Since Fancois Desloges has signed an NDA with EEScam he continues to post in Slack which is a closed forum.  He should be posting his BS in a public forum with his winks so all investors could see what a slick con he is like Brennan Joseph Murphy AKA b/baghead who also was peddling Weir's fraudulent EESU patent.

The following is from EEStor Slack 8/5/17

fdesloges wrote [10:11 AM] 

Answering a question I received by DM:

I've never said EEStor can hit 700 Wh/l at high volume low cost. I said EEStor PET patent claimed under oath they did it once at hand made lab scale. And that they now try to replicate that at high volume low cost. Whether they reach there or anywhere else, beyond what they already third party disclosed (0.02 Wh/l), and relative to March 27th claims (110 Wh/l), is still subject to further disclosure.  But yes, that 700 Wh/l was done without stacking, which was discovered later. And stacking allows TC growing proportionally to the number of layers. IT-5 suggests that 1000 layers will result in 1000 times superior TC. TC equals resistance times capacitance. And yes resistance has traditionally been traded for capacitance, at the single layer scale, more or less commonly in that industry. Though obviously not necessarily linearly. (Changing the composition of a single layer to cut its resistance in half will not necessarily result in it gaining double the C). It remains entirely to be seen how EEStor will leverage that stacking effect at their advantage. But it certainly can be suggested that IT-5 results reasonably provides someone with good reasons to be optimist. (edited)

fdesloges [11:04 AM] 

uploaded and commented on this image: EnergyDensities.png

I think  (I never asked him verbatim) that what Ian meant by "only one chance to get this right" is that if you already have lower, yet market-valuable ED ready for third party certification, but you think that a few more months of work would bring you much more, it might not be a good idea, until you don't have the financial flexibility to postpone, to make such early disclosure. For this has non-null likelihood of resulting in undue early takeover offer, at sub par price, which would both be a large distraction to handle and would set a low price footprint in the back mind of any further suitors. So why take that risk ?

I think it also means that if you're to relaunch the company on the basis of these results, better do it world class well. :slightly_smiling_face:

I don't know if you've noticed but a couple of things have changed in the market context for energy storage since 2009. :wink:

fdesloges [11:18 AM] 

The original EESU (binder is glass) patent final claim is 52,220 Wh in 2005 cubic inch (32.6 l) = 1600 Wh/l. 

It also claims a weight of 336 lb (152.4 kg) and thus 342.65 Wh/kg.

The PET EESU patent (binder is PET, you know, plastic water bottle?) final claim is 52,220 Wh in 4541 cubic inch (74.4 l) = 700 Wh/l.

It also claims 286.56 lb (130 kg) and thus 400 Wh/kg.

So CMBT based densities seem anywhere between 1.75 and  4.67 kg/l . (edited)

fdesloges [11:41 AM] 

commented on EnergyDensities.png

Notably, never *ever* forget that doubling your ED means slashing your costs in half. And that energy storage markets are dominantly price driven.

fdesloges [11:55 AM] 

More food for thoughts:

The energy utilities industry is about to sustain a massive transformation going from being mainly opex driven (fuel) to being mainly capex driven (low maintenance solar panel and storage amortized over 30+ years). Huge amounts of capital are going to be required, precisely at the moment where baby boomers have huge amounts of capital looking for steady source of revenues.

At the turn of the previous century, the rail ways facing the same huge capital requirements with the same long amortizing schedules, were financed almost entirely out of bonds, and shares were not securities considered  of "investment grade" quality.

I wouldn't be surprised that this huge WW energy transition be fueled (!) via 5% bonds like the rail ways once were.

I would also not be surprised if that would result in a decade of both deflation *and* economic growth as it once happened at the end of the 19th century. For energy permeates absolutely  every layer of all human economic activities and is facing impending price erosion for some long years to come. (edited)