I have dubbed the EEStor story the EEStory. EEStor is an Austin company that claims to have developed a revolutionary electrical storage system that could revolutionize transportation. If true, EEStory could easily be one of the top 10 news stories of the 21st century, but the EEStory could also be a bust. I continue to see red flags, that give me pause. But the EEStory continues to rev up. An EEstor press release speaks of third party verification of certain facts. The press release should be read very carefully in order to determin what it says are third party verified facts, and what are unverified assertions by EEStor.
The press release states:
"Edward D. Golla, PhD, Laboratory Director for Texas Research International (acting as an independent agent) has certified that EEStor, Inc. test equipment, procedures, and techniques are capable of providing the EEStor, Inc. required testing accuracy for EEStor's chemicals and powder production processing analyses."
This is a statement that can be verified by a third party.
The press release then reports on test data. The testing was done by EEStor personnel with no reported third party verification.
We have a second report of third party verification in the press release:
"The purification of the EEStor, Inc. chemicals has been certified by the same chemical analysis company as EEStor's press release dated January 17, 2007 and now indicates that EEStor has improved its chemical purity to the parts-per-billion range."
What we lack here is the identity of the hemical analysis company, but the January 17, 2007 press release says it is Southwest Research Institute, Inc. located in San Antonio, Texas. We can say that the failure to mention Southwest Research Institute by name is at least cryptic, if not gnomic.
The rest of the above paragraph states:
"The aluminum oxide particle coating material purification has been certified to be in the parts-per-trillion level. Achieving these levels of purification are additional major factors in allowing EEStor, Inc. the potential to reach its target working voltage. EEStor, Inc. has certification data from outside sources that purified aluminum oxide, in the range that EEStor, Inc. has certified, can have a voltage breakdown of 1,100 volts per micron. The target working voltage of EEStor's chemical processes is at 350 volts per micron. This provides the potential for excellent protection from voltage breakdown."
Here again we find "certification data from outside sources," and "in the range that EEStor, Inc. has certified". This language presents the appearance of involving information from a third party without telling us who that 3rd party is. Thus none of this can be counted as 3rd party verified facts.
The present press report mentions another third party verification:
"It has also been certified by Mr. Ian Treviranus of HORIBA Instruments, Inc. and the LA-950 particle measurement system that EEStor, Inc. has achieved their goal of producing powder particles in the range of 1 micron with a very narrow particle size distribution. EEStor, Inc. has certification data that indicates achieving powder particle of this size and distribution along with the aluminum oxide particle coating assists EEStor, Inc. in meeting the energy storage stabilization over the temperature range of interest for key applications."
Finally the press release speaks of "present products", and "future products", but does not give us a clue about what the products are.
Tyler Hamilton comments, "As for EEStor, I suggest Mr. Weir hire someone with skills in the art of "plain language" to write his future press releases. Ugh..."
Anonymous responded, "In plain language: "There isn't a prototype.""
The latest press release does offer some third party sources who could verify some of EEStor's claims, but leaves many other key claims unverified.
Finally as Anonymous notes, the press release again failed to mention a prototype. Well what then about the prototypes that have been reported in the past, but never demonstrated to the public or evaluated by third parties? Did anyone really say they were working prototypes?
Update: Well Richard weir said it today: "Prototypes have been built and prototypes have been tested."
Back to the drawing board on that one, but Mr. Weir leaves un in the dark as to why the prototypes tests have not been certified by third parties. Or why we have not had a public demonstration of prototypes. Or what no prototype was not delivered to ZENN Motors last year.
Back to the drawing board on that one, but Mr. Weir leaves un in the dark as to why the prototypes tests have not been certified by third parties. Or why we have not had a public demonstration of prototypes. Or what no prototype was not delivered to ZENN Motors last year.
Upeate 8/1/08: johng left a comment on my post "Ian Clifford on ZENN Motors and EEStor":
"Announcing permittivity is another stalling tactic, just as the two previous "certifications" were.
Again, when he announces they have met their permittivity target, it means nothing unless they state it is at 300v/micron.
There is nothing special about a K of 20,000. There are dozens of those formulations being used commercially, but EVERY one will diminish with voltage, and most will break down destructively at around 50 volts/micron.
This has been an interesting lesson in impressing those not familiar with the technnology.
I really hope they can pull it off, but I doubt it."
"Announcing permittivity is another stalling tactic, just as the two previous "certifications" were.
Again, when he announces they have met their permittivity target, it means nothing unless they state it is at 300v/micron.
There is nothing special about a K of 20,000. There are dozens of those formulations being used commercially, but EVERY one will diminish with voltage, and most will break down destructively at around 50 volts/micron.
This has been an interesting lesson in impressing those not familiar with the technnology.
I really hope they can pull it off, but I doubt it."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment