Comments on: Hype machine has gripped EEStor

By: Anto

Anto — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:09:53 +0000

retired scientist:
“Does anyone know if EEStor has done this yet?”

EESTOR has not shown anyone outside Dick Weir’s dream world the ceramic battery which they claimed on the “TEAS Plus New Application” (US Patent: US Serial No: 77351321) was “FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 02/02/2001″ .
Visit the following link:
http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/PA_1_0_LT/OpenServletWindow?serialNumber=77351321&scanDate=2007121729931&DocDesc=TEAS+Plus+New+Application&docType=FTK¤tPage=1&rowNum=12&rowCount=12&formattedDate=13-Dec-2007

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:52:43 +0000

I am a retired scientist

EEStor recently announced that their barium titanite powder was independently tested at 1000 volts per micron. providing a safety margin of 3 over what they need to meet their specification.

This is an exceptionally strong electric field which is much higher than I ever thought was possible.

What I would like to see is a public demonstration of a prototype EEStor capacitor, witnessed and signed off by a few recognized independent experts.

Surely by now, EEStor must have some working prototypes that could be used for this purpose.These prototypes need not meet EEStor’s target specifications. They only need to show proof of principle.

Does anyone know if EEStor has done this yet?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:58:33 +0000

Sounds too good to be true. If this new technology actually works it could end one day end our dependence on fossil fuel for transportation. This technology wouldn’t just work for compact cars. It can be used for SUVs, trucks, buses and trains. Any kind of ground transportation and maybe even airplanes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:26:55 +0000

The relationship between EESTOR and Fell Good Cars is an odd one, to say the least. On the one side there a company with a “revolutionary” technology and yet it limits itself by granting some exclusivity to a “nothing” company, namely Feel Good Cars. EESTOR doesn’t say anything, but lets Feel Good Cars trumpet its “technology”. You would think that at least some non-disclosure agreement would have been in place if EESTOR were really interested in keeping secrecy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:31:27 +0000

Another effect of hyping ultracapacitor technology — whether intended as a scam or not — is the effect it has on the industry as a whole. Take investments as an example. If one broker is promising a guaranteed 20% return on investment, then another broker promising a pretty safe 5% is not going to find many customers. When EEStor makes these kind of claims, others with proven technology that offers less will not get money from investors. And if EEStor then turns out to be a scam, which is where I put them, investors tend to take that as a reflection on the whole industry. Pretty soon everybody with new battery or ultracapacitor technology are considered scam artists like the zero point energy kooks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:22:23 +0000

Regarding the question “where is the scam” it migth be worthwhile to see where most of the information is coming out from. Feel Good Cars has a lot to say about EESTOR. Feel Good Cars is a publicly traded company, and all of this talk did not hurt their stock price.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:30:08 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts Stephen. I’m a techie too, I just also like to be a contrarian once in a while. I’d recommend the film Manufactured Landscapes, by Torontonian Edward Burtynsky, for a great view between the bars at the gates of hell. There I go again! To me it was basically about energy use fuelling consumption, and the effect that is having on the planet. I think we need to apply all approaches, simultaneously and with great intent, Especially in collaborations.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:39:40 +0000

Interesting comments Jp. I don’t see as many downsides as you do. I can hardly imagine the US being more auto-centric; I’m not sure I buy that it would engender a bunch of new road construction. If anything, the eventual dramatic reduction in emissions would be a strong positive (think Los Angeles). Maybe driving electric vehicles would foster a sense of environmental awareness that would lead people to make other wise choices.

And if we bring in the potential to reduce greenhouse causing gasses into the picture, which could well be the issue of the century, the scales are firmly tilted towards embracing the technology, I think.

I just hope it pans out.

Stephen Boulet

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:55:48 +0000

My concern is more the impact such a technology will perpetuate and potentialy unleash. Never before have we been able to store electricity in such a portable power-pack. We need consider the extensive uses such a handy energy source might be put to, in a world already suffering from the effects of the connection between energy and nature that humans enjoy employing, and use to all manner of ends. Secondly, there are already many other environmental and social effects of automobiles and highway-based industrial transportation systems which would now be guiltlessly perpetuated by this freeing of climate-forcing responsibility; the Hagersville fire, our dependence on distant markets, the release of toxic particulates in rubber dust, social isolation, the Transcontinental Free Trade Superhighway set to bisect Indiana, etc. We can possibly solve one problem, but in so doing . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 03:08:02 +0000

Re: Investing in FGC to invest in EEStor

The understanding between the two is only for the smaller, limited use class vehicle, so, yes, it would be risky. Due diligence may even suggest determining prior satisfaction of potential Electric Dauphine customers.