B - you are talking rubbish here. I remember the original science discussions. All Y_Po's comments about ED were given volume dielectric, E = 350V/u. Higher field gives higher possible ED. And there are other ways to make capacitors (DL etc) which do not have such obvious fundamental limits. Indeed graphene-based DL supercaps can manage ED in Li ion range, though when you add in packaging etc it does not look quite so impressive.

It's only rubbish to someone like you who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Y_Pogo wrote:

It is really pretty simple
In ferroelectrics you have electric dipoles which can be polarized quite easily by external electric field. That is where energy effectively stored.
The problem is amount of dipoles is fixed, once you ramp up external voltage all dipoles get polarized and no more left. Your high-k material effectively became low k-material, end of EEstory :)

Upper limit on polarization cell is a ion charge multiplied by distance ion allowed to travel.
You can do math yourself.

There are two separate problems:
1. voltage breakdown
2. k-problem (dielectric saturation)

They presumably solved first one and completely ignored/was not aware of the second one

The easy way is treat it as a capacitor:
calculate maximum polarization (or surface charge)
Then use it to calculate saturation voltage using permittivity.
After that use standard 1/2*C*V^2

I told you your model is easy way to confuse yourself

Just treat it as a capacitor, it is way easier.

I would like to point out that
obsession with large k is stupid
In reality to maximize energy density one would like to keep break-down voltage roughly equal to the saturation voltage which means the higher the break-down voltage the lower k one should use.

Of course to do that one had to be aware of the saturation on the first place :)

Where did you get 5.7 A & 2 e from ?
I did exact calculation using these numbers myself
and for optimal k=~200 and break-down voltage of 500 V/micrometer I got 250 J/cc
Which is upper limit, you can't go higher than that, which is consistent with current record results for BT of only 10 J/cc. They claim 10,000 J/cc which is 40 times higher then calculated limit.

Assuming they did in fact made a measurement, I think they made a mistake during measurement.

I think what happened is that their sample was not k=20,000
but something much less than that.
In that case there will be no dependence and since most likely they assumed k=20000 and looked at the relative change of k they got what they got.

The reason why I think thet had k<<20,000 is the fact they use mix of BT with some other much lower k dielectric.

The reason why we can safely exclude possibility of breakthrough is simple - no voltage dependence of k were observed. If it were the real breakthrough there would be some dependence. It is highly unlikely that a known nonlinear material mixed with something else becomes absolutely linear. These idiots simply forgot to turn the voltage on. (or as I said before their k was much lower than 20000). Result fabrication is also possible. There is no possibility of breakthrough.

You are so slow that it is not even funny. Everybody have already agreed that their patents can not have any relation to the presumed "discovery". The problem with yours and others theories is that EEstor patent don't mention word "saturation", that fact immediately suggests their utter ignorance. Your theories have to incorporate this fact somehow. What would be the point in creating impression of being ignorant? How does it help anything?

EEtom, this is Y_po's original position. It shows he assumed EEStor's solution was a ferroelectric simple dipole system. It is not. That's why he got so mad at me when I told him Penn State said it was not a simple dipole system and that they were interested in other mechanisms that could achieve the energy density in question ala recapping. Y_Po, remember getting so angry about that? Why did you get so angry?

Notice how he assumed permittivity was not measured. It was measured and reported via 3rd party. That's why Y_Po left the site for a couple weeks. He had to reconstitute new bullshit which everyone agrees he achieved.

Y_Po was so sure EEStor was proposing a simple dipole system. Later it was revealed it was paraelectric not ferroelectric. Additionally, saturation--although possible in any formulation--is not the key problem real experts focus on. It is breakdown.

Basically, Y_Po was an idiot because he doesn't know how to read patents despite attending a decent US school to receive his PHD. He thinks patents are scientific articles where entrepreneurs tell the world how to find buried treasure so they can easily go dig it up, make their own capacitors and start their own companies.

Now, you've stated with enormous confidence that you knew exactly what Y_Po originally proposed. I don't think we can trust your confidence any more. Do you?

The level of permittivity reported by 3rd parties and in further patents suggest EEStor's is a barrier layer/core shell device of some sort. This matches what recapping is doing as well with the core-shell terminology they use in their patents. As far as I can tell, they are both pursuing exactly the same technology unless you want to believe that there were two hitherto unknown mechanisms waiting to be discovered that are distinct but somehow able to achieve the same end. With recapping's, we know from ARPA they had to provide actual data and convince multiple SME's they could build a prototype with ED above lithium ion as specified in the funding requirements. Dielectric saturation in a simple dipole system as Y_Po originally argued against is a phantom. I expect we'll be seeing more phantoms as fast as you guys can create them.

I dont claim to understand the science but I know inconsistency and changing one's story when I see it.

The real problem is breakdown and always has been. EEStor solved that problem by manufacturing capacitors the way integrated circuits are manufactured. They have applied 60 year old chemistry techniques to problems that have plagued capacitors for numerous years. That is why they can claim no new science. I also think Stanford's approach of using electrons rather than ions is related.

What ties all 3 together is the inapplicability of the concepts of a battery and a capacitor. All 3 are attempting to exploit mechanisms which do not fit neatly into those well understood phenomena.

These people are scientists and some think they have a tiger by the tail..meaning they have at a minimum interesting measurements. Guess what? It's more than interesting measurements.

Well done b

Put a gold frame around that!

Moved to the "Are there any sceptics left" thread.

Last edited Fri, 15 Apr 2011, 4:57pm by Tec

Eenigma wrote:

Tec wrote:

The fuse patent was total rubbish. It failed to address the real problem and probably won't solve the one it did address.

The other patents are rather odd in my opinion in that they provide all sorts of test data which is neither necessary nor desirable. The object is to claim intellectual property not make a case for it working as claimed.

Nothing to stop you doing so of course, but it is as irrelevant as stating what pen you used to write the patent. The problem with adding test data is that (a) it can be attacked (b) it may be of help to competitors, and (c) it may limit the extent of your claim(s).

I wonder if these things started life as an attempt to write a peer-reviewed paper (where test results might be appropriate) and got turned into patents when the journals they were sent to rejected them.

None of this PROVES that the EESU is a myth of course, but it certainly adds nothing to its plausibility.

zawy wrote:

Thread rules: skeptics, please do not post.

Original thread now moved.

Less than 5% chance EEStor will ever amount to anything. Sold my 20K shares in ZENN over two years ago when they weren't able (or willing) to publicly demonstate a proof-of-concept prototype.

It's Voodo engineering and development IMHO. But I still enjoy reading this blog, and have come across a lot of interesting information posted here by others.

eestorblog wrote:

EEtom, this is Y_po's original position. It shows he assumed EEStor's solution was a ferroelectric simple dipole system. It is not. That's why he got so mad at me when I told him Penn State said it was not a simple dipole system and that they were interested in other mechanisms that could achieve the energy density in question ala recapping. Y_Po, remember getting so angry about that? Why did you get so angry?

Notice how he assumed permittivity was not measured. It was measured and reported via 3rd party. That's why Y_Po left the site for a couple weeks. He had to reconstitute new bullshit which everyone agrees he achieved.

Y_Po was so sure EEStor was proposing a simple dipole system. Later it was revealed it was paraelectric not ferroelectric. Additionally, saturation--although possible in any formulation--is not the key problem real experts focus on. It is breakdown.

Basically, Y_Po was an idiot because he doesn't know how to read patents despite attending a decent US school to receive his PHD. He thinks patents are scientific articles where entrepreneurs tell the world how to find buried treasure so they can easily go dig it up, make their own capacitors and start their own companies.

Now, you've stated with enormous confidence that you knew exactly what Y_Po originally proposed. I don't think we can trust your confidence any more. Do you?

The level of permittivity reported by 3rd parties and in further patents suggest EEStor's is a barrier layer/core shell device of some sort. This matches what recapping is doing as well with the core-shell terminology they use in their patents. As far as I can tell, they are both pursuing exactly the same technology unless you want to believe that there were two hitherto unknown mechanisms waiting to be discovered that are distinct but somehow able to achieve the same end. With recapping's, we know from ARPA they had to provide actual data and convince multiple SME's they could build a prototype with ED above lithium ion as specified in the funding requirements. Dielectric saturation in a simple dipole system as Y_Po originally argued against is a phantom. I expect we'll be seeing more phantoms as fast as you guys can create them.

I dont claim to understand the science but I know inconsistency and changing one's story when I see it.

The real problem is breakdown and always has been. EEStor solved that problem by manufacturing capacitors the way integrated circuits are manufactured. They have applied 60 year old chemistry techniques to problems that have plagued capacitors for numerous years. That is why they can claim no new science. I also think Stanford's approach of using electrons rather than ions is related.

What ties all 3 together is the inapplicability of the concepts of a battery and a capacitor. All 3 are attempting to exploit mechanisms which do not fit neatly into those well understood phenomena.

These people are scientists and some think they have a tiger by the tail..meaning they have at a minimum interesting measurements. Guess what? It's more than interesting measurements.

I look forward to the day when you don't have to hold back unless you personally want to for personal reasons.

Great post B. Thanks.