TheEEStory.com

GaryB wrote:

I can understand the reasons for a patent to take quite awhile, but this is only a patent application. Is this the norm for applications as well?

I remember hearing that there's an 18-month dark period in which patent apps are not accessible to the public.

For an eestor EESU in a thin configuration to be useable in a protective garment there must be some toughness and perhaps slight flexibility to an EESU. I am aware that it is ceramic power in a PET matrix and this would be slightly flexible but also the printed aluminum "wiring" must also allow the slight bending/twisting to be expected on a worn garment. The trials for this garment will require a soldier to do all the things soldiers do, like crawl, wade in water, climb over walls, etc.
Yes it seems like eestor technology is working and prototypes have been evaluated.

"While the primary function of electrical energy storage layers 203 and 401 a- 401 h are to provide electrical power, electrical energy storage layers 203 and 401 a- 401 h also provide ballistic round protection to a person behind electrical energy storage layers 203 and 401 a-401 h in addition to armor plate 201. The soft nature of electrical energy storage layers 203 and 401 a-401 h, relative to armor plate 201 , causes a ballistic round or fragment to spiral upon striking one of layers 203 and 401 a-401 h, which provides an enhancement to the ballistic resistance of armor plate 201."

Perhaps they used lithium ion polymer to verify this and/or they used thin slabs of eestor EESU materials.

LM engineers could have been told the properties of the EESU materials but the patent text sounds descriptive not predictive.

Next, other patents?

Hmm... those prototypes that were supposedly destroyed in environmental testing..

Maybe the environment they were testing was a battlefield.

Not necessarily true that they need to be flexible. I'm probably just quibbling, but ceramic armor isn't flexible.

I'm skeptical still, but open. (aka non-stockholder in Zenn)

There's lots of levels of electrical suits. The most likely is just one that has enough energy for communication needs, and not for a 'ray gun'

I think this adds to the credibility pile, but not as much as missing the 2008 deadline takes away from it. Still, it's a positive.

greg woulf wrote:

I think this adds to the credibility pile, but not as much as missing the 2008 deadline takes away from it. Still, it's a positive.

I agree with your analysis 100%.

zawy wrote:

Volume kind of "high" in U.S. today with a "whopping" $200,000 traded so far. 2 or 3 people got back to their computer at work today, checked this web site, saw the Christmas card from Ian, and sold. Or maybe their financial adviser finally back to work and saw an email request to sell.

I think you're bang on. And it's the end of the year, so there's likely some tax loss selling going on here as well.

Lensman wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

The phrase "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" only came on the scene post-EEStor. Before that, it was always called a "battery."

B:

I don't want to be rude here, but I suggest you read the patent more carefully. It's quite clear the term "electrical energy storage unit" and "electrical energy storage device" are generic descriptive terms used interchangably in the patent, and are *not* a reference to EEStor's EESU.

Furthermore, by Googling a bit, one can easily find references to non-EEStor "electrical energy storage units", such as this patent application.

One can not "easily find" references to EESU prior to EEStor. The patent you reference certainly doesn't.

eestorblog wrote:

Lensman wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

The phrase "Electrical Energy Storage Unit" only came on the scene post-EEStor. Before that, it was always called a "battery."

B:

I don't want to be rude here, but I suggest you read the patent more carefully. It's quite clear the term "electrical energy storage unit" and "electrical energy storage device" are generic descriptive terms used interchangably in the patent, and are *not* a reference to EEStor's EESU.

Furthermore, by Googling a bit, one can easily find references to non-EEStor "electrical energy storage units", such as this patent application.

One can not "easily find" references to EESU prior to EEStor. The patent you reference certainly doesn't.

There are many excitable engineers eagerly awaiting the enlightenment that is the upcoming permittivity annoucements and "prototype" release, all totally in the dark, just like everyone else on this blog. I'd be very surprised if some of these engineers aren't writing new patents mentioning the possibilities of a world with EESU's, just now.

dfwrunner wrote:

There are many excitable engineers eagerly awaiting the enlightenment that is the upcoming permittivity annoucements and "prototype" release,

Y_Po wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

There are many excitable engineers eagerly awaiting the enlightenment that is the upcoming permittivity annoucements and "prototype" release,

I noticed that engineers are easily excitable.

Careful not to stereotype. Some are some aren't.

dfwrunner wrote:

...all totally in the dark, just like everyone else on this blog.

Only someone who is not in the dark could say for sure who is in the dark.

eestorblog wrote:

dfwrunner wrote:

...all totally in the dark, just like everyone else on this blog.

Only someone who is not in the dark could say for sure who is in the dark.

zawy, this would be great to have in the documentary. When do you want to set up an interview so you can go on camera to give your opinion?

You too y_po.

no it needs to be in your own words. When do you want to do the interview so we can schedule the air travel and come out to meet you?

Last edited Tue, 30 Dec 2008, 9:38am by tvillars

So I had a little time to evauate the information here, I don't see anything to get excited about. There is no evidence that there is a commercial product, LM is not funding EEstor with the ability to bring anything to market. So a patent that could use an eesu along with batteries, etc. The point of the patent is not eesu, but to have energy source that will work in military applications, that could be li-ion, fuel cell, or perhaps eesu, or all.

People are looking for reassurance that the major players like Lockheed are still working with EEStor. The patent application does that by mentioning EEStor by name. I agree this is nothing earth shattering, but rather just another piece to the puzzle.

Wow....zenn stock is dropping at an alarming rate in the first 30mins of trading this am. it's now down under $2 with a current bid in the 1.80 range. there are obviously some shareholders that grew tired and decided to start dumping.

There have been 20K shares traded. It doesn't mean much. None of these moves up or down mean much with no volume. It's bound to be very volitile.

But it's probably true that some people are dumping because of the miss on 2008 delivery.

EVSupporter wrote:

Wow....zenn stock is dropping at an alarming rate in the first 30mins of trading this am. it's now down under $2 with a current bid in the 1.80 range. there are obviously some shareholders that grew tired and decided to start dumping.

Calculated drop IMO.
To accumulate by scaring people to sell.
Low volume lets manipulators play.
Can sell a few shares and drop price significantly.
And they send bashers like ypo, zawy, yourself?
Zawy is posting like crazy here and on yahoo, all of a sudden. And their partners.

I'd buy all I can at these prices, if I had more money.
If this is real, you can retire early by investing between 5 & 10K now.

If real, the only thing I would fear as an investor would be the gov't interferring based on economic disruption or national security.

davidg wrote:

EVSupporter wrote:

Wow....zenn stock is dropping at an alarming rate in the first 30mins of trading this am. it's now down under $2 with a current bid in the 1.80 range. there are obviously some shareholders that grew tired and decided to start dumping.

Calculated drop IMO.
To accumulate by scaring people to sell.
Low volume lets manipulators play.
Can sell a few shares and drop price significantly.
And they send bashers like ypo, zawy, yourself?
Zawy is posting like crazy here and on yahoo, all of a sudden. And their partners.

I'd buy all I can at these prices, if I had more money.
If this is real, you can retire early by investing between 5 & 10K now.

If real, the only thing I would fear as an investor would be the gov't interferring based on economic disruption or national security.

The gov'ment would love for this to be real.

The volume of trades over the past few days hasn't been very high, even for this thinly-traded stock. I'm not sure the price drop is that significant. As has been said, maybe just some people needing a tax write-off.

But yeah, the thing about sending out bad news on Xmas eve buried in a desperately-positive toned virtual "Christmas card" sent to stockholders, and not in a press release, doesn't inspire confidence, either.

eestorblog wrote:

Lensman wrote:

by Googling a bit, one can easily find references to non-EEStor "electrical energy storage units", such as this patent application.

One can not "easily find" references to EESU prior to EEStor. The patent you reference certainly doesn't.

- - - - - - -

I'm rather baffled that this point is still being argued. Here is a list of all the terms which appear in the patent which include the words "electrical energy storage":

electrical energy storage unit

electrical energy storage layer

electrical energy storage units

electrical energy storage devices

electrical energy storage layers

electrical energy storage management system

electrical energy storage management systems

electrical energy storage-operated, portable electronic devices

electrical energy storage unit management system

electrical energy storage layer management system

electrical energy storage means

.
I think it's *very* clear that "electrical energy storage unit" is used as a *generic* term in the patent, and is *not* specifically a reference to EEStor's technology.

Last edited Tue, 30 Dec 2008, 4:14pm by Darth Lensman Archive

Lensman wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Lensman wrote:

by Googling a bit, one can easily find references to non-EEStor "electrical energy storage units", such as this patent application.

One can not "easily find" references to EESU prior to EEStor. The patent you reference certainly doesn't.

The generic term "electrical energy storage unit" appears in the title of the patent I linked to. If you mean the acronym "EESU", try this website which defines "EESU" as "electrical energy storage unit"?
.
Again, quite easy to find via Google.

- - - - - - -

I must say, I'm rather baffled that this point is still being disputed. Is it less than *totally* clear that the term "electrical energy storage unit" in the patent is a generic term for a device which stores electricity, either batteries or the EEStor EESU? Here is a list of all the terms which appear in the patent which include the words "electrical energy storage":

electrical energy storage unit

electrical energy storage layer

electrical energy storage units

electrical energy storage devices

electrical energy storage layers

electrical energy storage management system

electrical energy storage management systems

electrical energy storage-operated, portable electronic devices

electrical energy storage unit management system

electrical energy storage layer management system

electrical energy storage means

.
Hopefully this is sufficient to clear up any lingering doubt. As I said, "electrical energy storage unit" is used as a *generic* term in the patent, and is *not* specifically a reference to EEStor's technology.

Of course this doesn't clear up any lingering doubts since it completely misses the point. The point is that prior to EEStor the phrase "electrical energy storage unit" had no circulation in ordinary english. I admit not a lot rides on whether or not I'm correct about this, but it's somewhat significant.

And even if you can find a pre-2001-ish use of EESU, I don't think anyone would disagree that EEStor has put it on the map. *That* is something you can easily google. ;-)

The term "EESU" *still* has no circulation in "ordinary English". The relevant question is not whether or not EEStor has helped make "EESU" a more widely recognized acronym. The relevant question is whether LM was specifically referring to EEStor's EESU when they put "electrical energy storage unit" in the title of the patent.

Has anyone bothered to read the original patent application that nekote uploaded.

http://theeestory.com/files/US_60-911_066_10.04...

That application is only one year older than the current version, yet there is no mention of "electrical energy storage...anything"

To say that the wording of the current version wasn't influenced by EESTOR is just ludicrous. As you pointed out yourself lens, on the latest version "electrical energy storage..." has become the central theme.

Has anyone bothered to read B's blog "Lockheed On EESU Garment Patent"?
From B's Blog quoting a Lockheed spokesperson:
"The patent is related to another product unrelated to our rights agreement with EEStor Inc."
Thanks B...now I know for a fact the Lockheed Garment Patent is irrelevant for EESTOR.
Some of the believers should take their heads out of EESTOR. EESU does not evolve around EESTOR. Isn't it amazing that kids in kindergarten have fun and see things more clearly than believers?

Last edited Wed, 31 Dec 2008, 4:32am by Steve321

GaryB wrote:

To say that the wording of the current version wasn't influenced by EESTOR is just ludicrous.

I don't think anyone is still claiming that, GaryB.

Steve321 wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read B's blog "Lockheed On EESU Garment Patent"?
From B's Blog quoting a Lockheed spokesperson:
"The patent is related to another product unrelated to our rights agreement with EEStor Inc."
Thanks B...now I know for a fact the Lockheed Garment Patent is irrelevant for EESTOR.
Some of the believers should take their heads out of EESTOR. EESU does not evolve around EESTOR. Isn't it amazing that kids in kindergarten have fun and see things more clearly than believers?

Read the patent.

richterm wrote:

Steve321 wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read B's blog "Lockheed On EESU Garment Patent"?
From B's Blog quoting a Lockheed spokesperson:
"The patent is related to another product unrelated to our rights agreement with EEStor Inc."
Thanks B...now I know for a fact the Lockheed Garment Patent is irrelevant for EESTOR.
Some of the believers should take their heads out of EESTOR. EESU does not evolve around EESTOR. Isn't it amazing that kids in kindergarten have fun and see things more clearly than believers?

Read the patent.

Thank you,
Have a good day.

Steve321 wrote:

richterm wrote:

Steve321 wrote:

Has anyone bothered to read B's blog "Lockheed On EESU Garment Patent"?
From B's Blog quoting a Lockheed spokesperson:
"The patent is related to another product unrelated to our rights agreement with EEStor Inc."
Thanks B...now I know for a fact the Lockheed Garment Patent is irrelevant for EESTOR.
Some of the believers should take their heads out of EESTOR. EESU does not evolve around EESTOR. Isn't it amazing that kids in kindergarten have fun and see things more clearly than believers?

Read the patent.

Read what the spokesperson of Locheed stated to B:
The patent is related to another product UNRELATED to our rights agreement with EEStor Inc."

Thank you,
Have a good day.

Their statment says the patent is related to another product unrelated to Eestor, not that the patent is irrelevant to Eestor. Clearly Eestor is relevant to the patent in that it is specifically mentioned BY the patent.

Your quote was "now I know for a fact the Lockheed Garment Patent is irrelevant for EESTOR". Untrue.

Have a good day too.

Last edited Wed, 31 Dec 2008, 12:07pm by rt