"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"
