TheEEStory.com

http://theeestory.com/files/10917144_1_.pdf

Here is something that will keep us occupied for a while. This is the correspondence between the US Patent Office and EEStor regarding thier patent.

Better get a cup of coffee, its 172 pages, and a lot of it is boring forms, but maybe there is a jewel in it.

And note it is backwards, latest files in the beginning.

Happy Hunting

Last edited Fri, 19 Dec 2008, 2:58pm by CapacitorMan

I see they changed "can stores 52.22 kwh of electrical energy" to "stores up to 52.22....."
significant? not sure.

Good, Gary

One of the weird things about that patent is the decimal points they use, and as someone finally noted, thats a lot of specificity.

And "up to" is a bit more general.

In this case, why make it 52.22? If my device stores 52.23kwh, am I free to practice it?

Publications of the U.S. gov't are not subject to copyright protection. I cannot be *certain* that applies here, but I would presume it does.

Gosh, I hope so.

If I go to trial, Lensman, I need you to be a character witness...

;>)

Went through the entire file. A few interesting tidbits, but nothing earthshaking.

i found it interesting that the patent describes taking the alumina and PET materials down to -150 degrees C! i'm no expert, but i doubt seriously that's a common practice. that's very cold.

maybe that's the magic fairy dust everyone has missed -- the use of extremely cold temperatures to modify the property of the materials in order to make this seeming violation of physics work.

i've been following eestor for years now and i don't think they've done it, but i do find the mention of ultra cold temperatures used in manufacturing very, very, very interesting. is the low temperature something that would have been done in weir's previous career in hard drives?

as others have said, r. weir is either one of the boldest liars out there or he's an extremely shrewd inventor.

radlib

radlib wrote:

maybe that's the magic fairy dust everyone has missed -- the use of extremely cold temperatures to modify the property of the materials in order to make this seeming violation of physics work.

Well done Capman for tracking that down. Not sure I will be able to make much sense of most of it but I will have a look through when I have a spare hour or two.

radlib wrote:

i found it interesting that the patent describes taking the alumina and PET materials down to -150 degrees C! i'm no expert, but i doubt seriously that's a common practice. that's very cold.

maybe that's the magic fairy dust everyone has missed -- the use of extremely cold temperatures to modify the property of the materials in order to make this seeming violation of physics work.

i've been following eestor for years now and i don't think they've done it, but i do find the mention of ultra cold temperatures used in manufacturing very, very, very interesting. is the low temperature something that would have been done in weir's previous career in hard drives?

as others have said, r. weir is either one of the boldest liars out there or he's an extremely shrewd inventor.

radlib

Weren't the cold temperatures necessary to embrittle the soft materials like aluminum so that they could be pulverized to the appropriate consistency? That seems like a fairly standard method of processing soft materials.

The original patent application gave the name of the company they used for pulverizing the material.
The Jet Pulverizing Co.

http://www.jetpul.com/

Pulverization takes place in the central chamber of the Micron-Master® jet energy mill as the process material is driven at near sonic velocity around the perimeter of the toroidal chamber by multiple jets of air or steam. No grinding media is involved. Size reduction is the result of the high-velocity collisions between particles of the process material itself. The interior of the chamber is designed to allow recirculation of over-sized particles, enhancing the incidence and the effect of these collisions. As particles are reduced in size and progressively lose mass, they naturally migrate toward the central discharge port, making precise classification both automatic and precisely controllable.

The process involves no moving parts or screens and is suitable for virtually any friable or crystalline materials, even materials that are very abrasive. And, since contamination can be avoided and no excess heat is produced, Micron-Master® jet pulverizers are suitable for materials that must remain ultra-pure and those that are heat sensitive. Even cryogenic applications can be accommodated. Further, by precise metering of the product input and air or steam velocity, highly predictable and repeatable graduation and classification of the finished particles is possible.

Just looking back at the current patent I see they kept that information in there. Way to much detail IMO . They also list Air Products as a machine for either cooling or cooling and grinding plastic pellets.

Systems to accomplish this task have been developed for cryogenic freezing of the plastic pellets and the aluminum powders: the Air Products Process Cooling System, and for impact jet pulverizing of these cryogenic-frozen pellets and the aluminum powder: the Micron-Master jet mill manufactured by The Jet Pulverizer Company.

http://www.airproducts.com/Products/Equipment/C...

The (cryogenic) jet blasting uses the particles to grind against themselves.

Minimizing contamination coming from wear particles that would otherwise slowly be abraded off traditional hammer / anvil surfaces.

Looking for extremely high purity PET, aluminum and CMBT.

CapacitorMan,
I know the patent application wording has been perplexing by not being general enough, but suppose Weir (he is in his 70's) main interest is in keeping the invention from being bought and kept off the market (like what has happened with the NiMH battery for pure EV's). Perhaps he would be happy just to have it work and be commercial? Just a wild thought.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family!

Interesting first thought, Satya, and thank you for the second, same to you and yours.

GaryB wrote:

The original patent application gave the name of the company they used for pulverizing the material.
The Jet Pulverizing Co.

http://www.jetpul.com/

What is weird,though, Gary, is when I called that Jet Pulverizer company (we use thier products) they said aluminum could not be jet milled. The action of banging the particles against each other warmed them enough to flatten, not break up.

But regardless, small particle size aluminum is readily available, I dont know why they tried that, if they did. And as I have repeated ad nauseum, there is no way that aluminum powder can be made conductive with all the native oxide on its surface, but thats just my opinion.

Capman,
I do recall you mentioning this before. Do you know if they were cryogenically cooling the aluminum? The liquid nitrogen and vapors would help keep the aluminum powder from reacting with air and forming an oxide layer.
They would have to keep the powder in an inert atmosphere until it is mixed with the screen printing inks. I wonder if they would then have to keep the components in an inert atmosphere until it is baked/sintered with the PET. I did find this with a Google search:

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006134086

So I guess it is possible.

I took a look through the file and two things jump out at me. First, the original patent lapsed because the applicant failed to respond to a request for information in a timely fashion (pg 229 of 276). Can you imagine DW and others reaction to finding out that the patent application on their "disruptive" technology had lapsed? I wonder if this partialy explains their ongoing reticence in revealing information on their technology?

Second, (pg 23/276) it appears to me that the rationale or one of the rationales for granting the patent is the "experimental results" included in the application. This goes back to the ongoing discussion of the validity of the data presented in the application. The patent examiner seems to have accepted it a face value, should we? I'd love to hear from the patent experts to see if my observations are correct.

I thought this process was very detailed...as if the person who wrote it actually saw or understands the process.

http://theeestory.com/files/eesuClaimsPart1.jpg
http://theeestory.com/files/eesuClaimsPart2.JPG

The examiner's contact info is here. I suppose the examiner has seen the EESU! Who dares to contact him?

http://theeestory.com/files/eesuExaminer.jpg

Last edited Mon, 29 Dec 2008, 7:22pm by jimbobway

jimbobway wrote:

I suppose the examiner has seen the EESU!

Why would you assume that? It would be rather unusual.

Robert

Are you suggesting that EEStor was required to submit a working model of the EESU to the patent office? My understanding is that office did require such a thing originally, but I think that was ended around the turn of the 20th century. I think it is very unlikely that the patent examiner has seen anything more than paperwork.

Additionally, my understanding is that the examiners are not allowed to provide any information that's not public... in other words, what's published in the patent.

Now, that's not to suggest that you (or anyone) shouldn't try to contact the examiner; it certainly won't hurt to try. But I suggest you shouldn't get your hopes up.

[Edit: This post has been reworded because someone thought I was being sarcastic, which was not my intent.]

Last edited Tue, 30 Dec 2008, 4:45pm by Darth Lensman Archive

Lensman wrote:

The patent office quit requiring companies provide working models for patent applications, oh, I guess about a century ago now. I'd say the chances the patent examiner has seen anything more than paperwork are *very* slim and none. *And* the examiners are not allowed to provide any information that's not public... in other words, what's published in the patent.

But if you think I'm wrong, then by all means go ahead and contact the examiner. Couldn't hurt, right?

Why do you have to be so sarcastic and nasty? He thought he found something valuable, and was trying to contribute it. You're very sensitive about the tone others use with you, yet you're sure willing to dish it.

The whole post sounds very sarcastic, not just the part you quoted. But if that's not how you meant it, then I retract. I just know you jumped all over me recently, and it doesn't make one feel like participating in that level of conversation where any misstep is going to be pounced on.

Eric Thomas, the patent examiner, is out of the office until Jan 6th. I'll try followng up when he gets back.

richterm wrote:

The whole post sounds very sarcastic, not just the part you quoted. But if that's not how you meant it, then I retract.

Well, maybe I deserved that, Richterm. It's not the first time I've been told "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I do have a tendency to concentrate on the factual content of my posts, and ignore overtones or undertones which might come across as negative to some.

Anyway, if my post came across as sarcastic or nasty to JimBobWay or anyone else, then I apologize. I do use sarcasm from time to time, but only when I think someone's being pig-headed, and JimBob certainly was not.

Lensman wrote:

richterm wrote:

The whole post sounds very sarcastic, not just the part you quoted. But if that's not how you meant it, then I retract.

Well, maybe I deserved that, Richterm. It's not the first time I've been told "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." I do have a tendency to concentrate on the factual content of my posts, and ignore overtones or undertones which might come across as negative to some.

Anyway, if my post came across as sarcastic or nasty to JimBobWay or anyone else, then I apologize. I do use sarcasm from time to time, but only when I think someone's being pig-headed, and JimBob certainly was not.

Fair enough. I've done it myself, and you seem like a good guy to see the point. Sometimes a written message comes off harsher than intended especially when highlighting/bold/CAPs are used. It's very easy to type without realizing the impression being given.

Just got off the phone with Eric Thomas who was nice enough to return my call while he was on vacation. I need to set things up with the press relation office of the USPTO before doing a formal interview which will take time but at least the process has begun.

Very nice. I look forward to reading the interview. Thanks,

PSI