The EESTor/theeestory Connection from Bloomberg Businessweeek

The EESTor/theeestory Connection from Bloomberg Businessweeek
The above is a screen capture from Bloomberg Businessweek July 10, 2010. The url was recently changed to to make people believe there is no connection between EESTor and, the #1 site of pumping EEStor on the internet. Update-EEStor's web site URL has been deleted.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Lies, Lies, Lies Revisited 2012

Has any of the LIES changed in this EESCAM story since December 2009?  Has EESTOR delivered one, not two, just one EESU to Zenn which meets the '536 patent specs?  Has anyone with or without a bag on his head witnessed an EESU meeting the '536 specs within the last 20 years?  The apologist and enabler of EESTOR's fraud, Brennan Joseph Murphy, the eestor news blogger with the bag on his head, AKA "B", eestorblog, and or Baghead, hasn't change one bit.  He wants you to believe he has just been an innocent reporter reporting the EESCAM story.  Brennan seems to forgotten about the Air Force Research Laboratory emails.

The following is an example of how Brennan is an apologist and enabler of EESCAM's fraud; nothing has changed since December 2009:

Default Lies Lies Lies By Dick Weir, Tom Weir, Ian Clifford, And Pumping Of EESCAM by Baghead

Since Lyle likes to blog about EESCAM, I would like to remind everyone we went through the same lies and BS in 2008 by Dick Weir, Tom Weir, Ian Clifford, and the pumping of EESCAM by Baghead.

In a blog by Lyle October 27th, 2008 (Update From EEStor CEO Richard Weir: No EESU Delivery in 2008) Dick Weir stated EESCAM will not deliver anything to Zenn 08 due to funding issues. Then Baghead (blogger with bag over his head) pumper of EESCAM posted a blogWed, 29 Oct 2008 with a bunch of BS pumping EESCAM is scheduled to deliver 08. Baghead wrote:
"Those predicting EEStor tricks were quick to devour's recent report that there would be no EESU's delivered in 2008. Many other blogs and even the New York Times (for God's sake) covered this tricky story and cited funding issues as the reason for the delay. Skeptics of EEStor's claims, (many of whom have set up camp at reveled gluttonously in the supposed news indicating it was further proof that EEStor will not deliver on it's claims. But was this pre-halloween celebration a bit premature? Yes.", and commented on the last sentence of the blog, "Attention bloggers and reporters busy correcting your previous stories, don't forget to cite the source.".

For those of you that are new to the EESCAM story, the following sums up the story, courtesy of Steve Pluvia:
"EEStor is nothing more than a vehicle for a Canadian pump-n-dump, specifically Zenn Motors. Zenn has a powerful Canadian hype team supported by a crooked bucket shop (Paradigm Capital), paid promoters and degenerate gamblers."

23 Days Left In 2009

Lies by Dick Weir and Ian Clifford.
Last edited by Anto; 12-08-2009 at 03:54 AM.


This is my philosophy:

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander"


Friday, November 16, 2012

For Your & Mine Entertainment Pleasure

The following Air Force Research Laboratory email was obtained through a FOIA request; AFRL email addresses deleted so they would not be harassed by anonymous bloggers with bag on their heads:

Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: EEStor Research Request
Yep! Where did you find this clown?

From: B []
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 9:20 AM
Subject: Fwd: EEStor Research Request
I am conducting research into the feasibility of technology being advanced by a company
called EEStor Inc., located in Cedar Park, TX for an article I hope to publish. This
technology was mentioned in a DoD article authored by Larry Triola at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center in October 2008:
I am seeking to speak with persons knowledgeable about EEStor's technology and the
surrounding material science. If you know of someone who is familiar with EEStor or the
underlying technology that can speak with me, please contact me at the email address below
with any instructions for next steps.
If you are simply interested in offering a pointer or comment concerning EEStor, it would be
much appreciated. Also, if you may be able to comment on EEStor at a future date, please let
me know. Alternatively, if you would be interested in receiving updates on my research,
please let me know.
Very Respectfully,

Thursday, June 21, 2012

"Never was, and never will be"

The following is NanoCarbons' opinion on Zenn's press release, 6/21/12. 
"I think the press release was written by lawyers to avoid lawsuits. It does not solve Zenn's problem.
EEStor did not perform (again), so this provides more legally vetted excuses. Now 5 years worth.  Pricing adjustments and additional shares will not solve Zenn's basic problem that there is no there, there. Never was, and never will be. The basic physics and economics were publicly made clear by myself (gratis) back in 2008 to anyone who cared to investigate."
NanoCarbons LLC

Thursday, May 17, 2012

NanoCarbons Comment on EESTOR's May 15 Press Release

Also comments on Versant Partners' and Paradigm Capital's ZMC Research Update.

"1. The May 15 EEStor announcement contains nothing new, and was disappointingly expected.
a. 3500V dieletric withstand is not new.  What was surprising is that it took EEStor until 2012 to claim. There have been 4000V commercial parts available at least since 2004. But not near the capacitance EEStor requires.
b. EEStor has not yet got the claimed permittivity to store the promised energy. Basic physics and the VCC of all MLCC say they will never will. Neither their prior announcement (>purity) or their present announcement (optimizing barrier layers of aluminum oxide) have to do with this basic physics. Read Feynman's Lectures on Physics, V2, chapters 10 and 11-7. EEStor disavowed new physics. Yet to achieve their goals they must find some.
c. The fact that EEStor does not yet have the bespoke energy density (E=1/2 CV^2) strongly suggests that their 2004 patent application (with PET void filler) data was fabricated rather than measured. This was previously proven using at least two other independent means. Else, EEStor would have replicated the result by now on some scale.
2. Versant's comments reflect negligent ignorance. To whit, "single layer eesu". EEStor's own flawed application requires about 100 layers per component, and >31000 components per EESU! The fact that single layers are now 20 microns rather than the 2004 application's 8u, meaning more than twice the CMBT, twice the volume, and twice the weight (and cost), was totally ignored by Versant. That can only be construed as willful ignorance, given the importance of EESU economics to Zenn, and the previous public discussion of these issues by myself and others.
3. Paradigm's comments say 'show significant progress'. In reality, there has been none since 2008. Paying an additional $500k for 'unobtanium' does not reflect building shareholder value. It reflects another round of pump and dump, as reflected in Paradigm's price chart. Plus, their investment thesis is Zenn's rights last until patents expire. Except, as previously shown elsewhere, the patents are invalid due to inequitable conduct (specifically, attesting to experimental data that could not possibly be true.) And that is public knowledge per previous postings on this and other sites, using only publicly available data.
I note that Jacob's Securities is curiously absent in this round of press, yet were the tout in 2009. As previously noted to you, they did not want to take my calls, and were adamant about not publishing again on Zenn.
Res ipso locitur.

Rud Istvan, aka NanoCarbons"

Monday, April 2, 2012

Deception of Zenn Investors

Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Archival note concerning Zenn, EEStor, and the EESTORY blog.

          As a result of listening to the VP of manufacturing of Zenn give a recorded
interview to eestorblogger B, I realized that the whole thing will now be provably a
knowing deception of Zenn investors. If not at the outset (initial investment and
erroneously drafted milestones could have resulted from naivete and lack of diligence),
then certainly now. These arguments were posted on the thread discussing the interview
and need not be repeated. They were posted knowing this would kick the proverbial
hornets nest, which it did on the website. Two further long, detailed explanations of all
the logical dilemmas that lead to the unfortunate conclusion that fraudulent deception is
very likely were also posted. They are on the site.
          One hoped for result was that some Zenn shareholders would be alerted, and
indeed this was the case. One investor even asked for short answers (the blogger’s style)
to complex questions, which were given, and to which there was no riposte.
          Another hoped for result was that perhaps this allegation would force more clarity
into Zenn/EEStor pronouncements if they were well-intentioned. Or, in the alternative,
get them to provide further evidence that knowing deception is probably being practiced.
          The latter became true as a result of B’s posting a short follow up interview with
Tom Weir of EEStor, to which much exaltation has been recorded this date on the
website. Incredibly, Zenn emailed this “press announcement” to its shareholders this date.
It is actually a published report from the editor in chief of AllCarsElectric, who in turn
misreports B’s website interview of the EEStor VP. The ACE article is available this date
unaltered on the Zenn website under press releases. The headline touts, “EEStor VP Says
EESU’s to be delivered by end of 2009.” Which is not what the VP said. He said the
permittivity announcement (at low voltage) was “a step toward the second objective to
deliver production quality components and/or EESU’s by the end of 2009.”
          That is a significant qualification, since no working component has yet been
demonstrated (permittivity at voltage) to Zenn according to Bergeron himself, and an
EESU has many more issues than a single working component. Zenn knows this. The
interview with VP Engineering Bergeron proves it.
One must consider various possible sources of the inaccuracy.
           1. Na├»ve carelessness. Zenn is a licensee of EEStor, purportedly working closely
              with them. Zenn touts an inaccurate headline (proven in the text itself), which
              itself is hearsay (ACE quoting B quoting Weir). They could easily have
              double checked with Weir himself, and/or issued their own opine on B’s
              posting. The plainly misleading headline is to their advantage. Knew or
              should have known. Naivete is not a legal defense when this important.
          2. Effort to avoid liability by hiding behind “we are just repeating what he said B
             said W said.” But that violates the duty to know for oneself, reflects bad legal
             advice and/or legal naivete, and again provides little liability shelter.
          3. Zenn knows it is true despite the misquote. In which case, there is no liability
              issue if in fact a working EESU materializes by end of 2009.
          4. Deliberate perpetration of knowingly wrong information in order to fund
              Zenn. Which will be the only reasonable interpretation left if it does not.
Addendum Jan 14 2010. It did not. Given the Jacobs report, #4 is most likely.

(Source: NanoCarbons with permission)

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Nanocarbons Gives Blogger the Truth

(Source: )
We know how powerful belief can be. Cultures have mass murdered civilizations because of a belief in religion. The eestore faithful hold on to their beliefs that Dick Weir is the revolutionary inventor and not an incompetent investment hack or worse a con man. They have invested in zenn and have virtually lost everything if Zenn sinks, so what else are they to do, change religion or sink with the ship?  They are lead by the blogger with his own set of self interest.

The blogger knows negative information but hides it from his faithful followers.  Blogger received an analysis from one of the eestor community’s strongest capacitor experts. Nanocarbon Rud has given the blogger his technical analysis of eestore. The blogger has chosen to hide it.  It is a clear condemnation of eestor’s technology and explains why the patents were not drawn from measurements.

Nanocarbon reasserted, via email, the truth of his contact from Lockheed Martin, saying that the blogger’s mob could ruin the guy’s career for being honest about Lockheed’s embarrassment with their eestor contract.  Nanocarbon pointed out to the blogger that's his own technology will be in production in Europe this summer.

Why does the blogger hide this information? Is it because like the eestor he will profit from the mystery if it continues.    When the story is about deception and exaggerated claims then the blogger will appear as part of the problem.         

Another odd example of selective awarenes, has been the amount of evidence pointing to the probability that eestor has failed.  Why would eestor not allow DOE with John Boyes and Tom Hund to test the magic capacitor?  DOE is willing to certify an energy storage winner if they can find one. They are testing. RedFlow’s 10kw/h flow battery.  Eestor refused to allow DOE to test their storage device.  A DOE certification of eestor would provide creditability which is more important at this point then any secret youtube interviews cooked up with the blogger.  

Eestor backs out of its own invitation because?

The cadre ignore the evidence. Electrical Engineer Alex Bernstein was putting together the test unit electronics.  He no longer works at eestor.  He is the last person to make a statement about what went on inside of Eestor.   Bernstein states from the inside of eestor, "just at know chillen...counting 0's the norm ha!!"  He has nothing to do because there is no working product to test.   Of course blogger did not write a blog post on Bernstein’s quote.  The info does not match blogger’s public relations strategy.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Loose FOIA Ends (Catania, Villars)

Click here to read how Tom Villars and Brennan Joseph Murphy (AKA B/eestorblog) LIED to DOE Chicago Office-Office of Chief Counsel.

Have you designed and developed a super ultra-capacitor 20 years ago?  Are you currently assembling your  ultra-capacitor which can hold 1000X more energy than a lead acid battery?  Are you ahead of schedule?  Then you might be interested in submitting to US Navy the ultra-capacitor in preparation for a possible unsolicited (or solicited) proposal.  Connect the dots boyz and girlz, hahaha.

Click here for whom you might need to contact at the US Navy for more info.

Where are the samples Dick?

More FOIA to come.