Perhaps, but you also have to be willing to actually look at the evidence if you want to lay claim to being open minded. I get the feeling that, in some cases, many people are interested in getting on a soap box explaining why something can’t possibly work while declining to investigate it. (Here I’m thinking of EEStor, but also more speculatively Steorn.)

It calls the mind some of Galileo’s contemporaries who refused to look into a telescope…

Stephen

The $2.5 million does seem like a pittance, doesn’t it. Part of the reason I trust the ZENN angle is because a couple years back, well before I heard of EEStor, I wrote a big feature on Feel Good Cars. At the time, its CEO Ian Clifford mentioned in passing he was in talks with some new battery startup that was going to blow the socks off the industry. I quickly dismissed it, partly because Clifford wouldn’t name the company. Then a year later I heard about this EEStor company, and the Kleiners investment, from a BusinessWeek online article. Not long after I discovered this was the company Clifford had been talking about.

I can only speculate that ZENN’s potentially sweet deal with EEStor is based on the fact that the company was supportive very early in the process, well before Kleiners had even heard about the company. And, well, I guess some entrepreneurs still honour their commitments and loyal to their supporters.

I’m more perplexed that Kleiners has only invested $3 million, but I have a sneaking suspicious it has quietly thrown in more money and that they’re not the only one. When I spoke with Weir I didn’t get the feeling he was on the hunt for cash. Weir wouldn’t talk about the business plan, about future investments, about the board of directors or any other details beyond the release. He’s a straight shooter — doesn’t take any crap. I hear he’s in his 70s.

I was under the impression he had a prototype, but of components rather than a full device. If you read the press release, it has this sentence: “It is anticipated that the relative permittivity of the current powder will-either meet and/or exceed 18,500, the previous level achieved when EEStor, Inc. produced prototype components using it engineering level processing equipment.”

Any rational person who reads your piece knows that it represents perfectly even-handed jouralism. In fact, it is the most well-written about EEStor that I’ve seen; much more so than the other financial articles, which largely just parrot the press releases. Don’t let the knuckleheads get you down.

That said, isn’t this EEStor stuff just a wonderful saga? It’s got all the elements – fantastic claims, ney-saying experts, powerful backers and shadowy principals. In your interview, did you get to ask anything more than you listed in the article? For example, did you find out if they’ve constructed a prototype yet? It seems like they should be past that point if their deadlines are serious. Did you ask about their business plan? The whole ZENN agreement seems odd to me – if EEStor is really coming through, why make such a binding agreement with ZENN for a relative pittance ($2.5M)?

Anyway, keep plugging away at this story. If it does pan out, it’ll be the scoop of the year. And if it doesn’t, it’ll be a good cautionary tale.

In the meantime I will concentrate on getting, or converting, a car to battery electric using proven lead-acid batteries and conventional series DC motors. If the EEStor Ultracapacitor design proves successful then wonderful. But I’ll take my electric car now and get off the oil addiction while substantially reducing green house gas emissions.

For the record, I do not and have never owned shares of ZENN or Feel Good Cars (its former name), nor have any friends or family to the best of my knowledge. Second of all, while most posts of mine show hopeful enthusiasm for the technology, I’m just as skeptical as everyone else. Ultimately, I’d like to see a working, commercial product, and unfortunately I’m not an engineer and don’t know whether EEStor’s claims are realistic or not.

Third, related to the Technology Review article, for that piece I contacted two ultracap experts and clearly explained their legitimate concerns related to EEStor’s claims. The story, by any measure, made a sincere and I believe successful attempt at balance. The analysis is neither anonymous or one-sided.

On a final note, this blog is not designed to influence investors. It is designed to stimulate discussion and share ideas. Unfortunately, investors may come to this blog expecting insight for their own investing purposes. Read at your own risk, and at the same time, don’t put me down if I happen to closely follow a technology whose potential I choose — as an optimistic person concerned about the environment and climate change — to believe in.

Stephen