TheEEStory.com

http://www.theeestory.com/files/EESU52-Spec-she...

per westcoast

Like Matt said in chat, the EESU-52 doesn't half look great as a product code. Yeeeeha!

Cost per kw is $100-250. Or $5200-$13,000 per 52kw EESU.

So it's double the original price. At $5200, a 52kw EESU would still be a goer, but at $13,000 it could take a fair bit longer to be adopted.

(Lensman scale: 9 on the science, 6 on the chances of it being produced at a price that makes it a winner)

Last edited Sun, 12 Jul 2009, 10:24pm by AD2

---

I'll take two thanks...

---

pgl wrote:

I'de like my EESU in a polished stainless steel container per the specs, with a stylized stenciled picture of Y_Po yelling "IDIOT!!" on the side (in red).

Sweet!

If they hit even the high price it's more than a goer. GM states they they pay hundreds less than $1000/kWh for the Volt battery pack, let's say it's $600/kWh ($800 also fits). In order to ensure delivery of a 40 mile electric only range at 100,000+ miles, the Li pack in the Volt is operated between 30% and 80% SOC. There is no such requirement for the EESU.

The Volt pack is 16kWh (8kWh usable) at a price in the range of $9600 to $12800. An EESU replacement rated at 16kWh (providing double the EV range of the Volt pack) would cost GM $3200. 1/4 to 1/3 the cost while doubling the range probably would sound as good to GM as it does to me. Pretty sure they will sell faster than EEStor and their licensees can produce them.

This means that at the high price the EESU is 1/6th to 1/8th the cost per usable kWh as the Volt pack. The low cost estimate makes it 1/12th to 1/16th the cost. That is pretty compelling in my book.

Last edited Sun, 12 Jul 2009, 11:53pm by Cobraphx

What is that document supposed to be? It looks like someone just compiled a list of the advertised and rumoured specs into one place. It certainly doesn't appear to come from an internal or overly-knowledgeable source.

---

Does anyone know how the leakage compares to the older patent?

---

xcgeek wrote:

What is that document supposed to be? It looks like someone just compiled a list of the advertised and rumoured specs into one place. It certainly doesn't appear to come from an internal or overly-knowledgeable source.

Really? So can you point out where you have seen advertisements and/or "rumors" on these specifications:

Internal dc resistance (ESR) 
Inductance
Leakage current @ 85C
Shock
Efficiency at end of life
Packaging types

---

http://www.theeestory.com/articles/154

---

Bret, I posted it in chat, but I'll put it here too. You need to change "stored energy over temperature range" to include "reduction"

---

How did the errors in note2 get thru? Makes you wonder it that is the key to this being a spoof.

---

If this indeed came from eestor, I bet it was part the same "literature" that was provided to General Motors (GM).

No GM/EEStor deal seemed to have occurred.

---

This is probably very old > 5years ago
The sheet says NICKEL/Aluminum electrodes
Irrelevant

jam wrote:

This is probably very old > 5years ago
The sheet says NICKEL/Aluminum electrodes
Irrelevant

EEStor was claiming 460 kWh/kg energy density more then five years ago? That would be news to me.

I agree the reference to "NICKEL/Aluminum electrodes" is surprising but then again the patent US7033406B2 was filed April 15, 2004. I think it is safe to assume details have been tweaked over the last five years.

Last edited Mon, 13 Jul 2009, 7:13am by tvillars

---

The pdf was written in version 1.4 which is about five years old (maybe). Doesn't mean it wasn't written yesterday, but the data about when the pdf was created looks like it's old or used by old software.
Check it out yourself.
(It goes on about an HP digital sending device). But anyway, the pdf language, from what I can see (though I am far from an expert) suggests it's not that new.

What does "The dc resistance can be lowered by 1000 or greater..." mean?

---

what are "electronic speeds"

---

dareka1 wrote:

The pdf was written in version 1.4 which is about five years old (maybe). Doesn't mean it wasn't written yesterday, but the data about when the pdf was created looks like it's old or used by old software.
Check it out yourself.
(It goes on about an HP digital sending device). But anyway, the pdf language, from what I can see (though I am far from an expert) suggests it's not that new.

If it was scanned from a HP Digital Sender then it simply means the equipment is old and doesn't necessarily mean they created the doc 5 years ago. Where I used to work we had old Digital Senders and because they cost so much we kept them for very long.

---

Does it mean anything that all the units are in metric rather than US or Imperial? If it were from a scientist, I would not be surprised, but if the data were compiled from an engineer, would that not be a little odd? It could indicate the material was intended for a Canadian or European audience...
Just wondering.

The slight triangle shaped shading on the top left corner makes me wonder if it could be part of a multipage document, folded to scan only that page (just another wild speculation).

Pshrink wrote:

Does it mean anything that all the units are in metric rather than US or Imperial? If it were from a scientist, I would not be surprised, but if the data were compiled from an engineer, would that not be a little odd? It could indicate the material was intended for a Canadian or European audience...
Just wondering.

I would say the same. Makes sense if you think of Zenn and their potential european Glider providers.

---

Where are all the skpetics attempting to tear this to shreds?

---

calling their brokers (or learning javascrpt) :)

---

I hear ya. With the added technical information, I expected to see all kinds of math telling me it's "impossible".

---

without this even being traced as sourced from eestor, it is just an interesting conversation piece.

Anyone can create a spec sheet. Zap motors came out with one for their Zap-X crossover. It had unbelievable specs on it (big surprise there).

tonon wrote:

Where are all the skpetics attempting to tear this to shreds?

Why should anybody do this? This paper discredits itself perfectly..

Do you want a paper that shows the exact data for a competing product that has double the energy density of an EESU at half the price, and that will be available on the market by the end of the year?

Please wait a minute, I will just write it down for you ...

Is there anybody here who wants to invest 40 mio $ for a 10% share of my product? Why not? This is exactly the amount of money that the believers here have paid for Zenn-shares, and the only "value" of Zenn is it's relation with EEstor.

tonon wrote:

Where are all the skpetics attempting to tear this to shreds?

See my latest post. Did it in only one logic step.

EESlicster wrote:

dareka1 wrote:

The pdf was written in version 1.4 which is about five years old (maybe). Doesn't mean it wasn't written yesterday, but the data about when the pdf was created looks like it's old or used by old software.
Check it out yourself.
(It goes on about an HP digital sending device). But anyway, the pdf language, from what I can see (though I am far from an expert) suggests it's not that new.

If it was scanned from a HP Digital Sender then it simply means the equipment is old and doesn't necessarily mean they created the doc 5 years ago. Where I used to work we had old Digital Senders and because they cost so much we kept them for very long.

I'm not writing this to start a disagreement with you, but that is what can be understood from my post if read carefully. The relevant points-
"Doesn't mean it wasn't written yesterday,"
(double negative a bit tricky, I know, but can be taken to mean "It could have been written yesterday" if one sits down and tries to figure out all the permutations of meaning that devilish eight-word clause has)
"but the data about when the pdf was created looks like it's old or used by old software."
("or" not always an easy word to pin down due to it explaining that there is a choice, the key clause is "used by old software" again, not explaining directly enough really, a bit noncommittal and vague. I will try to be a bit more concise and direct in future posts. Thanks for pointing that out.)

Have a nice day. :)

chacha wrote:

Why should anybody do this? This paper discredits itself perfectly..

Whups! Guess i missed that line. Mind you, my EEStor skeptic kit is lost in the mail. Probably being delivered by an ancient ICE-powered cube van. Luckily, though, I still have my tinfoil hat, so I am safe from the evil thought-waves being sent by IC et al.

I must be doubly lucky as I have also put sugar on my Rice Crispies this morning, silencing the voices in my bowl, whispering sweet nothings regarding dielectric saturation and the movements of Ti atoms in rice-based cereal polygonal lattices and locked-in quazilectric phases above curie temps of simple sugars.

But, in the end, I chose to personally NOT believe this paper as it has never written any published papers on its own, and does not have any PhD in any related field of science.

To be doubly sure, I personally conducted some interviews with random SME's on my desk (paperclip holder, ruler, and BIC pen). None of which believed the spec sheet either, mind you, this is my own interpretation of their obvious stunned silence that could only be brought upon them via the sheer preposterous nature of this so called "spec sheet".

In conclusion, I would like to incorrectly quote Occam's razor and say that the most complicated theory in which I can concoct on why this spec sheet is in fact NOT a spec sheet is much more plausible to me. My rebuttal theories can be fully backed-up via my high school physics texts and my equally qualified, experieinced, published peers. All of which have fully proven their own credentials as anonymous scientists on a blog site.

Case Closed!

---