I am going to answer Goaweigh's question on this board. If I answer the question on stockhouse.com, the post will be deleted. The EEScam pumpers hiding in Texas Boor's Slack EEScam La La Land will flag the post on SH because the post does not help them pumping EEScam's fraudulent "disruptive" stories.

Goaweigh, Dck Weir is a professional in making up fraudulent "disruptive" specs and comparing them real existing products.  EEStor Inc was founded on a fraudulent EESU patent.  There never was an EESU product meeting the EESU patent spec yet con Weir created side to side comparison to real batteries with the EESU.  This is an example:

• No degradation from charge/discharge cycles [6]

If EEScam Corp really had disruptive product they would not need to release side by side comparisons.

Companies would be breaking down EEScam's door to sign license agreements based on the test results released by 

Intertek, MRA, and Roland if they were really "disruptive" as Clifford claims.

In addition EEScam would not be in the predicament every year running out of funds needing to release test

results claiming to be "disruptive" in order to find new suckers/investors to fund EEScam Corp.. as they

have been doing the last 11 years.