Discussions

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article Better Batteries Charge Up.

• 
  CapacitorMan
  

  Posts:
  26

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  08/05/2008 08:06 AM

  Couple errors

  First, the dielectric is not intended to be one micron, it is supposed to be about 10.
  
  Second, the breakdown voltage of 1100 v/micron is for the alumina portion. 95% of the dielectric is Barium Titanate, whose breakdown is about 50 v/micron. Funny he doesn't mention that part.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    marcus1
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/05/2008 11:08 AM

    Re: Couple errors

    CapacitorMan it would be great to have you join some of the discussions at http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/
    
    Although there are a number of people who dismiss scientifically based skepticism there, there are also a number of people with the science as their priority interest.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    Kevin Bullis
    

    Posts:
    92

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/05/2008 12:52 PM

    Re: Couple errors

    Thanks CapacitorMan. I've looked into the voltage claim, and it is indeed just the alumina. The article has been changed to make this clear.

    Rate this comment:
• 
  theBike45
  

  Posts:
  15

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  08/05/2008 11:30 AM

  Skeptics are blind

  After reading the coments of skeptics one thing is obvious - they realy don't have a clue as to what's required and what's not. Their big mistake is their ego - they think they can determine whether the EEStor devices will work by figuring out the architecture, etc. A far better way to estimate probailities is simply to look at those who have seen the device and are convinced that it works (or are at least fairly certain) - such as Lockheed-Martin, the country's largest defense contractor, with thousands of electrical engineers on its payroll, or ZENN Motors, which also has more thn a smattering of what a battery looks like. To believe that the device DOESN'T work, inlight of the confidence shown by these two companies (and CEO Clifford would get sued in a heartbeat by ZENN shareholders if he couldn't produce convincing evidence that his claim that the EESTor devices work was reasonable. The skeptcis are making claims therefore, that are hard to swallow - thet, in essence , are saying that all these folks, who are reputable businessmen and liable for any lies, are in fact, for some strange reason, making claims that the devices work. ZENN is even designing a car specifically for the capacitors. You can perhaps now see the exteme difficulty I have in believing any of the skeptics. None of their explanations can or do explain why their being right makes any sense , given the behavior of the participants.

  Rate this comment:
  • 
    MkIV
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/05/2008 01:08 PM

    Re: Skeptics are blind

    I think ZENN management should be complete idiots if they would start RnD and made statement about next gen car without any proof for existence of  EESTOR device.  And I really doubt this :)

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    biosubs
    

    Posts:
    12

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/07/2008 12:44 AM

    Re: Skeptics are blind

    Be careful!  The skeptics quote 50 year old physics textbooks in support of their skepticism.  Also note that the patents talk about composition modified barium titanate, not pure barium titanate.  Lastly, the composition modified barium titanate is now reduced into very tiny crystals that may act differently than larger crystals.
    
    The patents that are available for public reading are several years old.  Additional patent applications (teens up to about 21 applications) have been filed.  These applications are not yet in the public domain.

    Rate this comment:
    • 
      GoatGuy
      

      Posts:
      5

      Avg Rating:
      

      

      Reply

      08/07/2008 10:51 AM

      Re: Skeptics are blind

      Actually ... FAITH BELIEVERS are blind.  Skeptics either can be simple Missouri "show me" types ("where's the beef?"), or sophisticated Cal/Princeton types ("where's the beef?").  But in any case, until such time as a single TANGIBLE, physical device is demonstrated, all talk about the potential for a new dielectric of superior strength that SHOULD enable storage capacities well in excess of lithium-ion chemical storage ... is just so much research-grant-inducing gas.
      
      Show me a can full of the stuff, with 2 wires, hooked to a volt-meter and a 1 ohm shunt resistor.  If it has anywhere near 10+ farads of capacity, in humanly measureable timescales (seconds), I can WRITE DOWN the discharge voltage, and from that determine the capacitance to within a few percent of accuracy.  THAT kind of 100-year-old technology, dating to Westinghouse, Tesla, Watt, and Edison **IS** compelling. 
      
      Call it "skeptical" if you like, but just show me the device, discharging, hooked to a voltmeter and a IEEE "standard resistor".  This isn't even a high-priced demo!  Buy it all from scratch, NEW, from an expensive EE supply company, and you're talking what, $150 in parts?  Sheesh.
      
      The least a multi-million dollar research firm could do would be to demonstrate this.
      
      The only "problem" is that its also very easy to "cheat the system", by remarking a parts-drawer 10 or 100 ohm resistor to be "1 ohm".  The difference is huge ... of course.
      

      Rate this comment:
      • 
        biosubs
        

        Posts:
        12

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        08/07/2008 05:51 PM

        Re: Skeptics are blind

        Dear Mr. GoatGuy,
        
        Somehow I don't think Dick Weir gives a hoot what you or I think of his claims.  Not a hoot.
        
        His is a private company and he owes nothing to anyone except his investors.  Some will say that, due to the huge potential benefit that his device could potentially bring to our country and our world, he owes or has a moral obligation to bring to the world an explanation and transparency.  I don't personally think he does and I surmise that he doesn't t think so either
        
        
        

        Rate this comment:
        • 
          voluntaryist
          

          Posts:
          3

          Reply

          10/11/2008 06:14 PM

          Re: Skeptics are blind

          "except his investors" Ah, yes. There's the rub. How much due-diligence have they done? Perhaps they are the ones we should be questioning. If I were putting up millions, I would certainly want proof beyond a doubt, but did they get that?

          Rate this comment:
      • 
        biosubs
        

        Posts:
        12

        Avg Rating:
        

        

        Reply

        08/07/2008 06:03 PM

        Re: Skeptics are blind

        From the purported interview w/ Dick Weir.  See http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/07/richard-weir-says-permittivity-is.html      
        
        Blogger: I hate to bring this up because I feel like I'm pretty clear on the information that's out there in regards to what you're saying about production. But still, alot of people still think that you haven't even got a prototype.
        
        RW: We've have made prototypes of this and those have....they were made with technologies that we had at the time. And what I'm telling the people today is in 2007 we made a corporate decision to put in more advanced technologies which we now and this data shows that we hit a home run on these technologies. Prototypes have been built and prototypes have been tested.
        
        Blogger: tested by 3rd parties?
        
        RW: I'm just going to say that. They've been tested and the data has been reviewed by a lot of people.

        Rate this comment:
  • 
    Lloydie123
    

    Posts:
    1

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/07/2008 06:06 AM

    Re: Skeptics are blind

    I think you make a really good point and I would add that if they were really out to turn a quick buck they would have gone public to raise lots of money on the stock exchange.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    RmW
    

    Posts:
    2

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    08/07/2008 11:44 AM

    Re: Skeptics are blind

    Even privately held Cos. must not commit fraud. With Kleiner Perkins and Lockheed looking over their shoulder it is even less likely. 
    
    I also find very little solid motive, in all of the releases and blogs, to cause a fraud, so far. Do any of you?
    
    This means, at face value, that the investment risk is primarily scientific and production related. Market risk is small as long as they can ramp up to meet demand. 
    
    I believe that if a product was produced by EEStor with even a third of the promised capability - it would be valuable. Maybe less, but still very valuable.
    
    Finally, both ZENN (Who is now making money according to their latest financials) and Lockheed (who nearly prints money) could benefit greatly from a success at EEStor. The downside of an EEStor failure would not be a total loss for either.

    Rate this comment:
  • 
    GaryB
    

    Posts:
    65

    Avg Rating:
    

    

    Reply

    02/13/2009 02:18 PM

    Re: Skeptics are blind

    You wrote this before the mortgage meltdown and the Madoff fraud.  Can you now see how experts can be fooled, big names can lose tons of money on what in hindsight are impossible financial resuls and executives can live life as a fraud??
    
    The error in your assumption is: people are (a) rational, (b) sane.  There are many sociopaths who are in business and will lie, scam and cheat for years.  There are many people who believe their hopes instead of their eyes.  That's why EEStor, Kliener and Lockheed can certainly be just another screw up among many.
    
    I really do hope I'm wrong, but the available facts do not look good. If EEStor does come out with a convincing demo or product, I'll be the first one cheering for a new tool towards clean energy ... but I'm quite skeptical about them right now.

    Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2] 3 4 Next »