Talk:EEStor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Charging time and sources

"If the technology works as claimed, a five-minute charge costing $9..."

$9 worth of electricity flowing through the lines in five minutes? Where are people going to charge this thing? In their backyard hydroelectric plant?

It's been a while since that electrical engineering course back in the day so these calculations could be all wrong... but they look OK to me:

Assume $0.10/KWH and that you're recharging from your 220V outlet (yeah, you'd need much higher voltages to charge this capacitor but I guess you'd need some sort of transformer at your house between the 220V outlet and the capacitor). $9.00 = 90 KWH. 90 KWH in 5 minutes is 90 * 60/5 = 1080 kilowatts of power. I = P/V so I = 1,080,000 Watts/220 Volts ~= 4910 Amperes.

That's what, about 50 times the current you normally get through the main line into your house?

12.13.70.254 17:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Charging time would, presumably, vary depending on what it's plugged into. Your home's wall current won't charge it very quickly -- and unless they want to be causing brownouts all over the country when this thing hits market, there will almost certainly be some kind of regulator to detect how quickly to pull in the current. --GoodDamon 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the Eestor unit works in the first place, there is no reason apart from cost why you should not have two Eestor units. The house Eestor unit would be charged overnight on cheap off-peak electricity, and would be available on demand to charge the EEstor unit in the car at a few thousand volts in 5-10 minutes. Apparently the US military have a spec for such a charging interface. The house Eestor unit could pay for itself by allowing domestic electricity use exclusively at cheap, off-peak rates. Technopete (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Banks of charging capacitors

If you look at the EEstor patent, you will see that, even for service station charging, they are anticipating charging banks of capacitors in the station at a steady rate during the utility off-peak hours and then rapidly transferring the charge to vehicles on demand. Bottom line: fastest charging requires more expensive equipment. Even the cables, connectors and safety interlocks could turn out to be fairly expensive. C J Cowie 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that actually the potential to charge overnight at home, for up to 300 mile range, will complicate the economics of charging stations. The fact that no one can realistically "gas up at home" is why we have so many gas stations. 300 miles per day will cover 99% of driving, so the demand for charging stations will be limited at best. But, on the plus side, presumably such stations will only be needed for longer road trips, so even just a few along the interstates might suffice. Tricky stuff. cap69.62.205.115 21:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We might wind up with fewer electric "gas stations", but they would still be around, as you note, on the interstate. They would also still be around for those who did not have easy access to plug in their car (people living in apartments, or people who park on the street) or for those who just forgot to plug in their cars.--RLent (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Electric filling stations would not use banks of EESU capacitors, that would cost millions, instead they would use a 1 MW natural gas generator that costs about $200K and could fill 6 cars at once, and in the 6 minute time. The station would chose between grid power or generating its own to sell, whichever is the least expensive at the time. During the summer, most of the power would be self generated due to peak demand upon all generating resources on the grid. December 9, 2007

Objections to new language in mainspace

Here is the patent with images: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7033406.html.

I object to this paragraph, "Let's do the math however. A small electric car driving at 50mph would require approximately 17kW to maintain that speed. Over 500 miles, this would have to be sustained for 10 hours. Therefore, the capacitors would have to have a capacity of 170 kW-hrs. Let's say that you get all the power out of the device that you put in so this is the amount of power required to charge the device. 170kW-hrs converts to 2040 kW-'5min's or 408,000 W-min. 1 Volt x 1 Amp = 1 Watt so at a charging voltage of say, 1000 Volts, that would require 408 Amps to get the job done. Not something I'd want to handle at home or at the local electron filling station. Electricity at this voltage has a tendency to 'leak' and it's consequences are quite toxic in their own way."

The 17kW to maintain a small car at 50mph is not referenced and does not agree with the Eestor patent. The Eestor patent indicates, "It is estimated that is takes 14 hp, 746 watts per hp, to power an electric vehicle running at 60 mph with the lights, radio, and air conditioning on. The energy-storage unit must supply 52,220 W·h or 10,444 W for 5 hours to sustain this speed and energy usage and during this period the EV will have traveled 300 miles." Thus, according to the patent, the car will use roughly 10kW per hour at 60 mph with stated amenities running.

"a charging voltage of say, 1000 Volts..." is an inaccurate estimate because in the patent they state, "the proper voltage breakdown selected from this range could allow the voltage of the energy-storage unit to be 3500 V or higher."

I object to the statement, "Electricity at this voltage has a tendency to 'leak' and it's consequences are quite toxic in their own way." We already have power stations safely generating many times this energy. The statement is not referenced, subjective, and questionable -- not really suitable for an encyclopedia.

I would like for the above paragraph to be a little more referenced and perhaps more in accord with the information as stated by Eestor.

Additional information I believe people should know is 1) a typical house does not have the capacity to recharge the car in 5 minutes. 2) If a car is going to be recharged in 5 minutes, it will have to be (and could be) done at a 'charging station' type place. 3) At a typical house the car could be charged overnight with present wiring. 63.3.15.1 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is gone. It was neither encyclopedic in nature nor properly sourced, and belongs on this discussion page, where you have placed it. --GoodDamon 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The above editor brings up good points on the 'Let's do the Math' paragraph and quite rightly points out that data-based input only is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Therefore, the main article which discusses a $9, 5-min charge should actually read that this feat is only 'possible' or that the 'patent quotes that this is possible' instead of making it sound like a reality. I believe there's a bit of hype in the main article which is definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedic reference.

Also, patents are not always factual reference documents. They are legal 'claims' not actual, physical facts. Data/examples given in patents are typically provided to demonstrate (promote) an idea and may not necessarily reflect all practical aspects of an application. If EEStor's idea is as practical as they suggest, it should be able to stand up to examples not entirely in accord with their views. The 1000V was provided as a round number for easier math and to demonstrate the high amperage involved. 1000V would be 'safer' to handle than 3500V anyway - not that a shock from either voltage would be pleasant.

In a similar fashion, EEStor should manage their public information to avoid stretching what they put in their patent - are they targeting a 500mile range or a 300 mile range? That's a considerable difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

EEStor used the 300 mile range example in their patent. I looked over the internet and the only source I found for the 500 miles is the Associated Press writer of the original article. EEStor may have told him the figure but I never saw that confirmed; maybe I missed it. EEStor did say their supercapacitor is capable of being charged in 4 - 6 minutes, but I can't find where they said a car would go 500 miles on this charge. I didn't go through all the math. 63.3.15.1 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the voltage to which the capacitor is charged is very important to the energy density. As stated in their patent, "high voltage breakdown assists in allowing the ceramic EESU to store a large amount of energy...the energy of the EESU increases with the square of the voltage." In other words, the voltage energy stored when the unit is charged to 1000 volts is only 8% of the energy stored when the unit is charged to 3500 volts. C J Cowie 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Corrected my previous comment. C J Cowie 14:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost to operate 300 miles or 500 miles

According to the Department of Energy, the average retail price of electricity for June 2007 was 9.47 cents per kilowatthour (kWh). The average retail price of residential electricity for June 2007 was 11.07 cents per kWh. So, if the car is charged using residential electricity rates it will cost $1.156 per hour to operate the vehicle at 10.444 kWh. For 5 hours at 60 miles per hours gives 300 miles at a cost of $5.78, or $9.63 for 500 miles. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 63.3.15.130 12:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget about Time of use metering and Smart meters. Potential for load leveling is one often overlooked benefit of EVs. Distributed utility battery, basically. Off-peak should be at least a bit cheaper than "average residential". Anyway, with gas around $3/gallon, even a 60MPG hybrid would cost $15 for fuel to go 300 miles, so fuel costs look pretty nice for EV. 69.62.205.115 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aditionally, if this kind of car becomes popular, it would be possible for the electricity companies to use them as a distributed battery system, balancing load between off-peak and peak hours and responding very quickly to increased load. This has all sorts of advantages - maybe even enough to justify the cost of such a system. Anaholic 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight of Capacitor

From the patent, "The total weight of the EESU (est.) = 336 pounds. The total volume of the EESU (est.) = 13.5 inches × 13.5 inches × 11 inches = 2005 inches cubed - - - Includes the weight of the container and connecting material. The total stored energy of the EESU = 52,220 W·h." 63.3.15.130 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From World Intellectual Property organization as per reference 11: 281.56 lbs, and not 336.

"17. The methods steps as recited in claim 1 that provide an EESU that has a total weight of 281.56 pounds which includes the covers, connectors, and associated hardware. "

Above this it specifies that this weight is for the 52.22 kwh version.

Not quite sure which one is correct, but there is certainly a discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.13.197 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Volume is off too: it states 4541 inch3. in step 13.

"13. The method steps as recited in claim 1 that provide full polarization of the alumina-coated calcined composition-modified barium titanate particles in a poly(ethylene terephthalate) matrix. 14. The method steps as recited in claim 1 that provide an EESU with a volume of 4541 inch3."

Supercapacitor / Regular capacitor

Contrary to a number of misstatements in the press, the EESU is not a supercapacitor; it's a high capacitance conventional ceramic capacitor. Supercapacitors get their capacitance from an electric double layer in a metal/electrolyte interface. -- 129.255.93.189 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The EEstor capacitor is not so much a high capacitance device as a device with moderate capacitance and a moderately high voltage rating resulting in a high energy density. The objective of the development of multilayer electrochemical capacitors is ultimately to achieve high energy density. I suspect that if the EEstor capacitor is successful, the press and/or the scientific community will successfully redefine the term "supercapacitor" in terms of energy density. I believe the current definition has been written by those marketing multilayer electrochemical capacitors, not by the scientific community. Unless and until the EEstor capacitor proves to be successful, this article could be deleted at any time for lack "encyclopediac merit" or what ever it is called. The EEstor material has been deleted from the supercapacitor article in the past on the same grounds. C J Cowie 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's noteworthy. Does that count?  :-) One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it can be at the forefront of technical evolution. Even if EEStor isn't ultimately successful I think people would like to know of it's existance -- if for no other reason than to learn from the attempt. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Recently someone incorporated material from the following link in the article and someone else removed the material and added the link to the “In the news” section of the article.

a blog post with a discussion disputing the validity of EEstor’s claims and targets

If you look at various related news articles and blog postings, you will find quite a bit of controversy about EEStor and their invention.

I offer the following comments related to this controversy:

If you look at EEStor’s patent, you will see that they have not claimed to have invented any part of the electrical energy storage unit (EESU) described in the patent. What they claim as their invention is a method of manufacturing the EESU that is described. The materials used and the application of the materials to the manufacture of capacitors are either part of the established art of capacitor manufacture or are covered by patents assigned to others. It appears that the description of the properties of the device is based on the claims made by others in prior patent disclosures. It appears that the EEStor patent only claims that they have developed a method of combining the various component parts into a single device.

The key components seem to be:

The ceramic basis material is barium-titanate doped with small amounts of additives as described in U.S. patent 6078494 assigned to the U.S. Phillips Corporation. The inventors of this particular ceramic formulation claim that a high value of K is provided along with a long service life, low loss factor, high insulation resistance and a capacitance with low voltage dependence. The temperature dependence of the dielectric constant corresponds to EIA standard Y5V.

The ceramic basis material is modified by coating the particles of powdered basis material with an aluminum oxide coating. A second coating of calcium magnesium aluminosilicate glass is then applied to the particles. A similar coating process is described in U.S. patent 6,268,054 assigned to Cabot Corp., Boston, MA. The inventor of this coating process claims an increase the breakdown voltage of the dielectric material from 3X10^6 V/cm to 5x10^6 V/cm or higher and a significant reduction in the leakage and aging of the dielectric.

Benefits specifically attributed to the glass coating are that it:

• lowers temperature required for sintering and hot isostatic pressing to 800C – a temperature that allows nickel to be used for electrodes rather tan more expensive platinum, palladium or palladium-silver
• assists in removing voids from the dielectric during the hot isostatic pressing helping to ensure that the high voltage breakdown will be achieved
• ensure that the dielectric layer will be uniform and homogeneous

EEStor’s success or failure seems to depend on their ability to, in a volume manufacturing environment, successfully produce all of the components and combine the components as described in the patent. Furthermore, the properties of the components must fulfill the claims made for them by their various inventors. In addition to that, the properties of the completed EEStor EESU must have properties equivalent to the sum of the properties claimed for the individual components. -- C J Cowie (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding the two key points from the referenced discussion page to the article, particularly this one and others:

• Linearity assumption: the patent extrapolates energy storage from capacitance at low voltages, while the high zero-field permittivity of barium titanate powder is directly related to its non-linearity at higher voltages. Also known as a Y/X not equal to dY/dX confusion, Y and X being the dielectric polarization and the applied electric field for the powder, or charge and voltage for the final capacitor, respectively.
• Breakdown voltage: although it is expected to be increased by the mentioned coating, it has inevitable negative effect on the capacitance. The dipole moment per volume will remain roughly uniform across the system (if constructed), resulting in that major part of the capacitance being contributed by the coating material, rather than barium titanate itself.Bugpower (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I couldn't remember enough from my classes to figure out where these guys went wrong (it was a long time ago:P), other than to know something was screwy, but that post does a decent job of explaining what is going on. This page shouldn't just be EEstor's personal adspace, that's not what a wikipage is for; it should reflect any (reasonable, backed up) controversy of their product.Gopher65 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re, linearity assumption: You assume that voltage linearity coefficients always exist for high-K materials. This is false; they can (for example, with proper layering) be reduced to near zero. Example here. I'll quote: "In this work, we demonstrate, for the first time, that VCC value can be actively engineered and virtually zero VCC can be achieved without significant decrease of C density, by using stacked insulator structure of high-K and SiO2 dielectrics. MIM capacitors with C density of larger than 5 fF/µm 2 and VCC of only a few tens ppm/V"2 have been demonstrated together with excellent frequency, temperature, and leakage current (J leak) properties."

The link above about good linearity is not in the same ball park. The 5 fF/um^2 in the electronics article is 311 times less than what EEStor is reporting. Also, they're looking over a range of only a few volts, a thousand times lower than EEStor. 24.214.120.227 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re, breakdown voltage: Read the patent; it's already accounted for (12% penalty). Eliminating the void space is a big benefit as well. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re, breakdown voltage: True, however, referring to several posts in the mentioned blog it is unclear how the "12% penalty" is computed. I might have misread the patent also, but I couldn't find a reference to this calculation. In my opinion, any coating is equivalent to connecting a low-capacitance device in series, therefore resulting in nearly 100% penalty.

Re, linearity assumption: If I understand correctly, you refer to voltage/charge by "linearity coefficient" (or a proportional, like field vs polarization). In fact, I do not assume existence of a non-zero ratio, the patent does - and uses it across a large voltage span (this is also mentioned in several posts). It is true that the latest version of the patent brings some high-voltage measurements, but it is unclear whether the mean electric field in the measuring was the same as in the target device, according to the design. A sample of different geometry might have been used. Some posts mention that Barium's Titanate dielectric properties in high electric fields are significantly different and that saturation is indeed reached at much lower charge than proposed. I am just trying to summarize the existing arguments in the blogosphere, but they sound reasonable to me from physical point of view. Bugpower (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

500 miles?? Using what? A golf cart?

The typical EV uses 300 watthours/mile (source: actual EV drivers who monitor their usage). So an EEstor 50,000 watthour supercapacitor is only ~170 miles... about the same as you see in a modern NiMH-based car (if you drive like a snail). This is really no miracle, except that EEstor is using a capacitor. <-----That's the part I find difficult to believe + the ridiculous 500 mile claim. I've never seen a cap that can store the three times the energy density as a NiMH battery. Or even the same density as a lead-acid battery. Capacitors are low-density devices. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I *think* that the zenn uses less than 200 watthours/mile. If I did that right. It has 6 long cycle heavy duty Lead Acid Batteries, so that's ~55 amp hours per battery * 12 votts * 6 batteries = 3960 total watt hours. And it goes 35km per charge, which is 21.75 miles. Which would give 182, but they do say "up to 35km" so I rounded up. Anyway that's what these capacitors are going into. But the Zenn is basically a glorified golf cart, not a real car. And yeah, I don't believe EEstor either. They're crazy people. Probably;) Gopher65 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Aptera gets as little as 120 Wh/mi highway (433 mile range on 52 kWh), and with a top speed of 80-90mph and a 0-60 of about ten seconds, it's pretty hard to call that a golf cart. Tesla is around 200Wh/mi. Where'd the 300Wh/mi come from? As for "That's the part I find difficult to believe", what you "believe" isn't relevant to the article. If you had "seen a cap that can store three times the energy density as a NiMH battery", then this company wouldn't be making as big of waves as it is, now would it? -- 129.255.93.182 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

However, given that the patent says 300mi, that's what we should go with. And lo and behold, 300 mi is nearly 500km, which could easily have led to this confusion in the AP article. -- 129.255.93.182 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenn Motor Company website

Hello. Zenn Motor Company has some up to date information about EEStor on their website. They use Flash so I couldn't put a link directly to the information, but it can be found at www.zenncars.com under the "Learn|Company|EEstor" menus. They list information I have not seen before. For instance, the 52kWh capacitor can be charged in 3 - 6 minutes. I always saw 5 - 10 minutes up to now. In addition, they list the volume of the 52kWh unit to be 4541 square inches. Some licensing agreement information is also included. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the blurb is simply referencing EEStor promo materials so it's not a reliable source. Sounds like a good story if true but not ready for WP I'm afraid. Ronnotel (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I found the license agreement particularly interesting -- appears it doesn't cover three wheelers like the Aptera. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Number 9

ZENN has denied that this is a delay, just a clarification of the schedule, separating "development" and "commercialization". ZENN further stated that the next milestone is permittivity testing, and there is no announced date for it at this point.

That line gives a reference of Battery Breakthrough?, yet when I go to that page I see nothing pertaining to that line. I think someone just through a random link in there to make it look like they were sourcing their stuff. Or maybe I'm just blind and skipped a line while reading that article. Can anyone else see what I missed? Gopher65 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The references were really messed up not long ago. Somebody was sticking reference numbers in a bizare way. I bet this is just part of that situation. Please give me a day or so and I will try to find the correct reference. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I checked and the reference numbers are acting right. I have seen the permittivity testing reference before, but don't have time to look for it right now. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I was talking about, but I noticed the problem you pointed out(I just didn't know how to fix it). That person must have mixed up two of the different reference types. Personally I use the ref, name, link, text, /ref reference type most of the time, cause I find it easier. And I don't know if they other one can handle multiple uses of the same reference. Anyway, thanks for fixing that. It looks better now.

But the problem I meant was that I don't think that the reference in question (a technologyreview.com article) has anything to do with the text in the article that is suppose to be using it as a source.Gopher65 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I found another reference for the statement. Kept the same reference number, but redirected the reference to an article that contains the 'permittivity testing' statement. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this -- "Official Response from Zenn on delay of eestor by afjerry 09/11/2007 9:47 PM"? -- Rei (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The above link is to Battery Breakthrough?, an article that is already referenced in note number 2. If you find another really good reason to reference the article, then please do, but it makes no sense as note 9. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the post by afjerry? It includes an email that ZENN sent out in response to his request for more info. I assume that's what's being referenced in that section. -- Rei (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rei, I believe you are correct -- good eye. I changed the footnote back to the original note, but indicated to look in the comment section. In addition, I gave the date and time of comment. I suspect when the article was first footnoted the list of comments was not so large and the comment was easier to see. Please look over the footnote and see if it is sufficiently self explanatory now. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

World Intellectual Property Organization

Hello. As referenced by, Technopete, this patent (WO/2006/026136), on this website EEStor patent on WIPO, has a lot of new/interesting information that could perhaps be mined. 63.3.15.130 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. Very different from the method described here. -- Rei (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Press release hype treated as fact

I have a hard time understanding why a company without a prototype far less a product is on Wikipedia. Many other companies with outrageous claims about their technology are not taken at face value, we usually need to see a demo at least. A good example is Europositron who claim to have a revolutionary rechargeable Aluminium battery. They have been removed from the Aluminium battery site because they have no demo and no prototype - just patents and hype. And they were only linked on that page - EEstor even has it's own page to itself. They claim to have a product with energy storage much better than one would expect from the materials used and it is likely based on a bad calculation using V squared instead of V (see the capacitance discussion above) because they have likely ignored or not known about dielectric dissipation. If anyone thinks that attracting investment is a sufficient justification of a product's capabilities then I'd remind them of the dot-com bubble.JG17 (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) this comment was re-located. As per WP:TALK, new sections should go at the bottom of the page, which is where most readers will look for it. Ronnotel (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I wouldn't have started this page myself, and it contains nothing but information provided by the company. But since it is already here, and since the company is scheduled to start delivering its product very soon, I'd suggest we wait for a few months. If absolutely nothing materializes then we'll know this is vapourware. If something does materialize, and it is what they claim, then we can add sources to the page to verify the current claims. If something materializes, but it isn't as good as they claimed it would be (that's what I think will happen), then we can rework the page so that it is more in line with reality.Gopher65 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I can predict now that they'll be delayed with the supposed production date, specifying minor production difficulties, while maintaining they are still on track technically and saying 2009 will be the next magic year. We've seen all this before many times! Isn't it far better to replace this page with a short paragraph in "supercapacitors" where every other relevant company is represented? As it stands, this page is little more than free "pump and dump" advertising for a single company while their competitors, who do have prototypes, are being disadvantaged. Anyone disagree?JG17 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet against you being right on this. The article must just about hit the notability threshold, what with coverage in the Economist and elsewhere. However, as seems to happen when science articles approach the fringe, we have the problem that the only reliable sources are brief and uncritical. The article is therefore left unbalanced and unencyclopediac, and risks misleading readers. I am not sure what the solution is. In a way, it's easier to deal with perpetual motion machines and such like, than something like this that is probably nonsense, but not obviously so. LeContexte (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is highly encylopedic and relevant. Please do not delete or remove. It is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. 63.3.15.1 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogspot.com reference

Here is a Blogspot.com reference to EEStor:

http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/

63.3.15.1 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

not sure what the video clips have to do with EEStor. The current Zenn models run on conventional batteries. Ronnotel (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I just included it because somebody tried to use it as a note in the EEStor article and a bot deleted it. If you scroll down there are some EEStor articles lower on the page. Not much new there, but it did have EEStor content. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More from ZENN on EEStor

The excerpt below is from a ZENN Motor Company press release dated March 28, 2008:

Target Launch of the cityZENN, powered by EEStor: Fall 2009

The cityZENN is planned to be a fully certified, highway capable vehicle with a top speed of 125 KPH/ 80 MPH and a range or 400 kilometres/250 miles. Powered by EEStor, the cityZENN will be rechargeable in less than 5 minutes, feature operating costs 1/10th of a typical internal combustion engine vehicle and be 100% emission-free! The Zero-Emission, No-Noise cityZENN will be designed to meet the transportation requirements of a large percentage of drivers worldwide.

"EEStor's game-changing energy storage technology is in the advanced stages of commercialization", stated Ian Clifford, Chief Executive Officer. "EEStor has publicly committed to commercialization in 2008 and their first production line will be used to supply ZENN Motor Company."

Here is the full statement: http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=837653

63.3.15.1 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dielectric Saturation

In various blogs/discussions, I have seen people suggest that the phenomenon of dielectric saturation voids EEstor's claims. Does anyone have a good understanding of this and could a) add some more detail to this article, and b) write an article about it and link this one to it? For instance, in the current version of this article we have the claim that

However, the latest version of the Eestor patent[11] contains measured permittivity at 85°C averaging 19,869 at an unspecified voltage, 19,837 at 3,500 V and 19,818 at 5,000 V, demonstrating that little dielectric saturation occurs below 5,000 V.

Does this in fact mean that the counter-claims of the EEstor capacitor are incorrect - does a roughly constant permittivity actually mean that the concerns about dielectric saturation are invalid and that the standard energy formula for capacitors ($E={\tfrac {1}{2}}CV^{2}$) can be used for the materials and voltages that EEstor suggest?

Is it also worth including the formula for capacitance, to give an indication of how permittivity, and hence capacitance are linked to the energy which can be stored? See Capacitor#Capacitance Andipi (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)