This isn’t to say EEStor’s relationship with Lockheed is no big deal. The fact that Lockheed would lend its brand to a press release that includes EEStor, and has even named EEStor in a patent, is significant. Also, because we’re dealing with military applications, who knows what kind of collaboration is going on behind the scenes? However, contrary to what’s floating around out there, Lockheed is not an investor. (ed. note: for clarification my source says Lockheed has “not given EEStor a dime,” which would indicate there is no investor or fee paid).

If you want a full story on EEStor’s latest “permittivity” milestone (updated version) and its impact on ZENN shares, check out my Toronto Star article here.

A new Lockheed Martin patent published last week by the World Intellectual Property Organization gives us a glimpse of the miltary contractor’s relationship with Cedar Park, Tex.-based EEStor. It could also explain why EEStor has been reluctant so far to reveal its progress.

Lockheed’s patent details plans for “body armor having an electrical energy storage unit formed as a layer that substantially conforms to an armor plate.” According to the document, the electrical energy storage layer has “a plurality of sections.” The idea being that if one section is damaged in combat the other sections would remain operable. Two or more sections can be electrically coupled, either in parallel or series. Electrical connectors would “provide access to electrical power stored in the electrical energy storage layer.”

The armor would be a form-fitting utility garment worn like a vest. The patent goes on to say the electrical energy storage would be composed of lithium ion polymer batteries, or alternatively “one or more solid state, capacitive, electrical energy storage devices, such as those provided by EEStor Inc. of Cedar Park, Texas… Such solid state electrical energy storage devices comprise calcined composition-modified barium titanate coated with aluminum oxide and calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass.

It’s been well known that Lockheed was participating in the U.S. Department of Defense’s “Wearable Power Competition,” which was announced July 2007. And it’s been long suspected that EEStor’s EESU was part of Lockheed’s entry. Indeed, Lockheed’s team leader in the competition – David Hoelscher — is named as co-inventor on the company’s patent. The patent filing confirms the speculation.

The contest winners were announced Oct. 4 and Lockheed didn’t make it to the Top 3. The winners used lithium-ion batteries, fuel cells or some combination of the two. I’m not sure where Lockheed did end up ranking, but the fact it didn’t rank high could raise a few eyebrows about its relationship with EEStor and confidence in the EESU technology.

But back to the patent. There is also mention of the electrical energy storage layer providing additional protection from bullets and ballistic fragments. And an external fuel-cell would be used to recharge the storage layer in the body armor.

What do we make of all this? An optimist would read Lockheed’s patent and see it as a huge boost of confidence in EEStor. That’s because Lockheed goes out of its way to mention EEStor, whereas mention of lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries remain generic. An optimist would also read the title of the patent — “Garment Including Electrical Energy Storage Unit” — as another endorsement of EEStor, given that its product has always been called an EESU or Electrical Energy Storage Unit.

A pessimist would focus on Lockheed’s wording in the patent, which could be interpreted as calling the EEStor technology a secondary choice after the preferred choice of lithium-ion batteries. A pessimist might also ask: So what? What if EEStor is mentioned in a patent application? Does it really say anything about EEStor’s technology, whether it works, or whether it can be mass produced?

Me? I think Lockheed could have just as easily not mentioned EEStor in the patent, so I take this as a good sign. But let’s keep in mind the patent was filed on April 8, 2008. This is before DoD awarded its wearable power prize, and it’s nine months of time during which anything could have happened — positive or negative.

So let me just end by calling this yet another interesting development that tells us precious little, makes EEStor seem more real, and keeps us hopefully engaged.

I’m not surprised about the likelihood of production in 2009. In my own chats with Weir he has suggested as much. What I am surprised about is the difficulty getting funding. You’d think if EEStor has what it claims to have, and has such an impressive production line, and has certification that what it wants to do it can do, then investors would be falling over themselves to get in early on the action.

Now, one possible scenario is that the investment bar that Weir has raised is too high and that he’s unwilling to let his sweat equity be easily scooped away by sharks of the venture capital world. Clearly, he’s keeping his circle of friends small and tight.

Perhaps Kleiner has offered to invest more but not at acceptable terms to Weir. It’s plausible. But there’s also the fact that EEStor hasn’t released its permittivity tests, which as I understood it was the trigger for further funding from ZENN (but also giving Kleiner a first right of refusal before EEStor was free to solicit funds from elsewhere).

Given the lack of permittivity results (which, if they do exist and are positive, would presumably have to be disclosed by ZENN because of its obligations as a publicly traded company), there’s another explanation: that EEStor is having technical troubles and few want to touch the company until the bumps are ironed out. One thing for sure is that an agreement with Light Electric Vehicles Inc., whoever they are, doesn’t say much about who the company partners with.

And whither Lockheed Martin? It’s a great partner — on paper — but just how committed is Lockheed to a company claiming a delay in getting funding? For conspiricists out there, it could be that Lockheed is so committed that EEStor is intentionally delaying commercial milestones so that military applications can be nailed down behind the scenes. I’ve tried calling the folks at Lockheed for an update. It’s no surprise they don’t return calls.

I’m still prepared to give EEStor and Weir the benefit of the doubt. In a confidential EEStor investor presentation I obtained two years ago, Weir disclosed that he would need $10 million (U.S.) in funding to achieve full production with the ability to manufacture up to 25 52-kilowatt EESUs per hour. Who knows how much money EEStor has truly raised to date (at least $3 million is certain), but what is known is that initial targets for production shipments have not been met.

According to that presentation, EEStor was expecting to have revenues of $67 million in 2008 and have an operating profit of $30 million. Needless to say, nowhere close. Forget about achieving a revenue target of $122 million in 2009 (and profits of $60 million).

But that’s fine. Shit happens. EEStor wouldn’t be the first venture late with production and revenue targets, and many have gone on to become large and successful companies. Given what’s at stake, I’m prepared to quietly cheerlead in hopes that what Weir is trying to do can, some day, lead to a better world.

At the same time, Weir — as much as he has made clear in the past that he doesn’t care what other people think — has to start caring at some point if he hopes to get “other people’s” money. Assuming he truly needs it and that his talk of delay and funding issues is a smokescreen.