EEStor should talk
Is EEStor’s ultracapacitor-based storage device for real? Will it meet its ambitious — some would say unrealistic — claims? And even if it does, can we realistically expect the product to just instantly change the market? After all, developing a game-changing technology is one thing, but the process of changing the game takes a lot of time and money. Given that we haven’t heard a lot about EEStor, other than the few articles that have appeared over the past two years (including my own), and other than the speculation that continues to be rampant on the Net, I think it’s fair at this point to expect a status report from the company. I know Dick Weir, EEStor’s CEO and co-founder, never wanted the publicity — but the cat has been out of the bag for long enough now. Time to fess up.
Personally, I’ve been hopeful over the past two years that EEStor is indeed for real. But I’m beginning to have my doubts now. I just confirmed that Morton Topfer, former vice-chairman of Dell and director with AMD, left EEStor’s board about five months ago. Not sure why… but it begs the question. Also, a well-placed person within the Kleiner Perkins circle told me recently that he’s not convinced EEStor’s energy storage system will work as claimed.
The problem with silence is that it leaves people like myself speculating. Why do we speculate? I don’t know about you but I can’t help it. I want EEStor to work, and I crave more information. But still we have no Web site. No comments from Kleiners or the CEO. Nothing.
Tyler Hamilton is associate publisher and editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and former business columnist for the Toronto Star. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Thanks for the update.
Out of curiosity I ran a Google search of Morton Topfer. On the face of it, Topfer joined Advanced Micro Devices to pave the way to an AMD relationship with Dell Computer. Prior to 2005 when Topfer joined the AMD board, Dell employed Intel processors exclusively.
CNET link: http://www.news.com/Tackling-Intel-Mission-impossible/2008-1041_3-5623382.html
Additionally Topfer is a director of Measurement Specialties Inc. Yahoo link:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/39/603.html
Apparently Topfer is also invested in Dallas and Austin, Texas real estate as managing director of Castletop Capital L.P. Forbes link:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=940636
Topfer appears to own shares of AMD, Measurement Specialities and Staktek Holdings, where he served as a director until 2005.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:05 am
Why all this focus on EEStor?
It resembles the comments of Statler snd Waldorf; not adding to progessing the case for sustainability.
Look at Shai Agassi and friends and see where the leading edge is at.
In Europe, Eurelectric is doing the same thing.
Cheers,
Emil M
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Let’s see they’ve invested $3 million in this.
case A: Things are going ok, maybe with some tech fix delays. Why discuss this and argue with goof-balls who will claim you’re lying? Just wait to you can show off a prototype and production capability. This will speak loudly for you.
case B: Things are not going ok. Does anyone like to announce their failures? …especially with $3 million involved.
In either case they have no obligation to tell us anything. Why even ask. Just wait till their ready. Last year I went through this speculation process Nanosolar. Finally decided that they were just another PV company making claims they could not meet. …then bang $100 million and a 470 MW per year factory plan is announced. …wow it’s the real deal.
EEStor may be able to do this better than originally planned, they make have run into insurmountable production problems, or anything in between. If we haven’t invested then we just have to wait and see.
Patience Tyler! Enjoy the anticipation dude!
BTW Those solar thermal pictures were way cool! Thanks!
In the mean time, there are at least a half dozen Li Ion battery companies and the FireFly Pb Acid that are going to make electric transportation a major reality in the next few years anyway. Thank you high oil prices! Won’t be having that problem in 20 or 30 years!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I dearly hope it works but if it comes to nothing it’ll be a salutory lesson in overpromising and underdelivering which unfortunately is rife in the world of alternative energy and greentech in general.
People are losing faith due to the frequently outrageous claims which are made to justify some of these new technologies and it really should stop.
Underpromise and overdeliver. That’s what these companies should be doing.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
If one were to come out with a promise to deliver a car which got 4000 mpg, had a 20 year warranty, and cost less then $1000, I wonder how much credibility would follow, as everyone has a pretty good idea of what “normal” is. But to an electrical engineer, the parameters claimed by EEStor are analogous. The permittivity at the rated voltage is 20,000 vs 50 for current dielectrics for that voltage (4000 mpg). The ability to be rated at 300 volts/micron is 10 times normal (10 year warranty) and the projected cost is about a twentieth of what you would have to pay, if you got 30 1-farad, 3000 volt ceramic capacitors. So, this is one hell of a package, if real.
They seem to be exempt from other rules; normally when one mixes dielctric A with dielectric B, you get close to the lesser of the two breakdowns, and permittivities. But for some reason, they are getting the better of both. And it is so for both their film version, and their ceramic. Wow!
But, hey, they’re from Texas where the “normal” might not apply.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
We can also get into a conspiracy theory. Is there a romote possibility that they got an offer whereby it would be more lucrative for them to fail rather than to succeed?
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I’m one of the few journalists — possibly the only one — who has spoken with Richard Weir in any detail. I may not be a good judge of character, but I got the sense that money wasn’t the issue for him. This is about changing the world. As one colleague of his told me, “Richard is more concerned with having a statute erected in his home town recognizing him as a hero.”
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Your impression of Mr. Weir has the ring of truth. Safe to say that Weir’s hometown isn’t Houston.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I feel, at this point, EEStor has little chance of success. Usually, such as with Nanosolar, the problems are not with the science itself but the production methods to achieve the product goals (price, performance, etc.).
I have read that the maximum energy of the Lead-acid battery is 170 Wh/kg, but currently only produces about 50 Wh/kg. EEStor’s claims, from the science I’ve read, are in line with someone claiming a 5000 Wh/kg Lead-acid battery (please don’t write back that this is a capacitor, I’m merely making an analogous comparison). While it is conceivable that someone overlooked a possible improvement, usually “discoveries” that confound science are soon exposed as wishful thinking (or fraud, though I don’t think that’s the case here). If the science doesn’t support the results, then the best production methods in the world are useless.
I have the same questions as JohnG. While I still hold out hope, I think I will keep my eggs in the Firefly, Altair, and A123 baskets for now, where they might have a better chance of hatching.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Your reasoning reminds me of days when I bet the horses at Del Mar. This one looks pretty good. And that one might have possibilities. Of course, everyone knows that EEStor is a hopeless long shot.
If this is a horse race, the companies you mention are hopeless losers… in fact they are not even entered. If by some miracle one of these “innovative batteries” reaches a point where it is competitive with the price of gasoline, the Washington D.C./Mecca oil cartel will lower the price of gasoline until the “innovation” passes by the wayside. Same goes for tar sands, ethenhol and all the rest of that nonsense. There are trillions and trillions of barrels of unpumped oil out there. The cartel intends to sell the suckers – that’s us – every last drop of it. Beyond that, the buggywhip automobile industry composed of companies such as Toyota and General Motors will ignore, belittle or oppose anything that threatens business as usual.
EEStor may be a longshot. But at the moment it’s the only shot.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Maybe you should ask the people at Zen Car Company. They’ve invested millions and even took out the option to invest more. I can’t believe that they are not up to date on where EEstor stands. Supposedly EEstor was to deliver their energy storage device this year.
I’ve followed this story from the beginning and it currently doesn’t look promising. Too bad I really hoped they could deliver.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I think this says it all, offical email from zenn not to encouraging, I sold all my stock, at least I made a good profit…
8. I looked into this further. This is the email I received from Chris Strong of ZENN. It looks like they are backing off claims of a highway speed automobile. They are also hedging on Eestor based product delivery until 2008.
…………..
Jess,
Vic forwarded me your email for comment.
There has been a lot of misinformation and assumptions around the EEStor project. To clarify, we are still on track to receive initial units from EEStor for testing late this year (Most likely December). However, as with any new technology, or platform change, we must test these units at length before preparing to launch a consumer based product offering. Testing will take several months at minimum, pushing probable launch date to the consumer into late 2008.
That said, the initial launch of the EEStor units will be in the (low speed) ZENN. This vehicle will be the proving ground for the EEStor product for range, performance, reliability and longevity. Certified as a Low Speed Vehicle (per the Federal Moter Vehicle Safety Standard – FMVSS500), today’s ZENN was never designed to operate at highway speeds and never will. As such, the only improvement EEStor storage units offer a low speed vehicle is increased range and longer lifespan (of the battery pack). You will note however, that NEV (Neighborhood Electric Vehicle) user data indicates an average operating range of less than 10 miles per day, making any gains beyond the availabe 35 mile range somewhat redundant.
Even the fact that you can recharge the EEStor units faster (assuming of course you have an avilable high current charging source) is lost on a low speed vehicle that is typically charged at end of day when there is no urgency to recharge (as the car is parked overnight).
So what does this all mean? We are all very excited about EEStor and the prospects it brings. The long term target for the EEStor product is obviously a highway capable car but that is not what we have to offer today, nor are there any definitive timelines on when this vehicle will be available.
We do however, have an excellent transportation solution in the current ZENN NEV. This vehicle is an ideal choice for consumers who have need of a vehicle for short trips to work or around town. Certainly, as a 25 mph car, it is not intended to repace a household’s sole conventional gas powered vehicle, but rather offset the usage of that primary vehicle with a greener, cleaner and more economical car. Most of our customers were attracted by the promise of Zero Emmissions, but the operational savings was the ultimate impetus to purchase. In a comparison to a 2006 Toyota Corolla, the ZENN virtually pays for itself over a 5 year period (see attached)!
I thank you for your faith by investing in ZENN, but the best way to ensure the success of ZENN and of EEStor is to represent the brand through example. This is the driving force behind our Ambassador Program (See attached). It provides consumers an opportunity to purchase a ZENN at a substantial discount (Up to $4000 off)) in exchange for goodwill promotion. ZENN owners have always been our biggest advocates.
Response has been exceptional thus far. When the allocated inventory is sold, the program will end so if you are considering a ZENN, don’t wait too long.
Thank you again for your interest in ZENN. I hope my input has been of some value to you and I look forward to hearing of your exploits as a ZENN Ambassador should you choose to join the team.
Warmest regards,
Chris
Chris Strong
Regional Sales Manager
ZENN Motor Company
Direct 310-601-6748
Toronto Office:
1-877-817-7034 Toll Free
416-535-8395 x 212 Office
416-535-4043 Fax
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
Informative post. Thank you for sharing it. The info sounds encouraging to me. Why do you find it otherwise?
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
This would be like Bill Gates selling out to IBM in the early days, instead of using IBM to propel Microsoft forward. Not likely.
Look into GM Volt. We have already started an electric transport revolution without EEStor. If EEStor can even acheive Li Ion energy densities then they can be bigger winners if do not sell out. Their timing could not be better. IF they succeed.
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Ditto. No negative information here other than delay in implementation of production. This is typical. It is difficult to go from labrotory to production. You see this all the time. They have not done it yet, but there is also no evidence of failure either. You’ll know if they fold their hand. May take a while to become clear, but it will.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Nanosolar, HelioVolt, Maisole, and Showa Shell each have over $100 million to use building large production CIGS PV plants. There seems to commonly be delays in going from the labrotory to production. What makes you think they will not deliver on their cost and production volume promises?
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Patience, oh pundits of prediction based on nothing at all.
Wait for it….
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Ring of truth:
1. Stealth startup
2. Disc drive engineers
3. Solid-state
4. A pittance invested
5. A “feel good” car company
It’s all there. Of course for a long time I believed that a tank-town commoner wrote Hamlet and that the tsar’s daughter, Anastasia, survived.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
You miss my point. All of these solar cell companies were dealing with technology that had been shown to work in the lab, so the problems were associated with scaling up to production; this is possible. EEStor, on the other hand, has no peer reviewed research showing that their claims can be met. Additionally, from what I’ve read (and then researched myself), most people who know much about capacitors don’t think that their claims are even scientifically possible with the materials described, much less scaled up to production. I was obsessed with EEStor for some time, so I did some research of my own and came to this unfortunate conclusion. Just to be clear, I hope I’m wrong!
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Zenn is not selling well, only 300 sold so far they need several thousands to make a profit, permitivity testing should have been completed by now, indicating eestor is having issues, zenn does not have the funding to contiue to go forward much past 1st qtr, CEO stop talking about future with eestor, eestor executive team have left. Indication is the eestor is at best at par with lithium-ion with no proven track record. VC in the know, says eestor not working as advertise, the 15 k unit as promise will likely only be 5 to 7k. 80 miles max on zenn (stated by zenn dealer), with no proven track record. The article i posted here just confirms there is a long way from a real live car and the eestor will not be used in the zenn for comercial use. so how can you see this as postivie? remember this is the best spin that zenn can put on the situation, which most likely is worse than the email is communcating..
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Shai Agassi is no closer time wise- and if EEEstor can do half of what has been discussed- they win. HUGE.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
The idea that it won’t meet specs seems to jive with what Tyler has indicated. But this seems to be the first time anyone has put any numbers on paper. Thanks again.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
You’re right, I missed your point. It’s a good one. Thank you for clarifying.
If it were my money invested then I would want to cut losses if the prototype did not prove viable. This does not avoid the possibility of insurmountable production problems. That’s the risk. I strongly suspect that the prototype and science are good and the capacitor experts are wrong. I suspect that the difference is the experts are relying on old data that does not take into account properties of ultra-high purity materials and/or nano-structures. I’m no expert myself and could certainly be dead wrong. Also, I’m speculating big time. Proof will be in the pudding. We’ll see what happens.
Some North Americans seem to forget to be patient.
Let’s just see if this fish decides to take the bait, then we can see about playing it in. Otherwise, we go fish elsewhere.
Thanks again.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:23 am
It isn’t really fair to criticize EEStor on this note, as the only real “information” is from the patent, and a patent is much different than a press release. Most of the hype came from those of us, me included, who were intrigued and hopeful regarding the potential.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:54 am
It amuses me that something that one of the Zenn dealers said is being repeated ad nauseum as fact.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the dealer poo poo’ed the upcoming EEStor powerplant simply because he was having trouble moving the existing stock of lead acid powered vehicles? I mean really, have people become so uncritical as to believe what a car salesman’s opinions are?
November 5th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Fair point, but I think if the hype gets out of control then the company needs to step up and calm things down with some real data. PR should work in both directions.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I understand your comment, but capacitor companies would not stay in business long if they relied on “old data” in this highly competitive industry. Both “ultra-high purity” and “nano-materials” have been, and continue to be researched. There are hundreds of engineers involved in this sport. Its hard to make micron scale products without nano-scaled materials. They were being used before “nano” was so hyped.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Agreed, but since many of us here are thinking (fearing) that they don’t have very good data to share, they would probably not be too keen on putting it out there. Especially if they still think it could lead somewhere; a poor press release has the opposite effect as falsely positive speculation, driving away investors from projects that might still have value.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
JohnG,
You make my point for me. Not everything has been tried yet. EEStor may have something. The long-time experts may be wrong …or they may be right. I’m no expert, but it seems premature to call “cold-fusion”.
Here’s an interesting ultra-capacitor link I got from a blogger at the EnergyBlog:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5636
He says “Although batteries and capacitors are old inventions, our particular technique could not have been pursued until recently.”
Also “The ability to sculpt materials at the atomic level is new and evolving.”
This author also sounds skeptical of EEStor’s claims, but he does say “Only time will tell how its design fares.” Hard to know what they’ve really got when you aren’t on the inside.
I also think the truth will become apparent in time.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Here’s an interesting ultra-capacitor link I got from a blogger at the EnergyBlog:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5636
November 6th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Has anyone heard of ECaSS from japan. suppose to be the next big thing also using capacitors. Not increasing the density(impossible) but improving the electronics around it by a factor of 4 giving it both lithium ion batt and capacitor capabilities.
???
Reece
November 6th, 2007 at 10:54 am
More News:
http://media.cleantech.com/2031/zenn-electric-cars-are-cleared-for-canada
November 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Key sentence within the story:
“Clifford is in the Lone Star State to meet with secretive energy storage developer EEStor, based in an Austin suburb.”
November 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
From Technopete – When I replaced some electolytic capacitors to fix my 25-year-old CRT TV a few months ago, the new and old capacitors looked identical in size, weight, capacitance and rated voltage, so taking this one example, it is not obvious to me that capacitor companies have improved the product that much in the last quarter century. I guess they were probably just cheaper. I’m not saying that there are no improvements to any of the products, but there does not appear to have been any step change in the standard products. Maybe in 1 Farad capacitors used to drive auto boom boxes??
November 13th, 2007 at 9:06 am
We have a special line set up at a South American plant that makes the old style leaded parts for replacment. It is a small, but constant business, mostly for replacements. Sometimes, customers will not take a part that looks different.
In the meantime, the bulk of ceramic capacitors have their own Moores law. The size for a particular rating is cut in half every four years. 25 years ago, a 1 uF cap was a quarter inch cube, and cost over a dollar. Today it’s smaller then a grain of salt and cost about a cent.
Your cell phone has 2-300 of these parts in it. If they hadnt kept shrinking, it would be the size of a suitcase.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Surely this isn’t EESTOR’s official web site. Seem pretty cheap.
http://www.eestor.biz/
November 15th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Wow, that IS cheap, and it appears fake…all of the “stories” are old news release and blog writings, with EEStor spoken of in the third person. I dont think EEStor is responsible.
Maybe someone dressing up a site to sell?
November 15th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I believe this link is EEStor’s website. It’s not operational.
http://www.eestor.us
November 24th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
It is fair, however, to completely criticize them based on the information in the patent. The problem with EEStor is they base their whole technology on a calculation, and they are so ignorant (actually, coveniently ignorant) of the material they are using that they do the calculation wrong by a factor of several hundred. For this simple and obvious error, they get tons of press and funding. That is the really amazing and sad part to me.
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. This creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I spoke with Richard Weir at length, and told him exactly what is wrong with this scheme. He became very evasive, and it was obvious he knows and doesn’t care.
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Oh please. Learn the physics and this scam would be obvious to you. See above, or, i’ll repeat it here:
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
There is nothing to wait for. You can verify what is completely wrong directly in the patent, and in other presentations they have given. Their entire contribution to this field is an embarrassingly incorrect calculation. See below:
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
EEStor has no shot. The only thing amazing is how obvious it is “what is wrong with this picture”, and yet the whole thing continues. Are there really that few of us that know the physics of titanates and pervoskites. This would be a problem I would expect to give on a freshman physics test.
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportional to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The issue is not with their technique or material. They don’t even understand the basics of what they are claiming. They think if they make a new barium titanate with a high permittivity and a much higher breakdown voltage, they will store the enormous amounts of energy. Regardless of whether you believe they will ever achieve the high breakdown strengths required, they don’t report any actual measurements of energy storage per se. Instead, they calculate it based on the permittivity and target breakdown strengths. But their calculations are flat out wrong by a factor of several hundred (see below), and it is painfully obvious why there is no data for a prototype, or why their development targets only involve powder purity, or eventually, permittivity.
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportional to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
No negative information? Are you kidding? EEStor’s story is completely and obviously wrong, based on simple published data.
EEstor capacitors will never store the energy that they have claimed (in fact, they will store several hundred times less than some of the calculations I have seen). The whole story is based on a calculated energy density — and the calculation is very simply and very obviously done wrong.
The error is very simple — they calculate the energy stored by a capacitor as one half C Vsquared (1/2CV2). This is of course only true for linear dielectrics — but high permittivity titanates are very highly nonlinear dielectrics. In fact, over essentially the whole electric field range relevant to energy storage — the permittivy decreases approximately as 1/field (or 1 / V for a given thickness). Guess how big of an error this is. For the field and voltage levels targeted by EEStor, it is a factor of several hundred!! And no, coating the grains with alumina doesn’t dramatically change this. Ultimately — for energy to be stored in the barium titanate grains, there has to be electric field in the barium titanate grains. So the dielectric saturation still controls the energy storage.
The approach being taken is laughable. All of the “production milestones” are related to producing powders with a certain purity or eventually — meeting a permittivity target. But the initial permittivity at low field doesn’t matter a bit. The higher it is, the faster it drops with field. It would take less than two days work to make a small pellet of a current EEStor capacitor material, and actually measure permittivity versus electric field up to the breakdown voltage. Then you could see exactly how much energy is stored, and exactly how fast the permittivity decreases with field. Funny how this data is never taken.
Since ythere might not ever be real energy storage data from anyone at EEStor, I will let you know how much energy capacitor materials of that type store. I measured the saturation effect and determined the total energy storage potential for several classes of these high K titanates and perovskites back in 1987. Ten years later, a modeling study was done which produced identical results. Sprague Electric also generated values for thick film capacitors during that period. For a breakdown strength of 100 Volts per micron (which is very high), these materials store up to about 6 – 10 J / cm3. If somehow, EEStor was able to produce materials with incredibly high dielectric strength, then the values would be about 16 or 24 J / cm3 respectively for fields of 200 or 300 V / micron respectively.
I am sick of reading articles and blogs about a “new technology” that doesn’t exist. It amazes me that so many people are so ignorant that the primary contribution of an entity to a technical field can be a calculation error (and a stupid, but convenient one at that), and they can get millions of dollars of funding for doing it.
By the way, in regards to the quote below, permittivity is absolutely not a measure of how much energy the EEStor materials can store (unless you think that energy is 1/2 CV2 for barium titanate):
“Following this initial investment of US $2.5 million, ZENN Motor Company will own approximately 3.8% of the equity of EEStor, Inc. The investment is being made through ZENN Capital Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Feel Good Cars Corporation and is subject to applicable regulatory approvals.
Permittivity is a measurement of how much energy can be stored in the EEStor production materials. The requirements of permittivity levels are specified in detail in the existing Technology Agreement between ZENN Motor Company and EEStor, Inc. The verification of permittivity levels will be conducted by an independent 3rd party laboratory. This testing is required to show consistent and replicable results of both the production line and materials produced.”
November 24th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Technical people have chewed this thing at least two years. Here are three sources of argument:
1, Energy Blog: http://tinyurl.com/q2uet
2. Google Finance, EEstor Prototype?: http://tinyurl.com/yuztwn
3. Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/?a=f
Boiling it down, EEstor will deliver something radically new or it won’t.
November 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Yes, you can find two years worth of comments — but so few go directly to the obvious point (that they simply do an invalid energy calculation) that it all comes across as noise, and people still think it could be real. It doesn’t take two years to grade a physics problem. Their calculation is wrong. What should interest people on blogs is just how wrong. The best high permittivity titanates store about 8 J /cc at 100V / um. If you do the calculation wrong (1/2CV2), you get 800 J/cc at 100V /um. At their target 300 V / um, the real number would be 24 J/cc — but 1/2CV2 gives 7200 J /cc. When you make errors of greater than 100x, no wonder everyone thinks you have a miracale material.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Actually, the first problem is with the science itself. Barium titanate stores about 3 – 8 J/ cc energy at 100V / um. EEStor does not measure energy stored — they calculate it (incorrectly), which gives 800 J /cc using 1/2 CV2 — they don’t acknowledge that 1/2 CV2 doesn’t apply to nonlinear dielectrics. They really have nothing to offer except ignorance, and a factor of 100 error.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Anonymous keeps repeating that the dielectric constant in barium titanates is non-linear with voltage, and therefore capacity values are overestimated by a factor ~100.
However, in intl. patent (WO/2006/026136), there are dielectric constant measurements at 3500 and 5000V that show almost no decrease from low voltage:
“The following data indicates the relativity permittivity of ten single-coated composition-modified barium titanate powder batches. Batches Relativity Permittivity @ 85
November 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Good post and questions.
Note it refers to powders immersed in a matrix of PET plastic. A composite of BT powder in a low K polymer would have nowhere near 19,000 (or even 1000) for K, so once again, I suspect it is a calculated value for the powder. Without a reported thickness, 5000V could be a very modest field (5KV across a 5cm slug would only be 1000V/cm = 0.1V/ um. They are suggesting they will go to 300 V/um in the application, so I interpret this as intentionally misleading. So these are all still low field measurements. Why aren’t they reporting data for a sintered ceramic sample at a specified electric field instead of a powder composite at a voltage with no thickness reported. These are definitely not prototypes — nothing at all like a real capacitor at a truly high field.
Coating the grains could reduce the voltage dependence along with the permittivity, but you can’t cheat mother nature regarding energy storage. If you want to store energy within the grain, you have to have electric field within the grains, then saturation still controls. Of course, grain boundary phases are well known and widely used in BT capacitors. I find it very suspicious that actual permittivity versus field data is not reported.
Attached is a very detailed argument that should leave little room for doubt that there is no basis for believing that materials well known to store about 8 J/cc (at 100 V/um) will now store 800 to 7200 J/cc.
Below is a detailed discussion clearly demonstrating the invalidity of EEstor’s claims and targets.
EEstor does not report either a new material, or any data that indicates the ability to store more energy than known titanate dielectrics. EEstor calculates the amount of energy they expect their capacitor to store. A fundamental oversight results in an invalid calculation that is inaccurate by more than a factor of 100! The error is uncomplicated. Simply, energy does not equal ½ CV2 for a capacitor made from a nonlinear dielectric. For all high permittivity ceramics, the dielectric permittivity (K’) decreases markedly with increasing electric field E (dielectric saturation). Energy increases roughly linearly with voltage for these materials, as opposed to with the square of the voltage (ref 2).
Importantly, this is not a case wherein EEstor claims to have made some specific breakthrough regarding this issue. No such breakthrough is reported. There are no energy storage measurements, no permittivity versus field data, and no mention of eliminating or reducing dielectric saturation. Their patent and presentations indicate a complete lack of awareness (or lack of acknowledgment) of this issue. EEstor simply purports to make (or aspires to make) high K barium titanate based material, with a K of 18,000, and ultimately with an incredibly high breakdown strength of up to 300V/um. They then calculate the energy stored as ½ CV2 without comment on the use of this equation.
How large of an error does this cause? Calculated energy density is ½K’E2 when calculated total energy is ½CV2. For K = 18,000, and a field 100 V/um, this invalid calculation gives 800 J/cc. (½K’E2 = (0.5)(8.85×10-12 F/m)(18,000)(1×108 V/m) = 8×108 J/m3 = 800 J/cc). Eight references describing actual studies of energy storage in high permittivity ceramic dielectrics (including barium titanate and BST) are noted below. All of these studies indicate a maximum energy density ranging from about 2 to 12 J/cc, depending on the exact material and the maximum breakdown voltage (which is on the order of 100V/um in most cases). Notably, for the studies involving very high K materials, if the authors had simply calculated energy storage using ½ CV2, as EEstor does, it would have similarly resulted in reported values on the order of 100 times greater than the actual measured values!
Hence there is no basis for concluding EEstor has made any advance in the field, and clear evidence that the sole basis for their claim of unbelievably high energy storage is the simple, invalid calculation. Their aspiration (with no reported results) to triple the breakdown field to 300 V/um in combination with the invalid calculation adds an additional factor of 9, giving an absurd 7200 J/cc (along with all of the corresponding hype and speculation about a new miracle material).
Below are notes regarding the references noted above that clearly substantiate the analysis above (one report of personal measurements, the other seven directly from a Google search on energy storge in ceramic dielectrics). .
1. (My work, unpublished), 1987 – Report to Maxwell Corporation on energy storage potential in high permittivity ceramics. Measurements were made on thin films up to 100V / um on barium titanate and PLZT based dielectrics. K varied as ~ 1/E over much of the voltage range, resulting in an approximately linear increase in energy density with field. Maximum energy storage was 4 – 8 J/cc.
2. Love, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1990 – Also observed a linear increase in energy with voltage for several classes of high permittivity (up to 12,000) thick film ceramics (barium titanate, PLZT, PMN). Reported up to 5 J/cc at 80 V/um.
3. Triani, et.al, (ANSTO and CSIRO – Australia, 2001 – J. Materials Science and Engineering. They reported 8 – 10 J/cc for PbSr titanate, and noted that the energy densities were similar to those of the best BaSr titanate materials for a given field, but the maximum fields of up to 100V/um (100KV/mm) were superior for the PST.
4. Kaufmann, et.,al, Penn State and Argonne, 1999. DOE Contract Report. They report sputtered BaSr titanate thin films with a K of 500 and a breakdown field of 100 V / um. K decreases to 120, and the energy storage is 11 J/cc. Also reported are data for hot pressed AFE/FE lead zirconate. These had a maximum K of 12,000, and a breakdown strength of 12 V/um, resulting in an energy storage of 3.2 J/cc.
5. Fletcher, et.al, 1996 Journal of Applied Physics D. They report a theoretical analysis based on Devonshire theory of ferroelectrics. Optimal energy density is predicted for materials with Curie Temperatures well below the operating temperatures. Applied to BaSr titanate, the model predicts an energy density of 8 J/cc at 100 V/um. The model was verified in actual materials.
6. Randolf, et. al, (Austria, 1996) – IEEE Annual Report – Studied dielectric energy storage for powders embedded in polymer matrices. They reported using a PbTitanate-PbZnNiobate material with K = 5000, and reported energy densities of 1 – 10 J/cc.
7. Lawless, et. al., Ceramphysics Inc. 1992 report a high permittivity ceramic (K = 8000) for which a maxium energy density of 6 J/cc was observed for samples with optimum breakdown strength.
8. Freim, Nanomaterials Research Corp NASA SBIR Proposal 1998, reports reduced dielectric saturation for nanocrystalline microstructures, and states that “Commercial coarse grain dielectric based ceramic capacitors are ineffective for use in high energy storage and delivery applications since the dielectric’s permittivity decreases sharply when the applied voltage is increased.” They target 5 – 10 J/cc for the proposed new improved materials.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Just a few additional points. Doesn’t it seem a little obvious and transparent that the whole incredible story is about energy storage, but they never provide a measurement of energy stored. All of the announced milestones relate to higher purity powders, and permittivity targets, and manufacturing scale up (which no doubt requires funding). It would take two days to make a small thick film sample or a polished down pellet, measure permittivity versus field, and calculate energy density. Why do you suppose they never do that? Could it be because when you just measure permittivity and declare that the energy in your capacitor will be 1/2CV2, you get > 1000J/cc, but if you make a small pellet and measure it you get 5 J/cc (and no more funding). You figure it out
November 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Now I guess I’m all spun up on this topic again. This is nothing new. Everytime an electrical engineer or physicist or unaware scientist learns that there are dielectric materials with K > 10,000 out there, they recall Energy = 1/2 CV2 from physics class and get excited. They work through the geometry of the problem, note that energy density is therefor 1/2KE2, so if there is any kind of reasonably high breakdown voltage (E = V / thickness), they have a miracle material. Then they focus on maximizing E (because they believe energy supposedly will increase as E squared), and expect to store incredible amounts of energy. Those of us involved with these materials our whole lives know the real story. Energy increases linearly with field, and you can’t store more than a few J/cc. The strength of these capacitors is power density, not energy density. You don’t store as much energy as in batteries, but you can get it out a whole lot faster.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:35 am
Although far above my head, your experience and physics appear to be very savvy. Thank you for your posts. If you are correct, though:
1. A venture capital company, Kleiner-Perkins, along with Zenn Motor Company, has blindly invested nearly $7 million without having seen a prototype of any sort or scale and,
2. EEstor has begun large-scale production of a “product” that cannot function.
This is an industry question. In your experience, is it possible that money people might be that stupid? If not, is there another angle for pumping an impossible device? Reportedly EEStor founders have been researching ultracapacitors since 2001.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Tyler…er, I mean, “Fenwick”:
2+2=4. Every time. End of story.
As for how “blind” can rich folks be? Let me tell you the one about the Emperor’s New Clothes.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
(you have a comment from a different anonymous — I’m the long winded one). I think it is possible that people funding these things are that clueless. They expect a high failure rate, the technical details and arguments come across as noise to them, and there aren’t always real consequences for the people making the decisions. On the other side of the coin, in my experience, it is very common for people interested in having a start up company to quickly learn that the ultimate viability of their product is not too important. If they are in an exciting area and can get funding — that is the real requirement for them to go into “business”. It is kind of scary and sad that one like this that should be clearly understandable to the right people has long term viability.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
It is believed that an EEStor apparatus may contain sophisticated electronics in addition to a capacitor. The founders were once disc drive engineers. Might innovative circuitry or software show promise… sound reasonable in this case?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Here is another question for you. Please bear with me. Suppose EEStor says it meets its permittivity target but fails to deliver or demonstrate an ultracapicator after that? Is permittivity a significant milestone?
November 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Permittivity is absolutely not a significant milestone. Interestingly, for the studies I have cited, the highest energy densities were for materials with more moderate permittivities. Super high permittivity formulations drop super fast with field. Note that for reference 4, the material that stored 11 J/cc had an initial permittivity of just 500. Regarding the impact of electronics — regardless of any benefits for delivering the current, controlling charging etc — the total energy one has to work with is what it is. They can’t get any more than 8J out of each cc of ceramic if its maximum energy density is 8 J/cc — no matter what kind of electronics are attached (except for circuits that get energy from somwhere else such as braking, and re-charge the energy storage material)..
November 29th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Capacitorman, on http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page2/ has recently referenced the new posts here:
“Tyler has started a new thread at:
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/1/3328442.html?message
which seems to have attracted some knowledgeable people. The concensus does not seem optimistic.”
Capacitorman – thank you for the complement. You mentioned detailing your concerns to Zenn. I sent a similar e-mail recently. It will be interesting to see the response. Below is the text of my e-mail:
Mr. Clifford — recently I sent you an e-mail expressing my concerns regarding EEstor capacitor technology. I hope you received it, but regardless, since this is a highly technical topic, I would like to provide a more detailed, but clear analysis, with key references. As an expert in this field, it is extremely disconcerting for me to read articles and patents describing ideas, assertions, and calculations that seem so void of merit, and with such an easily identifiable critical flaw. Regarding the latter point, it is unfathomable to me that due diligence involving any legitimate expert in this field did not lead to a dismissal of the technology. Attached is a complete explanation with references (also attached). Some of the key points, along with my questions or comments to you, are outlined below.
1. The dielectric behavior and energy storage capabilities of barium titanate based dielectrics (including modified compositions and those with grain boundary phases), and other high K ceramics have been known for at least 20 years. Permittivity decreases strongly with field, maximum breakdown strength is rarely higher than 100 V/um (and then typically only for thin films < 1um thick), and maximum energy densities are about 2 – 12 J/cc.
2. EEstor chooses essentially a known material with high K (~18,000), does not even address or comment on the issue of dielectric saturation in their initial patent, and makes no report of an actual measurement of energy stored (or permittivity versus field). They simply describe a structure of capacitor layers, and calculate energy using 1/2 CV2, which is not only wholly invalid for these highly nonlinear titanates, but results in absurdly high numbers at least a factor of 100 greater than all of the previously reported values (hence all the hype and buzz).
3. At this point, a knowledgeable person would simply point out the error and the issue might be dropped. But if EEstor continues to assert that their story is accurate — the thing to do next is absolutely obvious. Simply ask them for data that provides actual basis or proof that their material behaves so incredibly differently from all of the high permittivity materials measured in the past. In particular, all that is needed is a small, single layer thick film sample or polished slice off a pellet to which one could apply at least 10 V/um (for example, 5000V across a 0.5 mm thick sample). This would immediately demonstrate the decrease in permittivity with field, and the invalidity of the calculation.
4. Instead, it seems as if milestones are designed to avoid facing this issue. While everyone is distracted by efforts to improve powder purity, and set up reliable manufacturing, etc., — the only thing that matters lies unaddressed. Therefore, I assume that you and your consultants were somehow completely unaware that the calculation based on 1/2 CV2 is invalid for these materials, and were persuaded that milestones based on simple permittivity values, powder purity, and maybe eventually electric breakdown strengths represent progress in achieving the ultimate goals. Is this correct?
6. I also assume that since then, at least a few knowledgeable people have made you aware of the critical issue (permittivity versus field). So have you asked EEstor to produce a small sample so you can determine whether the whole story is legitimate? All it would take is one small single layer sample, measured up to reasonable field levels of 10 V/um or more. Don’t you owe this to your investors — and don’t you want to know this simple but critical answer before things go any further?
7. In a recent patent application, there is a brief mention of voltage stability, but the measurement reported really addresses nothing (“Results indicates that the composition-modified barium titanate powder that has been coated with 100 A Of AUO3, immersed into a matrix of PET plastic, and has been polarized provides a dielectric saturation that is above the 5000 V limit and the relative permittivity is highly insensitive to both voltage and temperature.” ). They apparently measured powder in a polymer, and reported voltage, not field. Voltage is not the issue — field is (voltage per thickness). If it was a macroscopic sample, eg., 1cm thick, the field would have only been 0.5 V/um (and their aspirations are for materials operating up to 300 V/um). Further, the powder was in a low K polymer. What’s the point?
8. Why didn’t they report any data for a sintered ceramic sample at some high, specified level of electric field? Why haven’t you demanded it? Does this really all seem reasonable to you?
I would be interested to hear your comments.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:38 am
OK, we can at least 10x read the interpretation of phisic behind EEStore approach from Anonymous in this blog.
Here is something else :
“The Charge of the Ultra – Capacitors”
by MIT Professor Joel Schindall
(November 2007)
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/nov07/5636
Quotations from article :
…
Page 2
“Three main factors determine how much electrical energy a capacitor can store: the surface area of the electrodes, their distance from each other, and the dielectric constant of the material separating them.”
…
Page 4
“There’s a slightly different approach to modified capacitors that has been generating a lot of buzz lately, developed by a start-up called EEStor, in Cedar Park, Texas. EEStor has focused on improving the dielectric, rather than the capacitor’s plates. Its design uses barium titanate, which has a high dielectric constant. High-dielectric-constant substances allow for high-value capacitors that are still small in size. The downside is that such materials generally are unable to withstand electrostatic fields of the same intensity as low-dielectric-constant substances such as air. EEStor claims that the capacitors can operate at extremely high voltages, on the order of several thousand volts, leading to very high storage capacities. One concern is that high voltages can cause a dielectric to break down irreversibly in the presence of even slight imperfections in the material. Only time will tell how its design fares.
”
…
You can read about MIT Professor Joel Schindall here :
http://lees.mit.edu/lees/schindall_j.htm
P.S.
Joel Schindall does not say anything about EEStor miscalculation.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Sorry about the 10x post. It’s just very frustrating to me that the critical flaw is so simple, but people don’t catch it. People without direct experience with high permittivity titanates go straight to the basic capacitor equations from their physics books, and don’t revisit the fundamental assumptions involved in the derivation of the equations. You are right — Joe Schindall is not the only Professor or expert quoted in articles on EEstor that completely misses the key point. I’ll send him a note. It is difficult for casual readers to know what to believe – that is why I included references.
Getting back to the basic equation in your freshman physics book – that is all the Schindall quotes are referring to:
C = eKA / t and Energy = ½ CV2
So for any given material, you make the area A larger and the thickness t smaller to maximize capacitance. That is why you make multilayer structures to maximize C. Then to maximize energy, you also maximize V. But since you have made it thin (ie, made t small), there is only so much voltage you can apply. The breakdown electric field E, is just that maximum voltage V for a given thickness t (E = V/t).
So Joe Schindall isn’t providing much insight – just stating how the basic equations work. Here is the problem. ½ CV2 comes from an integral (ie, calculus). It is the integral from 0 to V of CdV. That gives ½ CV2 only if C is a constant – in other words, only if C is not a function of V (ie, only if C doesn’t change when you change V). But the capacitance of high permittivity capacitors changes dramatically for the high voltages – or more specifically – the high electric fields (see below) required for energy storage.
I’ve converted things to energy per unit volume, so you can compare values from study to study. Total energy keeps going up if you make the capacitor bigger and bigger with more and more layers – but the energy per unit volume is where your material must be superior. The energy density is ½ KE2. Same concept – you want high capacitance so you want a high dielectric constant, and you want high voltage, so you need a high breakdown field, E. This actually simplifies things, because the competing geometric factors cancel out.
If you aren’t familiar with dielectric saturation, or even if you are and you don’t think back to where ½ CV2 comes from – you miss it. And until you collect information and compare with the calculation, you have no clue it makes a factor of 100 difference in this case. People don’t even realize what EEstor is asserting. If they said, “we are going to use barium titanate based materials, which up until now how only been able to store 8 J/cc, but our barium titanate will store over 1000 J/cc – people would ask themselves how is that possible and what is the basis for that claim.
Then you would find out it’s not just a case of them not providing data or proof of their claims. They don’t even claim to have observed or measured a property indicating their barium titanate would be different. There is nothing left but the calculation. The sole origin for their high numbers is that they simply start with the K of high permittivity modified barium titanate (eg., K = 18,000 not a new achievement), and simply calculate energy = 1/2CV2. Anyone could have done that at any time for any high K material and gotten the same outrageous numbers.
So at that point, one should ask why people get a factor of 100 less when they actually measure it. The answer is well documented and obvious – dielectric saturation. So the only justification for using 1/2CV2 which gives a factor of 100 higher than known and understood measured values, would be if you made a measured observation that you have a fantastic new material that doesn’t saturate at all and stores 100 times the energy.
EEstor has never made any such claim or reported to have made any such obvservation. They just did the calculation. It’s just a mistake.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Correction on the integral — I meant to say the integral of CVdV.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
To the best of my knowledge, EEStor has been granted one patent and has another 12 pending. What is the jist of them? Exactly what is EEStor claiming? Thanks again.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Anonymous:
Well done, and elegantly put. The problem, as you mention, is that the lay person does not appreciate what “usual” or “normal” is if they are not in the business. Thats why I tried to use the automobile analogy, but it sort of fell flat.
Thanks for the posts!
November 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Don’t get me started on this. Their one issued patent might be the most telling sign of all.
The issued patent claims a process for making a modified barium titanate based capacitor unit of a specific composition using a specific method involving specific chemicals and comprising a number of specific steps.
Without going into patent law, the basic idea is as follows. At the end of your patent, you write “claims” that clearly and specifically recite what you consider to be the specific invention that you are entitled to prevent others from doing. When you write a claim, you need to write it broadly enough so it is not easy for someone to do something similar and get around the patent. However, you cannot write so broad a claim that something previously disclosed fits within that description or claim, or your claim would be invalid (not novel). Narrow patents are the easiest to get allowed, but provide the least protection for a technology. Claim 1 is generally the broadest claim. Additional dependent claims are narrower (eg., the process of claim1, wherein said additive is a certain type of chemical)
Claim 1 of the EEstor patent is the most nonsensically narrow claim I have ever read in my life. I have given lectures on patents where I have used that claim as an example of the most useless claim I have seen. It goes far beyond being trivial to get around. There are so many limitations (specifications) it would take an heroic effort to actually do all of the things at the specified parameters so that you were actually practicing (ie, violating) the claim. If you did any step differently, you would not be within the literal scope of the claim.
What might be the real purpose of such a patent? How about so it would issue as quickly as possible and you could say you have a patent on your technology?
The claim is as follows:
1. A method for making an electrical-energy-storage unit comprising components fabricated by the method steps as follow; a) preparing a wet-chemical-prepared calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder derived from a solution of precursors: Ba(NO.sub.3).sub.2, Ca(NO.sub.3).sub.2.4H.sub.2O, Nd(NO.sub.3).sub.3.6H.sub.2O, Y(NO.sub.3).sub.3.4H.sub.2O, Mn(CH.sub.3COO).sub.2.4H.sub.2O, ZrO(N.sub.3O).sub.2, and [CH.sub.3CH(O--)COONH.sub.4].sub.2Ti(OH).sub.2 in deionize water heated to 80.degree. C., and a separate solution of (CH.sub.3).sub.4NOH made in deionized water and heated to 80.degree.-85.degree. C., then mixing the solutions by pumping the heated ingredient streams simultaneously through a coaxial fluid mixer producing coprecipitated powder, then collecting the coprecipitated powder in a drown-out vessel and refluxing at a temperature of 90.degree.-95.degree. C. for 12 hours, then filtering, washing with deionized-water, drying, and then calcining 1050.degree. C. in air; b) fabricating an aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3) coating of 100 .ANG. thickness onto the wet-chemical-prepared calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder, with the use of aluminum nitrate nonahydrate precursor applied by wet chemical means, then calcining at 1050.degree. C., resulting in a single-coated calcined composition-modified barium titanate powder; c) fabricating onto the alumina-coated composition-modified barium titanate powder, a second uniform coating of 100 .ANG. of calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass derived from alcohol-soluble precursors: calcium methoxide or calcium isopropoxide, magnesium methoxide or magnesium ethoxide, aluminum ethoxide or aluminum isopropoxide or aluminum isopropoxide, and tetraethyl orthosilicate are applied by wet chemical means which upon calcining at 500.degree. C. results in a double-coated composition-modified barium titanate powder; d) blending, this double-coated composition-modified barium titanate powder with a screen-printing ink containing appropriate plastic resins surfactants, lubricants, and solvents to provide a suitable rheology for screen printing; e) screen-printing into interleaved multilayers of alternating offset nickel electrode layers 12 and double-coated calcined composition-modified barium titanate high-relative-permittivity layers 11 with the use of screening inks having the proper rheology for each of the layers; f) drying and cutting the screen-punted multilayer components 15 into a specified rectangular area; g) sintering the screen-printed multilayer components 15, first at a temperature of 350.degree. C. for a specified length of time, then at 850.degree. C. for a specified length of time, to form closed-pore porous ceramic bodies; and h) hot isostatically pressing the closed-pore porous ceramic bodies, at a temperature of 700.degree. C. with a specified pressure, into a void-free condition; i) grinding and each side of the component to expose the alternating offset interleaved nickel electrodes 12; j) connecting nickel side bars 14 to each side of the components 15, that have the interleaved and alternating offset nickel electrodes 12 exposed, by applying nickel ink with the proper rheology to each side and clamping the combinations together; k) heating the components and side nickel bar combination 14-15 800.degree. C., and time duration of 20 minutes to bond them together; l) wave soldering each side of the conducting bars; m) assembling the components 15 with the connected nickel side bars 14 into the first array, utilizing unique tooling and solder-bump technology; n) assembling the first arrays into the second array; o) assembling the second arrays into the EESU final assembly.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Regarding other patent applications, I would have to do some digging. In general, the basics of what they purport to bring to the picture is this.
1. They decide it might be a good idea to use a capacitor instead of a battery for certain applications such as electric cars.
2. Thinking that energy will be 1/2CV2 (or energy density will be ½ KE2), they decide that very high permittivity titanates will be the material to use.
3. Since energy density varies with E2 (so they think), the most important advance to work on is to significantly improve the breakdown field E.
That becomes what their “technology” is all about; chemically prepared, ultra high purity materials, coating the grains with 100A of aluminum oxides, making fully dense fine grained parts. Nothing really new – other than assuming it will lead to perhaps a 3x increase over even the very high past thin film values (ie, 300 V/um instead of 100 V/um). And hence, it will store incredible amounts of energy.
I haven’t even picked on their aspirations to use barium titanate up to 300 V/um – at least that a lone example of something purported to be different from what has already been done in the past. Putting a number like 3x the previous best field strengths (E) out there is done because in EEstor land, that gives 9x more energy density (because they think energy density is ½ KE2). So one is already using an equation that gives you 800 J/cc (for 100 V/um) instead of the 8 J/cc you measure in the real world – and bam! — you get another 9x to 7200 J/cc!!! thanks to the outrageous breakdown targets.
But here is the ironic part. In the real world, since dielectric saturation causes energy density to increase only as E, not E2 in these materials, even if EEstor could make BT with an incredible breakdown strength of 300 V/um, the material would “only” increase from about 8 J/cc to 24 J/cc – so I don’t even bother to argue about their prospects.
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:15 am
Sorry, Anonymous, but I cannot recall where I read the number of 12 patents pending. A search of the term, EESU, and the name, Weir, Richard Dean, at the U.S. Patent and trademark Office at
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
turns up three applications.
1. 20070148065 Method of preparing ceramic powders using chelate precursors (filed March 7, 2006)
2. 20060210779 Electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) utilizing ceramic and integrated-circuit technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries (filed April 10, 2006)
3. 20040071944 Electrical-energy-storage unit (EESU) utilizing ceramic and integrated-circuit technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries (filed April 12, 2001)
There appears to be a total of three applications. The third one of april 12, 2001 was apparently granted April 25, 2006. Number 2 appears to be a duplicate of number 3.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Might include foreign filings??
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Okay, here it is from an EEStor release of January 16, 2007. Doesn’t say if those pending are USA or otherwise.
“… In addition to the milestones identified, the Company has also been awarded a critical patent related to our technology and has 12 additional patents pending.”
http://www.zenncars.com/investor/releases/Certification_EEStor_01_16_2007.pdf
December 5th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Um, isn’t that what they’ve been trying to do? All the speculation and the hype is being driven by the media, not them. They’ve tried to be very discreet about this and let results speak for themselves. It’s everyone else that is jumping the gun!
December 5th, 2007 at 9:46 am
So Anonymous, I would assume you’re poised to make a bundle by shorting ZENN shares?
December 5th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Tyler: You gotta give the anonymouses (anonymice?) numbers, it’s hard to keep them straight…
December 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
For the record, I would like to point out that while it seems incredible to me that a seemingly simple, identifiable calculation error could exist as the basis of a high interest, heavily scrutinized technology for such a long time, it is possible that key people just didn’t catch it or realize the impact of it. A lot of experts have commented on the overall story without bringing up the numerical impact of dielectric saturation. Maybe this is harder to catch than I would expect.
It has been pointed out that the EEstor principles have decent credentials, and this is not a sham company. Perhaps their focus is so heavy on the processing of the capacitor unit, they might have missed the critical issue. What got me spun up is the volume of comments and the likely significant amount of due diligence by investors that didn’t converge on the issue of dielectric saturation. Anyway, if this is all as I see it – I hope people become aware of it quickly enough to salvage something from their efforts. A large scale high reliability barium titanate capacitor unit might have other applications than the targeted ultra high energy storage. They say venture capitalists invest in the people, not the original idea. So perhaps a change in direction will someday lead to a successful application.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Meaning — he knows I didn’t think it was valid, and didn’t care what I thought. I’m not sure if he knows the impact dielectric saturation would have on the energy storage, or whether he believes it can be overcome.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Scam is the wrong word. I honestly think this actually looks like a huge oversight.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Once again — I want to choose words a little more appropriately. “unawareness” is the real concept here — I don’t want ignorance to be taken to mean they aren’t competent in general — its just this one key issue I think everyone has missed.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Well — again, I was a little spun up about the key science issue. If you miss the point regarding dielectric saturation, then I guess you would feel individually working on permittivity and purity / breakdown get you to where your going. It might only seem obvious to jump to the direct permittivity versus field measurement if you know this is the key issue.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
once again, looking at this from the perspective of one who isn’t aware of the criticality of dielectric saturation — the approach might not be so unreasonble. They probably don’t know what they would get if they worked to make the measurement — so the milestones and funding could seem reasonble from that perspective.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
by the way, the detailed analyses in certain posts above merely provide some numbers for an analysis citing dielectric saturation made sometime ago — the first comment on the original story:
EEStor hype by Emosson 01/22/2007 12:50 AM
Unfortunately EEStor never made and will never make the supercapacitor described in the patent
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7033406&id=cjx3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=eestor#PPA3,M1)
because they ignore a well known physical effect, called “dielectric saturation”.
Barium titanate has been used in capacitors for decades, due to its high dielectric constant:
http://www.avxcorp.com/docs/techinfo/mlcmat.pdf
However, the dielectric constant drops as the electric field strength increases:
http://www.nap.edu/books/NI000488/html/49.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v71/i12/p890_1
At a hypothetical field of 3500 Volts over a thickness of 12.76 micrometers, as proposed in the patent, the dielectric constant of barium titanate would be orders of magnitude lower than the claimed 18500, reducing capacity and energy density by the same factor…
This has been discussed in more detail by Prof. Anatoly Moskalev on December 24th and 26th, 2006 in
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/index.php?p=43
with an update on January 20th, 2007:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=46
Modified: 01/22/2007 01:01:57
December 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
For God’s sake, how many times are you going to post the exact same thing? The more you do it, the more you look like you’re spreading FUD.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
If they have it, they need to bring it now.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:04 am
In International patent application WO 2006/026136 A2, publication date 9 March 2006, by R. Weir and C. Nelson, Eestor describes in detail measurements on a batch of ten 31F BaTi capacitors, made at up to 5kV, 85
December 17th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Where are you on the University of Georgia’s barium titanate ultra capacitor – although less of claim it is still high for capacitors. Are they all wrong too?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Sorry, that was Georgia Tech.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=1362
GT claims twice as much energy storage – a breakthrough but I wonder if they have the equation all wrong.
“Because of its high dielectric properties, barium titanate has long been of interest for use in capacitors, but until recently materials scientists had been unable to produce good dispersion of the material within a polymer matrix. By using tailored organic phosphonic acids to encapsulate and modify the surface of the nanoparticles, researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics were able to overcome the particle dispersion problem to create uniform nanocomposites.
“Our team has developed nanocomposites that have a remarkable combination of high dielectric constant and high dielectric breakdown strength,” said Joseph W. Perry, a professor in the Georgia Tech School of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the Center for Organic Photonics and Electronics. “For capacitors and related applications, the amount of energy you can store in a material is related to those two factors.””
December 17th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I looked up the Perry article (Adv Mat 2007, 19, 1001 – 1005). For two different BT nanoparticle composites, they reported low field K’s of 20 and 37, with breakdown fields of 210 V/um for both. They did in fact calculate energy density as 1/2CV2 / vol, giving 3.9 and 6.1 J/cc. The composite K’s are low because of the polymer matrix, and because BT nanoparticles have much lower K than bulk BT ceramics. While the polymer probably has no saturation, and low K BT nanoparticles have less of a saturation effect than high K bulk BT – I would still say at 200 V/um Prof Perry might be on shaky ground with the calculation, and the factor of two advantage over comparison literature materials might not be completely valid.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sorry, I see that this discussion had already been started by Aurelien on Tue 27 Nov 2007; my browser search function did not work.
I would like to add: In WO 2006/026136 A2, Eestor clearly claim that they have made measurements. Dielectric thickness was 9.81um. Although many good arguments have been given in this blog that Eestor’s cap cannot work, it is hard to believe that all the measurements are a bluff. One of the references cited in the Eestor patents is a paper by S.A. Bruno et al., J.Am.Ceram.Soc.76, 1233 (1993) of DuPont. There, an “unusual” Y5V material with K=18000, breakdown at 37 V/um (much lower than Eestor’s 500V/um), and extremely high insulation resistance is described. This was a first shot obviously. I wonder what DuPont made out of it.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Wolfram, thanks for bringing up the other patent applications. I had difficulty piecing together the concept described, so it is hard to comment on the data. I will have to re-read the patent. It describes pressing BT powder / polymer mixtures at 180C. BT is a high temperature ceramic material. At 180C, one could make either a porous powder compact or, with sufficient PET – a BT / polymer composite. Either would have properties much different than dense ceramic BT. However, in the calculations done in the patent, literature values of permittivity for the BT material are used (or a slightly adjusted value for the 100A coatings on the powder). Then, the data at the end has nearly identical numbers for the BT powder, and for “components”. If the components are PET / BT composites formed at 180C, this really makes no sense to me at all. Sorry. Ideas?
January 9th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Two articles hit the wires today:
1) A news release claims that Topfer is *joining* the board, not leaving. What on Earth?
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS169754+09-Jan-2008+PRN20080109
2) More $ and respectability for EEStor: “Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] has signed an exclusive international rights agreement to integrate and market Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) from EEStor, Inc., for military and homeland security applications”
http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4628
January 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I’m a step ahead of you. Read the latest post.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
You keep repeating the phrase, but lets all understand something. Our view of the world will change from what we know today. Einstein changed our view of gravity. Someone will change our view of capacitors and batteries.
There is no proof that they have or haven’t done anything because they haven’t said what they have done yet.
Also in their research they may have developed a solution to a problem that we didn’t know we had. (i.e. Post-It Notes, the personal computer are examples of solving problems we didn’t know we had.)
Have patience and if you don’t believe in the company do not invest.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I think it is obvious that EEstor is not building the same Battery as in their patent. it is also obvious that that it would be “Not Smart” to tell the world of their discovery through the patent office. as their are several industrial countries that do not believe in “honoring” patent laws i.e. China. Also, because of the “Might” of the OIL and other energy cartels, it seams to reason that “Deliberate” Mis-Direction on EEstor’s part is deffinately in order here. it would be to their benefit to tell the world everything ONLY AFTER the product is at least in full production and better yet, already on the market. The Fact that LM, ZENN and several Other Big investor’s are Solidly on board literally proves EEstor is on to something. I am sorry, but some of these investors simply would not be there if EEstor tech was bogus. these guys are not stupid, beleive me, they have done their homework well before showing any interest. just because some of you are stuck on the patent details and company secrecy means absolutely nothing. you will definately see and updated patent when EEstor comes out of the closet. Nothing is impossible, even if we must rewrite physics we will make it happen. this is the attitude that has got us this far in technology. if you run in to a roadblock, you find a way to go under, over, or around, or you just go home. the successful always find a way through.
May 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Conditional instructions are performed such that different sets of instructions execute depending on the value(s) of some data. In some languages this is known as an “if” statement.Arizona seo
May 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
So is EEStor refering to individual capacitors or cells?
Can you change the equation with hundreds of capacitors in parallel and series? If i recall correctly voltage additive in series, capacitance additive in parallel. Do they have other components added to the mix?
May 18th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Cause a hundred capacitors collectively in series would give a reverse break down of 100 times? ohms law
May 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Sorry for the multiple posts but you can do anything with electricity. It just comes down to using a material that used hasn’t been tried before as a fuel cell. The biggest thing is does it weigh less then lithium ion / lead acid?
I get the impression that previous capacitive batteries used industry standard dilectrics such as air gap and high voltage which is typically oil filled. The fact that they can purify it could really be a mute point. Its more important that they are trying to make a commercial application of something thats proven in theory but no one has every felt the need to make use it until now.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Yes , it realy does weight less ! I just had one !
May 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
news on the ultracap eestor front:
http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com
July 17th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Does the fact that EESTOR now have a working prototype mena that teh permittivity problem has been overcome in some way?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Where did you get the “fact” that a prototype exists? No one has seen one, and if they did have a prototype, they would have measured the permittivity and claimed the next milestone payment, which they have not.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Sorry. I misread something on another blog. Apologies.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
On triple checking, I found this quotation from Ian Clifford (CEO of Zenn):
“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 its engineering level processing equipment.”
Which implies prototype components have been bult and tested. They are clearly pretty confident that eestor can supply these devices. They – eestor – are going straight to production which unless they are crazy, implies they are confident the devices will work.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
These people are masters at ambiguity, I think.
I read this to say that they have not yet made the BT powder, but they “anticipate” it will achieve the 18,500 K that they previously saw. That K itself is not unusual for this class of BT ceramic. What stretches the credibility is keeping that level after mixing it with glass (in the case of the second type) or plastic (in the case of the first type in the world published application).
“Components” means the parts of something. The BT powder that they spent two years making is a component, they have to mix it with glass yet, and then set about making a capacitor, a long, complex process. They have a couple surprises coming.
Again, the telling part, is they have not claimed the milestone for the permittivity of this “new” production process.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
And, while I am wound up, let me predict what will happen next.
The BIG NEWS will be that they have achieved the permittivity target, but will be silent on whether it remains high with applied fields of the order they need.
Up will go the enthusiasm, and bloggers and followers will be back to the “where is the power coming from?” “BIG OIL” will buy them out, etc, etc.
In the meantime, they will buy a couple more quarters to get more money.
Then in a year, they will come out with a “Oops” there are unknown physics problems that prevent commercialization of this wonderful process.
One real problem has been that none of the interviewers really understand (nor should they be expected to) the subtleties of the dielectric behavior. These BT formulas are very sensitive to voltage and temperature. The leakage current for such a large part will be about a hundred amps. The electrode material is not compatible with that formula, and so forth.
Then, an amazing goof on the part of one interview, where Clifford said they had found a wat to harmlessly short the power to ground almost instantly. See, they dont even know about the law of conservation of energy. How do you benignly dump the power of a hundred sticks of dynamite.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. This is not real, in my opinion, with 30 years in the business backing me.
It is strange that the more unlikely something is, the more believable it is in some quarters. Those of us who work with this stuff everyday, are accused of “sour grapes” or worse.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
John, I followed you here from the Volt site. You seem to have changed your mind perhaps as to whether you think the EEStor-Zenn setup is a deliberate scam — why? The slippery answers to questions about a prototype, the permittivity-round-the-mulberry-bush announcements, or what?
Franklin
July 19th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Franklin:
Take a look at this link:
http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/eestor-beyond-permittivity.html
There is new information, which seems to cloud things more, I am trying to understand the apparent contradictions.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I read it. The whole anonymous deal, Weir talks to the blogger “because it amuses him” — once again strange and fishy smells emanating from a closed paper bag. Tyler is hyping this link to his readers. ZNN stock is drifting lower so I’m inclined to think this is more pumping. Take money out, let it go lower, re-buy, pump it.
Franklin
July 25th, 2008 at 8:21 am
All of the criticism on EESTOR from those in the scientific hierarchy are based on the old Patents filed by EESTOR in the USPTO.
For example, retired scientist and inventor Anatoly Moskalev, the person who is often cited as having put the brakes on EESTOR because of the “dialectric saturation” issue, made the same mistake as you and others on this blog did recently in assuming that EESTOR hadn’t discussed or measured “dialectric saturation”.
I quote Moskalev below from the Tesla blog at:
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=46
Anatoly Moskalev wrote on January 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“1. If you use Eps = 300 instead of Eps = 18500 you get ~50 times less energy per unit of volume.
2. There is no previous experience of use the dielectric material in question for implied field strengths
3. There is not a word about the effect I described from EEStore. And this effect does not make any trade secret – no reason to hide it. Actually would they comment the effect upfront themselves they would get better credibility.”
Unbeknownst to Moskalev at the time, the WIPO/EPO Patent application, published prior to Moskalev’s comments at the Tesla blog did, in fact, address “dialectric saturation”:
Results indicate that the composition-modified barium titanate powder that has been coated with 100 A Of AUO3, immersed into a matrix of PET plastic, and has been polarized provides a dielectric saturation that is above the 5000 V limit and the relative permittivity is highly insensitive to both voltage and temperature.
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?SEARCH_IA=US2005028970&DBSELECT=PCT&C=10&TOTAL=18&IDB=0&TYPE_FIELD=256&SERVER_TYPE=19-10&QUERY=%28IN%2Fweir+AND+IN%2Frichard%29+&ELEMENT_SET=B&START=1&SORT=41231903-KEY&RESULT=5&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0%2FHITNUM%2CB-ENG%2CDP%2CMC%2CAN%2CPA%2CABSUM-ENG&IDOC=1324301&IA=US2005028970&LANG=ENG&DISPLAY=DESC
I have asked Dr. Moskalev to comment at the Tesla blog. My request was sent to the moderator.
We shall see what happens.
The latest WIPO/EPO Patent Application that we’ve been discussing this week was published on September 3rd, 2006, a full FIFTEEN MONTHS before Moskalev made his infamous comments.
Funny how things come out of the past. The new Patent application only surfaced this month. I could find no references to it in other blogs or comments prior to July 2008.
The “scientists” came upon the inferior USPTO stuff, made up their minds this was garbage and stopped right there.
Had the scientific “hierarchy” done a more thorough search, as those of us here at B’s blog did, they would have found what Nekote and Jay from this blog found this month and perhaps the dialog would have been much more productive and educational.
Instead, we got this from Dr. Mosklaev:
Under this conditions I would think that at least some proof is needed that effect I estimated and explaned in such details is irrelevant.
OK I am nobody and piece of trash and EEStore people are great Gods. So whatever they just say with no proof is surely gospel truth and who am I to question Their Majesty. Want to have faith without proof in this technology – just do it – no issue with me.
The scientific “hierarchy” focussed on the USPTO Patent Application… which clearly does not hold the keys to the Kingdom.
No, that bit of bounty was cleverly filed by Weir with WIPO which, due to the USA having signed the Berne Treaty, negated the need for EESTOR to have also sent an Application to the USPTO.
The WIPO/EPO Patent Application for a fully working production line created to print these “game changing” capacitors via the “Patent-pending” silk screen process has, as far as I can tell, never been discussed by Dr. Moskalev or this Dr. Randall or anybody else in the scientific “hierarchy”.
With all the “great minds” out there telling us that EESTOR’s world is flat and not round, have you seen any of them include the WIPO/EPO data in their analysis?
If so, please provide a link.
This is not to say that if they did see that data, they would certainly agree with it. All I’m asking is if anyone in the scientific hierarchy, ie Dr. Randall or Dr. Moskalev, has come up with critiques of EESTOR that make direct reference to the data, measurements and other information included by EESTOR in its WIPO/EPO Patent application?
Posted by Steve
July 29th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Steve:
It all comes down to whether one believes that WIPO application was real or made up. There is no independent corroboration of the insensitivity to voltage. I dont think one can use that data to defend itslelf.
There are two many problems with that disclosure, not the least of which, the results cant be duplicated, which means it not a real patent.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Anonymous: You appear to have more knowledge than anyone on this blog because to have tried it. Have you seen the work of fellow professor, Dr. Carl Nesbitt? He presented a paper on Reticle Carbon in Ultracapacitors at the last Clean Tech expo. Here is where you can find the paper:
http://www.ct-si.org/Cleantech2008/symposia/Energy_Transmission_Storage.html
I would be very interested in your comments.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Anonymous may know his high school physics and a bit about integration, but his understanding of the size effect on nano crystals is completely lacking. Understandable if he’s not in the field of nano tech research.
I site “Size Effect for Barium Titanate Nano-particles” by Tomoya Ohno, Daisuke Suzuki and Hisao Suzuki of Shizuoka University, Faculty of Engineering and Takashi Ida of Nagoya Institute of Technology, Ceramic Research Laboratory, a peer reviewed paper in which they observed a roughly exponential increase in the dielectric constant of Barium Titinate particles when the size was reduced below 100 nm diameter. As reference, at ~30 nm the dielectric constant was ~2500 and rising with decreasing size (see page 199 of the paper).
As for the claim that permittivity reduces with electric field strength, this is true for bulk material where no attempt has been made to control purity and defects of a surface coating which is on the scale of 20 nm. It’s not necessarily true on the nano scale.
The arguments that Anonymous makes are analogous to saying that just because you can’t make a modern efficient transistor by sticking two electrodes and a ground to a 1 cm thick chunk of un-purified un-doped silicon, the transistor as we know it today is impossible….
I find it plausible that a thin enough film of a pure ferroelectric like Barium Titinate prepared on a surface perfect enough could produce some interesting results. I’m not suggesting that EEstor have achieved this, but the science IS plausible despite the engineering being cutting edge to say the least.
As for Richard Wier, he has 25 years experience with HDD data storage. Considering what has happened with that technology in the last 5 years I would think he has exactly the skills necessary to do what I describe above.
Secrecy makes perfect sense as does limiting the results available until you have at least a working prototype. Media attention is not wanted during an R&D to pre-production phase, it’s just a distraction (and a potential security risk). If the prototype delivers on even half the claims within 1 year EEstor will still have plenty of interest and will not need to solicit investment. The net effect of what they have said is that it has generated a lot of dis-belief. Considering that the number one way to challenge a patent is to claim it only describes existing best practices and knowledge in the field, what better way to defend against such claims than to elicit the sort of comments some experts have made.
I don’t know if EEstor can do what they say, but since there is only money changing hands between businesses with knowledge in the industry a scam seems unlikely to me. If you wanted to scam someone why would you aim for Klein Perkins, Lockheed Martin and Zenn? Wouldn’t you go after some easier targets?
February 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I must agree – Tyler, you should number the various anonymous comments by sender, it gets a little complicated to follow the volleying.
And if I’m allowed to say so, there’s one contributor, no matter how interesting his part is in the thread who is ‘sorry’ far too often…straighten that spine a little buddy!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Mr. Hamilton,
You could change the date of this blog to today Feb. 9, 2010 and nothing has changed over the last 2 years.
Expect an email from b/eestorblog/Baghead. Do not give him any information of your source at Kleiner Perkins off the record. Baghead cannot be trusted.