A poster on the StockHouse site claimed that “miscreants” were deceiving people with negative views, and got me suspended. 

I still maintain that a person evaluating a stock needs both sides to judge whether or not to invest, especially when the technology claimed is at odds with that practiced around the world by long time suppliers, with great reputations. 

Now, its exciting to contemplate being in on the ground floor of a disruptive technology, but saying it doesn’t make it so after a dozen years of claiming, without showing,  one has to wonder.

So, I posted the following today. It may be deleted, and I will be suspended may get be suspended again. The pumpers seem to have the censors ear.

[quote=MarathonX] I posted it because I found it generally interesting and thought others would as well.  I forgot this space is not for learning but a hang out for miscreants who like to mislead and deceive.

As far as EEStor goes I think they have a low cost, robust technology solution that can do the same thing that much more expensive and complicated capacitor technologies can do.

And because EEStor is not a manufacturer but a licensor there is no issue when it comes to economies of scale or just in time delivery.  

Given the size and performance advantages clearly identified in the Phase 7 and 8 third party test reports, when EEStor succeeds at licensing out the techology then the well-established licensees will have the wherewhithal to produce massive quantities of EEStor based capacitors at much better margins than they currently do today. 

KJ[/quote]

I agree, it should be a learning space, not a deception space. However, at this point, we do not know which side is “deceiving”.  

‘Due diligence”, as I recall, requires viewing both sides of a potential, and assumes honest data.

Eestor has done done a good job of third party testing of selected electrical parameters. I maintain that there are many more parameters that will have to be shown by independent tests. For example, you have the opinion that EEStore products are “robust” and “low cost’. That has been claimed, but never demonstrated.

And that’s key. There are 35 tests published and used by the electronic industry, and codified as “the EIA specs”. That would demonstrate “robust”

In my opinion, having spent 50 years in the capacitor industry, that full testing is mandatory before any serious interest from a “top tier” is manifested. For example, we know from previous testing, that there may be a moisture problem. If that is not resolved, the product is a non-starter. Reliability is foremost in manufacturing capacitors. At a few hundred million being shipped each day, it would be chaos to have a latent defect. 

Costs have never been discussed. Just to obtain the CMBT, that everyone uses (with alterations of the dopants) is done in four steps by the main players. The EEStore process, (as revealed in the video and patents) requires over 25.  No rational person would expect 25 process steps to be cheaper than 4. Both start and end with virtually the same material.

To conclude, it becomes obvious that the intent may be to impress the stockholders, who may not be cognizant of what will appeal to potential licensee.  So, those of us who know what data they will need, do a unique service to eestor by focusing on the key data missing.

Why is that objectionable?