Talk:EEStor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ready to support delete

So, I think I'm finally ready to support a deletion request on this page. Who else is ready? Gopher65_talk 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It was a notable story, it got lots of press attention, but evaporated in a fog of missed milestone dates. What we really need is some investigative journalist to dig into this and find out why they did what they did, then publish a book. Good sources are scarce...press releases we could wallpaper Jimbo Wales' house with. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that vapourware is notable. If we had articles on every single vapourware product that was mentioned in a press release, Wikipedia would be smothered with articles about non-existent products. Gopher65_talk 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:NOTPAPER. Notable vaporware should get articles. We've got individual dots on photographic plates that have articles. If the Wikimedia foundation has to go down to Staples and buy a second terabyte, we'll just have to send out fundraising notices till they can scrape together the extra $50. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's hilarious:). Gopher65_talk 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I've reconsidered and have changed my position on this issue based on the tone of comments here and elsewhere. It is pointless to have this article on Wiki until EEStor shows third-party proof that their technology works. To keep the article on Wiki before this happens simply invites endless edit wars that serve no purpose and distract anyone trying to do serious research on the subject. There are plenty of medias for tracking a story like EEStor but Wikipedia isn't one of them, nor should it be. The Wiki process should be about distilling the facts on a given subject and not a platform for debate.--tvillars (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If a link to a blog's home page fails because of WP:ELNO points 1, 2, and 11 then I assume referencing content from a blog is also prohibited. Since most of the article's references link to content produced and hosted on blogs is there really enough verifiable content to justify an article? Take out links to TheEEStory.com, thefraserdomain.typepad.com, www.allcarselectric.com/blog, bariumtitanate.blogspot.com, gm-volt.com, and www.cleantechblog.com and 75% of the article's content disappears leaving mostly patent applications and press releases.--tvillars (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is fine the way it is for years to come. New developments and even closure of the company can be easily be added. It does a good job serving as a brief encyclopedic resource to what EEStor is about, and interest in the topic will remain for several years after the company itself is defunct.Ywaz (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I support delete! EESTor is being pumped up on Wiki by TVillars and others members of the eestory.com whom have a financial interest in Zenn Motor Corp.. TVillars and the administrator of the eestory.com are apologists and enabler of Dick Weir's (CEO of EESTor) LIES. The administrator of theeestory.com hides his head behind a bag and proxy server and expects he has right to slander innocent people. It has been documented he has called skeptics of EESTor scumbag, assholes, schmuck, fucking amatuers. He has made the following comment, "assholes at NASA". A DOD AFRL employee felt he was on the "verge of threatening" to him. If you read the Air Force Research Lab emails, it is obvious there is an orchestrated effort pumping of EESTor by theestory.com and it's administrator. http://conceredabouteestorlies.blogspot.com/

When a person does not tell the truth, the person is a liar. If the person continue to tell LIES, then the person is a con artist/scammer. http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?3815-Lies-Lies-Lies-By-Dick-Weir-Tom-Weir-Ian-Clifford-And-Pumping-Of-EESCAM-by-Baghead http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?2999-Favorite-Quotes-(BS)-From-EESTOR-Zenn-Story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows TVillars is me, Tom Villars-- tvillars (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

aka boner sucking hemaphrodite, and addicted to vietnam porn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.52 (talk • contribs)

The rant above is from Aaron Carmody, he has been shorting stock from the get go and hopes this will suppress the stock further. He has a rant page http://conceredabouteestorlies.blogspot.com. There are a few other nutters out there that are doing the same thing. They are trying to be anonymous and claim others are fraudulent without any proof what so ever, I would say they are slanderous remarks. The Wiki people don't seem to mind the content in there Wiki. I am glad I don't take any of the information here as useful in any way. This should be deleted and that way the nutters leave the Wiki alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geofree (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it Tom Villars is permitted to edit Geofree's post, changing "The rant below is from Aaron Carmody" to "The rant above is from Aaron Carmody" without signing his name to the actual word edit unless Tom Villars is also Geofree? I would not want anyone especially Tom Villars permitted to edit anyones post on Wikipedia. Who the hell does Tom Villars thinks he is? He can go wipe his ass with Dick Weir's EESCAM patents.--69.112.20.80 (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Geofree inserted his post inside the chain on 2011-02-05T15:21:02. All I am doing is restoring the original order of the posts so it is clear who said what and when.tvillars (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I like it better with the edit, more readable and still maintains that Aaron Carmody is a pump and dumper. Geofree (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking you're not suppose to edit the content of other people's posts, but formatting fixes are fine, as long as no one objects. Gopher65_talk 03:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that was part of the reason why I proposed deletion in the first place. My use of the term "vapourware" was intended to convey both my belief that this product will never see the light of day, and the fact that — like all vapourware — very nearly every bit of information floating around the net about EEStor is non-verifiable rumour. I strongly dislike seeing any speculation in articles (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball:P), and this article is built almost exclusively around speculation and rumour. That ultimately means that no matter how impartial we try to make the article, people from both sides of the debate will challenge the validity of the sources being used (and rightly so). Since there are no significant solid sources upon which to base an article, I don't see a reason to have an article at all.

However, at the same time, I'm a little bit peeved off that several of the pro-EEStor people are here trying to get the article deleted in order to manipulate Google rankings of their own site (if that isn't a bannable offence, it should be. It probably falls under "using Wikipedia to advertise", which is a no-no). It also annoys me that the anti-EEStor people are here trying to troll them, voting in the opposite direction, regardless of what that might happen to be. Gopher65_talk 12:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. For the past three years, the TheEEStory is responsible for almost all the important publicly accessible content on EEStor such as:

• making and publishing the FOIAs to the NASA, Air Force Rearch Lab, Sandia National Laboratories, US Dept of Energy, City of Cedar Park, etc
• interviews with industry skeptics such as John Miller, Eric Cross and Dr. Clive Randall
• tracking progress on trademarks and patent status at EEStor and third-party companies that have licensed the technology
• host the only moderated discussion on the topic open to the public

I personally think the decision to ban TheEEStory from this article is nuts but this isn't my site so I'll play by Wiki's rules. If the article now collapses into nothing but references to press releases and 5 year old news articles which in turn results in more traffic going to the TheEEStory.com that isn't my problem.--tvillars (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh Please Tom, Why don't you post some of the BS the anonymous blogger and you have pulled the last 3 years on the eestory.com.

• Why don't you post how you have tracked down skeptics and called their employer because Brennan Joseph Murphy (the anonymous blogger/b) and you didn't like what they posted about EESCAM. Who the fuck appointed you security law enforcer?
• Why don't you justify why it is acceptable for Brennan to talk about skeptics sewer company but doesn't want anyone to talk about who his employer is, Network General. A skeptic should have the same right to call Network General management to make sure Brennan is not breaking any securities laws just like you did to skeptics. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Get it? You could tell Brennan his shit smells if he thinks it doesn't.
• Why don't you also post all the stories that Brennan was pumping there was an EESCAM connection that blew up in his face, ie, NASA, DOE, DOD.--Shoshola (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see Tom Villars is showing his true colors on Wikipedia. You and your administrator should look in the mirror before you call anyone a kook or any other derogatory name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that DW being a liar is a reason to delete the article. If anything, his being a scam artist only adds to the notability of the article.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's more than DW lying. The pumpers of EESTor including Tom Villars make excuses for DW's LIES. This is what Tom Villars posted nearly a year ago in theeestory.com chat room, "tvillars: @larry, Dick has always been off by a month or two. I just hope it's no more than 3." 6:57pm, 24 Jan 2009. November 2008 Tom Villars posted the following on the Yahoo Zenn Msg Board: EEStor EESU's delivery in 2008 after all? "Well there is some new info on this. Dick Weir replied to an email from GM-VOLT and said production wasn't going to happen until mid 2009. On the other hand ZMC's spokesperson Catherine Scrimgeour said ZMC remains confident with prior publicly released statements concerning EEStor's progress to date which includes the expected delivery of a production line prototype EESU from EEStor Inc. in 2008. Tom Weir, General Manager and VP of Operations at EEStor Inc, also followed up with the EEStorBlogger after Dick's email and "concurred with this information in a telephone interview today." Here is the blog post with links to all the sources: http://www.theeestory.com/articles/80 Mostly likely both parties are right and are just talking about two different things. Dick is talking about volume production and ZMC and Tom Weir are talking about production prototypes which triggers additional payments to EEStor and gives ZMC a chance to further increase their ownership in EEStor. Sentiment : Buy"

If you connect the dots of TV's 2 above posts, it is obvious he has an agenda which is not being honest. That does not make DW late 2 or 3 months, and TV is suppose to be the smartman on theeestory.com. DW has been lying delivery of EESUs to Zenn since January 2007 and TVillars knows it. Tvillars and the pumpers of EESTor should not be permitted to spread DW's LIES on Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I support Delete!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Delete. I've reconsidered and have changed my position on this issue. It is imperative that the pumpers of EESTor are known and their orchestrated effort exposed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"DELETE" It is obviously still going on, how can you have an article with no facts. Geofree (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose delete. This article was notable in its time. Like many things, their times come and pass. It does not take away from what it once was. Wikipedia is not only about present topics, but about past ones as well, even if they have turned to fluff. My two bits. Air.light (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose delete. What Air.light said seems right to me. --Davefoc (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Has Anyone Outside Dick Weir's EESU Fantasy World Witnessed a Functional EESU Which Met the Patent Claims?

Today is the 4th anniversary of EESTor press release. January 17, 2007 EEStor stated in a press release "EEStor, Inc. remains on track to begin shipping production 15 kilowatt-hour Electrical Energy Storage Units (EESU) to ZENN Motor Company in 2007 for use in their electric vehicles." http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/EEStor-Announces-Two-Key-Production-Milestones-Automated-Production-Line-Proven-Third-631210.htm

EESTor is the greatest invention on paper. It's easy to make bold claims when you don't have a product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

FACT:

Dick Weir CEO of EESTor Inc. never has admitted EESTor has run into any difficulties assembling EESUs. According to the Anonymous blogger "B", Dick Weir completed lab work assembling EESUs in the early 1990's. We now know for a fact from the Air Force Research Lab emails Dick Weir is full of BS. As of July 2010, Dick Weir has not been able to demonstrate basic proof of concept. The Air Force Research Employees have been dealing with Dick Weir the last eight years. The following is from an AFRL email: "...I suspect he will run the demonstration at low energy density but claim great success for achieving a high efficiency and then make a pitch for more funding to increase the energy density. He did mention that he needed more funding. After seven or eight years and several million from Zenn Motors and L-M, it will take a new round of bullshit, and an impressive highly visible grand stand demo, to bring in more." http://conceredabouteestorlies.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Blog site not a desirable external link

I could see listing the Eestory blog/forum as an external link, but I just looked at it's main page and it's just a bunch of joke content with nothing about EEStor at all. Maybe it was relevant once but currently it doesn't seem to be a useful resource for the encyclopedia reader seeking more information about EEstor. This seems to fail WP:ELNO points 1, 2, and 11, aside from its joky tone and general irrelevance to the subject of this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a bunch of joke content? In the last 24 hours there are post on:

• EEStor's patent application 12/714,537 being granted special status because one of the inventors is over 65
• discussion the TheEEStory.com being granted "Media Requester Status" by a US Dept. of Energy FOIA Officer.
• reference to EEStor in WIPO application WO 2010134824 20101125
• discussion on missed EEStor deadlines in 2010
• discussion on dipoles

With the exception on one silly forum post on cold fusion I don't see anything meant as a 100% joke topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvillars (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EEstory.com is far and away the most authoritative comprehensive source of information concerning Eestor on the web. Anyone doing any kind of research will end up there eventually. Clearly the argument that WP:ELNO prohibits this site as a source of information is false. WP:ELNO only RECOMMENDS it does not PROHIBIT. Furthermore the spirit of the WP:ELNO is to promote accuracy and authenticity, and theeestory.com is the most accurate and authoritative source. Look at all the other references to the site already on the wiki page. To exclude it from external links is silly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeken2000 (talk • contribs)

WHY IS THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH PERMITTED WITHOUT A USER TALK SIGNATURE AND OR USER TALK: IP? I did not post the above paragraph.24.45.19.10 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the tag, though you could have simply checked the article history and done so too. Mindmatrix 16:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, ask Tom Villars how much did the administrator of theestory.com, the one that hides behind the bag and proxy servers get paid by EESTor in 2010 to pump EESTor? Please note www.theeestory.com is listed as the website for EESTOR Inc:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LKOKQqe571I/TE7uer4hTPI/AAAAAAAAAAM/jsg_0UrJ_KQ/S748/EEStor.jpg

Isn't that a conflict of interest for a reference link on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased editing?

I have seen some questionable editing of Wikipedia articles before, but this really takes the cake. Apparently editor Mindmatrix has taken it upon himself not only to delete the external reference to <TheEEStory.com>, but has also locked the article *without* posting any notice that it is locked!

I have to wonder what the motive is of those who are conducting the "edit war" here. You can see personal attacks here on this "Talk" page, ad hominem attacks on TVillars. Are these people who are shorting stock and are attacking anything which seems to be giving out information about EEStor that is even neutral, let alone positive?

It's not like EEStor is the only company with questionable claims; IMHO Steorn and BlackLight Power are both *obviously* scams, yet Wikipedia editors have not deigned to delete the articles on those companies.

Why has most of this "Talk" page been deleted, yet the "Ready to support delete?" section remains? Again, this appears to be a bias on the part of whoever it is editing this page, presumably Wikipedia editors with greater control than we ordinary contributors have.

Wtshymanski, I recommend that you recuse yourself from any further editing of this page, because clearly you are unable to perform adequate research. The value in <TheEEStory.com> is in its depth of coverage and its ongoing discussions in the Forum section. You didn't even bother to look at the forum, did you? All you did was look at the current front page; you didn't even bother to look at all the archived articles linked on the front page. Yes, unfortunately the blog articles have become somewhat silly and irrelevant of late, since there has been a news blackout from EEStor for well over a year now. But this does not negate the depth of coverage on the site, nor the value of older blog articles there. Anyone researching EEStor is going to want to look at the forum and the blog, since it's by far the most comprehensive source of information available. Archived blog articles include original interviews with some of the company executives, and the forum contains a transcript of the famous (or infamous?) leaked interview/sales call, probably the most frequently viewed web page of anything on the entire Internet regarding EEStor.

It's ludicrous to have my EEStor FAQ linked and not have <TheEEStory.com> linked. It's true that some people who frequent the forum, including most of the moderators, have a pro-EEStor bias. But it's also true that there are those who frequent the forum who are just as strongly anti-EEStor. Anyone who thinks the site only promotes EEStor has clearly FAILED at even the most superficial research into the matter.

Mindmatrix and Wtshymanski, it's not for me to say that you don't have the qualifications to be "official" Wikipedia editors. But I can most *certainly* say that you have done Wikipedia a disservice in this particular case. If you can't be bothered to edit this page properly, then let someone else do it. --Lensman003 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to have any idea how Wikipedia works, and this has led you to make unsubstantiated accusations, here's the explanation for two of the things you mentioned:

1) Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Any link to a blog will be deleted on sight, as soon as someone notices that it is there. In large articles with a lot of activity this can sometimes take a long time, because the insertion of the blog link gets lost in the hubbub. But on a small, rarely edited article like this one, every edit comes to the attention of the people who have it on their watchlists, so the process is faster.

2) The talk page wasn't deleted. It was archived. Any topic that hasn't been edited in 2011 was moved to the 2010 archive, which you will see available for viewing at the top of the page. Gopher65_talk 13:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thank whatever administrator it was who posted a notice, albeit belatedly, on the article that it is locked. I would still like to see an explanation of why it was locked without notice. Was this a simple error on the editor's part, or was there an actual reason for this? --Lensman003 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to be tagged ADVERT immediatly as too much emphasis is placed on the companies involved in the article. It needs to focus on the name of the EESU device not the company, (we cannot be seen to be providing advertising space or links on search engines). This name after all, is what the article should be about. I suggest a retitle and cleanup would be in order to maintain its credibility as an inclusion in the Encylopedia. I can only support and reiterate the comments of the above editors.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is *about* the company. We can't have an article about an "EESU" device until a) there are some devices to write about and b) multiple reliable sources have written about it. This isn't going to happen any time soon; there hasn't even been a suitcase full of mini ESU's hooked up to a bunch of bulbs to show the world, so there's no coverage, no sources, and nothing for Wikipedia to say. We can point at the press releases and whatever journalistic coverage there has been about the company, but if they choose not to release any information then there's nothing on the public record that Wikipedia can use to reliably write anything about the company. There have been more edits to the article in the last couple of days than in all of 2010. Not that there's been any substantial content added. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

EESU type devices are in the public domain, try this link [1]. "- In February 2004, Maxwell Technologies of San Diego announced that it has contracted to provide ultracapacitors for 27 hybrid gasoline-electric buses being built for Long Beach Transit of Long Beach, California. Beyond these already superlative ultracapacitors, yet another generation with 10 times more energy-storage capacity was recently announced." - Should the article be renamed "Ultracapacitors"? I understood previously that Wikipedia should not contain articles promoting company inventions unless thay have been in production, and it would also violate "crystal ball" wouldn`t it? It vindicates my point that the article should be renamed and self promotional content removed.(edit conflict obccurred)Francis E Williams (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't need to rename this article, this one can be about the company, we already have ultracapacitor which redirects to Electric double-layer capacitor; we can afford to leave EESU as EEstor's name until we have to distinguish among the hordes of competitive products out there. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How about merging it then? I have re-read the article , and it is all about a *product*, that has not been *produced*, a *patent* that is in dispute. It has little historical content *about the company*.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Francis E Williams (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so; we usually distinguish between a company and the company's products, so we don't merge Mcdonald's to Hamburger or Apple computer into really thin but expensive laptops. The company at least has sources available, until the EESU's hit the cold cruel world outside the lab there will be no sources about them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with where this discussion seems to have ended up: the company is an interesting topic with some information available. The product doesn't really exist at least not in a way that we have information about. Therefore the article should be mostly about the company and not about the supposed product. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion about all of this I'll try and clear it up. The existence of ultracapacitors isn't in dispute. They've been around for a long time, and are used in many products. Here's a short summary of the EEStor saga, up to now:

1) What EEStor is claiming is to be designing an ultracapacitor with an energy density that is, frankly, impossible without Star Trek level technology (and even then it would be iffy). Others, including NASA and US Airforce labs, have disputed EEStor's claims, in some cases calling EEStor's claims "physically impossible".

2) Ultracapacitors by their very nature have an absurdly low energy density (much lower than either standard capacitors or batteries), so the claim by EEStor to have made ultracapacitors with an energy density several times higher than that of the most advanced batteries was met with skepticism to say the least.

3) Further investigation of EEStor's theoretical claims showed a lack of basic mathematical and physics knowledge in their released documentation, while third party analysis of what limited physical components EEStor allowed others to see showed that it was not practically possible to achieve the claimed energy density with the materials they were using (the materials would disintegrate under the stress when used on a large scale).

4) All of that combined has led some former internet fanbois of EEStor to claim that the whole thing, from beginning to end, was nothing more than a "pump-and-dump" scam intended to sucker unwary investors out of their money. These fanbois claim that the creator of EEStor has run such scams in the past, and that this is merely his latest money grab.

5) People that are still fanbois of EEStor vehemently deny those claims, saying that their belief in EEStor will be vindicated when the company releases a product. The prototype is now 2 years overdue. Fanbois and their slamboi counterparts now spend their time running around the web spamming on forums, boards, and wiki talk pages like this one. Every time a member of one group posts, they are stalked and counter-posted by a member of the opposite group. (It's getting tiring, and both sides are at fault.)

6) And that's about it. That's all that has happened so far that is of significance. There are some details that I didn't get into (ZENN, Lockheed-Martin, patents), but they're not important in a broad overview. Gopher65_talk 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1) That's still only opinion. I think everyone who is informed on this subject agrees that if EEStor's claims prove true, the development will be a Black Swan event, like so-called "high temperature superconductors" and the solid-state blue laser emitter. There are no theories that explain the operation of these developments; their operation is contrary to current theory.

2) That's an exaggeration. It has been said that the EESU would have twice the energy density of lithium-ion batteries, but since the latter are increasing in energy density, this is now outdated. Soon li-ion batteries will have higher ED than that claimed for the EESU.

3) More opinion, not fact. Your claim assumes that those commenting understand how the EESU works, and that it works like an ordinary capacitor. The EESU has also been described as a "rapid discharge battery", and (if it works as claimed) may well *not* work like an ordinary capacitor.

4)This is an outright lie, and betrays the bias of whoever wrote this. None of the principals of EEStor have ever been indicted for fraud, or sued by a former investor. The few reports which have surfaced regarding investors in the former companies indicate the investors are still friendly toward the principals. Furthermore, nearly all those championing such lies on the Internet are *not* former EEStor fanboyz, they have been attacking EEStor from the beginning.

5) Now that is one thing I agree with. There is no valid reason for the pro- and con-EESTor groups to carry out an edit war on this article, but if you look at the archived talk pages, you can see this is exactly what has been happening. BTW, we spell it "fanboyz" not "fanbois" :) --Lensman003 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Retitle - EESU or Merge as section into Ultracapacitor

EESU is an acronym for 'Electrical Energy Storage Unit' (EESU). A company based in Cedar Park, Texas, United States has filed patents for a revolutionary new type of capacitor for electricity storage. This devcice could be used to propel a small motor vehicle for about 300 miles.This technology has the potential for making electric vehicles fully competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles.

"This has created much interest, although the company's claims have yet to be verified. The claims are described in detail in two of the company's patents, US 7033406 [3] and US 7466536 ."[4]

- The previous statement is very much a personal point of view when it is included into the article without any reference to the "interest shown by industry or reviews" of the product, and is typical of why the article was a subject for possible deletion.Francis E Williams (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's in the lead. That's a summary of what is documented by citations throughout the article, and so is verifiable despite a lack of a specific citation in the lead. Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd also support merging with the existing Ultracapacitors article as a way to tamp down the edit wars. Just add a small section on EEStor and be done with it.--tvillars (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not support merging EESTor with anything until an independent 3rd party verifies their claims. If EEStor is going to merge with existing Ultracapacitors article, then why not add Moe, Larry, and Curly Super Ultracapictors Inc.. I read on a blog MLCSU spec sheet and it's double the energy density of EEStor's claims, and half the weight of EESTor's EESU. Why would Wikipedia post and give credibility to EESTor's claims but not MLCSU and or any other start up company making unbelievable claims with no product to show for? Bernie Madoff scammed a lot of people who taught they were smart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.19.10 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The topic under discussion is the merger of the *device* content into another article relating to this type of *device* which may be more appropriate. The compnay article is a seperate subject entirely. If the contraversial device can attain *notability*, then maybe, just maybe the company article may have some *credibility* too.

The company so far has gained great publicity from debating circles on the Internet. Should this enclopedia become another contributor to the share price of this company? I think not ! When future readers llok at this they will concur with the academic world that despite 10 years of debate, Wikipedia cannot be trusted to be impartial or accurate. Lets try and prove them wrong ! (this is a personal view, I am not an administrator, nor do I have any vested interest in this project, other than someone who wishes to contribute to the fount of human knowledge.) Francis E Williams (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason EESTor has gained great publicity from debating circles on the Internet is the pumping actions of the administrator of theestory.com "b"/eestorblog/ Brennan (who hides behing proxy servers) and his team of pumpers of EESTor including Tom Villars . Since there is debate if theestory.com is a desirable link on Wikipedia, I believe it is imperative "b"/eestorblog/ Brennan the administrator at theeestory.com come on Wikipedia EESTor discussion page, not hide behind proxy servers and Tom Villars, and post his philosophy it's up to the skeptic of EESTor to prove EESTor/Dick Weir does not have what he claims. It will be very helpful to the Wikipedia editors to see where the anonymous blogger "b" is coming from and why he hides behind a bag. An example of the eestorblog pumping the mytical EESU. 24.45.19.10 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you hiding as an unregisterd user then? Francis E Williams (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not hiding behind any proxy servers, bag on my head, and or any other blogger. Con artists who are hiding something hide behind proxy servers. You are saying I should register, if so how?--24.45.19.10 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope this helps, I couldn`t remember how I registered, and this is not easy to find, but I got there eventually. This link, click here should do the trick for you, and may avoid people like me making unwanted comments. Regards, Francis E Williams (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources

The gathering of information from another Wiki is not addind credibility to what is already a dubious "company history - about the company" article. See [2], using this Wiki article as a source is not what Wikipedia Encyclcpedia is all about. It only fuels the "edit war" mentality of some "contributors". I refrain from using the term "editors" on the grounds of lack of neutrality, and lack of independant research capability. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fallout of the "Edit War"

Well, the fallout from this edit war is that one of the major contributors to this article has deleted all references to <TheEEStory.com>. Not just the external link that was argued about above, but all five references which were in the article itself. This points up just how wrong it is to apply the "no links to blogs" rule in the case of the EEStor article. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Well, there are certainly a few small-minded editors here who clearly don't understand that rules should have exceptions, and that in this particular case, a blog is the *primary* source of information on EEStor. That means it's a "primary source" and not a "secondary source".

And speaking of inappropriate edits, "Gopher" has taken it upon himself to concatenate (string together) my responses to various points and subjects throughout this talk page, removing them from context and thus rendering them incomprehensible. I reverted his edit, but apparently he decided to do it again! I am appalled that this person is allowed *any* sort of administrative powers. He clearly does not know what he is doing, and for some strange reason has decided that my comments don't deserve the same treatment as everyone else's comments. I have posted a complaint to his page and hope he will stop. If not, I *will* submit this to arbitration by someone over his head. This is getting downright ridiculous, and IMHO highly unprofessional.

I certainly *hope* that the editing done on the EEStory article and on this Talk page does not represent the typical editing done by Wikipedia administrators, because their actions have greatly lessened the value of this article to anyone who is interested in the subject. --Lensman003 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask, is the encyclopedia demonstrably worse off without a link to yet another blog? [WP:RS]] is policy for a reason; given the nature of this project, we must have reliable sources to back up statements. Any time I've looked at the blog, it's just annonymous people who don't have any particular evident credibility swapping rumors and speculation. Until (if ever) there's product on the shelves, and reliable third parties write about the product, there's nothing substantive for Wikipedia to write about; you can list patents till your fingers go flat, that's not an article. I'm not the only one, I'm sure, that finds EEStor to be fascinatingly frustrating; it's this deacde's equivalent of cold fusion - something everyone wanted to believe was possible, something that would alter the face of society if it had worked, only to discover the physics aren't there. We don't need the blog, the True Believers already know it's there, the general reader will only see a bunch of smoke and mirrors there, and in 10 years time when someone blunders upon this article for a "whatever happened to" feature, the blog will likely be gone anyway. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Wtshymanski, I agree with your decision 100%. Expect messages from alleged engineers who claim they have 30 years experience in capacitors and have no connection to either EESTor/Zenn, telling you EESTor's science is real if you haven't already received messages from them. These are the same group of people who accused the Air Force Research Lab of holding back EESTor from becoming a commercial product. When you connect the dots, these pumpers of EESTor come from eestory.com. The anonymous blogger "b"/eestorblog/brennan who is the administrator of eestory.com has a team of pumpers of EESTor on the internet.--24.45.19.10 (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying "pumpers" but if one was "pumping" stock, wouldn't one also be *selling* stock? Nobody has been Madoffed by EESTor, which makes me think "sincere but wrong" as opposed to "dishonest". On the other hand, my brother-in-law's shares in ZENN aren't going to put his kids through university after all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets make sure everyone understands when the pumpers of EESTor from theeestory.com pump EESTor, they are attempting to pump Zenn stock. The anonymous blogger (administrator of eestory.om), Tom Villars (moderator) self appointed securities law enforcer and their followers own Zenn stock . EESTor is a privately held American company. Zenn is a public Canadian company which has 10.7% equity interest stake in EEStor. You can purchase stock in Zenn. Soon the pumpers of EESTor will realize their Zenn stock will be worthless. Some bloggers believe EESTor/Zenn is the perfect setup for a pump and dump scam. The following is courtesy of Steve Pluvia which I agree 100%:

"EEStor is nothing more than a vehicle for a Canadian pump-n-dump, specifically Zenn Motors. Zenn has a powerful Canadian hype team supported by a crooked bucket shop (Paradigm Capital), paid promoters and degenerate gamblers. Experts in the field of EEStor’s technology do not believe the claims in their product... The trade here is to short Zenn on all pops from here forward."

Dick Weir CEO of EESTor is not an honest businessman! Listen to the lies coming out of his mouth at the leaked conference call June 2009. Dick states he is assembling EESUs. That is an outright LIE! The Air Force Research Lab emails proved as of July 2010 Dick has been unable to demonstrate basic proof of concept high permittivity at high voltage. Dick have never been "sincere". EESTor never has had a functional EESU which met the patent specs, just data and BS. Click on the following link to view examples of how Dick Weir, Ian Clifford, and the anonymous blogger/b/Baghead Brennan are dishonest. Lies Lies Lies By Dick Weir, Tom Weir, Ian Clifford, And Pumping Of EESCAM by Baghead. I would suggest reading all 4 pages of the thread to get a better understanding of this EESCAM/Zenn story. After reading all the pages you still believe Dick Weir is honest, then I would have to say I respectfully disagree with you.

BTW-The next pump and dump has already been planned. Brennan's boyz were told that by June 2011 EESTor should be issuing a press release. There is going to be some scam reveal press release by EESTor. They were advised Zenn pop will be on and shortly after reveal day. In other words, EESTor's press release will pump up Zenn stock, at that time they should dump their Zenn stock into the pump and get out of Zenn. EESCAM is not going to be meeting the patent specs. Brennan's boyz will be pumping the press release all over the internet to bloggers like they did the invite AFRL email. What will be interesting is to see how much Zenn stock will rise before the official press release due to Dick Weir leaking the date of the press release to his buddies. 24.45.19.10 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TheEEStory is not "just another blog". Your reference to "annonymous people who don't have any particular evident credibility swapping rumors and speculation" is not the *blog*, it's the *forum* which is part of the same website. The blog itself has had interviews with the principles at EEStor, both Richard "Dick" Weir and also Tom Weir. Now, if there were citations in this article to quotes from random Internet posters on the forum-- including me-- I would agree. The problem is that in this case, a general rule which is good-- no citing anonymous Internet posters-- is being misapplied, because the "Anonymous EEStor Blogger" has established a reputation as a *primary* source for information on EEStor. Is it an unbiased source? Certainly not! And I'm sure there is no Wikipedia requirement for every source to be unbiased. People who care enough to make themselves an expert on a subject are often quite passionate about that subject. --Lensman003 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comments to other editors, it is considered impolite to add comments within those of another. If you wish to maintain context, then quote the parts to which you are replying after that user's comment. Otherwise, it becomes unclear who made a particular statement. Before claiming that someone is inept, please try to understand why certain actions are taken.

"...has decided that my comments don't deserve the same treatment as everyone else's comments..." - nothing you've said has been removed, only shifted and grouped to prevent the previous user's comments from being split. Threatening to take someone to arbitration over this is not a useful action. A better tactic would be to precede each of your comments with a quotation from that user relevant to your reply (as I've done with this comment). Mindmatrix 15:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll also note that not only was I not the one who reverted you Lensman, but I have absolutely no administrative powers on Wikipedia. I'm an admin on Wikinews and a bureaucrat on Strategic Planning, but that doesn't translate into anything on Wikipedia. The projects are entirely separate, with different rulesets and different administrators. So there is no need to worry about me having admin powers here;). Gopher65_talk 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified that there's a long thread discussing edits to this very article on the blog itself, in which some harmless drudge is repeatedly named. For the life of me, I can't figure out what gets people so stirred up; you'd think I was coming around to take their children, or maybe worse yet, their guns. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to (dare I mention its name) TheEEStory.com where Wikipedia is being discussed Eestor Wikipedia Page. I'm afraid this Wikipedia article has become a sniping ground for people who don't like the way the blog is moderated or were kicked off the blog altogether like 24.45.19.10.--tvillars (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Tom, why doesn't the anonymous blogger b/Brennan Joseph Murphy come on Wikipedia discussion page and call Wikipedia editors morons? I wouldn't want to misquote Brennan like he has the Air Force Research Lab employee?--Shoshola (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the complaint about me putting my comments immediately below comments I'm replying to, instead of at the end of a section: If that is a Wikipedia requirement, it's certainly one "More honor'd in the breach than the observance"! It's so commonplace that I was under the impression it was the *norm* on Talk pages. Now, if you were not the one who concatenated my comments, Gopher, then I apologize for directing my complaint to you. Perhaps whoever it was who moved my comments out of context was not singling me out for this, but it certainly came across that way. If whoever did that thinks that standard is important, then he should have moved my comments were they should go, according to your assertion-- to the end of the section on which I was commenting, and *not*-- as was done-- by concatenating them into their own section, completely removing them from context and thus rendering them incomprehensible.

I will watch with interest to see if anyone *else's* comments are moved around in such an arbitrary fashion. Altho I'm not a heavy Wiki editor, I have read a number of Talk pages on various subjects, and I have before seen anyone claim that one shouldn't insert replies immediately below the comments one is replying to. The standard I've seen is to indent comments so it's clear that they are written by someone else, and that seems quite clear to me. I don't find this common practice at all confusing, and I find it quite odd that anyone here would find it either confusing or objectionable. --Lensman003 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a forum

Talk pages are for discussions related to improving an article, not a forum for general discussion of an article's topic. Unless we can cite and write something, there's no point treating this talk page as a blog. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree but but by now it must be obvious that isn't going to happen so I'm curious why you still don't support deletion of the article or at least merge the EEStor saga into the Ultracapacitor article? Why do Wiki administrators need to waste their time on this? Let the blogs and message boards own this topic until such time as there are enough verifiable facts that EEStor merits having it's own article.--tvillars (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

EESTor must not be merged with any other ultracapacitor article. Doing so would give credibility to EEStor. EESTor does not belong in an article with Maxwell and or any real capacitor company which has products for sale. But, but what's the matter Tom, Brennan doesn't have control of the EESCAM story on Wikipedia the way you want it?--24.45.19.10 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a subject (the company and its primary product) which has been covered by third-party sources internationally, and over a significant span of time. This makes it a suitable subject for Wikipedia. There is sufficient information available from third-party sources to maintain an independent article about the subject. It will not be deleted, and it will not be merged with to the ultracap article. Regarding the comment "Let the blogs and message boards own this topic until such time as there are enough verifiable facts that EEStor merits having it's own article" - as I just stated, there is plenty of third-party coverage about the company and product. The one missing bit is independent verification about the product's specifications. That's no reason to delete the article and let "blogs and message boards own" it. Read WP:CORP for details about the criteria for an article's inclusion on WP (moreover, it contain a nice summary of sources that are unacceptable as references). If you truly believe the article fails on those measures, then submit an AFD for it instead of advocating for its deletion on the talk page. Mindmatrix 15:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance on how to nominate the article for deletion. After skimming through the WP:CORP it seems clear to me the article fails WP:Notability#Primary_criteria:

• Only one mainstream journalist, Tyler Hamilton has every written articles whose primary focus is EEStor but if you do a news search of "TYLER HAMILTON EESTOR" Google only returns two articles one of which is primarily about Zenn Motors Company's involvement with EEstor and the other is from Jan 22, 2007.
• Searching Google News for just EEStor returns mainly re-prints or press releases from Zenn Motor Company and EEStor.

The article also fails WP:Notability##Decisions_based_on_verifiable_evidence. I don't think anyone has ever argued public third party evidence exist. The verifiable evidence section also mentions Notability can not be inherited so the press releases and patents from Lockheed Martin can't be used as evidence of WIKI Notability either.

Given this I think it it clear all of EEStor's notibality comes from blogs, messages boards and other tertiary sources which Wiki policy clearly states is not allowed to justify Wiki Notability. Given all this I'd support the suggested remedy of merging with another article as explained here: WP:CORP#If_it.27s_not_notable.--tvillars (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

UFTO-sourced info

I've reverted the deletion of the UFTO-sourced material for several reasons. First, the deletion summary was that it is written by a blogger; this is incorrect, it is written by a physicist with a PhD in the field, and had subscriptions from "several dozen major power companies". That is, written by someone familiar with the field for companies in the market of interest. Second, it was a third-party reference to the document. Third, there was a subsequent citation to this reference which broke as a result (and which was later removed entirely). If there's a legitimate reason to delete it, please note it; I don't think the reason stated with the deletion was a valid one. Moreover, deleting the reference entirely is not appropriate - it can be employed elsewhere in the article. Mindmatrix 00:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Blogs aren't suppose to be used as source material, yet you reverted my deletion of the content "...production price of $3,200, falling to $2,100..." sourced from the UFTO which everyone agrees is Ed Beardsworth's blog. Is it because a journalist quoted the blog's cost estimate that suddenly makes this blog content acceptable?--tvillars (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the content sourced from the UFTO as the UFTO is written and edited by only one person (Ed Beardsworth) which by definition makes it a blog. If Wiki's rule against providing content from blogs get overridden when a mainstream journalist (in this case Justin Hibbard) quotes content from a blog then I'll be the first to say I made a mistake and would immediately undelete. Here is an article on Ed Beardsworth. --tvillars (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an anonymous blogger refers to Ed Beardsworth's writing as a blog does not make it so (especially when the same post closes by making a solicitation for equity investment funds and provides contact information do so). Moreover, the individual that wrote that admits here to having "a small speculative investment in Zenn Motors". An anonymous blogger with a financial interest in a certain outcome is not a reliable source of information about Beardsworth. To say that "the UFTO is written and edited by only one person (Ed Beardsworth) which by definition makes it a blog" or that "everyone agrees is Ed Beardsworth's blog" is incorrect. Mindmatrix 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It must be noted the anonymous blogger "b" who is also the administrator and owner of the eestory.com has a financial stake in EESTor. Since the anonymous blogger Brennan does not want to post on Wikipedia because his IP will be traceable, why doesn't Tom Villars post how much EESTor paid Brennan for listing eestory.com as EESTor's home page on Bloomberg Businessweek in 2010? Theeestory.com was deleted when it was exposed by a blog.--Shoshola (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong about everyone knows UFTO.com is blog as that obviously isn't the case. Mindmatrix, I would ask you spend at least a minute or two looking at UFTO.com and then tell me you still don't think this is a blog.

"UFTO", my own multi client program for several dozen major power companies, in the US and abroad, to do technology scouting at national research labs. This ran for nearly 10 years, during which time I was able to visit many of the most prominent labs on more than one occasion.

As the above is Ed's own description of the UFTO how can anyone still think the UFTO isn't a blog?--Tom Villars 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3