Recent Comment
Share
Super-stealth battery maker EEStor hasn't been inspiring a lot of confidence among traditional industry types. People seem a lot more comfortable depending on upgrades to existing lithium-ion technology than placing their faith in a company that promises amazing results with a device that no one has yet seen.
So we all get very excited, yet very skeptical when we hear about EEStor. But we are happy when we hear that big companies (like Lockheed Martin) are working with EEStor.
The news around EEStor got a little brighter for me when Lyle Dennis from GM-Volt.com asked GM's head of battery research, Denise Gray, about the stealth company. She said that GM had communicated with them a good deal, but stopped short of saying that they'd seen a prototype, saying that that was confidential. The transcript is below the fold, but I was lucky enough to have the camera running so you can watch her full answer above.
EEStor's "electrical power storage unit" (it's not technically a battery) is promised to be 10x lighter than a lithium ion battery, store more power, charge in minutes and come in at half the cost. And while that sounds like the sort of technology that would solve all kinds of ecogeeky problems (from power storage for renewable energy to cheap electric cars) no one has yet seen a working prototype, much less a factory producing them.
Have your heard of EEStor?
Yes.Have you ever communicated with them?
Oh Yes, Yes Yes. One of the great things about the advanced battery technology community is lots of information comes to GM and I’m really in a very good position (because) we’ve left an open door with many different suppliers. And EEStor is one of those suppliers who often sends us information. We’re willing to evaluate what they have and provide information on what our portfolio of higher batteries needs are, so that as they hone in on their technology they recognize what that end game is all about.So Yes, they are one of those suppliers that we frequently get information from.
Have they sent you any working prototypes?
We’re still waiting for some of that information to come through to us. They’ve provided us some literature.So you haven’t seen a working prototype?
I would just say quite frankly that we are encouraging them to develop along those lines. I probably shouldn’t say if I’ve received parts or not, that’s kind of confidential. But we are in touch with them and we are continuing to encourage them to develop the technology. Because we need as much help as we can possibly get to get the costs down of our battery solution and get the reliability up.So maybe one day we’ll see an EEStor-powered Volt?
Anything’s possible.
Hits: 7103
Comments (25)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Julian, February 01, 2009
Sounds like that would be a marvelous invention solving many problems, but it doesn't seem to actually be in existence yet. I hope it will be soon!
-Julian, ItTakesII
-Julian, ItTakesII
-
- +0
-
-
written by kerry bradshaw, February 01, 2009
Those skeptical about EEStor have no evidence whatsoever upon which to base any skepticism. On the other hand we have three (and GM would possibly make four) companies who have SEEN evidence of the EEStor devices working. Lockheed-Martin has the devices prominently displayed on its website - they have exclusive use for national security - and ZENN Motors also claims to know that the devices work. Against this are bloggers who can spell EEStor, and that's about it.
They have no information, inside or otherwise that can be used to dispute the claims that EEStor works. They are simply empty-headed skeptics. Call me unimpressed. Let me know when these folks actually have evidence of something concerning EESTor. I'm not holding my breath.
They have no information, inside or otherwise that can be used to dispute the claims that EEStor works. They are simply empty-headed skeptics. Call me unimpressed. Let me know when these folks actually have evidence of something concerning EESTor. I'm not holding my breath.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ScepticSkeptic, February 02, 2009
Oh c'mon Kerry, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about EEStor.
"Those skeptical about EEStor have no evidence whatsoever upon which to base any skepticism."
Could you clarify your use of the word skepticism? Did you mean philosophical skepticism or ordinary incredulity? Because the complete absence of evidence from EEStor leaves me pretty incredulous.
Unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical
EEStory fan clubbers take note. Unsubstantiated inferences from hearsay are not facts.
Einstein was attributed to say: "If facts don't fit the theory change the facts."
Word up ..... EEStor fans ain't no Einstein's.
"Those skeptical about EEStor have no evidence whatsoever upon which to base any skepticism."
Could you clarify your use of the word skepticism? Did you mean philosophical skepticism or ordinary incredulity? Because the complete absence of evidence from EEStor leaves me pretty incredulous.
Unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical
EEStory fan clubbers take note. Unsubstantiated inferences from hearsay are not facts.
Einstein was attributed to say: "If facts don't fit the theory change the facts."
Word up ..... EEStor fans ain't no Einstein's.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Tom Konrad, February 02, 2009
That sounds like a "no" to me. Literature is not a prototype.
> Have they sent you any working prototypes?
> We’re still waiting for some of that information to come through to us. They’ve provided us some literature.
> Have they sent you any working prototypes?
> We’re still waiting for some of that information to come through to us. They’ve provided us some literature.
-
- +0
-
-
written by chinaski, February 02, 2009
I have heard that Lookheed might have signed with EEStor, just to justify development costs of new equipment. They might not really care wether it works or not in the end, but they can charge billions to the goverment for development costs.
Personaly I wish them all the best, because I want the electric car to succeed, and such a breaktrough would be great. But as I have not seen any proof, I remain skeptical.
Personaly I wish them all the best, because I want the electric car to succeed, and such a breaktrough would be great. But as I have not seen any proof, I remain skeptical.
-
- +0
-
-
written by SepticSkeptic, February 02, 2009
I'm thinking EEStor have some clause in their non-disclosure agreement that forces people to talk in riddles.
That guy from Zenn also dished up a type of verbal spaggetti without actually saying anything.
That guy from Zenn also dished up a type of verbal spaggetti without actually saying anything.
-
- +0
-
-
written by CBDunkerson, February 02, 2009
EEStor has claimed to have a certain technology. They have entered into several contracts where they receive multiple millions of dollars to bring this technology to production in exchange for various rights to then use the technology.
If EEStor does not have the technology they claim or something very close to it then they have committed fraud. No question. Open and shut case.
So tell me. What exactly is the upside of defrauding Lockheed Martin out of millions of dollars? Sure, Lockheed could know it is a fraud and just be padding their bill... but there is also no reason they wouldn't sue to get their money back from EEStor.
Startups make big claims all the time. They say, 'we believe that we will eventually be able to improve this to X' or 'this technology may someday result in Y'. That isn't what EEStor has done. They've said, 'we already have Z, now we just need money to mass produce it'. The difference is very important. There is no, 'oh it just did not pan out' cover here. If EEStor does not have what they have already claimed then legal actions will be filed within the year and a few years after that every penny the company ever had will be gone.
So... either they have very stupidly lied in the hopes that the money would allow them to develop such a technology in a few short years, or they really have it.
If EEStor does not have the technology they claim or something very close to it then they have committed fraud. No question. Open and shut case.
So tell me. What exactly is the upside of defrauding Lockheed Martin out of millions of dollars? Sure, Lockheed could know it is a fraud and just be padding their bill... but there is also no reason they wouldn't sue to get their money back from EEStor.
Startups make big claims all the time. They say, 'we believe that we will eventually be able to improve this to X' or 'this technology may someday result in Y'. That isn't what EEStor has done. They've said, 'we already have Z, now we just need money to mass produce it'. The difference is very important. There is no, 'oh it just did not pan out' cover here. If EEStor does not have what they have already claimed then legal actions will be filed within the year and a few years after that every penny the company ever had will be gone.
So... either they have very stupidly lied in the hopes that the money would allow them to develop such a technology in a few short years, or they really have it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Clinch, February 02, 2009
My main curiosity about all this, is if it is real, then why not make it public, or get some third party verification? Because if they could prove it's real, they'll have investors lining up outside their door, but if they just keep it a secret, then where's the benefit?
The only reasonable reason I can see for them not showing it, is because they can't show it (because it doesn't exist)
The only reasonable reason I can see for them not showing it, is because they can't show it (because it doesn't exist)
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mike1101, February 02, 2009
,but I think they have something that is fairly easy to produce copies of or similar items to and to get around their patents. The best case scenario here, and this is in response to the comment by Clinch, is that my statement is true. If it is, then it would make sense that they need to get the manufacturing facility up and running before they share it with the world. Big companies with much greater resources can steal the ideas of little ones, and get a production line up and running faster than ones with small budgets.
That's really the only scenario that explains EEStor's actions without calling them a fraud, so it's mostly hope. I would love for these guys to have made these things.
That's really the only scenario that explains EEStor's actions without calling them a fraud, so it's mostly hope. I would love for these guys to have made these things.
-
- +0
-
-
written by aaron, February 02, 2009
Gee with NNNN (no new net news) for so long was it any wonder that a blog like this would come out in lieu of silence? Anybody know how old this is?
To assume that This actually means any more than a PR professional being courteous and doing their PR thing is a real streeeeeeeetch. Hell I could have sent them some literature about my new fantabulous battery design. In not so many words,
Give me a break.
To assume that This actually means any more than a PR professional being courteous and doing their PR thing is a real streeeeeeeetch. Hell I could have sent them some literature about my new fantabulous battery design. In not so many words,
Give me a break.
-
- +0
-
-
written by David, February 02, 2009
EEstor can be made into a weapon. that is why we dont see them. someone combine eestor with parts from RadioShak and anyone can create a weapon a very powerfull one. there are a lot of different arrangements that can create said weapon. It may just be that consideration that stops them from releasing it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hank, February 02, 2009
The question is...Does EEStor want investors lining up? It would make more sense, if they have a truly revolutionary technology, to avoid excess investment. If you don't need investors to help get your product up and running, then why dilute your interest in the company?
EEStor has already had some high-profile VC money, but I think that (if Lockheed has seen a prototype, and isn't doing something shady) then they don't need investors anymore...they need customers. Which is why it's interesting that they're talking to GM as well as Lockheed.
EEStor has already had some high-profile VC money, but I think that (if Lockheed has seen a prototype, and isn't doing something shady) then they don't need investors anymore...they need customers. Which is why it's interesting that they're talking to GM as well as Lockheed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Alan, February 02, 2009
The GM flak lady was completely winging it. She looked just like Sarah Palin dodging a question. A lot of us have great hopes for EEStor, but we shouldn't look to GM as our green, alternative energy savior or take as gospel anything that emanates from GM. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz is an outspoken global warming denier. It was GM that killed the electric car (its own child). It was GM that killed electric light rail in the US in the 'forties and fifties'.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jason, February 02, 2009
EESU is not claimed to be 10x lighter than Li-Ion, it's 10x lighter than Lead-Acid; that's not even 2x lighter than current Li-Ion technology.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jeff, February 03, 2009
It's likely that EEStor's technology will be a PART of a "energy storage unit" that includes a lithium ion battery, control electronics, software, etc.
That is what GM is probably interested in. Such a "energy storage unit" would have the quick charging and discharging aspects of the EEStor ultracaps AND the better energy storage capability of lithium ion batteries.
The ultracaps would be a bit like a turbocharger and also serve as a very efficient charging device ... storing braking energy and enabling people to add more electric miles of range in just 10 minutes when you stop at a "energy station" (convenience store with a quick charging station).
That is what GM is probably interested in. Such a "energy storage unit" would have the quick charging and discharging aspects of the EEStor ultracaps AND the better energy storage capability of lithium ion batteries.
The ultracaps would be a bit like a turbocharger and also serve as a very efficient charging device ... storing braking energy and enabling people to add more electric miles of range in just 10 minutes when you stop at a "energy station" (convenience store with a quick charging station).
-
- +0
-
-
written by SimBob, February 03, 2009
The Wright brothers did not publicly proclaim the successful Kitty Hawk flights (and the following ones) until 1908. Why? They spent the 5 years advancing their designs and wrapping up patents and legal issues so that no one could just waltz in, throw down some money, claims and "prototypes" and steal their market. The only reason they spoke up in 1908 was because someone in France (Bleriot?) had just started claiming to have now been the first to achieve powered flight.
So, carp all you want about the secrecy surrounding EEStor being a smokescreen for vaporware, but consider that even if their claims are exaggerated by a factor of 2 then the end of the internal combustion engine in transportation is in sight. That's a huge amount of potential profit to the company who owns the IP.
So, carp all you want about the secrecy surrounding EEStor being a smokescreen for vaporware, but consider that even if their claims are exaggerated by a factor of 2 then the end of the internal combustion engine in transportation is in sight. That's a huge amount of potential profit to the company who owns the IP.
-
- +0
-
-
written by EESTORY, February 03, 2009
Full Disclosure-I have a working relationship with GM...I have sent literature to GM.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rich, February 03, 2009
"EEStory fan clubbers take note. Unsubstantiated inferences from hearsay are not facts.
Einstein was attributed to say: "If facts don't fit the theory change the facts."
Word up ..... EEStor fans ain't no Einstein's."
I guess Einstein blabbed about his theory of Relativity before it was documented?
If what EEstor has is real it will change the World as we know it, Politically, ecomonically. The implications will be astronomical. Sorry, but as much as you are dying to know...you got to wait, and me too.
Einstein was attributed to say: "If facts don't fit the theory change the facts."
Word up ..... EEStor fans ain't no Einstein's."
I guess Einstein blabbed about his theory of Relativity before it was documented?
If what EEstor has is real it will change the World as we know it, Politically, ecomonically. The implications will be astronomical. Sorry, but as much as you are dying to know...you got to wait, and me too.
-
- +0
-
-
written by larry, February 04, 2009
The fact that they havent produced 1 working prototype to GM (who would obviously be a huge customer )despite pouring millions into its development is a HUGE warning sign. At this point I'd put EEstor's viability somewhere between those pills that change water to gasoline and ZAP motors! (hope im proven wrong thou)
-
- +0
-
-
written by matware, February 06, 2009
Most companies regularly dish out docs before sampling parts or showing working prototypes. Just look at Intel/AMD , and they are on a well established technology curves, not developing new technologies.
Now for the skeptic test :
1. Do their claims violate any know laws of physics. No, their patents claim that they can achieve exactly what physics say they should be able to achieve with the materials they are using.
2. Are they over hyping themselves. No, they have no website, no youtube video of the claimed miracle machine in action, just partnerships with companies who have experts in the fields of energy storage.
3. Are they claiming it will change the world. No, everybody else is drawing that bow. Their partners are claiming that is a better fit for their tech problems than existing tech, they haven't shotgunned every company with an energy storage problem (solar/wind/nuke...) they have targeted the markets which will make them the most money at the start because they are hot.
Skeptic meter reads about 2 out of 10, about the same as when NVidia came to the market with 24 bit colour and trash talked 3dFX.
Now for the skeptic test :
1. Do their claims violate any know laws of physics. No, their patents claim that they can achieve exactly what physics say they should be able to achieve with the materials they are using.
2. Are they over hyping themselves. No, they have no website, no youtube video of the claimed miracle machine in action, just partnerships with companies who have experts in the fields of energy storage.
3. Are they claiming it will change the world. No, everybody else is drawing that bow. Their partners are claiming that is a better fit for their tech problems than existing tech, they haven't shotgunned every company with an energy storage problem (solar/wind/nuke...) they have targeted the markets which will make them the most money at the start because they are hot.
Skeptic meter reads about 2 out of 10, about the same as when NVidia came to the market with 24 bit colour and trash talked 3dFX.
-
- +0
-
-
written by k, February 13, 2009
EEStor has proclaimed, papered, patented, etc for many years w/o any physical product and can be expected to continue doing the same..
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andrew, February 26, 2009
Do you really think that Kleiner Perkins backs a company without doing technical due diligence?
Those guys are not stupid, they know a lot of deals back every year ... probably hundreds knocked back in this space alone.
My guess is, they have something.
Those guys are not stupid, they know a lot of deals back every year ... probably hundreds knocked back in this space alone.
My guess is, they have something.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ee watcher, April 13, 2009
As much as this lady tries to keep her eyes on the interviewer, she dodges at certain times. The eye movements say something. Notice how she looks up and to the right, or simply to the right. This indicates that she is recalling an image or a sound. Looking to the left indicates she is constructing an image rather than recalling one.
If you read this article, then re-watch the video, comment on what you think she's really saying.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php
If you read this article, then re-watch the video, comment on what you think she's really saying.
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jayson, October 21, 2009
I just want to point out the the term "battery" is defined as "any large group or series of related things". In electricity its a group of cells. Your typical D, C, AA, and AAA batteries are NOT batteries at all but cells. A 9V battery IS a battery. If you peal one open (as I did as a child) there are 6 - 1.5 volt cells. The same with a car battery. It has 6 - 2V cells. What EEStor is not is a chemical cell or, if more then is one wired in series or parallel, a chemical battery. But it is technically a battery as from what I have been able to gather is made up of multiple capacitor cells to create one battery. Just my input.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
1) NO independent 3rd party verification.
2) NO commercial production line.
3) NO UL certified ceramic battery.
4) NO CityZenn powered by EESTOR’s ceramic battery.
5) NO one has seen a working prototype outside Dick Weir’s dream world!