TheEEStory.com

7466536 US Patent issued yesterday to EEStor

This appears to be the issuance of the publication we have been discussing. I have not studied it yet, will report later, but it will give us something to chew on while we wait....

where do i find this info?

flyer wrote:

where do i find this info?

http://theeestory.com/files/ESSTOR_US07466536B1...

thanks

Well I haven't seen the old patents, but this one was an easy read. If they do not have the technology they claim to have EESTOR is definitely practicing fraud. It is clearly stated in that patent that they have tested on prototypes and achieved good permittivity results at high voltage.

Are these new results or were these tests results in the old patents?

One of the things I noticed is the times. If I did my math correctly it would take 3.2 hours to produce one "batch" of components. I didn't notice anything that said how many components are in a batch, but considering they need 32k of them for a full EESU these things could take quite a while to produce.

Obviously there's some overlap (they don't have to wait 3 hours before starting the next batch) but it still seems like a long time. And that doesn't even factor in testing/combining the components.

Another thing that I thought was much more clearly stated this time is that the "full EESU" numbers in the chart on 11.30 are stated to be one component * 32k quite clearly (11.59). Definitely no evidence here that a full EESU has ever been produced.

This patent is very clear about what the EESU is, and fairly clear about how it is built. Basically the science seems to be individual barium titanate crystals, with the aluminum oxide coating as the anode / cathode. Then line them all up together in parallel. Rather than the old BT powder sandwiched between 2 large plates.

What do our science SME's think? Does the individual crystal approach answer the dialectric saturation issue? Does the individual crystal approach solve all the "defect" issues?

Does issuing this patent clear the way for a production prototype announcement?

Last edited Wed, 17 Dec 2008, 12:08pm by Skiff

Producing 1 "component" with the energy density that they claim, is the MOST IMPORTANT THING.... Right?
So creating the full 52kwh unit really isn't as important (as it could come later).
Give me 1 working component, prove it to me... as you still haven't Weir.

But this all comes back to the idea that at some point in time, they made some small button sized working capacitors that could store energy at the density they are talking about. So why build all this other crap if those little guys don't store as much as you say they can?

starm_ wrote:

If they do not have the technology they claim to have EESTOR is definitely practicing fraud.

I am not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but I rather suspect the court would require a person or company to demonstrate that EEStor had used the patent to mislead them (not you) into investing money in EEStor, before they (not you) would have a legal basis to claim fraud.

The purpose of a patent is to establish exclusive rights to a specific product, so that it can be sold at a profit. It is not any sort of proof that a technology either exists or works.

The description:

Utilization of Poly(ethylene terephthalate) Plastic and Composition-Modified Barium Titanate Powders in a Matrix that Allows Polarization and the Use of Integrated-Circuit Technologies for the Production of Lightweight Ultrahigh Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU)

...is exactly the same as for patent PCT/US05/028970.

So I'm guessing this is the same, only this is a patent which has actually been granted, and not just an application?

I am not an expert in EESU's, I am just a ZENN investor, but a granted patent means nothing. Mr. Ian Clifford, please show us a CityZenn powered by an EESU. That would make my Christmas happy, or else I will be depressed for the New Year.

Antro wrote:

I am not an expert in EESU's, I am just a ZENN investor, but a granted patent means nothing.

easy there. ever talk to a patent attorney before?

FWIW, patent is *extremely* close to what we have been working with.
Note, however, EEStor may very well have moved on to "advanced technology" from this now granted patent, first filed in August of 2004.

This granted Patent continues one quirk, that to my mind, is a slipped decimal point. The table of the results of pulverizing aluminum powder (Column denoted as 10, line numbers 31 - 45) from a % volume of 2.5% to .41% seem to have their decimal point shifted 1 digit to the right, multiplying their size in µm by 10. Also, the "Average aluminum particle size = 2.4 µm". Going to be tough to make ~1 µm electrodes / plates, from particles with a minimum diminsion of 2.4 µm, don't you think?

Whereas on the last page, Claim 3, the average aluminum particle is .24 µm, which makes much more sense, if the electrodes / plates are to be ~1 µm thick.

This apparent conflict was also present in the application.
Either I'm mis-reading it, or it just slipped through.
A little table that always got glossed over.

.

In addition to some minor re-wording of the cryogenic "cooling" aspect, the phrase "which also indicates that dielectric saturation has not been reached." has been deleted from the end of the sentence about 5000V of what is now Claim 11 (versus Claim 12 in the Application).

What significance that has, if any, is left to the reader.

CapacitorMan do you think this is solid science and if RW can get by the assembly issues is it a definate go???

eestorblog wrote:

Antro wrote:

I am not an expert in EESU's, I am just a ZENN investor, but a granted patent means nothing.

easy there. ever talk to a patent attorney before?

I don't deal with any liars, I mean lawyers.

Dan, you meant 100Å Al2O3 coating, right?
Counting each thickness facing the plates?

But, this patent is about the (old) manufacturing process.
(Not the "advanced technology" decided about in Jan. 2007)
Not the science!

nomlas wrote:

CapacitorMan do you think this is solid science and if RW can get by the assembly issues is it a definate go???

Sorry, I do not see any more science here than we saw before. This is the issued patent for the PCT application we have already studied to death.

There should be no difference except for typos or drawing clarification.

What will be interesting, now though, is with the patent issued, we can get access to the entire file wrapper, which contains the communications between the patent office and Weir's attorney. The patent also shows a large number of references, which will have been stated and argued about.

Last edited Wed, 17 Dec 2008, 10:49pm by CapacitorMan

Since the US patent was approved pretty much in it's entirety from the original application, does that make the EPO divisional patents any less important?

The problem with the US Patent is that it is highly specific again, if it does reflect a way to make the eesu, its very easy to get around.

The whole situation is very confusing, I don't know what they are accomplishing with such a weak patent. It will be interesting to read the wrapper and see what the examiner thought, or if he just said "whatever" and allowe the very specific claims to go in. It may have been his objection, based on little evidence in the description, to disallow the reference to "saturation voltage" that Nekote found, and some of the wording Dan talked about.

In any case, I am working on getting the wrapper which will answer some of the questions. It is being quoted for me, they charge by the page, so we'll see if its reasonable.

C'mon guys. Did we really expect a different patent to come out than the application asked for? This may not be proof that an eesu actually works, but EEstor did add another fur to the collection.

CapacitorMan wrote:

The problem with the US Patent is that it is highly specific again

Are you talking about the *new* patent? Are you saying this new patent is as overly narrow as the first issued patent?

Yes, look at all the requirements in the main (first) claim, change one, you have gotten around it.

Ooooh kaaaay...

NEW THEORY!

The EEStory is an elaborate practical joke foisted on us poor saps. Morton Topfer and a few of his cronies, including a retired inventor named Richard Weir, convinced Ian Clifford and an executive at Lockheed Martin to go along with their gag. They also spread the rumor that Kleiner Perkins had invested in their non-existent company, supporting the hoax by bribing an editor of /Fortune/ magazine to insert a reference to EEStor into a list of KP's investments.

All this is being funded by Morton Topfer; he paid for a few bogus patents out of petty cash, and has guaranteed Ian Clifford will continue to support his gag by extending a line of credit to ZENN Motors.

Now, applying Occam's Razor, doesn't that theory require far *fewer* unlikely assumptions than the "official EEStory"?

It also explains why Richard Weir would agree to give B interviews about a supposedly secret company. What a joker Dick is!

I have been following this blog for time. I, like most have been very hopeful that EESTOR will be successful. I was very encouraged when they were able to show some third party verification last summer. Then something recently happened that corrected my vision. That something was Gary Madoff. The experts have stated Gary Madoff could not do what he claimed for more than a decade. But peopled believed anyway. Some wanted to believe so much they threw away their entire fortunes. There were two clear signs Gary Madoff was conning people. One, secrecy is a must. Cons must always have a secret process because their process cannot stand independent review. “If I tell you how I do it others will steal my work ” is the main stay of any con. Two, A goal everybody wants to believe badly. A con cannot succeed unless the people to be conned are desperate to achieve the goal the con man claims to be achieving. Gary Madoff had secrecy. Gary Madoff had returns everyone wanted to believe were possible. Sound familiar?

cechilders, yes, sounds all too very, very familiar.
EDIT: Oh, but as to secrecy, a (public) patent with "sworn" "data", indicating it could at least be done at the one-off / hand crafted laboratory level?

Wondering if this is the exception that proves the rule.

Last edited Sun, 21 Dec 2008, 8:05pm by nekote

You forgot the most important part of a con, Cechilders, and that is actually bilking people out of vast sums fo money. As far as we can tell Eestor has only taken a very limited amount of money and not gone to public investors for the hundreds of millions I am sure they could rake in.

As has been said many times, if it is a scam it is an incompetent one.

Shere Khaan wrote:

You forgot the most important part of a con, Cechilders, and that is actually bilking people out of vast sums fo money.

That assumes the only goal a scam can have is money. Enrichment can come in forms other than coin of the realm.

Robert

Robert wrote:

Shere Khaan wrote:

You forgot the most important part of a con, Cechilders, and that is actually bilking people out of vast sums fo money.

That assumes the only goal a scam can have is money. Enrichment can come in forms other than coin of the realm.

Robert

It seems somewhat unlikely though. It is atypical to have a fairly productive and successful career and then suddenly become a con man/men at the age of 70.

dfwrunner wrote:

It seems somewhat unlikely though. It is atypical to have a fairly productive and successful career and then suddenly become a con man/men at the age of 70.

nekote wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

It seems somewhat unlikely though. It is atypical to have a fairly productive and successful career and then suddenly become a con man/men at the age of 70.

Sadly, that IS one of the similar points.
Madoff is ~70, too!

My impression was that Madoff had been a con man for a long period of time.