The basic concept "store ennergy in parallel caps" is not new. The process and construction is new. The level of performance claimed is astonishing.
I've read a fair number of patents and this one reads "Funny" The Claims are supposed to be very broad to capture as much area as possible. The claims in this patent are very very narrow....
it almost seems like it was not written by a patent professional, it reads more like a research paper.
An example:
Claim 2:
The electrical energy storage unit of claim 1 wherein the PET plastic powder has an average particle size of 0.64um.
Why put any specific number in a patent?
So if you use a powder with an average size of 0.63um it will probably still work.
Properly written claims should be very broad.
My version of Claim 2 would be:
The electrical energy storage unit of claim 1 wherein the PET plastic powder has an average particle size of less than 1 um.
A lot of things just seem funny with eestor:
They publish things like :
"an independent company certified EEStor's production line's process as producing 99.9994% purity barium titanate powder "
but don't publish things like:
"an independent company verified that a prototype unit met the claimed energy density of xxx"
Makes me leery of hype, the proof is in the product not the view graph, I don't care how pure your barium titanate is, I only care if your capacitor works.
The robot is less than 10% of the work.
If you put the communications on the lander you could do the whole robot part with
an off the shelf RC car with new wheels and geared way down.
I'd score it as follows:
If you are Buying a ride to orbit:
Robot 5%
Communication 20%
LEO to softland 70%
Launcher integration 5%
If you are also building a launcher:
Getting to LEO 70%
Softland 25%
Everything else 5%
I know something of what I speak I just spent a year preparing for the XPC and did not make it.
(Unreasonable Rocket)
Slashdot Mirror
The basic concept "store ennergy in parallel caps" is not new. The process and construction is new. The level of performance claimed is astonishing. I've read a fair number of patents and this one reads "Funny" The Claims are supposed to be very broad to capture as much area as possible. The claims in this patent are very very narrow.... it almost seems like it was not written by a patent professional, it reads more like a research paper. An example: Claim 2: The electrical energy storage unit of claim 1 wherein the PET plastic powder has an average particle size of 0.64um. Why put any specific number in a patent? So if you use a powder with an average size of 0.63um it will probably still work. Properly written claims should be very broad. My version of Claim 2 would be: The electrical energy storage unit of claim 1 wherein the PET plastic powder has an average particle size of less than 1 um. A lot of things just seem funny with eestor: They publish things like : "an independent company certified EEStor's production line's process as producing 99.9994% purity barium titanate powder " but don't publish things like: "an independent company verified that a prototype unit met the claimed energy density of xxx" Makes me leery of hype, the proof is in the product not the view graph, I don't care how pure your barium titanate is, I only care if your capacitor works.
The robot is less than 10% of the work. If you put the communications on the lander you could do the whole robot part with an off the shelf RC car with new wheels and geared way down. I'd score it as follows: If you are Buying a ride to orbit: Robot 5% Communication 20% LEO to softland 70% Launcher integration 5% If you are also building a launcher: Getting to LEO 70% Softland 25% Everything else 5% I know something of what I speak I just spent a year preparing for the XPC and did not make it. (Unreasonable Rocket)