TheEEStory.com

The major difference between the patent application and the current patent is the specific mentioning of eestor's EESU and apparently changing all previous instances of the word "battery" with some variant of EESU as lens has noted.
Ho hum?
Since the "experts" are all too certain that eestor technology is impossible LM choose to include it just in case? Why they did not mention cold fusion, of blacklight or (fill in the blank...) then confuses me.

Maybe I ought to revise my life insurance policy to include death by UFOs.

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

So I wonder what LMs application really is for an EESU?

rail gun?
little flying cameras?
highly charged pellets they can drop from planes?

But since they are likely aware that eestor is a scam (because they can read our comments too) they decide to recommend its use in the EESU/bulletproof garment.

I am certainly glad we are so smart.

ricinro wrote:

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

So I wonder what LMs application really is for an EESU?

rail gun?
little flying cameras?
highly charged pellets they can drop from planes?

But since they are likely aware that eestor is a scam (because they can read our comments too) they decide to recommend its use in the EESU/bulletproof garment.

I am certainly glad we are so smart.

Right!

Regardless of the military application, and there is not enough room on this site to list them, I going to stick with my initial gut on EESTOR.

And that is, "Who would put together the detailed deals that have been put together without seeing a prototype, working unit, a working layer or whatever. Who would have slapped down $$$millions$$$ without seeing the science work. NO---Body would.

I wouldn't and you wouldn't and Zenn et al. wouldn't.

On this New Year's eve let me make a prediction.

Weir will wait until Obama is Pres. cuz to do otherwise would be very foolish.

and the conversation with Obama will probably go something like this,

B.A. Hello MIke, how are you, what do you want?

M.W. I have something to show you.

B.A. So show me.

M.W. {Puts tester on unit and explains briefly}

B.A. I have $750 billion to put people back to work, How
much do you need???

M.W. I'll have my people call your people.

NickSheeson wrote:

Right!

Regardless of the military application, and there is not enough room on this site to list them, I going to stick with my initial gut on EESTOR.

And that is, "Who would put together the detailed deals that have been put together without seeing a prototype, working unit, a working layer or whatever. Who would have slapped down $$$millions$$$ without seeing the science work. NO---Body would.

I wouldn't and you wouldn't and Zenn et al. wouldn't.

On this New Year's eve let me make a prediction.

Weir will wait until Obama is Pres. cuz to do otherwise would be very foolish.

and the conversation with Obama will probably go something like this,

B.A. Hello MIke, how are you, what do you want?

M.W. I have something to show you.

B.A. So show me.

M.W. {Puts tester on unit and explains briefly}

B.A. I have $750 billion to put people back to work, How
much do you need???

M.W. I'll have my people call your people.

Steve321 wrote:

NickSheeson wrote:

Right!

Regardless of the military application, and there is not enough room on this site to list them, I going to stick with my initial gut on EESTOR.

And that is, "Who would put together the detailed deals that have been put together without seeing a prototype, working unit, a working layer or whatever. Who would have slapped down $$$millions$$$ without seeing the science work. NO---Body would.

I wouldn't and you wouldn't and Zenn et al. wouldn't.

On this New Year's eve let me make a prediction.

Weir will wait until Obama is Pres. cuz to do otherwise would be very foolish.

and the conversation with Obama will probably go something like this,

B.A. Hello MIke, how are you, what do you want?

M.W. I have something to show you.

B.A. So show me.

M.W. {Puts tester on unit and explains briefly}

B.A. I have $750 billion to put people back to work, How
much do you need???

M.W. I'll have my people call your people.

Why do I come back here? For the entertainment.
NickSheenson, thank you for the laugh.
I don't want to disappoint you, but don't expect Obama to give MW (BTW-who is MW) a single penny.

Steve: Of course he will cuz.

EESTOR = ZENN and ZENN = every ve..hicle under 3100 pounds.

It's a weiner all around, isn't it. G.M. keeps working pumping out cars, {what's good for G.M. is good for the Great American Dream} we all get off fering oil, T. Boone gets to build his string of windmills up through Kansas, the electric grid gets rebuilt, states and municipalites will switch to electric getting them out of debt, and best of all peace will break out all over the world and we will come together as John Lennon predicted.

I'm so bloody excited I can't wit for the movie to come out. Just don't know who is going to star as Weir. I'm serciously thinking of Anthony Hopkins.

God Bless you NickSheeson.
I like your positive attitude.
Happy New Year to you and your family!
Steve321

You know something Stevie, you may think that's a positive attitude but I can't hold a candle to Barak.

Who in their right mid would be playing golf at a moment like this in history, when in 20 days you get to take over the Presidency of the U.S. of A.

I get to play on silly blogs like this and if indeed I had to take over the Presidency in 20 days I would probably be sitting on a toilet crapping myself to death.

There ain't nuttin Barak ain't gonna have to fix.

But I sure hope there are people like Weir and T. Boone who are prepare to step up to the plate.

THE WORM IS ABOUT TO TURN!!

ricinro wrote:

Maybe I ought to revise my life insurance policy to include death by UFOs.

I'm sorry to side track a little but since the thread title is relevant:

Hey all,

With B’s latest blog posting, and the LM vest patent, I figured I might be able to add a little context.

My first job out of college was working as a technical writer in a testing facility much like UL. I wasn’t a testing engineer, but I prepared all the reports for different tests (FCC, Industry Canada, Verizon’s Network Equipment Building Standard, and yes, the Military Standards).

So if anyone wants to see what kind of testing would be done on LM’s vest (Or specially, the EESU that goes in the vest), you might want to check out Mil-STD-810F.

Full standard
Wiki short hand

It’s a lot of information, but adds a little bit of context when talking about environmental testing.

Continuance of disinformation:
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=N...

"Alternatively, electrical energy storage unit 109 may comprise one or more solid state, capacitive, electrical energy storage devices, such as those provided by EEstor, Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas..."

Probably nothing, but I found it interesting that the Patent Attorney that wrote this up used the past tense of "provide" (provided) instead of the future progressive (will be providing or may be providing). The exact meaning of his words state that EEStor has provided an electrical energy storage device in the past.

The question is, is this a case of the Patent Attorney simply making a grammatical error or did he simply state reality? Seeing as this person had to get an engineering degree and a law degree and probably took a boatload of English classes to prepare for his job, not to mention that LM probably has the best Patent Attorneys money can buy, either on their payroll or on a huge retainer, I tend to think it's the latter.

I could be wrong, but I know if I had written this patent, I would have known if this was an actual device or some cloud caption above an inventor's head and would have stated it accordingly. Hopefully, that's just what he did.

e'er wrote:

Probably nothing, but I found it interesting that the Patent Attorney that wrote this up used the past tense of "provide" (provided) instead of the future progressive (will be providing or may be providing). The exact meaning of his words state that EEStor has provided an electrical energy storage device in the past.

While it can be fun to "parse" stuff like this found in the patents and the press releases, it usually ends in insantity.

e'er, welcome to the EEStory.

tvillars wrote:

e'er wrote:

Probably nothing, but I found it interesting that the Patent Attorney that wrote this up used the past tense of "provide" (provided) instead of the future progressive (will be providing or may be providing). The exact meaning of his words state that EEStor has provided an electrical energy storage device in the past.

While it can be fun to "parse" stuff like this found in the patents and the press releases, it usually ends in insantity.

e'er, welcome to the EEStory.

TV's right. The wait's driving everyone here mad.

Again, welcome to the EEStory.

While I'm well aware that a handshake isn't possible with a message board welcome, I think I'd prefer silence to a condescending greeting and the content of my post being ignored. And, don't worry about my sanity as it's just fine. I just jumped on this band wagon, my stock is actually up at the moment and a 100% losss in this investment would not even put a dent in my mental well being. I suspect your comments are more telling about your frame of mind than mine.

Last edited Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 4:31pm by e'er

E'er: I'm sure neither TV or AD2 meant any condescension.

Even if the "provided" was intentional, I'm not sure that that language necessarily implies actual delivery, only a belief in the capability to deliver and that this capability has existed for some indeterminate length of time.

e'er wrote:

I suspect your comments are more telling about your frame of mind than mine.

lol, very true. Since you are new, you missed the whole "Steve" episode which was all about "parsing" the EEStor July 29, 2008 press release. It got quite insane and Steve alledgedly left the site because of all the bad will that got generated.

But back to your origninal question, we have a call into the EEStor patent examiner (Eric Thomas) and we are working to have him interviewed for the EEStor documentary. I'll add this question to the list of the things to talk about.

I have to disagree. While the intent may have been to imply possible future delivery, the language used definitely implied past delivery. As I said, if the lawyer meant future delivery, then he made a grammatical error. I even stated this as a possibility in my initial post, even though I did follow with reasons why I tend to think that was not the case.

Thank you, tvillars. I'm sorry if I overreacted. I just wanted to discuss this topic and I got two responses that although acknowledged my post, ingored the content completely. I was simply hoping to hear a response from an English major or someone more involved with patents than I am.

I actually received a copy of the patent office postcard from my attorney today for a patent I am applying for. Still, this is my first patent and I'm not at all familiar with how particular the language has to be for patents. However, I did see about a 4 page write up that turned into about 15 pages when the Patent Attorney had done his work. I was amazed at how concise my Attorney was. There were aspects of my invention that included parts that currently do not exist or that might have multiple possibilities as to what will be used, such as final shape or material content. Everytime one of these aspects were mentioned the words may or might were included.

As I said before, it could be a simple grammatical mistake, but Patent Attorneys seem to me to be some of the most concise and articulate people on the planet.

E'er: just checked with my Linguistics grad wife, If the guy didn't make a mistake, then the use of "provided" would usually (80% of the time) indicate actual delivery. Other interpretations are possible but less likely.

OldNeil wrote:

E'er: just checked with my Linguistics grad wife, If the guy didn't make a mistake, then the use of "provided" would usually (80% of the time) indicate actual delivery. Other interpretations are possible but less likely.

A prior sentence indicates other >possible< incarnations such as ... and clearly states the present incarnation is battery based. Read carefully.

OldNeil wrote:

E'er: just checked with my Linguistics grad wife, If the guy didn't make a mistake, then the use of "provided" would usually (80% of the time) indicate actual delivery. Other interpretations are possible but less likely.

Sorry E'er, I didn't mean to be flippant.

I take "provided" to mean "provided in the EEStor patent" (or EEStor patent application). That much will certainly have been provided, but we know (or it has been indicated in the patent documents that) the EEStor patent has been approved sight unseen, so I don't think this meant the sort of "provided" that would imply an EESU landed in their office for perusal.

Having said that, who knows?

What we are all waiting for is third-party permittivity results. That will tell us not only that the theory is correct but that something has been built that exists and has been tested and works.

Third-party permittivity used to be something that was "imminent". We have also had some discussion on these boards as to what constitutes imminent.

Thanks, Old Neil. I'm going with the 80%.

No problem, AD2. As I said earlier, I probably overreacted. I understand your pain. I've only been on board for a few weeks, but I've read many of the posts on this forum. It has to be frustrating to keep hearing projections that never occur. However, if they really do have this device, I can understand why they are taking so long. This would be the biggest technological advancement since electricity as far as how it would change the world.

You may be right about it referencing the patent, but everytime I've seen that the reference includes the patent number. Maybe this is explained elsewhere in the patent. While I did look over the patent, I didn't read every word and must have missed it if it's in there. Was it after the ...