TheEEStory.com

ancient_nerd, Thanks for the 30 light bulbs in series idea.

FWIW, the full EESU, according to the patent, is 4541 cubic inches = ~73L . That's were the estimate of ~70% void / air space / low density insulation comes from (versus weight / density of CMBT) for the EESU as a whole (composed of 31,351 "components").

But, with the constant resistance of the incandescent light bulbs, won't the Amperage naturally rise as the 3500V Voltage falls? Burning out the bulbs' filaments?

Or is that the intention / your contention / point?
It would take about 5 seconds (of a milliFarad "component") to get to that point?

---

nekote wrote:

But, with the constant resistance of the incandescent light bulbs, won't the Amperage naturally rise as the 3500V Voltage falls? Burning out the bulbs' filaments?

nope.

Look at http://www.coilgun.info/mark5/capacitor_bank.htm

Same idea, notice bulbs don't burn out.

---

nekote wrote:

But, with the constant resistance of the incandescent light bulbs, won't the Amperage naturally rise as the 3500V Voltage falls? Burning out the bulbs' filaments?

First point - with a constant resistance current falls as voltage falls. A constant resistance discharge of a capacitor gives a classic exponential discharge curve.

Second point - incandescent light bulbs are not a constant resistance. The resistance rises dramatically as they heat up (prolonging any discharge).

Third, it's easy enough to make a resistor from monel if needed (monel has relatively stable temperature/resistance curve).

Robert

Having said that they will work as a load, you probably want to measure the IV discharge curve as you go though.

Robert

Actually, the light bulbs would get dimmer as the capacitor dischareges. As the voltage falls, so does the current and power dissipation. Instead of white light, it turns reddish. Ham radio operators used light bulbs as dummy loads to try out their home-made transmitters for the first time, before hooking up the antenna.

You could also order real power resistors from Digi-Key and watch the waveform on an oscilloscope.

Newbies and Oldbies can learn by review. Topic 17
http://theeestory.com/topics/17

eestorblog wrote:

Blogger: Tell me what you think about EEStor.


Andrew Burke: The whole question has to do with whether it's possible
to generate high dielectric materials that maintain high dielectric
constants like 20 or 30K up to high field strengths. If that's
possible then the calculations in the patent disclosure are.....I've
been able to replicate them ok, it's pretty straight forward. The
question is whether you can....whether it's physically possible to
have a material that will maintain it's very high dielectric constant
at very high fields. And the consensus of all the experts that I've
talked to in the field, say that it's not possible. And Richard Weir
has chosen to not make available any test data which contradicts what
the experts say.

B: now let me ask you this....

AB....hey, I gotta go....

B: If he were to provide test data that were reasonable, what would be
your reaction to that?

AB: I would say the problem is not a problem of basic science but of
engineering....being able to prepare the larger...you know, scale
up...

B: manufacture a million of these...

AB: Yeah, manufacturing and so forth. and then if you can make a small
qty of materials, then you have to be able to make a large qty of
materials at relatively low cost. But at least its not a problem of
defying the laws of physics.

B: What do you say to people who are looking at EEStor and scratching
their head? I get emails from people who say they have a significant
investment in Zenn Motors.
Stock.

AB: .....all I can say is I wouldn't put mine there.

But at least its not a problem of
defying the laws of physics.

http://beta.technologyreview.com/Energy/21171/
Jeff Dahn, a professor of advanced materials in the chemistry and physics departments at Dalhousie University, in Nova Scotia, Canada, says the data suggests that EEStor has developed an "amazingly robust" material. "If you're going to have a one-micron dielectric, it's got to be pretty pure," he says.
http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/2008/06/eest...
B and all, thank you for the Blog.
Eesu Bless
www.nyumbani.org

---

Thanks wasmaba,

I'm finding it very useful to go over old postings, just from an educational point of view. It's interesting to me how the arguments (if not always the opinions) change and shift over time. One thing is clear - there is much that is still unknown.

One thing I would like to know. Is there a theoretical reason why permittivity must decrease as the applied voltage increases? Or, is this just based on observation. It appears to me that the inverse relationship between permittivity and voltage is related to voltage breakdown and varies depending on the nature of the dielectric that is under study. Is it true that if one solves the voltage breakdown problem, they also stand a chance of maintaining high permittivity at high voltage?

---

From the interview from post #1:

B: How did you find his ability to answer questions?

AB: For the critical things, he was just not willing. You know,
look, you don't have to make big. People don't start off making big
devices with new materials. They make small devices and prove that the
small devices function the way that you would expect them to function
with the materials that you're using. I make small super capacitors
all the time. The ones I make are a centimeter across....or 2
centimeters in diameter. And I can tell whether a particular carbon
materials I have will behave well in supercapacitors just by making
small devices. He could do the same thing with his materials, ok?
And show the world that, yeah, this stuff does what it's supposed to
do, this material.

B: Is that a traditional practice for someone in his position?

AB: Yeah sure, it's Barium Titanate, the material is well known. People
have been trying to make this high....and they have, they've made
higher capacitance devices than normal. But he's trying to make
something that has energy density better than a lithium battery. ok?
And if you look at his patent, it has all these calculations and if
you use the dimensions he gave, the thicknesses and so forth, it's
possible to replicate those calculations. But you're assuming material
properties. The question is can you develop materials with those
possibilities?

B: And when you asked him that what did he say?

AB: He says yes of course. But he shows you no data! [pause]
Everybody that...you can look in the literature and find, that as you
increase the field, the electric field, the dielectric constant falls
off very rapidly. And in order to get the energy density that he's
talking about, you have to go to very high voltages, you have to go to
2 or 3000 volts and when you do that the dielectric constant changes,
it drastically decreases. Since there's so much skepticism, there's
extreme skepticism. The way you dispel skepticism in science is to
show data that illustrates the contrary, right?

B: Would doing so be a tip off to competitors?

AB: Well, it would show that it's possible.

B: But what would he gain from doing that at this point?

AB: Well, if he needs additional uh......it's not like started this
last week, he's been at this a number of years now. ....he'd have
unlimited money. (laughing) That's what he would get from it
unlimited money essentially.

B: If he provided the test data?

AB: He doesn't have to provide the test data to the world, ok? But he
won't provide the test data to anybody...as far as I know.

If AB thinks that their is no potential consequence for Weir allowing his invention to be tested by outsiders, he is naive. Let's assume that Eestor's patents and published patent applications are the tip of an iceberg - with more to come. Let's also assume that the time of the Burke interview, some applications had not yet been filed. Let's also assume that these later applications claim the invention in much more detail. This is called a 'selection invention.' Selection inventions are nice to have because they extend the term of patent coverage for what it is that you are actually making and selling. The claims in a selection invention are very strong in one way because they are hard to invalidate by finding prior art that is exactly the same (making the claim 'anticipated'). The flip side of that is that it is sometimes difficult to get selection invention claims allowed (or to defend later in litigation) because they are frequently a tweaking of what is already known. It is not infrequent that an inventor will have a problem getting a selection invention claim allowed because of her/his own previous inventions or publications. If you combine that which is known to get a predictable result, it is considered to be obvious, and therefore not patentable. When that 'tweaking' results in an unexpected result, however, a good case can be made that the invention is non-obvious. And this is the point of Weir keeping the exact nature of his composition under wraps. Why risk putting it out there in the public domain, with the possibility (low that it may be) that someone could then make what he has, or even part of what he has, public? The only reason to take such a risk would be to get additional funding. Since Eestor did not go this route, they apparently didn't need "unlimited money" at the time of the Burke interview. They likely needed time to work out the manufacturing kinks. Throwing more money at that problem probably would not have changed the pace of development. Assuming that Weir et al. knew what needed to be done, hiring many more people would likely have retarded the pace of development because you would have to take the time to get those people up to speed. The fact that Eestor didn't need "unlimited money" is one more indication that the research phase of this operation ended some time ago.

Last edited Fri, 05 Jun 2009, 9:03am by DAP

---

But we know what happens when we "assume" it makes an a$$ out of you and me! If KP doesn't add $ to the pie within the "30day window" , which is over in 3 weeks or so, then EESTOR is "toast" IMO. If KP isn't willing to add to their investment at this point, when this invention is one of the greatest in modern history and worth hundreds of billions of dollars, then KP would be idiots, which they are NOT, so if KP doesn't add to their investment in EESTOR there MUST not be any substance to the EESTOR invention.

Correcto, Stano!
BTW, the 30 day window closes July 2 - 4 weeks from yesterday, which is why July 3rd has been mentioned as the day we should all know (this assumes ZENN announces as they have promised).

danielapearson wrote:

One thing I would like to know. Is there a theoretical reason why permittivity must decrease as the applied voltage increases? Or, is this just based on observation. It appears to me that the inverse relationship between permittivity and voltage is related to voltage breakdown and varies depending on the nature of the dielectric that is under study. Is it true that if one solves the voltage breakdown problem, they also stand a chance of maintaining high permittivity at high voltage?

Breakdown voltage and lower permittivity at a partcular voltage (dielectric saturation) need not be linked. If the mechanism which is used to store energy has reached its limit then no more energy will be stored when you increase the voltage. Hence the measured permittivity (e.g. capacitance) at that voltage will be lower than it was at lower voltages.

But there is no reason why the dielectric should break down just because of this. Indeed it could break down at a lower voltage or a higher voltage than that required for dielectric saturation (where the permittivity starts dropping).

A good analogy is a pogo stick. If you are strong enough to push a pogo stick against a wall, then you are storing energy in the spring until the point where the pogo stick reaches the limit of its internal travel.

If you then push harder the pogo stock will not compress further or store any more energy - all you are doing is increasing the force, but the energy stays constant. It will not necessarily break just because you are pushing harder then required to compress it fully. At a certain point, if you are capable of pushing hard enough the pogo stick will buckle (= voltage breakdown), but this is not the same as the point at which it can store no more energy.

Once you reach the limit of travel you have not lost the energy stored in the spring of the pogo stick, but neither can you increase it - the limit of energy storage in the mechanism has already been reached.

Most likely Barium Titanate in its normal orientation ( (1,0,0) or Titanium and Oxygen atoms in the same line perpendicular to both electrodes) is like this. You will get dielectric saturation at some voltage that is lower than that required by Eestor. This is because the Titanium ion bumps into the oxygen between it an the electrode before the Titanium has had a chance to move far enough to stored the required energy.

Other orientations may possibly give a higher dielectric saturation voltage, perhaps even one higher than required by Eestor.

---

I remember reading a paper that mentioned doing something to overcome the problem with the titanium ion and the oxygen atom, but I don't remember where it was. I think it had something to do with doping or some special polarization.

---

Thank you, Technopete for the excellent post. It provides a nice layman's analogy for what Y-Po and ee-tom have been trying to express in their calculations.

Your example of how barium titanate cannot store any more energy than what its atomic orientation allows is right on. Ee-tom has demonstrated that in other threads as have Y-Po and Zawy both, even before that.

Of course, all calculations have been for simple barium titanate, and not for the composition modified BT.

E'er, you're right. It's been shown that the addition of zirconium does change the shape of BT, and that has a resultant increase in permittivity. But it's unclear if there is a similar effect on polarization density. Eestor claims high permittivity and materials with high breakdown strength. How this could translate into the greater energy density they claim is not well understood.

There is literature that supports the feasibility of the permittivity claims of Eestor's CMBT. But, there just isn't any published literature on the saturation voltage of other known high permittivity materials.

With a composite material, there might be an improvement in polarization density too. Would it enough for a hundred fold increase? I'm skeptical that a simple doping could do all what is claimed. But, again, I'm not thinking that what Eestor claims they have is just a "magic sauce" in a traditional capacitor.

Doping, purity, poling of materials and the general method of fabrication screams to me that they're going for some kind of field effect device.

Topics that haven't been discussed to my satisfaction are the manipulation of domains using semiconductor production techniques, basically creating a system that responds to polarization rather than relying solely on single crystal properties.
This basically is the use of certain techniques to force charge carriers into predictable behavior. Once predictable, various formulations could be used to make a structure, that, let's just say, work in a complementary manner.

In my mind I can image something, well, analogous to Harrison's chronometer - a carefully made balance of materials with different reactions to different external forces working together as a system.

---

danielapearson wrote:

One thing I would like to know. Is there a theoretical reason why permittivity must decrease as the applied voltage increases?

Tom and YPO in particular have provided bases for that and Rud has provided a rubber band analogy.

Let me try a hand waving approach you might find intuitive.

Permittivity is essentially a measure of how easy it is to polarize a material with electric field. The higher the value, the easier to polarize. Now there are a limited number of dipoles to polarize so at some point you reach saturation.

Obviously the harder it is to polarize the longer it takes to polarize the dipoles and longer it takes to reach saturation. So a high dielectric constant would be expected to correlate with a low saturation voltage.

For any given material it will be a contest as to whether saturation or breakdown is reached first.

Robert

Robert wrote:

danielapearson wrote:

One thing I would like to know. Is there a theoretical reason why permittivity must decrease as the applied voltage increases?

Tom and YPO in particular have provided bases for that and Rud has provided a rubber band analogy.

Let me try a hand waving approach you might find intuitive.

Permittivity is essentially a measure of how easy it is to polarize a material with electric field. The higher the value, the easier to polarize. Now there are a limited number of dipoles to polarize so at some point you reach saturation.

Obviously the harder it is to polarize the longer it takes to polarize the dipoles and longer it takes to reach saturation. So a high dielectric constant would be expected to correlate with a low saturation voltage.

For any given material it will be a contest as to whether saturation or breakdown is reached first.

Robert

Robert,

Your intuitive explanation is helpful and corresponds to what I thought ee-tom was saying. You assert that "[f]or any given material it will be a contest as to whether saturation or breakdown is reached first." My original question about the relationship between permittivity, breakdown, and voltage was poorly phrased, so please allow me to rephrase it to fit with your statement. What if saturation is reached at low voltage and is maintained (by whatever mechanism) without breakdown until much higher voltages. Is this theoretically possible?

Thanks, I enjoy your clear posts and patience.
dp

---

Saturation being reached confortably below voltage breakdown - this would be the ideal scenario because maximum ED in that particular dielectric could be reached with no concern for voltage breakdown.
However, increasing the voltage beyond saturation doesn't lead to an increase in energy.

---

danielapearson wrote:

Your intuitive explanation is helpful and corresponds to what I thought ee-tom was saying. You assert that "[f]or any given material it will be a contest as to whether saturation or breakdown is reached first." My original question about the relationship between permittivity, breakdown, and voltage was poorly phrased, so please allow me to rephrase it to fit with your statement. What if saturation is reached at low voltage and is maintained (by whatever mechanism) without breakdown until much higher voltages. Is this theoretically possible?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Once saturation is reached it is maintained until breakdown. At that point (the saturation point) the material reacts as if it had a lower dielectric constant. On complete saturation the relative permittivity would drop to one. You still can add energy to a capacitor that has reached saturation just at a much lower rate.

This is quite common for high value commercial MLCC caps and the spec sheets will often contain typical curves showing the reduction in capacitance as the voltage (and thus field) increases.

Does that address your question?

Robert

Edit Added saturation point clarification.

Last edited Fri, 05 Jun 2009, 9:38pm by Robert

Robert wrote:

danielapearson wrote:

Your intuitive explanation is helpful and corresponds to what I thought ee-tom was saying. You assert that "[f]or any given material it will be a contest as to whether saturation or breakdown is reached first." My original question about the relationship between permittivity, breakdown, and voltage was poorly phrased, so please allow me to rephrase it to fit with your statement. What if saturation is reached at low voltage and is maintained (by whatever mechanism) without breakdown until much higher voltages. Is this theoretically possible?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Once saturation is reached it is maintained until breakdown. At that point the material reacts as if it had a lower dielectric constant. On complete saturation the relative permittivity would drop to one. You still can add energy to a capacitor that has reached saturation just at a much lower rate.

This is quite common for high value commercial MLCC caps and the spec sheets will often contain typical curves showing the reduction in capacitance as the voltage (and thus field) increases.

Does that address your question?

Robert

Yes, thanks! My thinking was muddled as I was watching Sox get beat up.

---